Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Obama Gears Up for Next Round


Bar ack Obama addressing reporters in Chicago. (AP).

By Shailagh Murray
CHICAGO -- Meet Sen. Barack Obama, humble scribe.

"If I were writing this story, what I would say would be Senator Obama came in as a challenger who two weeks ago, I think, nobody thought would come out of February 5 standing," he offered at a press conference near Midway Airport this morning. A little wordy, but he hadn't gotten much sleep, after a long night of delegate math.

"The whole calendar was set up to deliver the knockout blow," he continued, and yet he won more states than Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, and appeared to have won more delegates. "What that means is that we are in a fierce competition and we've got many more rounds to fight."

He said he would agree to at least one more debate with Clinton this month, though he didn't sound enthusiastic. "I don't think anyone's clamoring for more debates," Obama sqid. "We benefit from being on the ground, talking to people directly."

He brushed off Clinton's assertion that she is better tested on the political battleground to withstand Republican general-election attacks.

"The Clinton research operation is about as good as anybody's out there," Obama said of the current opposition. "They've pulled out all the stops. I think what is absolutely true is that whoever the Democratic nominee is, the Republicans will go after them. The notion that somehow Senator Clinton is going to be immune from attack, or that there's not a whole dump truck that they can back up in a matchup between her and John McCain, I think is just not true. All of us are going to have to deal with that."

Although signs now point to a protracted nomination battle, possibly all the way to Denver this summer, Obama said he wasn't ready to ponder a floor fight over unpledged superdelegates -- members of Congress, elected officials and the like, who could end as the brokers of the nomination. "We're going to be able to say, we have more pledged delegates, meaning that the Democratic voters have spoken," Obama said. The superdelegates "would have to think long and hard about how they approach the nomination when the people they claim to represent have said, Obama's our guy."

But he added, "We've still got a month, month and a half of contests. And we've seen how quickly things can change. We've had more twists and turns than we can imagine. It's way too early to think that this is going to be dragging on into the convention."

By Washington Post editors  |  February 6, 2008; 12:30 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: McCain Pleased With 'Breadth' of Win
Next: Evenly Matched Dems Portend a Long Race

Comments

PS. And I am not surprised he has only agreed to one debate. Clinton knows that he needs as much time as possible getting face to face with the voters in their communities between now and the next round of primaries and tying him up with debate committments (3 for goodness sake!) would undermine that. Now she will probably spin it to say he doesn't want to do that because he would come over as weaker. Classic Clinton manouveres - set something up that you know your opponent will not agree to and then spin the lack of full agreement.

Posted by: JayKay2 | February 6, 2008 5:09 PM | Report abuse

Ok - here's the thing. Obama did win in more states, with a higher win margin (only 1 of the states that Hillary won captured more than 60% of the vote for her).

Exit polls from CNN also showed that Obama won the majority of Independent voters across the states that produced exit polls - to be specific, in 73% of the states he topped for Independent votes. More relevantly, he topped for Independent votes in New York, New Jersey, Arizona and California. Clinton only won him out on Independent votes in Alabama, Arkansas & Massachusetts.

Of further note is that in some of the red states where he won, McCain wasn't the winner - he got pretty low support. So this COULD mean those states might come into play in November.

Now let's evaluate what Clinton is touting in winning California, New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts. Are not all of these reliably 'blue' states - or what you would call 'safe' states for any democratic nominee in November, even more so if they are popular with Independents?

And so what if Democratic latinos and working class people were voting more for Clinton? Do you really think these people would switch to Republican if Obama was the nominee? Hardly likely because Obama's policies would be more appealing. Further, it no accident that those who choose who they are going to vote for on the day tend to go for Clinton. Remember that a number of state specific bills tend to be voted on - such as property tax. Clinton would likely win most people who have not paid attention to the primaries because of name recognition. Obama would most certainly get the overwhelming majority of votes that are currently going to Clinton in November, but the same cannot be said for the Independent votes that have clearly favoured Obama.

Added to this, Clinton had stacked the deck in advance of people getting to know Obama, in both California and Florida, on the basis of early postal ballots. How many of those people would have changed their minds later down the track? How many of those that voted for people who have dropped out of the contest would have switched to Obama?

If you removed the early votes, name recongition factor, as well as the false mailers/emails on Obama's pro-choice standing prior to both New Hampshire and (another round) prior to Super Tuesday, what a difference to the pattern you would see.

Posted by: JayKay2 | February 6, 2008 5:06 PM | Report abuse

Who said "the Clinton's"?

Posted by: JakeD | February 6, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

A few thoughts:

1. Obama/VP: Who in his right mind would ever be Hillary's VP? With Bill back in the WH sucking up all the oxygen, the veep would go back to being a eunuch like we used to have, going to funerals and doing crossword puzzles.

2. VP's who have become president in the last 60 years: Truman, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Bush 41 (and, in truth, Gore). If you want to go back a 100 years or so, add TR and Coolidge. Not counting Gore, that's 7 out of 17 -- almost half. Brush up on your history.

3. Hillary's "baggage:" She claims she's been "vetted" and there's nothing left to throw at her (them). Don't believe it. There are 3 million pages of documents from the 1993 health-care fiasco that Bill won't release. Last week's disclosure of the fishy trip with the uranium magnate is only the first such story. She gets the nomination and the floodgates will open: the Clinton library donors list, the Marc Rich pardon, etc., etc.,etc. The Republicans are frothing at the mouth about running against her.

4. One last thing: It's "the Clintons," NOT "the Clinton's."

Posted by: jac13 | February 6, 2008 4:03 PM | Report abuse

norcrossman:

Vice-President Gerald Ford became President on August 9, 1974 (less than 50 years ago), but I get your point. I still think if Obama is willing to accept the VP slot, Clinton has to at least consider him seriously -- just based on the numbers he's pulling in -- I don't see Hillary ever accepting Obama's VP slot though.

Posted by: JakeD | February 6, 2008 3:25 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is an "old school" political leader - just like George W. Bush. For eight years we have heard Bush give his condescending lectures of half-truths and untruths to this nation - scaring many into accepting whatever "the decider" decided.

Now Hillary tells us she has detailed plans - all the answers - on every issue, and in her most impassioned moments she takes on the role of a scolding parent. Certainly change in gender is not as important as a change in leadership style.

America does not need a nanny. We are electing a President. And over the course of this campaign people are gradually recognizing that Obama truly is a special kind of leader. His is a collegial approach.

Obama is comfortable with listening to differing points of view. He then makes a decision - in line with his philosophy, of course. But what a refreshing change!

Also, Obama makes people feel they are a part of the process. His leadership style inspires, while the styles of most other candidates inspire partisan divisions. Let's hope a majority of Americans understand the opportunity for change that is ours and choose Barak Obama.

Posted by: nlersch | February 6, 2008 3:17 PM | Report abuse

The narrative in the press is exactly what Obama wanted. What's important is that today we're not talking about how HRC won NY NJ and California. What we're talking about is the virtual delegate tie and the long battle ahead.

The press have determined this narrative and it helps Obama.

policythought.blogspot.com

Posted by: jamesbedell | February 6, 2008 3:12 PM | Report abuse

Clinton fans: it is hilarious to hear you guys talk about Rezko when Clinton's 8 years of scandals (and no, it wasn't just Monica!) cost you guys Congress in 1994 and the White House in 2000. Never forget: you guys would have even lost in 1996 had Newt Gingrich not shut down the government because Bill Clinton made him ride in the back of Air Force 1 or had the GOP not nominated Bob Dole.

The truth is that both Obama and Clinton had mixed bags yesterday. Both candidates showed real strengths and had good news, both candidates showed real weaknesses and had bad news. Obama for his part has to win more than 40% of the white vote in a heavily populated diverse state. And there is no excuse for Clinton not to have the organization to do better in these caucuses. Hillary has real problem with male voters that would give the alpha male war hero McCain a long look. And Hispanic voters would rather vote for a pro - illegal immigration Republican like McCain than a black male.

By the way folks ... please quit it with the Hillary/Barack ticket nonsense. It isn't going to happen. In the still likely but no longer certain event that Barack loses the nomination, he will return to the Senate to take his shot in 2012 or 2016. Obama wants to be President, and George H.W. Bush was the only V.P. to become President in like 50 years. So taking the V.P. ticket and being second fiddle to a candidate that A) is not certain to win and B) will be passionately hated by almost half the country even if she does win has no upside other than being the answer to a black history month trivia question.

Posted by: norcrossman | February 6, 2008 3:11 PM | Report abuse

Watch this video:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=rkISBsSsacc

SHARE IT!!

OBAMA 2008

Posted by: LAGCII | February 6, 2008 2:59 PM | Report abuse

Once he is the nominee, they will easily swift boat him. This is very clear for the Karl Rove comments. Posted by: j_rhymes | February 6, 2008 02:45 PM

That's right. Karl Rove will single handedly "Swift-Boat" or "Willie Hortonize" Obama. Game over.

But the aging cackler will be immune.

HRC '08 is NOT Bill Clinton '92. She is more open to attack and will be less able to fend them off because (1) she simply has less charisma and (2) such attacks will simply mine a very deep, existing vein of dislike for HRC.

Posted by: mnjam | February 6, 2008 2:55 PM | Report abuse

Obama is clearly the superior candidate.

1. He continues to hold onto his core constituencies (under 44 and affluent, educated 45+)

2. He is eating into HRC's constituencies -- now winning all white men (i.e. gaining ground among blue collar workers and white men over 45).


3. He is more successful in "purple states" --states lost by Kerry by won by either Gore or Bill Clinton, like NM, CO, IA, MO. Clinton won AZ and NE, but failed to run well in the parts of NE that a Democrat has to do well in order to take the state.

4. A candidate whose core strength is women over 45 is unlikely to do well in November. HRC would at best win in a squeaker and have no mandate to push Congress for the kinds of structural reforms required in health care, social security, taxation, energy and for large increases public investment.

Posted by: mnjam | February 6, 2008 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Those naive Democrats voting for HRC don't seem to realize that her nomination would essentially unify the most disparate Republican Party we've had for the last 100 years; behind John McCain.

Many independents supporting Obama, such as myself, will join them, by the thousands. The young, excited for the first time, will stay at home. Idem the blacks.

When the Democratic establishment, and the white women and Hispanics supporting Clinton finally realize this insane blunder, it will be too late. She will have already lost in November.

Cassandra speaking here, but let's hope the Mid-Atlantic and Pacific North-West don't make the same mistakes, New York, California, New Jersey and Mass-a-what-have-you-done just made.

Barack Obama has the broadest appeal of any candidate, as we've just seen (thanks kiku). And he stands the best chance of winning in November, period.

Educated White-Male Independents for Obama. Yes We Can.


Posted by: frankcappiello1 | February 6, 2008 2:51 PM | Report abuse

I doubt that the vast majority of Obama voters are neocons -- I am conservative but registered Independent -- there were many more Democrats on the Obama campaign's web site when I got banned.

Posted by: JakeD | February 6, 2008 2:48 PM | Report abuse

It is obvious the Democrats are voting overwhemingly for Clinton, while the neocons pretending as Democrats are voting for Obama. That is the reason why we see a huge difference in the voting numbers for republicans and Democrats. It is very obvious the neocons want Obama to be the Dem Candidate. Once he is the nominee, they will let loose hell on him and his present votes, whoops votes and his slumlord connection.
If you listen to Obama Partisans like Chris Mathews, Russert, Brian Williams etc. the Republicans want Clinton to be the Dem candidate. If that is the case, why the Right wing talk shows are relentlessly trashing clinton? Their game paln is clear, they want Obama to be the nominee. Once he is the nominee, they will easily swift boat him. This is very clear for the Karl Rove comments

Posted by: j_rhymes | February 6, 2008 2:45 PM | Report abuse

It is obvious the Democrats are voting overwhemingly for Clinton, while the neocons pretending as Democrats are voting for Obama. That is the reason why we see a huge difference in the voting numbers for republicans and Democrats. It is very obvious the neocons want Obama to be the Dem Candidate. Once he is the nominee, they will let loose hell on him and his present votes, whoops votes and his slumlord connection.
If you listen to Obama Partisans like Chris Mathews, Russert, Brian Williams etc. the Republicans want Clinton to be the Dem candidate. If that is the case, why the Right wing talk shows are relentlessly trashing clinton? Their game paln is clear, they want Obama to be the nominee. Once he is the nominee, they will easily swift boat him. This is very clear for the Karl Rove comments

Posted by: j_rhymes | February 6, 2008 2:45 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: NYUBlackman | February 6, 2008 02:12 PM ,

Sorry to tell you this but Obama won super Tuesday w/delegates and states included. Its on over MSNbc (MSN.com), politico, and real clear politic sites. Obama is on his way to the White House!

Posted by: washington29 | February 6, 2008 2:43 PM | Report abuse

It is obvious the Democrats are voting overwhemingly for Clinton, while the neocons pretending as Democrats will are voting for Obama. That is teh reason why we see a huge difference in the voting numbers for republicans and Democrats. It is very obvious the neocons want Obama to be the Dem Candidate. Once he is the nominee, they will let loose hell on him amd his present votes, whoops votes and his slumlord connection.
If you listen to Obama Partisans like Chris Mathews, Russert, Brian Williams etc. the Republicans want Clinton to be the Dem candidate. If that is the case, why the Right wing talk shows are relentlessly trashing clinton. Theeir game paln is clear, they want Obama to be the nominee. Once he is teh nominee, they will easily swift boat him. This is very clear for the Karl Rove comments

Posted by: j_rhymes | February 6, 2008 2:42 PM | Report abuse

It is obvious the Democrats are voting overwhemingly for Clinton, while the neocons pretending as Democrats will are voting for Obama. That is teh reason why we see a huge difference in the voting numbers for republicans and Democrats. It is very obvious the neocons want Obama to be the Dem Candidate. Once he is the nominee, they will let loose hell on him amd his present votes, whoops votes and his slumlord connection.
If you listen to Obama Partisans like Chris Mathews, Russert, Brian Williams etc. the Republicans want Clinton to be the Dem candidate. If that is the case, why the Right wing talk shows are relentlessly trashing clinton. Theeir game paln is clear, they want Obama to be the nominee. Once he is teh nominee, they will easily swift boat him. This is very clear for the Karl Rove comments

Posted by: j_rhymes | February 6, 2008 2:42 PM | Report abuse

BUSH CLINTON BUSH CLINTON BUSH CLINTON BUSH BUSH CLINTON BUSH CLINTON BUSH CLINTON BUSH BUSH CLINTON BUSH CLINTON BUSH CLINTON BUSH BUSH CLINTON BUSH CLINTON BUSH CLINTON BUSH NO....PLEASE NO!
The only thing that will change is the color of the "dress".

Posted by: tjfrmla | February 6, 2008 2:42 PM | Report abuse

alterego1 and maltzen (and zuckerman, if this was your point too):

I was not directly comparing Romney's 51% to Obama's 41% -- my point was that Obama lost Mass. that big despite the huge endorsements -- as for total vote counts, I'm pretty sure that Romney would get more than 511,887 in the general election (even George BUSH got over 1 million in Kerry's home state in 2004 ; )

Posted by: JakeD | February 6, 2008 2:36 PM | Report abuse

HRC's 'victories' in FL and MI are owing strictly to her campaigning when others promised -- and kept their promise -- not to. She reneged, what a surprise.

Posted by: kjones121 | February 6, 2008 2:31 PM | Report abuse

NYUBlackman writes
"Its number of delegates that count. Clinton has won every big state to date (NY, CA, FL, MI) When is eveyone gonna wake up and see that."

Speaking of waking up, its important to note that the Dems distribute delegates proportionally, so Hillary doesn't get all the delegates for NY or CA. In fact, not to burst your bubble, but Obama could very well beat Sen Clinton in the delegate race. Like you say, its about delegates. With the close votes in CA & NY, the delegate wins there are comparable. With Obama's large victories in states like CO, ID, MN, GA and elsewhere, he pulls ahead of Sen Clinton.

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

Clintons are the real disaster, which should not be let back into White House. When are people going to fully wake up to see it, ah, blackman??

Posted by: aepelbaum | February 6, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

While Clinton may have won the most populated states by a popular vote, one should remember that the Democratic party does not award delegates on a "winner take all" basis. Obama is picking up delegates from these states as well as the states where he won the popular vote. For example, in New Mexico, how important is it for Obama or Clinton to win the popular vote by 1%? I would think they might divide up the delegates contrary to their popular vote win, depending on congressional district.

Posted by: mccluney2 | February 6, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

Well I think you have to look at the amount of people who voted in the states Obama won.

Obama won:

75:25 Alaska 500 people voted
67:32 Colorado 120,00 people voted
79:17 Idaho 20,00 people voted
74:26 Kansas 34,00 people voted
67:32 Minnesota 200,000 people voted
61:37 North Dakota 17,000 people voted
57:39 Utah 120,000 pople votes

Those seven states combined don't even match the population of NY or CA or even GA. Further, those numbers will not help democrats beat republicans in those states.

Further, I recall Senator Obama saying that this race was not about who won states but delegates. Hilalry Clearly won the delegates race.

Clinton also won the Popular vote.

Sorry, but people are confusing this OBAMA win in number of states. Its number of delegates that count. Clinton has won every big state to date (NY, CA, FL, MI) When is eveyone gonna wake up and see that.


Posted by: NYUBlackman | February 6, 2008 2:12 PM | Report abuse

JakeD:

Those may be factual statements, but the comparison of percentages is invalid.

Romney picked up 51% of the *republican* primary vote in Massachusetts, or 255,248 votes. Obama picked up 41% of the votes in the *democratic* primary, or 511,887 votes.

Posted by: maltzen | February 6, 2008 2:12 PM | Report abuse

JakeD - MA is not in play for Romney or McCain. The percentage vote that a candidate received from his or her party is not what matters for the general. Instead, look at the numbers.

Obama caputred 41% of the Massachusetts vote with 511,887 votes.

Romney won MA with only 255,248 total votes.

In other words, Obama had twice as many votes in MA as Romney. Massachusetts and the northeast is just not in play for a Republican.

Posted by: alterego1 | February 6, 2008 2:10 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA is the candidate with momentum and will win the general election in a landslide appealing to republicans , independent, and democrats.

Hillary is UNELECTABLE in the general election because Republican's can't wait to turn out and VOTE AGAINST HER!


Obama = Change in how washington operates
Hillary = Change in gender and NO CHANGE IN DC!

Obama rejects all lobbiest money.
Hillary cultivates lobbiest money.

If you are voting for hillary to change gender only, you are a dinasaur and think like a racist.

Posted by: onestring | February 6, 2008 2:08 PM | Report abuse

? for ermias.kifle:

"Finally, Obama ended up been an urban candidate or black candidate. He only wins in the cities; give him DC and MD, because he is black."

How does a purely urban/black candidate score huge double digit wins in Kansas, Utah, Idaho, Colorado, North Dakota, Alaska and Minnesota? Nothing black or urban about these states. Also, HRC clearly did not "win" Super Tuesday. Where's the logic?

Posted by: jasonclark | February 6, 2008 2:08 PM | Report abuse

Trumbull:

There's nothing necessarily wrong with that (see Romney or Bloomberg).

Posted by: JakeD | February 6, 2008 2:04 PM | Report abuse

There are suggestions that the Clintons may be self-financing their campaign in order to counter Obama's large January fundraising lead.
http://jtaplin.wordpress.com/2008/02/06/looking-forward/

Posted by: Trumbull | February 6, 2008 2:01 PM | Report abuse

Those are two FACTUAL statements, zuckermand, I pulled directly off the CNN website Election Results. What's your definition of "nonsense"?

Posted by: JakeD | February 6, 2008 1:56 PM | Report abuse

"Romney got 51% of the votes in Massachusetts, while Obama only got 41%"

Posted by: zukermand | February 6, 2008 1:54 PM | Report abuse

zuckermand:

You will have to be a wee bit more specific, as I have posted quite a lot around here lately.

Posted by: JakeD | February 6, 2008 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: JakeD | February 6, 2008 1:46 PM | Report abuse

That's nonsense, JakeD.

Majorjam, your case breaks down in the etc.'s, I think. Sen Clinton has her own offsetting list of swing states where she has proven superior strength including Florida, Michigan, New Hampshire, Nevada and (by your standard) New Mexico and Missouri. She will also excel in PA, the northwest and Ohio. This is all silly anyway since we're just talking about Dems here and we haven't even run a campaign.

I don't figure in any of this crap anyway. I just want to know what they propose to do. The one I agree with most, I vote for.

Posted by: zukermand | February 6, 2008 1:45 PM | Report abuse

The biggest losers are Ted Kennedy and the Kennedy family, Kerry and the black governor of MA.

Finally, Obama ended up been an urban candidate or black candidate. He only wins in the cities; give him DC and MD, because he is black.
Every media outlets are against her, but she WON!!!!

Posted by: ermias.kifle | February 6, 2008 1:44 PM | Report abuse

JakeD asks
"You don't think that McCain and/or Romney could put California, New York, or Massachusetts in play against Obama?!"

No. Neither McCain nor Romney will put any of those states in play against Obama, or any other Dem.

More interesting is a state like Colorado, which has trended blue lately (thus the Dem choice to convention in Denver). Obama is far more likely to win CO than Sen Clinton would be. Likewise in the south. Obama is far more likely to be competitive in the south than Sen Clinton.

Posted by: bsimon | February 6, 2008 1:43 PM | Report abuse

Our country needs a person of the calibre of Barack Obama, who is not arrogant, who offers a dream and a vision of a hope-filled. brighter and peaceful future, and is so committed to people. He has a fantastic gift of bringing people together no matter what their gender, age, color, religion, ethnic background, academic level of economic status. He inspires all of us and can be an excellent uniter and healer in our divided world. Wish him all the very best.

Posted by: Dawson34 | February 6, 2008 1:42 PM | Report abuse

Majorajam:

We will see (Romney got 51% of the votes in Massachusetts, while Obama only got 41%, with every, single Kennedy in the State behind him ; )

Posted by: JakeD | February 6, 2008 1:33 PM | Report abuse

zukermand: Iowa, Minnesota, Colorado, New Mexico, Wisconsin, etc. etc. etc. Obama has and will run strong there, and all of these are swing states or borderline so.

Posted by: Majorajam | February 6, 2008 1:32 PM | Report abuse

JakeD. Short answer: no. Longer answer: not on a freezing cold day in Hades. Just look at the relative votes in the primary. Those states are not in play by a few million nautical miles, short of some legendary gaffe of unprecedented proportions. However, it would be good for the Republicans to think so, to waste their resources there. I doubt they would however.

Posted by: Majorajam | February 6, 2008 1:29 PM | Report abuse

By the way, I already read this article on Sen Obama's campaign website. What's it doing here with Shailagh Murray's name on it?

Posted by: zukermand | February 6, 2008 1:28 PM | Report abuse

bensonbark, by "do well", do you mean "win"? If so, which ones?

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

""The Clinton research operation is about as good as anybody's out there," Obama said of the current opposition. "They've pulled out all the stops."

While I will support either candidate in the general, it is this willingness of Obama to stoke GOP hit themes that just rubs me the wrong way. I think it is shortsighted and selfish.

Posted by: zukermand | February 6, 2008 1:24 PM | Report abuse

bensonbark:

You don't think that McCain and/or Romney could put California, New York, or Massachusetts in play against Obama?!

Posted by: JakeD | February 6, 2008 1:19 PM | Report abuse

I think one of the most significant things about Senator Obama's wins last night is where he won. If Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee he shouldn't have a problem winning most of the states Senator Clinton won (California, New York, Massachusetts), but the democratic nominee will need to do well in many of the states that Obama won to beat the Republican nominee in November.

Posted by: bensonbark | February 6, 2008 1:14 PM | Report abuse

Obama won the most states 13 to her 8.

Obama won the most delegates: 847 to 834.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8358.html

Obama won the highest percentages:

Two weeks ago, Obama was behind by 14 points, nation wide. This election was tough, with so many states to cover, and we basically held her off!

And look:

New York, she's their Senator.
New Jersey is part of the New York "tri-state" (but she lost Connecticut!)
Arkansas, she was their first lady
Massachusetts, she spent double the money that Obama did
California, Obama focussed on other states, probably a good strategy

We effectively neutralized her states that gave her huge advantages, she won't get that again! That left Arizona, Oklahoma, and Tennessee that Clinton won.

Obama won lots! In his favor, were Illinois and Kansas. He pulled in alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota, and Utah that Obama won!

And, look at the percentages:

Obama:

56:42 Alabama
75:25 Alaska
67:32 Colorado
51:47 Connecticut
53:43 Delaware
67:31 Georgia
79:17 Idaho
65:33 Illinois
74:26 Kansas
67:32 Minnesota
49:48 Missouri
61:37 North Dakota
57:39 Utah


49:48 New Mexico (still counting)

Clinton

51:42 Arizona
69:27 Arkansas
52:42 California
56:41 Massachusetts
54:44 New Jersey
57:40 New York
55:31 Oklahoma
54:41 Tennesee


Obama will win the biggest in November!

Check him out!

http://www.barackobama.com

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

Would have been good for him to get CA, but it was still a solid night. Lots of delegates and some momentum going forward.

http://www.political-buzz.com/


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

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company