Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Missouri Lead Flips After Clinton Claimed It

Updated 1:07 a.m.
By Shailagh Murray
CHICAGO -- Whoops, Missouri did it again.

After the Clinton campaign sent out a press release this evening claiming a win in Missouri, under the heading "Hillary's Big Night," the lead in the Show-Me State flipped -- with Barack Obama moving ahead by a few thousand votes to claim victory. One spectator at the Obama rally who wasn't surprised: Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill, whose upset in 2006 was the last Senate race called on election night, after she had trailed all evening to incumbent GOP Sen. Jim Talent.

Blame it on St. Louis, in particular the Fourth Ward, a heavily Democratic area that is a notorious reporting laggard. "Where Barack Obama is doing so well in Missouri is where the Democrats live," said McCaskill, smiling slyly. "And in St. Louis, those returns come in very late."

By Web Politics Editor  |  February 6, 2008; 1:09 AM ET
Categories:  A_Blog , Hillary Rodham Clinton , Midwest , Primaries , The Democrats  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: AK: Obama Freezes Out Clinton
Next: Obama: 'Our Time Has Come'

Comments

Ten years after the Republican-led impeachment farce, it's sad to see so-called Democrats parroting old-style Republican Clinton-bashing.

If people would rather vote for McCain than Clinton, I say let them. If Democrats can't stand up for their own, we deserve to lose.

Clinton continues to lead in the actual popular vote, not that the opinions of mere voters matter.

Posted by: lartfromabove | February 6, 2008 11:00 PM | Report abuse

Not quite sure why we're all bickering. I think they are both great candidates and the Democrats are lucky to have 2 strong candidates this year. Can't we save all this criticism for the general elections when there is a Republican we can pick on?

Posted by: mmnguyen25 | February 6, 2008 7:15 PM | Report abuse

Last evening ABC-Channel 7's Charlie Gibson along with Georgie Porgie, and Diane reported Sen. Clinton as the winner in Missouri-but when the smoke cleared-Obama had won the state. They never recanted their claim. How biased. Who wins in Missouri it is said usually wins the presidency.

Posted by: GORGIAS | February 6, 2008 5:28 PM | Report abuse

dhayjones,

I agree with your comments!

Posted by: butterfly2 | February 6, 2008 5:19 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, I meant to say, we dont have to worry about our wages being garnished, because...

Posted by: middlerd | February 6, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse

So, (alterego1 | February 6, 2008 10:41 AM) what your saying is that though Clinton claims she will bring universal coverage, we don't have to worry, because she will probably fail? Seems cynical.
If she is finessing the truth on this issue, what other issues do we need to worry about?

Posted by: middlerd | February 6, 2008 5:02 PM | Report abuse

OmegaPrime,

I agree with all you said about Hillary, smart, shrewd, popular, strong, etc, please explain why you think Barrack is brilliant. I think he's intelligent, but billiant is far fetch. I don't think Barrack is brillant when he speaks of visiting oppose leaders within the first 100 days of his presidency. However, I think he has ran a smart campaign in raising money, perhaps that is brillant to you. If you belive that Barrack is going to get the republicans hold hands and sing cum ba ya and sign off on his health plan or other policies he has, then you are delusional. Now, that would be brilliant. Honesty and integrity are good attributes in any leader, but until Washington change, you will have to be shrewd, intelligent, popular, strong, wise, etc. That's the culture of Washington and that is how you get things done. Washington will not change over night. We have too many problems facing us to have on the job training. Experince, intellect, and brillancy is what's going it is gong to take in order to get get things done. Hillary record shows she had pass great legislation with republican and knows how to get things done. As much as she's hated, she has great accomplishments such as the providing healthcare all chilfren in California and providing bonus check for the veterans. Hillary is a doer and make things happen. Barrack is a dreamer and hope things happen. My money is on the doer.

Posted by: butterfly2 | February 6, 2008 4:02 PM | Report abuse

I am another person who absolutely does not want the Clintons anywhere NEAR the White House, much less living in it again. Bill showed his truly nasty side pre South Carolina and Hillary wants it both ways. She wants to cry and tear up but be tough as armor. "I said I wouldn't tear up again". Yeah, right. She's smart but it's all about Hillary. We need to galvanize the young people in this country and Obama is the only way that's going to happen. If Hillary is nominated, McCain will win. Her nomination is a guarantee for the hate vote coming out in full force.

Posted by: magikpowerwoman | February 6, 2008 2:27 PM | Report abuse

Anything that comes out of Washington that includes the word "MANDATORY" for all as Ms. Clinton suggests for her health care plan, will end up costing the people more than predicted or will benefit one politician or another. At least Mr. Obama's plan is not "Mandatory" for all

Posted by: LTCSTAN | February 6, 2008 2:05 PM | Report abuse

--Oh yeah,

and if Hillary wins, the only thing she's going to do "on day 1" is immediately become a candidate for 2012 and start doing more politically correct unimaginative status quo BS akin to voting for this stupid war, just to keep her power.

Posted by: toabel | February 6, 2008 2:02 PM | Report abuse

butterfly2,
Your "explaining away" of any Obama victory is like the republicans "explaining" that any current problem we have is due to liberals--never mind repubs' prolonged domination of all 3 branches of govt plus major broadcast media in FOX--and anything good is due to something Reagan did in 1983.
I was committed to working on Hillary's campaign years before she ever announced, but I will not vote for her now under any circumstances. I will vote Republican for the 1st time in my life if she is the nominee. Spin like yours won't change that.

For me Obama is clearly the superior candidate.

Posted by: toabel | February 6, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: VoterfromIL | February 6, 2008 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Eight years ago, after watching the class and composure HRC showed as the GOP was crucifying her husband, the President of the United States of America, for getting a blow job, I said to myself, if she ever ran for President, I would support her. Now, eight years later I find myself in a position where I am faced with a dilemma of mammoth proportions. I respect and admire Hillary Clinton. She is on point with her take on America; she is well organized and has carefully laid out a plan for governing. She knows all the world leaders. She knows how government works. After 8 years of W, she should be the best thing since sliced bread. And she was. That was until Barack Obama. Even the racists, who can't let their mind believe what their eyes and ears are perceiving, know that this guy is for real.
Hillary is smart. This guy is brilliant. Hillary is experienced. This guy is wise.
Hillary is well connected. This guy is someone most of us in this world would like to spend some time with. Hillary is shrewd. This guy is honest. Hillary is strong. This guy is fearless. Hillary is popular. This guy is charismatic and charming. Hillary is pragmatic. This guy is borderline clarvoiyant. I am torn between to great candidates. I think I am leaning towards.............Obama.

Posted by: OmegaPrime | February 6, 2008 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Black South Carolinians voted overwhelmingly for John Edwards and then John Kerry before Al Sharpton in 2004.

Black Marylanders chose white Barbara Mikulski over her black opponent in her senate race and they chose white and Jewish Ben Cardin over black Lt Gov Michael Steel in the last senate race. In Ohio, black voters overwhelmingly chose white Ted Strickland in the gubernotrial race over the black Sec of State Ken Blackwell. In Michigan, blacks voted for white James Blanchard in overwhelming numbers against the Wayne County Executive, the African American William Lucas, in the 1986 gubernatorial election.

Posted by: xango | February 6, 2008 1:25 PM | Report abuse

Whites are more likely to vote for a black than a black voting for a white. Of course this is only the second time in our histroy that a viable black man has run for the presidency. With time this may change.

Should that actual choice present itself (check), and a *good* black candidate to get behind (in other words, not Alan Keyes; check).. those are the only times we are "more likely to vote" that way.

Posted by: fbutler1 | February 6, 2008 1:11 PM | Report abuse

Obama recieved a lot of the red states because Republicans crossed over to vote against Hillary as oppose to voting for him. In the general election, they will be not vote for Obama, they will vote republican as they always have. The reason why it appears as though democrats are coming out 2 to 1 is because republicans are helping to elevate the number. This is a false/positive result. I will continue to support Hillary who did not campaign in state such as Idaho, ND, and Utah, because no matter whose the democrate nominee is, they will not get the vote. Hillary intellect kicked in and thought why waste her time, effort and resourses and focus on real posibilities and not give false hope.

Posted by: butterfly2 | February 6, 2008 1:07 PM | Report abuse

http://www.sbe.virginia.gov/cms/Deadlines,_News,_Events/Press_Releases/Index.html

"The presidential primaries are scheduled to be held February 12, 2008. All registered voters may vote in either party's primary, but not both. Voters will be able to cast their votes in their normal polling place. "

Whoever said that they would not be able to vote in Virginia's primary because they are a registered independent is wrong.

Posted by: jaradel | February 6, 2008 1:05 PM | Report abuse

Troyboi is referring to the "general" election.

Posted by: fbutler1 | February 6, 2008 12:59 PM | Report abuse

To troyboi20:

The reddest of Reds is Mississippi, not TX.

Posted by: fbutler1 | February 6, 2008 12:57 PM | Report abuse

"I'm astounded at the number of people who say that if Clinton eventually wins the nomination they would rather vote for a Republican than a Democrat."

It comes down to a matter of character on the part of the candidate and a desire to reduce cronyism in government. Hillary is old school politics. I am sick of it.

Barack gets my vote. If not Barack, then John McCain.

Posted by: starbuck1 | February 6, 2008 12:52 PM | Report abuse

Contrary to the Clinton brag, Obama actually has the experience I'd value in a president: time actually living and working with very ordinary people, including those who truly hurt in our society, urban organizing in a Chicago housing project (grass-root politics at its grittiest), 12 years state and national legislative experience (giving useful practical knowledge of how to pursue goals, work with legislators), and personal living in or intimate connection with countries/cultures quite different from our own. In contrast, Clinton's life has largely been spent as one form or another of privileged, no matter how charitable some of her activities were: growing up in nice Chicago suburb, attending an Ivy League-type school, working on the Hill, then in Arkansas, first lady, working for a well-connected law firm, on board of Wal-Mart. Then back to Washington as first lady, then as a senator. As first lady, she did get to visit abroad and meet dignitaries, but that doesn't give a person the same kind of awareness or feel for the basic realities of other peoples and lives.

Posted by: manuel1941 | February 6, 2008 12:51 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, "the last democrat to win the presidency was a Clinton", and they were so yummy that even with a surplus, peace and a strong economy, ANOTHER democrat couldn't even leverage that LAST democrat's capital and lost to a horror show and testicle named W.

thecrisis, that's the best articulated analysis I've read yet. Thanks.

Posted by: toabel | February 6, 2008 12:36 PM | Report abuse

I caucused in Idaho last night, which Obama won by the largest percent margin of any state.

1,100 people came out. I saw two black people. 76% Obama, 14% Clinton. Even Democrats who say "we're not ready for a black president" or "jittery white voters won't vote for him" are as good as racist.

You know when you apply for a job and it says "do you think most people steal from their employers?" They ask that because they know that if you think most people steal, then you'll probably be okay with stealing. It's the same thing here. If you think most people will judge him for his race, that means you are judging him by his race. The only people that are not judging him are those that aren't considering his race as a part of this battle for the nomination. It's simply not on the table for me, and clearly for about 16,000 other white Idahoans.

Posted by: thecrisis | February 6, 2008 12:02 PM | Report abuse

the last democrat to win the presidency was not just a Clinton ... it was BILL CLINTON... lets not mistake one for the other... she was NOT the president i dont care how many lil cute stories they tell about co-presidency... she has the most experience being a first lady...not the president or governor... yes she has done a lot of grassroots organizing...she has worked on a lot of policy... but she wasnt in charge of anything until she got to the Senate... i like the choices we have and i think either candidate can win (it would be easier for Obama) but the whole experience and from day one crap is getting old...

Posted by: aj1505 | February 6, 2008 11:53 AM | Report abuse

"Clinton is a fighter - she went upstate and listened to her constituents and addressed their concerns. There is an irrational hatred toward her. Her actions define her as well, and I find her somewhat admirable."

My Fiancee's family is from upstate. They hate her guts. She came through and lied to all of them how she was going to do everything she can to help them because the economy there right now sucks. She hasn't done a damn thing.

She's your average, dirty, lying politician. Nothing more.

Posted by: weilandaj | February 6, 2008 11:45 AM | Report abuse

I am not charmed, convinced, or carried away by Obama's rhetoric. Change for what, to what, about what? This is politics. It's policy, deals, power. I don't want my leader to sound like a fired-up preacher spouting platitudes and buzzwords. Because of Obama, millions of young people are going to have their first taste of political disillusionment and disappointment, just as young people did before them with Kennedy, Bill Clinton, and Blair. Obama is promising the earth, and will deliver nothing. I am going with Hillary Clinton because she's about action, details, power and influence. She knows politics is a hard, dirty game. She's not promising us heaven, unlike Obama. Get real, Obama will fire you up, then fall flat on his face.

Posted by: dhayjones | February 6, 2008 11:42 AM | Report abuse

For all of you geniuses who thinks McCain is "almost a Democrat" or "close to a liberal", you truly need to get a grip on reality and quit listening to Rush and the gang! Here's a nugget of reality for you: he states he would appoint Supreme Court judges (three possible upcoming!) just like Alito, Scalia, and Thomas. My point? Get over the blood sport of vowing not to vote for either Barak or Hilary (which either is your knight or princess) if one or the other is the candidate, and vote for McCain. He would be another Bush, you want four more years of that trash? Not me!

Posted by: cameracowboy | February 6, 2008 11:24 AM | Report abuse

As someone who supports Ron Paul, I could vote for Obama but not Clinton for the following reasons.

She voted for the war in Iraq. Day one in Senate her most important vote and it was wrong.

She supported President Clinton signing NAFTA and cost jobs and manufacturing in this country.

The economy is bad to a large extent because of deficit spending and funding the war and occupation of Iraq. She will keep a large force in Iraq. Obama would be more likely to remove the US presence in Iraq. The lowering of occupation costs would help the economy.

She would mandate health insurance and fine and garnish wages of those that cannot afford it. That only helps the insurance companies.

She is owned By corporate interests.

McCain vs Obama I vote Obama.
McCain vs Clinton Either vote third party or hold my nose and vote McCain.
I don't like McCain but I don't like Clinton more and don't see a whole lot difference between McCain and Clinton on many issues. I don't trust Clinton, she says one thing and does another, could NEVER vote for her.

Posted by: info4 | February 6, 2008 11:16 AM | Report abuse

To clawrence35: Doesn't Hillary Clinton have constituents she should be serving? I think all of them have current constituents except Romney... so what's your point? Check your facts on Obama and stop pulling things out of your ass, it's embarrassing..as a Democrat, for one.

Posted by: fbutler1 | February 6, 2008 11:05 AM | Report abuse

An earlier poster commented that it "makes no sense" that some Obama supporters would vote McCain in a Clinton-McCain race. I one such Obama supporter, and I have to agree that it makes no sense.

But my dislike for Hillary Clinton is that deep. I live in Fayetteville, Arkansas, her one-time home town in the state where she was twice first lady. I cannot get past her politicking Bill's 'doing' an intern in the oval office into Moynihan's safe senate seat. The sleeze just won't wash off.

Posted by: blarf | February 6, 2008 11:02 AM | Report abuse

It's interesting (but typically of the kinds of arguments that they put forth)that the Billary crowd is advancing an argument that discounts Obama'a victories in states not often won by Democrats. I'm certainly not a political junkie, but I think they are ignoring the larger and more significant point: every poll, without exception shows that Obama will poll better than the Clintons against the Republicans in November. People have seen the Clinton movie and are tired of the divisiveness and the sleaze and the lack of vision.

Posted by: Marks1153 | February 6, 2008 10:57 AM | Report abuse

'Jittery white voters'

There weren't any in Iowa, North Dakota, Minnesota, Utah etc.

People that are racist(Even subconsciously) see Obama as a Black man. The fact is his mother is white and his father is black and that makes his as much white as it does black. People in states with few blacks didn't see him as a black man, they saw him as a qualified man and that is why he won them.

Posted by: info4 | February 6, 2008 10:56 AM | Report abuse

"I don't think it helps Obama in the long run to run up 8-2 and 9-1 pluralities in the African American vote. It feeds into the perception that his success in big states depends on the size of the African American population."

Oh, you mean like the way you just feed into it? Why doesn't their collective vote count? Why is it so marginal if they vote for him overwhelmingly? Obviously, if he can win in states like ID, UT, CO, ND, MN, KS, AK, etc... where there aren't a heckuva lot of black people (at all), your hypothesis does not stand.

What does it say about Hillary that she could only carry the so-called elitist states, a landfill (NJ), and a few states that are "Hick-rich"? By the way, it was the Latino vote that saved Clinton, not whites. The fact that Obama split on the so-called white vote should not be too much of a surprise, as he is half white, which is downplayed because you (et al.) want to only see him as black.

"In a general election against John McCain, Obama's reliance on a strong African American turnout weakens him across a 50-state canopy, especially among jittery white voters.

'Jittery white voters', otherwise known as 'white voters'? I don't think Hillary beats McCain, as easy as a decision as it should be. I'm not so much anti-Hillary as I am pro-Obama... I'd rather see him MoveOn this country a little bit, pun intended, and not see the status quo. Hillary is definitely to the right of him, and their both moderates, to be frank. If it were McCain, you'd see him take parts of the south and a big swath of scenery, if he went up against Hillary, and that's unfortunate, as we need a Democrat.

Posted by: fbutler1 | February 6, 2008 10:49 AM | Report abuse

"I don't think it helps Obama in the long run to run up 8-2 and 9-1 pluralities in the African American vote. It feeds into the perception that his success in big states depends on the size of the African American population."

Oh, you mean like the way you just feed into it? Why doesn't their collective vote count? Why is it so marginal if they vote for him overwhelmingly? Obviously, if he can win in states like ID, UT, CO, ND, MN, KS, AK, etc... where there aren't a heckuva lot of black people (at all), your hypothesis does not stand.

What does it say about Hillary that she could only carry the so-called elitist states, a landfill (NJ), and a few states that are "Hick-rich"? By the way, it was the Latino vote that saved Clinton, not whites. The fact that Obama split on the so-called white vote should not be too much of a surprise, as he is half white, which is downplayed because you (et al.) want to only see him as black.

"In a general election against John McCain, Obama's reliance on a strong African American turnout weakens him across a 50-state canopy, especially among jittery white voters.

'Jittery white voters', otherwise known as 'white voters'? I don't think Hillary beats McCain, as easy as a decision as it should be. I'm not so much anti-Hillary as I am pro-Obama... I'd rather see him MoveOn this country a little bit, pun intended, and not see the status quo. Hillary is definitely to the right of him, and their both moderates, to be frank. If it were McCain, you'd see him take parts of the south and a big swath of scenery, if he went up against Hillary, and that's unfortunate, as we need a Democrat.

Posted by: fbutler1 | February 6, 2008 10:49 AM | Report abuse

In Senator Clinton's Real Home State, Ark, She won by over a 40%, a Much larger precentage than Obama won Ill. Of course every Obama supporter knows that Ark, and not NY is Hillary's Home state, but just like the Press they all seem to unable to be honest about anything.
I guess they are tried from all the voter intimindation at every Causcas, and from getting out the 1/100 of voters who are Democrats in the Deepest Red of the the Red States. That was a major victory in Alaska wasn't it, Obama won 302 votes!!!!!

Posted by: Muddy_Buddy_2000 | February 6, 2008 10:42 AM | Report abuse

As democrats, I think we can all agree that we're looking for similar ends. Realistically, the differences in the health care plans of Clinton and Obama are not too great. Moreover, whatever plans they have proposed will differ greatly from the final outcome. Remember, Clinton proposed mandates in 1992, and it did not work. There is little reason to suspect that politicians will go for mandates now.

However, the underlying point is that we are all after the same things. Regardless of whether it's Clinton or Obama, we will have a better health care system. Both candidates will re-prioritize our nation's resources to concentrate more on benefitting more of the middle class than the upper.

If that's true, then the real question, it seems to me, is one of means - how we get to the ends we want. For this reason, I think that Obama is the better choice. Regardless of how we feel about Clinton, we have to acknowledge that there is a fervent, if irrational, hatred of her and her husband out there. What that means, practically, is that there are people in office and who vote who are unwilling to compromise with her. If elected, I have little doubt that she will bring some of the reforms she has promised, but I think that each accomplishment will be accompanied by bitter and possibly needless battles. Obama does not come with the same amount of baggage. Sure, he'll be "vetted" by the opposition, but they already have enough and more against Clinton to stoke the flames.

So when you are deciding for whom to vote, think about how you want to get things done, not which things need to be done. If you like partisan wrangling and all-out battles and bitterness, then Clinton is probably your woman. She'll get things done, but at much higher cost in both dollars and political capital. Obama has many of the same ideas, but will likely have to expend much less energy to advance them.

Both candidates have the same goals - the bigger question is how they will accomplish them.

Posted by: alterego1 | February 6, 2008 10:41 AM | Report abuse

I don't see how Democrats could vote for Hillary. She supported NAFTA when Bill Clinton signed it into law. NAFTA sent jobs overseas and those that were to be retrained live in India not here. She supported to go to war with Iraq and now uses the excuse, "If I knew then what I know now," when Al Gore, Barack Obama Howard Dean knew then and Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul knew enough then to vote against it. She wants to mandate everyone buy health insurance and those that can't afford it will be fined and have their wages garnished. She would be terrible on day one. She is the least qualified to be president her track record is one many mistakes in judgment. We don't need that on day one.

Posted by: info4 | February 6, 2008 10:40 AM | Report abuse

You Hillarybots are unbelievable. Every time I resign myself to voting for her in the general election if she's the nominee, I read some of your posts and it makes me think maybe I'll just stay home that day all over again.

In other words--you're not helping your candidate.

Posted by: elroy1 | February 6, 2008 10:38 AM | Report abuse

Here in Colorado, the caucuses were overwhelmed...standing room only...because of the excitement for Obama. In my 50 years, I've never seen such enthusiasm. Of course, I fully expect Hillary to be selected. I mean, we voted for Bush...twice. It's not Hillary bashing, she's fine; I'd vote for her over McCain. But there's an anonymous quote, "All men are born equal, except for the great ones," America has that once in a lifetime opportunity that even has young Americans excited for the first time in years.

Posted by: amaikovich | February 6, 2008 10:34 AM | Report abuse

What I find interesting, that I have not heard mentioned yet, is that Clinton was only able to win NY with 57% of the vote. You would think that she would have won a little more decisively in her "home state". With Obama picking up 40% of the vote there, and thereby picking up 40% of the delegates, I would think that would be a little embarrassing on home turf.

Posted by: southang | February 6, 2008 10:29 AM | Report abuse

atstern wrote:

"Hillary Haters-
Sorry to say, but Barak is every bit as much of a fact-twisting, race-baiting, slick politician as anyone. George Bush portrayed himself as a uniter who worked across party lines to bring together Texas. It's a promise as old as the hills. Don't be suckers for a dream unlikely to be attained in this fractured society. Obama is going to get the Republicans to go along with affordable health care, reasonable immigration laws and a woman's right to abortion? Please. At least take him for what he is- maybe the lesser of a few evils, but a phony politician. And would anyone vote for a candidate belonging to a church that billed itself as "unashamedly white"? I think not... I wouldn't."

what's wrong with belonging to a black church? Is that worse than a jewish synagogue or muslim mosque?

Nice negativity displayed throughout the rest of you post though. I think you slipped a bit at the end with the "unashamedly white" thing. It really did not measure up to the rest of your rant.

Posted by: LeftwithNochoice | February 6, 2008 10:26 AM | Report abuse

To those who are claiming that Obama is splitting democrats along racial lines,I offer this counter-example. I voted last night in a MN caucus where the demographics are 97% white, 2% Native American, 1% other. Obama took 75% of the vote. We are talking about young, old, long time participants and new participants. Don't let the press, HRC supporters or Republicans lead you down the racial path when it comes to Obama's wins last night.

Posted by: lola | February 6, 2008 10:15 AM | Report abuse

Hillary Haters-
Sorry to say, but Barak is every bit as much of a fact-twisting, race-baiting, slick politician as anyone. George Bush portrayed himself as a uniter who worked across party lines to bring together Texas. It's a promise as old as the hills. Don't be suckers for a dream unlikely to be attained in this fractured society. Obama is going to get the Republicans to go along with affordable health care, reasonable immigration laws and a woman's right to abortion? Please. At least take him for what he is- maybe the lesser of a few evils, but a phony politician. And would anyone vote for a candidate belonging to a church that billed itself as "unashamedly white"? I think not... I wouldn't.

Posted by: atstern | February 6, 2008 10:14 AM | Report abuse

This is how this turns out.

There will be a near tie at the convention. Super delegates will decide the nomination.

Florida and Michigan delegates cannot be seated by Hillary as a way to "one-up" Obama. There would be two much outrage.

But they can be seated if Hillary was in position to win anyway. Seating them would appear merely symbolic.

Thus, Super Delegates vote for Hillary to give her the edge over Obama.

The Florida and Michigan voters are seated.

The party is unified.

McCain gets a boot in his .....

Posted by: ghokee | February 6, 2008 10:14 AM | Report abuse

Lets not fool ourselves McCain is a conservative- what he is not is a hypocritical conservative. I have never voted for a Republican but if its a Mc Cain- Clinton contest I will vote for McCain. I would rather have a President with whom I disagree but but is driven by what he believes is best for the country than a President with whom I might agree but is driven by expediency and what is best for her.

I accept that there are many paths to same goal- liberal moderate and conservative. I don't believe that Senator McCain spent six years in a N.Vietnamese prison to believe this is about him.

Posted by: rds748 | February 6, 2008 10:09 AM | Report abuse

Sad how some candidates supporters 'go negative'

If they would stop and think for a moment, they may understand why people are mysteriously bashing their candidate: She's Negative.

And worse: What she represents in the hypothetical event she were to win the White House...is a divided, Negative nation.

Think Positive: Vote Obama.

Posted by: LeftwithNochoice | February 6, 2008 10:01 AM | Report abuse

"All those RED States want Obama to win so he can be trashed by Republicans in the Fall and secure Presidency for McCain--------
100 years in Iraq war in Iran and Pakistan
Wars that our Great grand children will pay for

Wake Up America- read between the lines and watch republican tactics and money behind Obama Campaign."


In response:


Frankly, the Democrats have also dared to be different.

Both Clinton and Obama open themselves up to get trashed by the Republicans.

It is funny, after Bush, democrats are so scarred of Republicans.

If you vote on fear, you should have kept Biden in the race.

Posted by: kaanderson | February 6, 2008 10:00 AM | Report abuse

One comment cited the Dewey wins headline of 60 years ago - an error of total Chicago tribune embarrassment. Another comment complained about Wash Post bias, which I don't see as clearly.

But the Associated Press was the decider awarding Missouri to Sen. Clinton first on Tuesday, then retracting its decision - after the Clinton campaign echoed its premature headline.

Nothing in "Lead Flips After Clinton Claimed It" on Wednesday hints at the media role causing that mistaken claim.

Posted by: normsiler | February 6, 2008 9:58 AM | Report abuse

"That may well be in Missouri (although it looks to me as though it was evenly split) - but in states were Dem's live (CA, NY, MA, NJ) the Democratic voters have supported Clinton"

I think it is quite an accomplishment that HC won the above states. However, I think what is important to point out is that the states that HC won are going to go blue regardless of whether it is Clinton or Obama.

I think what democrats really need to focus on now, that we have two awsome candidates, is who can win the White House and beat McCain. I am sorry, I just don't see Clinton beating McCain. I think Obama matches up much better.

I think Obama pulls the voters that count. He can pull people who don't agree with McCain's position on the war. He can pull some white male voters away from McCain.

The voters that Clinton brings are just traditional blue voters. Low income, white collar workers and women. Sorry, Clinton people, as much as I respect her, I just don't think Clinton can do it. She will mobilize the Republican base, and they aren't that mobilized now and we need to keep that way. It is possible for Obama to win some Red States especially close ones like Ohio and Indiana in the General Election, because he might keep anti-Clinton republicans at home.

Posted by: kaanderson | February 6, 2008 9:55 AM | Report abuse

Marks1153 said: Frankly, I think this race-baiting thing is worse than revolting.

Race baiting is the term for an act of using racially derisive language, actions or other forms of communication, to anger, intimidate or incite a person or groups of people, or to make those persons behave in ways that are inimical to their personal or group interests. This can also be accomplished by implying that there is an underlying race based motive in the actions of others towards the group baited, where none in fact exists. The term "race" in this context can be construed very broadly to include the social constructs which define race or racial difference, as well as ethnic, religious, gender and economic differences. Thus the use of any language or actions perceived to be for the purpose of exploiting weaknesses in persons who can be identified as members of certain groups, or to reinforce a group's perceived victimhood, can be contained within the concept of "race baiting." Many people who practice race baiting often believe in racism, or have an interest in making the group believe that racism is what motivates the actions of others.

The term "race baiting" is often a critique of anti-racist actions and communications implying that those who criticize apparent racism are themselves guilty of either a form of racism or of simple manipulation.


Of what do you speak?

Posted by: PhilTR | February 6, 2008 9:46 AM | Report abuse

Please get off of the Hillary Bandwagon. She is not going to be good for this country. Please look deep into her "plans" and pay more attention. The states that she won were simply because you have people who think they will get what they got with Bill. But let's look at Bill's record (Rwanda, NAFTA, 3 Strike Rule, Blacks in Jail, and Monica) so let's not be so quick to say it's going to be another Clinton in the White house. What good can change be when the same people who have been in there for years are still there. Bring Obama in and really see some change.

Posted by: BTBS1 | February 6, 2008 9:37 AM | Report abuse

My first time on this board. It is easy to spot the Clintonites. One wonders why they are deeply committed to the politics of personal destruction. Frankly, I think this race-baiting thing is worse than revolting. I am a Democrat and think the Party should nominate a real Democrat, not a former Wal-Mart board member whose key Senate votes were for the Patriot Act and the Iraq War.

Posted by: Marks1153 | February 6, 2008 9:35 AM | Report abuse

One question I would like to ask Hillary, and I am surprised no one has asked this yet. How is garnishing a low-earner's wage to pay for health insurance a good way of providing universal health insurance? This seems to imply that people are able to afford it but dont want to get it. What this will achieve is take away money for food, clothes and maybe mortgages and spend it on insurance. Wouldn't a better way of solving this problem be to talk to the insurance companies and the medical community to lower the costs? Isn't this mandate that you have proposed essentially punishing the low-income workers while letting the actual causes for high-insurance costs remain?

Posted by: middlerd | February 6, 2008 9:34 AM | Report abuse

All those RED States want Obama to win so he can be trashed by Republicans in the Fall and secure Presidency for McCain--------
100 years in Iraq war in Iran and Pakistan
Wars that our Great grand children will pay for

Wake Up America- read between the lines and watch republican tactics and money behind Obama Campaign.

Posted by: jiwanj | February 6, 2008 9:33 AM | Report abuse

The press should stop fawning over Barack.

Then it should begin by asking him the really hard questions regarding his foreign policy positions starting with Islam, Muslims and al Qaeda.

Pin him down on his view of America's role in the world relative to spreading democracy, policing actions against al Qaeda in countries other than Afghanistan and Pakistan, and support for unpopular and oppressive governments currently supported by our government. See what his positions are on protecting oil supplies in the mid-East and how he would manifest these protections if needed. Does he see the war on terrorists as a job for international police or the Army. If the Army, what governments would he try to either undermine or overthrow.

Barack is 47 years old and reports that he has attended the same church for 22 years. What church did he attend from age 4 to 15? Did he attend Sunday School then? What version of the Bible did he study? The Republicans will inform us if he is nominated.

Addressing these questions would be good start. The Republicans will define his positions if he doesn't.

Posted by: PhilTR | February 6, 2008 9:28 AM | Report abuse

As a resident of Missouri, I find it particularly interesting that the only counties won by Obama were ones that contain large African-American and/or college student populations. Clinton won all the tradional Republican (rural, white)counties. In the general election, one can expect St. Louis city, St. Louis county and Kansas City to go Democratic...they always do. And despite those votes, the state goes Republican.

So, despite Obama's 1% victory over Clinton in the primary, is she not the most electable in November?

Posted by: Dartmom22 | February 6, 2008 9:24 AM | Report abuse

Spin this any way you want based on who you support but the bottom line is that it is a jump ball for the Democratic Nomination and this will probably go to the convention.

Each candidate has their strengths and weaknesses and I suspect this will be decided by brokered deals at the convention.

Very interesting political study.

Posted by: behlov | February 6, 2008 9:21 AM | Report abuse

I cannot understand the dislike of Mrs. Clinton!! She has a lot to offer, has anyone ever taken a good look at her credentials?? She is a bright, intelligent woman with a vision for this country and here is one person who will vote for her if she receives the nomination. The press ruined Al Gore, who, in my opinion would have made a fine president. Instead we have had an idiot in the White House for almost 8 years!! Shame on the folks in this country if they listen to those bias commentators and newspaper editorials who continually slam anyone from the Democratic party. My parents were Democrats all of their lives; they were two of the most CONSERVATIVE people I knew!! Liberal, conservative, who cares, we want our country on track again. Obama with his sleze and fancy speeches is not the answer, he has accomplished nothing!! Unfortunaly I cannot vote in the VA primary next week because I am a registered Independent, but one can be sure, Mrs. Clinton would get my vote!!!

Posted by: rheanell.day | February 6, 2008 9:19 AM | Report abuse

I cannot understand the dislike of Mrs. Clinton!! She has a lot to offer, has anyone ever taken a good look at her credentials?? She is a bright, intelligent woman with a vision for this country and here is one person who will vote for her if she receives the nomination. The press ruined Al Gore, who, in my opinion would have made a fine president. Instead we have had an idiot in the White House for almost 8 years!! Shame on the folks in this country if they listen to those bias commentators and newspaper editorials who continually slam anyone from the Democratic party. My parents were Democrats all of their lives; they were two of the most CONSERVATIVE people I knew!! Liberal, conservative, who cares, we want our country on track again. Obama with his sleze and fancy speeches is not the answer, he has accomplished nothing!! Unfortunaly I cannot vote in the VA primary next week because I am a registered Independent, but one can be sure, Mrs. Clinton would get my vote!!!

Posted by: rheanell.day | February 6, 2008 9:19 AM | Report abuse

I cannot understand the dislike of Mrs. Clinton!! She has a lot to offer, has anyone ever taken a good look at her credentials?? She is a bright, intelligent woman with a vision for this country and here is one person who will vote for her if she receives the nomination. The press ruined Al Gore, who, in my opinion would have made a fine president. Instead we have an idiot in the Whitehouse for almost 8 years!! Shame on the folks in this country if they listen to those bias commentators and newspaper editorials who continually slam anyone from the Democratic party. My parents were Democrats all of their lives; they were two of the most CONSERVATIVE people I knew!! Liberal, conservative, who cares, we want our country on track again. Obama with his sleze and fancy speeches is not the answer, he has accomplished nothing!! Unfortunaly I cannot vote in the VA primary next week because I am a registered Independent, but one can be sure, Mrs. Clinton would get my vote!!!

Posted by: rheanell.day | February 6, 2008 9:16 AM | Report abuse

TeiaHarper said: Are you talking about a head to head match-up between a black and white candidate?

Yes. Given two equally attractive candidages the data suggests that. I've posted the link to MSNBC's national 'exit poll' results. It's a bit overwhelming. I wish the WaPo had something similar. If it does, it's not obvious.

Of course this should change, hopefully, during the next few decads if more blacks run for the presidency. But, the polling data are not promising.

Posted by: PhilTR | February 6, 2008 9:00 AM | Report abuse

PhilTR said

"Whites are more likely to vote for a black than a black voting for a white. Of course this is only the second time in our histroy that a viable black man has run for the presidency. With time this may change.

Posted by: PhilTR | February 6, 2008 07:41 AM "

Are you talking about a head to head match-up between a black and white candidate? The last time I checked, every democratic president has been white and black people have voted for every single one of them (after the whole republican/democratic party switch of course).

Let's also not forget that Jessie Jackson may have won more black votes in some states, but definitely not in most. Finally, back in December, the black vote was split 50/50 between Hilary and Barack. While I didn't put too much into Bill's fairy tale or MLK remark, he definitely bugged me with his "Jessie Jackson won SC too" remark. That's not the reason I support Barack, but I'm sure that turned a lot of black people off from Hilary.

What I don't understand is why the media is harping on that so much more than Hilary getting a huge percentage of white women. Some ppl will vote based on race/gender and some people won't. Either don't report it at all, or focus on it all.

Posted by: TeiaHarper | February 6, 2008 8:49 AM | Report abuse

Mr. Anderson...there should be more debates. See that would mean Obama (the pied piper) would actually have to talk to specifics...instead of filling up the room with empty hot air and nice sounding speaches.

Posted by: tmcinroy | February 6, 2008 8:44 AM | Report abuse

I actually think Hillary would be a good President, and I originally supported Edwards but I am supporting Obama for two reasons. 1) Look at the map. Hillary does nothing to put additional states into play whereas Obama can make border states more competitive. NY and MA will support whoever the DEM is, MO, OH, IA maybe not. What Obama said is right - let's go into the general with the Independents with us. 2) Obama has brought in the young voters in a way that is very important for the future growth of the party. These young voters will be demoralized if Hillary wins, particularly via the shady superdelegate route. I will work my butt off on behalf of whoever is the nominee, but I'm just sayin'.............

Posted by: JPBodyrocker1 | February 6, 2008 8:26 AM | Report abuse

"The arrogance of dominance." - or how to count your eggs before they jatch.Senator Clinton is living out her worse nightmare-a highly educated, assertive, oratorically gifted, american who looks like it, sounds like it, and acts presidential. Oh yes, how many of us would vote for a candidate who wears a wig to hide baldness? Some would say you can't trust such a person. Why wear only pant suits-is Hillsry hiding something?

Posted by: GORGIAS | February 6, 2008 8:12 AM | Report abuse

Dewey Defeats Truman. Not.

Posted by: valuddite | February 6, 2008 8:07 AM | Report abuse

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21660890

Whites are more likely to vote for a black than a black voting for a white. Of course this is only the second time in our histroy that a viable black man has run for the presidency. With time this may change.

Posted by: PhilTR | February 6, 2008 7:41 AM | Report abuse

"Are you better of today or were you better off after 8 years with Bill Clinton as president?"

I think we were better off 8 years ago, before a certain NY senator helped give us the Patriot Act and war in Iraq.

Posted by: ojordan3 | February 6, 2008 7:36 AM | Report abuse

Bill must be salivating at the thought of returning to familiar digs in the WH. Good luck to them, but I fear we will not see the return to the days of yore when things were better, in the next 5 years. Bush has devastated the economy--everything he touches turns rancid. Perhaps we've reached the tipping point and the 'cons have managed to shackle the American people with so much debt that we will can not recover. Hillary claims to have a plan, perhaps that plan will be unearthed in her administration. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss, only difference is gender.

Posted by: sicnarfe | February 6, 2008 7:34 AM | Report abuse

Obama: mediocre, middle-of-the road platform surging from behind on the power of an energetic, idealistic youth movement.

Clinton: mediocre, middle-of-the-road platform propped up by geriatrics who vote on habit and name recognition.

The young own the future (whether they want it or not). The geriatrics owe the young (and not yet born) some truly massive debts, which they're going to default on -- national debt, climate crisis, social security, medicare.

Time for the young to wake up and take direction of our future. BA and HRC platforms look similar now, but politicians always know who put them in office.

So Give to Obama -- Make calls for Obama -- and talk to your parents and grandparents in upcoming states. Make sure they vote for Obama.

Grandparents are wonderful people. I loved mine and I love my parents too. But the future isn't theirs. The future belongs to the kids. Go Obama!

Posted by: fairbalanced | February 6, 2008 7:33 AM | Report abuse

What is going on with the Hillary / Hispanic love in?

Is there something to this? I mean like a reason.

Also, Hillary enjoys strong support from Asian voters, especially the elderly ones. Who'd have thought they would like Hirrary Crinton. Strange.

Posted by: LeftwithNochoice | February 6, 2008 7:20 AM | Report abuse

Are you better of today or were you better off after 8 years with Bill Clinton as president? Bill certainly had his flaws, but the bottom line is the bottom line and most people are pretty confident that Hillary is not going to have an affair with Monica. All the other Whitewater stuff is old news. Even Ken Starr and $50 million in Federal investigations couldn't make anything of it at the time. Bringing it up will backfire, not that the Swift Boaters won't try. And do note think that the Swift Boat crowd is going to give Barak a free pass. "Educated in a madrasa...", "Accepted payoffs from a slum lord...", "Flip flopped on nuclear power regulation..." and of course the Harold Ford line "Hey Barak, ...". Dirty politics are just that, dirty. But whoever gets the Democratic nomination is going to face a whole deceptive and despicable boat load of it.

Posted by: djstates | February 6, 2008 7:15 AM | Report abuse

He's referring to McCain.

Obama will not win Texas, but he might get close.

Still, he has a shot at winning every primary in the run-up to Texas. That will close the gap on the deleguate count, but I fear this race will, in the end, not be decided by democratic vote but instead by the Democratic Party's vote- which is why, I think, the Clintons feel safe.

Posted by: henni.ouahes | February 6, 2008 7:04 AM | Report abuse

By the way, Troyboi, since when did we start calling Hillary the General?

Posted by: LeftwithNochoice | February 6, 2008 7:01 AM | Report abuse

yeah, truthseeker, but she's been running for 16 years.

Posted by: LeftwithNochoice | February 6, 2008 6:59 AM | Report abuse

I'm very disturbed by the huge bias I am seeing in the Washington Post reporting.

Hillary is AHEAD nationally in the polls, has won more delegates, and won the populous states of California and New York.

But try and get an honest article out of the Washington Post. I am going to other news sources just to get the basic facts and analysis.

Shameful!

Posted by: truthseeker1 | February 6, 2008 6:51 AM | Report abuse

Obama is strongly positioned for the Feb contests and is likely to turn the tide in TX and OH given a month in which to introduce himself to an expanded dem electorate.

Dems in '08!!

Posted by: garael | February 6, 2008 02:28 AM
-----------------------------------------

Im not sure about Ohio, but, speaking as someone from Texas, i would not count on Obama "taking" anything in Texas.

And even if you turn out to be right, the General is going to bury him in this state. He will not carry the Reddest of Reds and i fear this will prove out in the other Red states that he is claiming victory in.

Hillary, on the other hand, will get the Hispanic vote here in both the primary and general election, which will be the difference.

Texas has never been in a position to be a factor in a primary before, so this is going to be extremely important come March 4th and Edwards supporters in Texas have yet to decide between between the two remaining candidates. They will be key in the primary. If they go to Obama, Obama will lose the General in this state. At this point most still plan to cast a vote for Edwards as a protest.

Posted by: troyboi20 | February 6, 2008 6:44 AM | Report abuse

The media decides who we vote for as much as the candidates do. People started off not wanting to "waste a vote" on Obama, but with him neck and neck with Clintons at this advanced stage, people will believe more and more in his chances, listen to him, listen to her, and vote for real change.

By the way, what is going on with the Hispanics? Are they getting some mistranslated message that the rest of us are missing? They like Hillary? I hate to be racist, but are they just more racist? I mean, I know the seniors are, and that's Hillary's groups right: the seniors and the hispanics. Anyway, just wondering.

Posted by: LeftwithNochoice | February 6, 2008 6:39 AM | Report abuse

Beren is laying it down.

Posted by: LeftwithNochoice | February 6, 2008 6:32 AM | Report abuse

Correction: Columbia and Jeff City have been split into different districts; Columbia in the 9th and Jeff City in the 4th. an unfortunate political compromise or maneuver. but I was just poring through 2010 reapportionment data the other day, and MO is slated to lose its 9th House seat and fall to 8 for the 2012 elections. that will lead to all kinds of interestingness. MO's current population is 5.9M (http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFPopulation?_event=Search&_name=&_state=04000US29&_county=&_cityTown=&_zip=&_sse=on&_lang=en&pctxt=fph), so each district would have to include about 734,750 people each.

Posted by: jon.morgan.1999 | February 6, 2008 6:29 AM | Report abuse

Analyzing Missouri on the Democratic side:

Clinton won St. Charles county, but look how close it is given their overt racism and overwhelming whiteness. A slightly worse result in STC and Hillary could've won the state. the overall win in MO was about 405,000 to 395,000. (after Hillary sent out a press release crowing about their MO victory--clearly they didn't know the historic patterns of the state--STL city and county are strongly Democratic and report last. we were down 14 points earlier on, but those two jurisdictions turned the state from -14 to +1) http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/county/#val=MODEM10

of course we won the state with big margins in STL. we got a 29,000 vote plurality out of the City and 50,000 out of the County. Also a 15,000 vote plurality in Jackson (KC). The only other counties we won were Boone, Cole, and Nodaway. that's about 109-5 we lost in counties, but we had enough votes to win by a full percentage point after the networks unfamiliar with MO politics called it for Clinton.

if the delegates are allocated by US House seats, we won the 1st (Clay) and 3rd (Carnahan) districts, and the 5th (Cleaver), possibly the 2nd (Akin!). I don't know where Boone, Cole, or Nodaway are. the totals according to CNN right now are that each got 30 delegates from MO. Russ Carnahan and Claire McCaskill are superdelegates supporting Obama.

Boone and Cole are adjacent--Columbia and Jeff City. Those are in the 9th CD which we held until 1996. And could pick up again with Kenny Hulshof retiring to run for Governor. But that district is much bigger, taking in everything north and east of there in the state. so we probably didn't win the 9th I'm thinking (though those 2 cities would be its population centers). Nodaway is in NW MO near St. Joseph, so no real help there.

Posted by: jon.morgan.1999 | February 6, 2008 6:21 AM | Report abuse

I think Barack comes across as much more sincere than Hillary. I feel like she and McCain have been running for President for about 8 years now. Barack has sure closed a lot of ground in just a few months, and many people just don't like her. She is a liability in a National election, because of her husband. A lot of people who just plain dislike her will be energized against her. Live by the sword, die by the sword. Remember, she would have been unknown without Willy.
And what experience does she have? Supposedly Bush tricked her on her Iraq vote. That's scary. Experience? I guess Monica Lewinsky would then qualify for a cabinet position by that standard.

Posted by: LeftwithNochoice | February 6, 2008 6:12 AM | Report abuse

Political Punk-

With the exception of TN, AZ & her "home state" of AR, she won states that any Democratic candidate would have won. How'd she make out in her real home state of IL?
As for Barack's overwhelming support in the Black community, the Clintons always took it for granted and can now forever kiss it good-bye. You and your "jittery white" friends can also forget about an Obama/Clinton ticket. Barack certainly doesn't need the spunk splattered blue dress baggage that she and the Big Dog would bring to a ticket.

Posted by: shiva7 | February 6, 2008 6:03 AM | Report abuse

If you look at just the votes which were cast yesterday, as opposed to the mail-in votes, Barack Obama won California handily.

If you look at the votes by county with the mail-in votes, however, it's glaringly obvious that the big upset of the night was that John Edwards got up to 18% of the final vote in some areas, and probably averaged about 7% statewide.

That shows you how old those votes were. Pre-South Carolina. This will not be the case for the rest of the election. Americans today know our candidate much better than last week... and they like what they see.

So, was Obama's surge last week real? Absolutely! Is it still real? Yes! And it will be even more clear after he sweeps the next several states. He will also have the clear financial advantage too.

We have watched Hillary Clinton spend her corporate lobbyist money to slander a fellow Democrat and to mislead American voters. We have taken every low blow that she and her husband could throw at us... and now, they're punched out, hoping that they can bribe our candidate out of the race with the Vice Presidency. Now they're low on funds, coming to our candidate, and pleading for debates so that they can get some free air time.

It's pretty clear who's in a strong position now. After this point, all the momentum and support leans heavily to Barack Obama in the upcoming races.

What we have witnessed tonight is the high water mark for Hillary Clinton's presumptuous, overbearing quest for power.

Last week, her people were talking about Super Tuesday as if it were the end of the road for Barack Obama's campaign. But as Churchill said after the British people bravely turned back the great strength of Hitler's air force:

"This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."

Posted by: markkraft | February 6, 2008 6:00 AM | Report abuse

Beren:

You have it all figured out. In a nutshell, Hillary is "toxic". The Republicans are in disarray. The ONLY thing that can possibly unite them in November is having Hillary as the Democratic nominee. We (Dems) nominate anybody-but-Hillary ... we win. We nominate Hillary ... ??? QED.

Thanks for your series of cogent, respectful, and persuasive comments.

Posted by: ripcord1965 | February 6, 2008 5:53 AM | Report abuse

I only wish I had a vote- I'm watching from afar, in Britain, jealous, envious of this political movement coming out of the US, envious of the quality of this candidate. Really. I voted once in the UK general election, in 2002, and never voted again. What's the point?

Now, if we had someone like Obama (don't care what skin colour)...

I hope y'all feel very proud of your support for him, and remember that America is being watched all over the world, and if he loses, I hope you all back Mrs Clinton who will favour a more orthodox approach to foreign policy. I like McCain as a person but remember the guy is a warrior, and he supports intensified operations in Iraq, he jokes about bombing Iran, and America deserves a better image than it's got- my God it does, just look at your festival of democracy that this primary campaign turned out to be!

Good luck, wish I was with you!

Posted by: henni.ouahes | February 6, 2008 5:49 AM | Report abuse

Nicely, and succinctly put, henni.

Beren

Posted by: Beren | February 6, 2008 5:26 AM | Report abuse

clawrence 35:

Obama's point is that he has a shot at the red states. He will win the democratic vote in the blue states. And he will compete in the marginals.

That's why he's getting endorsements from red state politicos.

To use Obama's popularity in the red states "where no dems live" (lol) is to get the wrong end of the stick. The Dems would be in more trouble if Clinton won the nomination only essentially to replicate the results in 2004, and hoping maybe to win Ohio, New Hampshire, maybe have a shot at Florida. That would have been a safer shot against a Romney, or a Giuliani, or a Bush-ite. But against McCain she'll have a fight.

Obama's race for presidency is predicated on his ablity to give the Dems as many shots in as many places as possible. That has been proven in the red state. The question is, will trad democrats support him? I think most would, but I may be wrong. And if I am, then the only plausible explanation is that nasty one: race. Then I suppose America's not ready, and people will wait a little longer for a radical, unity president.

Posted by: henni.ouahes | February 6, 2008 5:22 AM | Report abuse

clawrence35:

In response to a couple of your other comments (which were interesting, and which I respect):

1. I live in South Bend, Indiana, less than four miles from the Michigan border (and not that fr from you, I guess, if you live in Chicagoland), and I'm pretty sure Obama has a _much_ better chance of carrying our side of Lake Michigan than Hillary does. I mean, it's important to grasp that for a lot of Republicans and even some independents here, "Hillary" is almost the secular word for "Satan". That's not fair to her, I know. But it is how a lot of people feel. Remember the Republican debates? When it came to healthcare, the candidates who didn't have anything substantive to say could still score cheap points by saying, "We don't need Hillary-care." That's how toxic she already is in swing-districts. And she did deal with healthcare rather like Cheney dealt with energy (i.e. behind closed doors). This isn't a good way to build consensus for national change.

2. Just look at the polls. Obama does better, in a hypothetical match-up against McCain than Hillary does. (In part because of the dynamic mentioned in #1.)

3. When you talk about proven leadership, what accomplishments are you referring to? She was first lady, not president. As first lady, her main political quest (healthcare) was a disaster. (Because it should have passed, but didn't because of bad political judgment.) She certainly has had an honorable career in the Senate, but how exactly does she have more experience than Obama, who has also served in the Senate and done good work there?

4. Yes, the last Democrat you remember winning was Clinton. That's because he was really a (clever) defensive campaigner. That was his genius. He ran in an era dominated by Reagan. So much so that he even found it necessary to declare, "The era of Big Government is over." But Democrats don't need to do that anymore. Bush has so damaged the Republican brand (if you will) that Democrats can now campaign on their own principles and proudly so, so long as they aren't actively insulting to the other side. This is part of what is so behind-the-times about Hillary. She acts like she believes in her bones that if the American public at large really knew what she believed, they would never vote for her. One sees this in a lot of older Dems. But I think younger ones understand that their time has come.

Regards,
Beren

Posted by: Beren | February 6, 2008 5:06 AM | Report abuse

djstates,

Just because people are voting along racial lines, doesn't make Obama a divider. If you'd pay attention you'd notice that the vast majority of voters say they'd be relatively satisfied with either candidate. And who do you think actually has the skill to embrace voters who originally voted against him? Clinton? Ha! Her (and her husband's) primary tactic has always been to demonize anyone who disagrees with them, even other democrats, then divide and conquer.

Personally I can't imagine why in the world anyone would be satisfied with another sleazy Clinton in office. I've never voted Republican in my life (I'm 39), but if Hillary is the democratic candidate, that's precisely what I'll do.

Posted by: freeflyb | February 6, 2008 4:51 AM | Report abuse

Okay, to paixetjoie (good name, btw):

If you want to know about specifics, look at:

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/02/obama-actually.html

and Obama's own 'issues' pages. Seriously. Look, he can give a great speech, but actually, I think he's more impressive on the specifics. Google his 45 minute long interview with a Nevada newspaper and you'll see what I mean. I think the MSM has allowed this idea that Obama doesn't have specifics to spread, just because that's our stereotype of people who have soaring rhetoric: we think it must be because they ignore the details. But Obama doesn't at all. And unless _we_ ignore the details, we should do a bit of research, which would show that Obama pays plenty of attention to policy specifics. Really. If you're going to talk specifics, then go and do real research on them.

to clawrence35 all I can say is this: How many independent/Republican friends and acquaintances do you have? Because I have lots. About half the people I know lean Republican, but more than half of them would be really excited to vote for Obama. I often encounter people who mostly live in a Dem. community who really can't understand how much I's and R's dislike Hillary Clinton. I don't mean to denigrate them. I think they're trying hard to understand people that they don't normally meet. But they really don't understand how Republicans think. Those of us that do know lots of Republicans can only say, look, for the Democratic party, this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. We know people who never before considered the Democratic party who are now seriously thinking of voting Democratic if the Dems nominate Obama.

The analogy I use is 9-11. I grew up in the US foreign service, so I'm always aware, whether I like it or not, of how we're viewed in the rest of the world. And after 9-11 I wanted to scream to this country, "Look, we have an unprecedented opportunity to create a grand coalition. Even the Iranians are holding moments of silence for our losses. We can turn this into American global leadership for the next two decades." But American didn't realize the huge opportunity they had and they let it slide. They squandered all that goodwill that they had.

I feel the same way about Democrats and Ind/Rep. voters. I think many Democrats don't realize that they now have an unprecedented opportunity to redraw the map. Instead, they just want revenge for the (real) injustices of the Bush administration. But it's very sad to see many Dems. thinking about making (domestically) the same mistake as the Republicans made internationally a few years ago.

Regards,
Beren

Posted by: Beren | February 6, 2008 4:43 AM | Report abuse

Let me finish my thoughts:

I was saying that I would choose someone who has made mistakes in the past (and learned from them) over someone who has NEVER made mistakes. Great leaders are leaders who have been polished through touch challenges.

Last time, we had a candidate who promised to unite the nation. He would not give us the specifics of his plans. In his own way, he also promised us change. He said he was going to end the "partisanship politics" in Washington, DC.

We all know what we got. The press is again doing exactly what it did eight years ago. It attacked Al Gore for not being "likeable" and over his "wardrobe", etc. It chose to overlook visible weaknesses, such as the inability of a future president to correctly "spell" words. If I remember well, no one gave you an "A" in Grade School until you were able to get your spelling. Let's take the time to ask Senator Obama to give us SPECIFICS of his CHANGE AGENDA! Last time, we were all "INSPIRED" by "THE KIND OF GUY YOU COULD HAVE A BEER WITH". And then (...)!

Posted by: paixetjoie | February 6, 2008 3:51 AM | Report abuse

----- Obama will be defined by his actions, not those wonderful speeches he gives, and all those swing states will be in play. -----

We welcome that debate with McCain

Good - because they aren't going to shy away like Pres. Clinton did just because you whined about it or call someone a racist just because they are critical of Obama.

The debate should go something like a decorated veteran, former POW who never sold out his nation, has reached across party lines to deliver reforms toward the corrupting influence of money in politics, critical of a failed strategy in Iraq and insisting on living up to the nations obligations toward Iraqis and our brave young men and women on the front lines, and working again across party lines to treat our immigrants in a humane and sensible manner while securing our borders.

As opposed to an articulate young man who brags about taking drugs and was a community organizer, and went to Washington to run for president.

Not much of a debate - but he can claim he gave a speech about opposing the Iraq war. That did us a lot of good. Thank god he knows how to give a good speech.

Posted by: clawrence35 | February 6, 2008 3:47 AM | Report abuse

Cool, check it out... it's a pretty interesting bit of Experience he's got: http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/07/29/us/politics/20070730_OBAMA_GRAPHIC.html

Big deal - I live in IL - we have so many problems facing this state I don't have time to write it all down.

I think nearly any state legislator in the IL Senate or House who has a similar length of time as did Obama could assemble the same 'sponsored' bills. Our cops are still abusing their authority - no one has been held accountable for the TORTURE that occurred under John Burge - our Veterans still receive the worst delivery of service (including 9 recent deaths in a Southern IL Veterans Hospital due to substandard care) of any state in the union - our pension system is in the worst financial state of any states in the union - our state contributes the least toward the education of our children - and we most probably lead the nation in public corruption trials - not a strong record for any state official.

Cute graphics - almost as impressive as those nice speeches that haven't delivered any much needed change here in IL.

Posted by: clawrence35 | February 6, 2008 3:35 AM | Report abuse

The most enjoyable thing tonight was seeing Massachusetts and California going to Hillary in a big way, thus putting some major egg on the faces of Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, two elitist limousine liberals that so many in this country find both tedious and absurd! We will be getting a good chuckle out of this for quite some time! Go home Ted. Your brothers had the magic, but the same can't be said about you.

Posted by: amadeus56 | February 6, 2008 3:25 AM | Report abuse

Ah, now we come to the moment of truth.... We can win without you. ; -)

That is the dismissive attitude toward all of us Democrats who supported Biden/Clinton/Edwards... that is going to cost the Dems the Whitehouse once again.

You keep thinking that a coalition of kids - upscale liberals - and the African American voters can win agianst a coalition of Latino's - veterans - working class - and elderly.

Obama is not possitioned to win this election - I don't care how empowered you think DailyKos has made you.

Posted by: clawrence35 | February 6, 2008 3:23 AM | Report abuse

----- Obama grew up in Hawaii and those four formative years in Indonesia that have given him his foreign policy credentials - he is not a 'native son of the Great Lakes'. -----

Huh, last I heard he was the senator from the most populous corn state. He's a son of Illinois now, like we had in 52 and 56. But this Illinois pol now is going to win.

----- I have lived in the Great Lake states my whole life - McCain will have a strong appeal in WI, MN, IN -----

K, 2 of those are Ill neighbors. And in the other Al Franken heads the dem ticket, and leading against the (R) in the polls. : -)

----- Upstate NY, and probably most importantly in OH and MI -----

Most likely, but it won't be enough. Imagine McCain will loses FL, CA, NY (the rest of it), MA, PA and The South. Checkmate dems. : -)

----- No. When you ask over and over again what has this man accomplished, they point to his extensive (I am being facetious) record in the state legislature -----

Cool, check it out... it's a pretty interesting bit of Experience he's got: http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/07/29/us/politics/20070730_OBAMA_GRAPHIC.html

----- Obama will be defined by his actions, not those wonderful speeches he gives, and all those swing states will be in play. -----

We welcome that debate with McCain

----- My party is going to make a terrible mistake if it nominates a novice like Obama - I know I will not vote for him -----

Ah, now we come to the moment of truth.... We can win without you. ; -)

Dems in 08!!

Posted by: garael | February 6, 2008 3:15 AM | Report abuse

Whitewater, White House Travel Office firings and the mysterious "suicide" of Vincent Foster.

At this point ..ANYONE but her.

Posted by: nwillis1 | February 6, 2008 3:10 AM | Report abuse

Obama grew up in Hawaii and those four formative years in Indonesia that have given him his foreign policy credentials - he is not a 'native son of the Great Lakes'. I have lived in the Great Lake states my whole life - McCain will have a strong appeal in WI, MN, IN, PA, upstate NY, and probably most importantly in OH and MI - and yes - they will take a look at someone who has sat on the Armed Service committee, has superior proposals on the economy, and has spent 5 more years in the US Senate before they are going to take seriously the arguments of a community organizer, part-time state legislator who has been in the US Senate for 3 years and has nothing to show for it. (Has he held a hearing on the Senate foreign relation committee that he sits on? Passed any legislation that has fixed the problems with veterans care out of the Veteran Affiars committee that he sits on?)

No. When you ask over and over again what has this man accomplished, they point to his extensive (I am being facetious) record in the state legislature - but his failure to take a stand on important issues by voting present is explained away as irrelevant. Was the vote on Iran that he was conveniently absent from irrelevant as well? How about calling the Moveon.org folks out for slandering Gen. Petraues - isn't that what the 'new politics' was all about, to stop these kind of divisive attacks?

Obama will be defined by his actions, not those wonderful speeches he gives, and all those swing states will be in play.

Clinton is a fighter - she went upstate and listened to her constituents and addressed their concerns. There is an irrational hatred toward her. Her actions define her as well, and I find her somewhat admirable.

My party is going to make a terrible mistake if it nominates a novice like Obama - I know I will not vote for him, and I think a majority of voters once they take a real good look at him, won't either. We have avoided talking about his drug use, his connection to the corrupted IL politics, his record...It reminds me of when Cheney and Rumsfeld just gave happy talk about Iraq and the press was so eager to play along with all those 'good news' stories.

Get real. Obama has been given a pass for far too long.

Posted by: clawrence35 | February 6, 2008 2:52 AM | Report abuse

"Against McCain, we are going to have a hard enough time holding our own in the Midwest/Great-Lake states that are dying for some real leadership - and Obama has no record of leadership or accomplishment - I don't care how well or how often he speaks. I'll take a candidate like Clinton who can be competitive in MI, OH, and WI any day over one who thinks winning over Idaho is going to prove that their audacious claim that America isn't divided any day of the week."

Take Clinton out and Obama will be very competitive. With Clinton at the top of the ticket the Republican attack machine will have more ammunition than they know what to do with. As I recall, Hillary's brothers received tens of thousands to procure last minute pardons from Bill. "Lost" records from the Rose law firm show up years later... in a closet in the WH. Obama has nothing in terms of the baggage the Clintons will haul with them into the general. With all due respect, to think Hillary can outperform Obama in the general is delusional.

Dems in '08!!

Posted by: garael | February 6, 2008 2:35 AM | Report abuse

I agree, Pam, but it is wonderful sign that the conservatives are so disorganized that a moderate is their only viable candidate. They will have to decide to vote for someone they distrust, vote for a democrat they distrust or not vote at all. I will bet turnout for conservative male voters is down by at least 50% in the general election. They'll all go hunting instead.

Posted by: Bissron | February 6, 2008 2:34 AM | Report abuse

clawrence35: "I don't think winning over a few thousand democrats in Alaska, Idaho, Kansas or Utah is exactly a demonstration of momentum. What happened in a state like NJ, with a population twice the size of all those states combined, demonstrates to me where the national democratic voters are. This is bringing the Bush 2000 electoral strategy into the Democratic party - disregard what the majority says - let a few have a more powerful voice than the many - NOT THE Democratic Party I want to belong to."

This analysis misses the point. Yes, the democratic establishment -- long-time Clinton supporters and older voters -- turned out for Clinton. But this primary is more about who dems want as a leader for tomorrow, not who led yesterday. To see Obama turning out voters, in far higher numbers than in previous primaries, from red states and challenging Clinton strongly in every state, demonstrates the shift in what is important to dems down the road. Obama is strongly positioned for the Feb contests and is likely to turn the tide in TX and OH given a month in which to introduce himself to an expanded dem electorate.

Dems in '08!!

Posted by: garael | February 6, 2008 2:28 AM | Report abuse

Obama brings a whole new concept to the deep south. I lived there during the civil rights marchs and have seen first hand how well organized and motivated the black communities,particularly in church affiliations can create masses of voters. Obama will overwhelmingly win the black vote, split the white women vote, split the white male vote (there are more liberals than you think - they just stay hidden) He stands to sweep the southern tier.

Posted by: Bissron | February 6, 2008 2:27 AM | Report abuse

Right, the Great Lakes states, where I grew up, will vote for a polarizing woman from NY with a whopping 7 years elected office experience over a native son who reaches out to and demonstrates proven support among independents, Republicans, young people, and new voters.

What a dunderheaded argument.

Posted by: jon.morgan.1999 | February 6, 2008 2:26 AM | Report abuse

I'm astounded at the number of people who say that if Clinton eventually wins the nomination they would rather vote for a Republican than a Democrat. If issues rather than personality are important, this makes absolutely no sense. Obama's and Clinton's positions on the issues are nearly identical -- certainly much closer to each other than to any of the Republican candidates. It's a wonderful thing to have two terrific candidates to choose from but when the Democratic presidential nominee is finally decided, the Barack and Hillary supporters need to unite behind the final selection and work together for a landslide victory in the general election.

And to those who think "McCain is almost a Democrat" -- please don't get sucked into that illusion. That one is even tempted to believe McCain is almost a Democrat just shows how awful the last eight years have been. I respect and admire John McCain but I disagree with him on policy issues more often than not. If Al Gore had been elected in 2000, no way would any of us be putting McCain in the "almost Democrat" category.

Posted by: pam_leitterman | February 6, 2008 2:25 AM | Report abuse

"(yet another Obama supporter trying to drag the race card into this)"

Excuse me, clawrence, I was replying to a previous comment. Try reading before posting next time. Nowhere did I bring up an issue of race. Have you already forgotten South Carolina?? The Obama campaign is hardly the one bringing up race. That's just laughable.

Posted by: jon.morgan.1999 | February 6, 2008 2:21 AM | Report abuse

According to the news sources, Rush, Ann Coulter and James Dobson have all stated they wouldn't vote for McCain. Either they have some serious word eating to do (which is past due) or McCain going in battling his own party cheerleaders.

Posted by: Bissron | February 6, 2008 2:18 AM | Report abuse

Beren;

If you think all the happy talk of Obama is going to make him competitive in the Plain States or in the Deep south (and that is largely where he has won all of these contest) in a general election - you are setting the Democratic Party up for failure.

Against McCain, we are going to have a hard enough time holding our own in the Midwest/Great-Lake states that are dying for some real leadership - and Obama has no record of leadership or accomplishment - I don't care how well or how often he speaks. I'll take a candidate like Clinton who can be competitive in MI, OH, and WI any day over one who thinks winning over Idaho is going to prove that their audacious claim that America isn't divided any day of the week.

Obama is a fraud - his record on ballot access (he denied all his opponents access to the ballot in his state senate race - OLD Chicago politics) is shameful - he has never been truly tested (and this flirtation with the press will get old real soon) in a general election - and the Feds are about to put the corrupt politics practiced in IL and Chicago (that Obama benefited from) on trial once again.

There are real problems that this nation is facing, and I want a real Democrat with demonstrated accomplishments in the Whitehouse - Not the preaching of a member of a afro-centric church who puts his own political ambitions ahead of serving his constituents.

As for the 17 state solution - the last Democrat I remember winning a presidential campaign was a Clinton.

Posted by: clawrence35 | February 6, 2008 2:17 AM | Report abuse

Yes, ojordan3, that 3% of the state really turned it!

Posted by: jon.morgan.1999 | February 6, 2008 2:12 AM | Report abuse

When this country faces hard times, it almost always looks for fresh thinkers, new idealists. If you ask yourself "Which candidate is the least like Bush?" I think the answer is Obama. I believe consciously or not, that how the voters are thinking.

Posted by: Bissron | February 6, 2008 2:11 AM | Report abuse

If you want to the KING, you have to kill the QUEEN. As long as it takes.

Posted by: mnjam | February 6, 2008 2:08 AM | Report abuse

"Missouri by Senator McCaskill, for Barack Obama. Missouri - the show-me-state - really lived up to its' name."

Sure did. You might recheck the results, though!

Posted by: thrh | February 6, 2008 2:06 AM | Report abuse

I agree that winning the Western States by itself is not a sign of momentum. The signs of momentum are the erasure of Hillary's double digit leads,the 3 to 1 advantage Obama now has in fund raising, his clearly better organized caucus strategies and the overwhelming populist support he gets.Three weeks ago today was supposed to be the coronation of Hillary's nomination. She had the early advantages of organization, money and support. Obama has taken the edge in most of those categories, getting endorsements from big city editors across the country. It really looks like a movement - especially when in the middle of his address he reminded his listeners that this isn't a red or blue America by a united one - followed by chants of "USA". He is steamrolling the middle ground. He is preaching unity and civility. People want to believe its possible.

Posted by: Bissron | February 6, 2008 2:03 AM | Report abuse

@ clawrence35:
Er, that 17-state victory strategy... how well has that worked in the past? It's time for the Democratic party to move out of the defensive crouch that it's been in since Reagan and realize that it can compete and win in southern and rural states, and it has to try. Or else we can just save a lot of money and let Ohio elect the next president while the rest of us watch. :)

Rehard, Beren

Posted by: Beren | February 6, 2008 1:58 AM | Report abuse

It's all good news. Whoever becomes president, Clinton, Obama, or McCain, it won't be a conservative, thank goodness. McCain is almost a Democrat, Huckabee is splitting the conservative vote. We, I mean liberals, can't lose this time. We have President Bush to thank for America wanting to dump conservatism in the trash can.

Posted by: dhayjones | February 6, 2008 1:57 AM | Report abuse

My kid sister is a Republican who wants to vote for Obama. She'll vote for McCain over Clinton, though. The only way she'd vote for Clinton is if Romney gets the nomination (and that's not going to happen).

My older sister and her husband are die-hard conservatives who absolutely hate the Clintons, not that they'd vote for Obama. They're the people who would make it difficult for Clinton to get anything done if she did get elected, but they would at least listen to Obama.

Me, I'm the smartest one. I voted for Obama.

Posted by: okane | February 6, 2008 1:55 AM | Report abuse

"I'm sure Obama's wins in Alaska, North Dakota, Idaho, Kansas, Utah, and Colorado were racially driven."

No - they were not racially driven (yet another Obama supporter trying to drag the race card into this) - they are also states that (save Colorado) are not were Democrats live - there is no hope of either nominee winning these states in a general election.

"Where Barack Obama is doing so well in Missouri is where the Democrats live,"

That may well be in Missouri (although it looks to me as though it was evenly split) - but in states were Dem's live (CA, NY, MA, NJ) the Democratic voters have supported Clinton.

If this was a national primary - I would like to know the total number of voters who chose Senator Clinton over Senator Obama - in raw votes I would guess she is leading by well over a million at this point (and yes - FL and MI voters should count - that is what inclusion is all about - the Democratic parties of each state should hold a primary on a Saturday in April and stop this nonsense so that each can compete and seat their delegates).

I don't think winning over a few thousand democrats in Alaska, Idaho, Kansas or Utah is exactly a demonstration of momentum. What happened in a state like NJ, with a population twice the size of all those states combined, demonstrates to me where the national democratic voters are. This is bringing the Bush 2000 electoral strategy into the Democratic party - disregard what the majority says - let a few have a more powerful voice than the many - NOT THE Democratic Party I want to belong to.


Posted by: clawrence35 | February 6, 2008 1:51 AM | Report abuse

The next president is going to face the following on "day one":

1. An economy in recession for 2-4 qtrs, with significant job losses

2. Problems in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and heaven knows where else

3. General weakening of the US influence abroad due to (1) and (2) above, and their authors M/s Bush & Cheney

4. Foreclosures affecting over a million households

These are the minimum of problems the president will face. To solve them, from "day one" the President must:

A. Inspire and unite the 80% of Americans - Democrat, Republican, Independents and Indifferents - and get everyone looking at solutions and not scapegoats (Nothing to fear but fear itself, remember?)

B. Come up with a sensible plan and pass it through Congress with bipartisan support and committment (translation: By building consensus support, not the trickery of "triangulation")

C. Speak to the American people, and the world community, about the vision for the next 4 years and our role in making that a reality

D. Get to work with humility and energy

Do you think Sen. Clinton can achieve all of the above? On "day one"?

Sen. Obama has demonstrated that he is more than just "lofty speeches". When the "cameras and microphones are switched off" he created a solid, competent team - one that raised more money from more individual donors than ever before, built grassroots support in states where it did not exist before (Iowa, Idaho, Utah, N. Dakota) and appealed a to BROAD coalition of voters in every region of the country and took on the MOST POWERFUL political machine in the Democratic party's history - and kicked their butts despite the tight schedule!

I used to admire Sen. Clinton for her sharp brain, but she also has the impatience and arrogance that comes as an unfortunate side-effect, and a sharp tongue. She is humble and emotional when she is losing, but at all other times she is combative and inflexible. That is fine in good times, but during problematic times such as now we need a more patient, competent executive. Someone who does not make a big fuss, but quietly, efficiently, gets the job done.

Look at the delegate count on Feb 6th, and ask yourself if this is what you expected a year ago. Then decide who is right for America. Then let's kick some butt in November and get the good ol' US of A back on track in 2009!

Posted by: sekharsundaram | February 6, 2008 1:49 AM | Report abuse

New Yorker Magazine had a great comparison of Obama and Hillary. Ultimately, they determined Obama was a spiritual, emotional leader with broad stroke visions while Hillary was a manager, organizing and working groups of people towards a goal.

Obama appears as a leader.
Hillary appears as a doer.

I believe the country needs an emotional revival more than a careful plan.

Posted by: Bissron | February 6, 2008 1:48 AM | Report abuse

Regardless of how many populous states were won by whomever in whichever regions, the Super Tuesday delegate count for the two candidates will be within 25 either way. It's all about the delegates, not what states were won.

Posted by: bbussey | February 6, 2008 1:44 AM | Report abuse

@ Chicago1:

You know, the claim that Obama "only has slogans" almost _is_ a slogan, in the sense that it sounds good but when you examine the details, it all falls apart. Please take a look at the following by hilzoy, a blogger and policy-junkie, who learned about Obama precisely because she spends a lot of time looking at the nitty-gritty details of legislation:

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/02/obama-actually.html

Best wishes,
Beren

Posted by: Beren | February 6, 2008 1:41 AM | Report abuse

I'm getting very tired of the experience/lack of experience debate concerning Clinton and Obama. Our current president had "experience" as governor of Texas; need I say more? And the first President Bush had a resume few presidents could match and he was a less than influential president. Voters need to look at the quality of the individual his/her ideas, integrity and the people they surround themselves with. There can be no doubt that Senator Obama has exceptional leadership qualities. There can be no doubt that he will be an influential president; and I think there can be no doubt that he will project a very positive image of the United States to the world. That is an issue that is not getting enough attention. The reputation of the U.S. worldwide has been severly damaged. We need a leader who can propel the country back to its world-leader status in all issues that concern the world. I sincerely believe Senator Obama is the only candidate on either side who has the ability to do just that.

Posted by: thesingingteacher | February 6, 2008 1:41 AM | Report abuse

HILLARY WANTS MORE DEBATE NOT BECAUSE SHE CARES ABOUT TAKING ABOUT THE ISSUES. THEY ARE OUT OF MONEY AND NEED MORE AIR TIME. ALSO THEY BELIEVE SHE DOES BETTER IN DEBATE BECAUSE SHE IS GOOD DEBATER AND EXPECT OBAMA TO STUMBLE.

Posted by: premail | February 6, 2008 1:40 AM | Report abuse

jonmorgan, don't forget that overwhelming black population in MN that helped Obama to a 2:1 victory

Posted by: ojordan3 | February 6, 2008 1:37 AM | Report abuse

Guess what? Without blacks, Democrats wouldn't have won any presidential election since 1964. Maybe some of us need to admit that America isn't an all-white nation.

friggin ignorance.

Posted by: jon.morgan.1999 | February 6, 2008 1:31 AM | Report abuse

sorry i meant the black vote but im typing in the dark

Posted by: alarico | February 6, 2008 1:29 AM | Report abuse

djstates-- what you say about obama could be said about hillary-- just in reverse. "she's not getting the black note" etc.

if hispanics knew better obama's position on immigration vs hillary (who panders to the right) they'd vote for obama in troves.

Posted by: alarico | February 6, 2008 1:29 AM | Report abuse

Correction: I was getting these from RCP, and hadn't realized that they listed CO, with its 71 delegates, lower in the list than AR. So actually, I should have said that Hillary won majorities in eight out of the top fifteen races, which would include AR at fifteenth.

Apologies,
Beren

Posted by: Beren | February 6, 2008 1:28 AM | Report abuse

I'm sure Obama's wins in Alaska, North Dakota, Idaho, Kansas, Utah, and Colorado were racially driven.

Posted by: jon.morgan.1999 | February 6, 2008 1:28 AM | Report abuse

"Missouri is no longer the bellwether state. It does not have enough Latinos."

I'm sure Gov. Blunt, Sen. McCaskill, and 5.5 million Missourians would love to hear that. What is the right bellwether state--New Jersey? Massachusetts?

Posted by: jon.morgan.1999 | February 6, 2008 1:26 AM | Report abuse

Obama can't win a debate, because he has nothing but slogans to offer. That's why he won't do them. I should know, he's my senator. At least when he is working, which he has not been for quite some time now.

Missouri is no longer the bellwether state. It does not have enough Latinos.

Posted by: Chicago1 | February 6, 2008 1:21 AM | Report abuse

Obama avoids talking about it, but many of his victories (AL, DE, GA, MO, SC) have been driven by an 85:15 split among black voters. Conversely, in most states he is losing Hispanics 33:66 and Asians 25:75. Hard to argue you are the unity candidate when you are dividing the party on racial lines. If Obama gets the nomination, this will be a wedge opportunity that McCain is well positioned to exploit, especially if McCain avoids caving to the conservativerati on immigrations.

Posted by: djstates | February 6, 2008 1:20 AM | Report abuse

If momentum matters, we should remember that not too long ago Hillary had double digit leads in the states she barely won tonight. The most telling comments I heard was the 9,000 people rally in Colorado, standing room only and hundreds more wanting to get it. Even the Conservative pundits are calling it a movement now.

Posted by: Bissron | February 6, 2008 1:19 AM | Report abuse

Clinton wants debates because she has less money to spend than Obama does. Does Obama have better things to do? Yes, I would say getting up close and personal with as many voters as possible is a much better use of his time than having Wolf Blitzer ask him if he thinks Hillary has nice hair. And maybe I've lost count from so many strategy shifts, but wasn't that Clinton's claim post-Iowa, that she would do better by getting out and actually meeting voters?

Posted by: ojordan3 | February 6, 2008 1:16 AM | Report abuse

politicalpuck, in the general election, if obama is the nominee, he will solidly get the democratic vote, plus he will reach out to independents. if hillary is the nominee, mccain will wipe the floor with her.

as a side note, the notion that hillary is all that much more "experienced" than obama is a massive exaggeration. she's OLDER, but that's about it. what accomplishments does she have that aren't roughly matched by those on obama's resume?

Posted by: thephantomblot | February 6, 2008 1:14 AM | Report abuse

It has been a long time since I've heard a speaker as articulate and passionate as Obama. His comments tonight made McCain look like an eighth grader by comparison.

Posted by: Bissron | February 6, 2008 1:14 AM | Report abuse

drama_king, you seem like a sharper analyst than most commenters here. I expect that Obama will do well in next week's Potomac Primary.

Posted by: jon.morgan.1999 | February 6, 2008 1:13 AM | Report abuse

Sorry, jbl. Teach me to quote PBS.

Posted by: Bissron | February 6, 2008 1:11 AM | Report abuse

@PoliticalPuck:

Don't you think that's a bit of an exaggeration? "All" of the "Big Fat Plums". That sounds more like a campaign email to its supporters than serious political analysis. Hillary won popular majorities in several important states, but of the ten states with the most delegates in play this evening, Hillary won majorities in six out of ten of them, hardly all of them. Or, if we broaden the field to the top fourteen so that Arkansas, with its 35 delegates makes the list of 'big political plums', then Hillary won majorities in 8 out of 14, or one more than half.

Regards,
Beren

Posted by: Beren | February 6, 2008 1:10 AM | Report abuse

Obama trailed Clinton only by 9 points among whites. He carried blacks with over 80% of their votes. He also won men by 11 points while Clinton won women by 6. The national popular vote so far, as reported by ABC, is 5.6 million each. The delegate counts remain very close. This is hardly a big win or defeat for either. As the analysts on ABC said, the rest of the states voting this month all tilt toward Obama. My state, Washington, is the biggest state voting this Saturday and strongly favors Obama. Survey USA found him ahead by about 13 points here.

Posted by: jon.morgan.1999 | February 6, 2008 1:10 AM | Report abuse

Reporting in from College Park,
Maryland is going to Barack the House. ;)

The problem with Clinton challenging Obama to excessive numbers of debates is that it is a distraction that Obama cannot afford, but that Clinton can since she already has the advantage of name recognition.

The distraction of debating (which is no longer a critical format for airing the candidates' respective political positions in the primary campaign) would keep Obama from doing the currently more important work of connecting personally with the voters in the upcoming states. This connection that Obama has with the grassroots is what turns the voters out. He is organizing a national movement, not running a political campaign, and as such, he needs to be on the ground with the people, not up on stage in front of the cameras.

I have to hand it to the Clintons - they know where his strengths lie, and this invitation to additional debate is a slick tactic. They are very, very good. But Obama is better. Game recognize game.

Posted by: drama_king | February 6, 2008 1:06 AM | Report abuse

Official MO results: http://www.sos.mo.gov/enrweb/allresults.asp?eid=203

Obama 49%
Clinton 48&

virtually 100% in

Posted by: jon.morgan.1999 | February 6, 2008 1:05 AM | Report abuse

Hillary won all the Big Fat Plums on Super Tuesday...California, New York (expected), Tennessee, New Jersey, Arizona, Massachusetts (Thanks, Teddy), Oklahoma, Arkansas (also expected).

It looks like she's going to blow Obama away in California.

As of this writing, Hillary and Obama are a percentage point of each other in Missouri and will likely split the delegates no matter who ends up winning the popular vote.

Sure, Obama's starry-eyed Loony Lefties will crow that he won more states, and technically, he did...but North Dakota, Utah and Idaho are hardly populated nor are they delegate-rich. Democratic national victories (only two since 1980, thanks to Bill Clinton) have not hinged on tiny western states like ND, Utah and Idaho.

I don't think it helps Obama in the long run to run up 8-2 and 9-1 pluralities in the African American vote. It feeds into the perception that his success in big states depends on the size of the African American population. In a general election against John McCain, Obama's reliance on a strong African American turnout weakens him across a 50-state canopy, especially among jittery white voters.

People want an experienced leader ready to lead on Day 1. I think Obama would be fine as a Vice President, but if Hillary is asked to run as the VP on the ticket (she won't) well, there are a lot of Dems who will become McCain Democrats in the fall.

Posted by: Politicalpuck | February 6, 2008 1:01 AM | Report abuse

Well, so much for endorsements. So far, tonight, some states that Hillary Clinton won were endorsed by high-profile senators - Massachusetts and California, by Kennedy and Kerry. and Missouri by Senator McCaskill, for Barack Obama. Missouri - the show-me-state - really lived up to its' name.

(And BTW, AP called it and Barack surged, but Hillary seems to have won it in the end. Another BTW, the whole primary voting population in California this time didn't come to two million, so the mail in votes were obviously less.)

Posted by: jbleenyc | February 6, 2008 1:00 AM | Report abuse

Montana and Virginia's Senate races were both called after MO in 2006. McCaskill won by 3 points vs. 0 for Tester and Wrbb.

Posted by: jon.morgan.1999 | February 6, 2008 12:57 AM | Report abuse

AP called it, but HRC claimed it by sending out that email to it's mailing list.

Posted by: eramesan | February 6, 2008 12:47 AM | Report abuse

not so fast dhayjones. it ain't over yet. obama has a great shot at the nomination, now that it looks like he has made it past super tuesday unhurt.

Posted by: eramesan | February 6, 2008 12:45 AM | Report abuse

Clinton didn't claim it, the AP called it.

you're an idiot trail writer.

Posted by: newagent99 | February 6, 2008 12:44 AM | Report abuse

If Obama wants the voters to know him better, he should have no problem with agreeing to as many debates as possible. If not, why not? Does he have something more important to do?

Posted by: amadeus56 | February 6, 2008 12:43 AM | Report abuse

I find the anti-Clinton sentiment to be ridiculous. Both Obama and Clinton are hardworking, gifted politicians battling for our votes. Why the need to demonize Senator Clinton. Listen to what she has to say, then vote on the basis of that. I can't wait for the debates between her and McCain when they campaign against each other in the presidential election.

Posted by: dhayjones | February 6, 2008 12:40 AM | Report abuse

Martin,
I commend you on using your full name as you userID (and "signing" it as well). Are you an Obama supporter? How is the race shaping up in MD?
Jonathan Stevens

Posted by: jonathanmstevens | February 6, 2008 12:38 AM | Report abuse

I wonder how much closer the California vote would have been without 2 million early voters, including many before Obama won in Iowa.

Posted by: Bissron | February 6, 2008 12:37 AM | Report abuse

Hillary's camp is now asking for more debates, as if we didn't know her and her husband well enough already, and how they will use any opportunity to distort and defame. ...

However, if Obama agrees to another debate, I hope someone will ask Hillary the following question:

"Ma'am, your husband's presidency was marked by scandals running from the salacious to national security, you've run a campaign based on race coding, and both you and your husband have scant regard for the truth.

"Personal responsibility is the key to government accountability.

"What could you--or your husband--say to young people, what could you possibly bring to the table, for those who need to hear a message of honesty and integrity?"

Martin Edwin Andersen
Churchton, Maryland

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | February 6, 2008 12:33 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company