Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The Obama Spin on a Sweep

By Shailagh Murray

This just in from Obama campaign manager David Plouffe:

"Tonight's results were a meaningful event in Barack Obama's march to the Democratic nomination.

Based on estimates of returns, Obama more than doubled his current pledged delegate lead. Entering tonight, the lead was 27 pledged delegates, it is now estimated to be a lead of 72. In the four contests today, we estimate we won 103 delegates to Clinton's 58 delegates for a net gain of 45 delegates."

"This net gain of 45 delegates represent more than the 42 delegate net gain Senator Clinton earned in the states of Massachusetts, New Jersey, Tennessee and Arizona- combined.

The pledged delegate total through February 9 now stands at 1,012 for Obama and 940 for Clinton."

Delegate estimates from the Obama camp:

Louisiana Delegate Projection: Obama 32 - Clinton 24

Nebraska Delegate Projection: Obama 16 - Clinton 8

Washington Delegate Projection: Obama 52 - Clinton 26

Virgin Islands Delegate Projection: Obama 3 - Clinton 0

By Post Editor  |  February 9, 2008; 11:55 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Clinton: 'Come Join Me'
Next: Obama: 'We Can Win Virginia on Tuesday'

Comments

Obama is ahead in pledged Delegates because Florida and Michigan have not been counted. Hillary would be ahead in pledged Delegates if they were. Is it fair to claim momentum by excluding this fact? Obama's people claim SuperDelegates should follow them because of his lead in pledged Delegates; but it is a false lead. True, Hillary must win some upcoming big states, but the momentum of Obama is a false one because it excludes Michigan and Florida. And remember, Obama chose not to put his name on the ballot in Michigan.

Posted by: molson | February 12, 2008 12:01 PM | Report abuse

Is Hillary Clinton for "The Citizens" of America? That is the function of the "President", or is it for HER personal gain? Yes, she WILL garnish our paychecks with her Mandatory Healthcare plan. No Freedom of choice.
Just check the 1996 bill submitted to congress by Hillary Clinton and look who saved all America's butts, which includes all our children. Please begin your learning experience here:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/discover-and-imagine-ron-paul/successfully-fought-hillarycare-lite/

Posted by: bfreewithrp | February 11, 2008 10:24 AM | Report abuse

Economics is the most important issue this year and I think Obama is the stronger candidate in this area. Paul Volker the Fed Chairman before Greenspan who has never announced support for a candidate in a primary thought Obama was the stronger candidate. Obama has judgement leadership and superior knowledge in economics. Lobbyists who are an essential part of the Clinton team will not dominate an Obama administration.

I have voted 3rd party before and will do so again if Ms Clinton is the standard bearer. She is no more acceptable than McCain in 2008.

Posted by: Gator-ron | February 11, 2008 12:03 AM | Report abuse

I'm a 36-year-old white female with a net income under $30,000 and I fully support Barack Obama. Please say no to Hillary as VP because she'll only drag him down. She's baggage, whereas he represents a new era.

Posted by: blondiegrrl007 | February 10, 2008 11:36 PM | Report abuse

I have given up. I am a Clinton supporter, but I do know it is hard for her to overcome several things. First, the media. Nothing she does receives positive reporting. Absolutely nothing. Nothing that Obama does receives negative attention. You cannot fight that. Ask Dean. Second, momentum. The public accepts everything the media say. Third, the nature of Democrats. We love to lose!!!! It will happen again. I am going to sit out this election. Clinton is bright, talented, a fighter, but we are going to nominate a relatively inexperienced person because he makes us feel good. The Republicans are going to smash his head in.

Posted by: darrren12000 | February 10, 2008 10:24 PM | Report abuse

The presidential candidates are asking each of us to consider who will make the greatest impact. Will Obama or Clinton be your voice to declare war on your most important issue?

If you do not vote you will deserve any negative result you feel you get. You have no right to complain if you do not participate. Make a difference, give your time or money or both.

True leaders are willing to lead and not wait to follow. Are you willing to be one of them? Do not let super delegates decide.
Motivate your friends and family.
Otherwise you will get what generation O depicts in his Emo Cartoon.
http://mynonprofitwebsite.com/blog/2008/02/07/emo-have-you-sold-out/

http://mynonprofitwebsite.com/blog/2008/02/01/emo-cartoon-holder-2/

Posted by: robertguinto | February 10, 2008 6:50 PM | Report abuse

I'm writing from Canada, and this Democratic race is the most hopeful sign of health in your country that I've seen in years.

First, you have two remarkable Democrats to choose from. People who volunteered not just for one of the most difficult jobs in the world, but for two years of the exhausting and painful public whippings that your presidential campaigns have become.

Second, one of them (Mr. Obama) has a vision, "a dream" if you will, that has awoken what appeared from here to be the dormant, dispirited soul of a war-tired, apathetic, country that was developing a really scary culture of entitlement.

Though all of us in the western world wish for a 4-day work week, 10% raises every year and a 4-6 weeks annual vacation, globalization has made that a fairy tale. Mr. Obama rightly reminds us that we are all part of a larger world, that nothing replaces hard work and commitment, and that being responsible citizens is something to be very proud of.

There are many things that make a great leader. In my view, one of the most important is that he/she can see a better future, can articulate it clearly, and can and does inspire us to the hard work required to achieve it. Barak Obama AND his wife are great leaders.

The only thing more difficult than getting elected President is negotiating the Inferno of the job itself. But I have hope, not because his personal integrity, guts, stamina or intelligence is necessarily any greater than any other candidate (although it does look that way), but for a more important reason. Because he just might be able to convince you, the people, to stop tolerating the partisanship and other abuses of your system and to work hard to find achieve a greatness defined not by dollars or global influence, but by freedom, equality, tolerance, justice, and peace.

The greatest power of the USA is not in your guns, or your economy. It's in the big generous hearts and broad creative minds of you, the people. The leader who can harness that is the one I'd vote for.

...Wish I had a vote. :)

Posted by: t2bf006 | February 10, 2008 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Who needs to spin a win? What?!

Why are we being so nasty? There are few differences between them, in terms of what they want to do in office. They differ greatly in what each feels to be the correct way to accomplish things.

I'm for him. But if Hillary wins the nomination, I'll grit my teeth and vote for her, because she proposes to do the same things, in a different manner.

I hope her supporters, who seem to see us as a schoolbus full of Kumbaya-singing whackos, will grit their teeth and vote for him, if they have to.

Why would you switch parties just to ensure the loss of a candidate who basically wants what yours wants? Come on! Let's get on the same page!

Posted by: joshwager | February 10, 2008 3:16 PM | Report abuse

I would like to add--as a WA state resident and a member of the military--that most of the people that showed up to the caucus already had their mind made to vote for Obama including older white women. The average age in the room was 45--negating the notion of college foot soldiers stated above by somebody.

I also want to comment on the importance of delegates. Different from some beliefs, the states won by Obama are incredibly important to the race in November. Blue states are going to be blue states; it is the purple states and the little states that nobody thinks about that can give the edge needed to win.

Hillary supporters are intimidated by the rise of Obama and for a good reason but please refrain from attributing his success to the "black" community because it has been clearly proven Sen. Obama has unified people all over the Nation; even Idaho--the cradle for the Aryan Nation organization--voted for Obama...that's change we can believe in.

I have lived all over the country and I am old enough to remember the Clinton administration. Although I appreciated the economy, I have my reservations for what happened to trade policy and business oriented regulations. With that said, I am aware that it is Sen. Clinton running and not Pres. Clinton but, is that reality evident to her supporters as well?

A name should not get you elected; the fact that your husband was the president should not get you elected or make you electable. And it certainly does not give you additional experience in foreign policy because as far as I know...the President of the United States from 1992-2000 was Bill Clinton not Hillary Clinton and it is extremely odd to think that top secret briefings in National Security were given to the First Lady...don't you think?

After all, I will support the Democratic candidate nominated because they are both better options than McCain but let us not deviate from reality and let us keep it fair. Last point, speaking of fairness...the superdelegates should adhere to what the American people has chosen. They are there to represent the people not themselves and not special interest thus, I agree with the idea to cast their votes towards the candidate elected by the people.

Posted by: hill_tv | February 10, 2008 2:14 PM | Report abuse

I finally get why the caucuses work for Obama. It have something to do with class as the pundits have been saying, but I think it is something else from my first caucus experience in Washington State.

What happens is the folks who stand for Kucinich, Edwards, Biden, etc can change their vote, when they saw it was hopeless for their choice. Most didn't want Clinton. So tmost stepped over to Obama. Boom. Instead of a partial winner, we get a real winner.

Myself, I am an Independent, never voted Demo or Repub. Go Nader, Go Perot, etc.

This is the first election I don't feel completely dirty choosing a Democrat. I was for Edwards because I thought he had a chance. When he was out, I wasn't going to vote. Well, Obama won me over. Whether Hillery supporters think I am stupid or naive (maybe I am)doesn't matter. My vote still counts.

Posted by: byronv | February 10, 2008 1:37 PM | Report abuse

Obama should run as an independent that would really spin Hillary out of control, he would have a sure chance to become the nominee

Posted by: capskip | February 10, 2008 1:35 PM | Report abuse

A US citizen is named at birth with a middle name which, decades later, turns out to be identical to the last name of a heartless dictator. This proves that the US citizen is a terrorist.
Same US citizen spends his kindergarten year of school in a Middle Eastern school. This makes him a Muslim who cannot be trusted. Right?
It's hard to believe, but there are still Americans who think like this. I'm a teacher. Looks like perhaps we really are doing a lousy job of teaching people to think.

Posted by: pmg2 | February 10, 2008 1:30 PM | Report abuse

"The Obama Spin On..."

Shouldn't that lead the headline of every single Shailagh Murray post?

Posted by: zukermand | February 10, 2008 1:29 PM | Report abuse

Maine is hugely important. Since it's a caucus, Obama has the advantage. If Obama takes Maine, he will get eight straight! Maryland, Virginia, and DC will go Obama by a large margin. Hillary will not have tasted victory of any sort for a month! Politics is MOMENTUM! Obama!

Posted by: gmundenat | February 10, 2008 1:25 PM | Report abuse

The lawyer Hillary chose as her first top adviser and strategist when she first entered New York politics in 1999 was Harold Ickes. (See my comment above.) This article provides some background on Ickes' ties with mob-dominated trade unions, whose bosses sometimes violently silence members who oppose their corruption.

http://thelaborers.net/newspapers/coia_projo_97-10-07.html

Hillary happily swims in cesspools of corruption, and she thinks this shows her tough-minded pragmatism. If blue collar workers want open, honest, and powerful unions, they should know that's the last kind of labor movement Hillary and her cronies want them to have.

Posted by: puma11978 | February 10, 2008 1:16 PM | Report abuse

I get tired of reading that all the blacks are for Obama and all the women are for Clinton. What I get from reading the polls is that the less educated women, white or black, are for Clinton and that the educated males, white or black, are for Obama. It's not so much a race or gender thing as an intelligence thing. I am an independent and cast my first presidential vote for Dick Gregory and Dr. Spock running on the Peace and Freedom ticket. Since that time, I've voted for both Democrats and Republicans, more or less evenly. After the disastrous Bush administration, the only Democrat I wouldn't vote for is Clinton and I think a lot of independents feel the same way. As much as I admire John McCain, I couldn't vote for a Rebublican after George Bush (as H.L. Mencken said about voting in general, "I never vote; it just encourages the bastards.") But as much as I would like to vote for a Democrat, I couldn't vote for a second Clinton even one marginally less smarmy than her spouse.

Posted by: cdriver11 | February 10, 2008 1:14 PM | Report abuse

After 220 years and no Woman ever President, a 55% majority of population, Instead we want Barry Soetoro a 12% minority for President?

Open Your Eyes! Why are the Pro-Republican Media & Pundits ONLY ATTACKING Mrs CLINTON, and Silent on Obama? They Know they Can Beat Barak Hussain, but not Hillary Rodman- She "Is Vetted" by 5 Year Investigations by Ken Starr & Republican Power Base - With NO RESULTS!

Their Obama Nomination Strategy allows "Swiftboating Barak Hussein", they know there is a lot to Dig Up to Slime and Win! The Republican Slime Machine has quietly started... even before his Nomination!Republican groups are funding Obama thru internet contributions..... they want a "Beatable Candidate"!

"Barack Hussein Obama is an African-American who has not shared the black American experience and was, by birth and blood, a Muslim for at least 27 years. His politics are rooted in Marx and socialism. He is a master at shaping his own mythology and completely unqualified to be Commander in Chief." www.freedomsenemies.com/_more/obama.htm

It "IS All About Experience and ability to Fight" To REPAIR 8-year Republican "taxbreaks for rich" Mal-Administration, rampant Federal Law violations, and 235 Documented War of Choice Lies, a bankrupt Economy.... So Republicans do Not want Mrs Clinton to get Nomination because She can Repair 8 Years, including the Economy.

Obama won caucuses in "Red States" where Independents & Conservatives gave him 55% - 60% VOTE Wins, and will Be won anyway, by Republicans in the General November Election.

Posted by: rmcnicoll | February 10, 2008 1:08 PM | Report abuse

My state of Washington is solid and reliable blue. I went to my caucus yesterday and I think at 30 I was the youngest there. No throngs of college volunteers (but so what if there had been?). The attendance was mostly white. Vote was something around 68 to 22, Obama over Clinton.

This was not an issue of race, or an issue of a sparsely populated red state.

Clinton is a respectable candidate. But if she is the nominee it will continue to be the same old 50 percent plus 1 vote game in our federal government. The election will be close (though I think she would win). And all the legislation she would want to push would be a fight to the death. It will continue the bitter rivalry and party divide. Republicans will do everything they can to make her ineffective.

I know to the core that Obama would win the election in a *landslide*. Against that kind of mandate, the Republicans would have no choice but to cooperate and embrace the unity that he offers.

Obama and Clinton have similar goals, but Obama has a much better chance of turning those goals into reality. And this was the consensus at our caucus. It is time for us to offer one voice for hope and change and action.

Posted by: logansinbox | February 10, 2008 1:07 PM | Report abuse

By the way, I just saw an interview on CNN with Wolf Blizter and Colin Powell, in which Powell all but endorsed Obama! He praised Obama up one end and down another, refused to endorse McCain, said he was quite willing to vote across party lines, and said he was looking for a candidate who would bring the kind of vision America needs and restore the world's faith in America. He said the thing he was looking at most was what the party behind the candidate of his choice would look like, how it would pull together, and to what end. What a powerful powerful offer to the Democrat party. I am more convinced than ever that if the Democrat party wakes up and understands that the era of bipartisanship is over, if the superdelegates get off the fence and over to Obama, we will see a landslide victory for Obama, for America, and for the world in November.

Posted by: katharinestavrinou | February 10, 2008 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Barack Obama won huge in Idaho which has an AA population of what, less than 10 percent? So what is it, is Idaho populated only by males? Start to see it as it is- Barack Obama is winning across the board.

Posted by: katharinestavrinou | February 10, 2008 12:59 PM | Report abuse

Let us be realistic, please. Obama wins Alaska with 300 votes to Hillary's 120 votes and wants to spin that as the win of a state equal to Hillary's win of a state, say like California.
Please!
Obama is following the Republican electoral map strategy of winning where the people aren't so as to "balance" wins by Hillary where the people are.

Obama does this in Caucus states say like Washington, or North Dakota. In all of the Midwestern caucus states, look at the vote totals, 20,000 or 30,000 votes. It is quite easy for anyone who is working that strategy to get a big light blue (Obama) blob on the MSNBC Map and then have the boys get all worked up about the graphic on the map, while the little New Jersey or Massachusetts in Dark Blue (Hillary)looks graphically insignificant by comparison. But by the numbers, that is the people, her wins in the big blue states have matched his efforts in these otherwise red states.

And here is a news flash about Louisiana. Obama won with 88% of the Black vote. Here in the South, we are deeply into identity politics. This has been true across the South. However, in a Red State like Alabama, where Obama won 80% of the Black vote, Blacks comprise only 26% of the total population. Obama by making an overt appeal to Black voters to vote for someone who "looks like them" has turned off the White Democratic voters. Those voters go to Clinton, though not in 80% droves, but she wins them with 52-55% of that vote.

When it comes to electability, do not think that Democratic primary wins in Utah will mean that states like Utah or Idaho or Alaska will be in the Democratic column in November. They will not, trust me.

But California had better be, New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Michigan and Florida had better be, at the very least. In head to head contests in those Must Win states, it is Hillary that is pulling out the wins and by substantial margins too.

So as we go down the stretch in this thing, it assumes too much to say that Obama can win anywhere that Hillary wins, and that Hillary can't win where Obama wins.

Obama, by executing a campaign against Clinton that Carl Rove would approve is alienating a lot of moderate voters, and a lot of the Democratic base that has a genuine appreciation for Hillary and Bill and all that they did for the county in the 90's which was not work particularized to the 90's.

Obama's mocking "Building a Bridge to the 21st Century" theme of Clinton is particularly irkingly Republican.

Obama's health care program that allows for voluntary participation of the poorest among us rather than manditory participation is a Republican idea.

Just think if Social Security were voluntary. Sure, the cost is cheap, but Obama basically does not understand what it is like to live from paycheck to paycheck. If given a choice of saving a bit for the future or eating, the choice is easy. You eat. Its called a payroll deduction. We have lived with a FICA deduction from our paychecks for quite some time. And as Obama mocks the collection efforts if the payment is not made, do you know what the penalty is for not remitting FICA taxes. Its a 100% penalty. Does Obama advocate doing away with this penalty and with the mandatory nature of remission of Trust Fund Taxes?

What Hillary is talking about is a similary payroll deduction with a similary enforcement mechanism to fund the employees contribution to healthcare so that it can be universal and therefore affordable to all.

Republican attempts to make Social Security voluntary, kills Social Security. Obama's program to make universal health care voluntary for the poorest among us will leave them all out and cripple the attempt at universal coverage. His statement that they don't have insurance not because they don't want it but because they can't afford it is a fraud of an argument, much as Mr. Obama's campaign has become. You can never get voluntary compliance to spend money on future needs from people who have immediate needs, all of which are not even met by their income.

Obama had a similary compromised result regarding compulsory compliance with his nuclear waste legislation where he retreated to a position of voluntary compliance. This is the same regulatory philosophy of George Bush. Take the teeth out of the regulations, let the decision to comply or not rest with the corporate polluters, not with the Regulatory Agencies and the Courts, and then the polluters get happy with regulations, the kind where they control compliance.

So please Washington Post et al, before you lead a media charge to the nomination of this guy, at least give an honest look at what he is doing, how he is doing it and what he really stands for. Is it really change?

Posted by: pkmc83a | February 10, 2008 12:38 PM | Report abuse

B2O2,

Obama 2008! So Say We All!

Posted by: troublesleeping | February 10, 2008 12:21 PM | Report abuse

Barack Obama would never have come this far had it not
been for the press continuously molly coddling him.
What do you make of Peggy Noonan (former Reagan
Speechwriter and Bush II election strategists) writing
eulogies in op-ed articles to Obama? This election has
been a highly disillusioning process. We've had the
press push their views on us instead of information.
You see a woman being pilloried and castigated for
being a former president's wife. You folks should
watch Laura Bush's interview with Charlie Rose last
Friday night, you will see what her eight years in the
White House taught her vs. what Hillary Clinton's
impact was after eight years in the White House. Laura
Bush came off as a national embarrassment, so yes, in
that respect, Hillary Clinton does have international
savoir faire that Obama is still cutting his teeth on.
Come on folks, throw him the same punches as you do
her, just because he's black don't save those from
him, he'd feel insulted if you do.. He may be many
things, but he's not, from what we get to see, unaware
of the reason for the kid glove treatment the media
gives him. It's so much safer to bash Clinton than to
point out holes in his story. If Obama were a white
guy standing for election, he would have been
eviscerated in the first two months of running, there
is nothing remarkable about him outside of his
complexion. I feel bad that that's the case, I think
it's a terrible way to treat someone just because they
are black, it's insulting to black people that Obama
should get prima donna status for the wrong reasons.
Most of my intellectual black friends see through this
and are deeply dismayed.

Posted by: msseelam | February 10, 2008 12:19 PM | Report abuse

What a smart and relatively civil thread! Awesome, guys. Makes me feel good about the way discourse might be turning (with the exception of blueboat who terrifies me). Adwei-- send that on to DNP. Post it on websites-- send it to the "contact" section of the candidates' websites! That is genius.

Posted by: ifnotwinter | February 10, 2008 12:18 PM | Report abuse

BRILLIANT idea from adwei near the top! I hope the DNC is paying attention.

It is also a foolproof way for superdelegates to avoid political retribution, particularly those who are uncomfortable with the whole idea of superdelegates (totally different than legislative voting, where indeed they should vote their consciences). Given that we have two outstanding candidates, neither of whom needs to be vetoed by a superdelegate safey net, this is an unbelievable perversion of democracy, and adwei's solution is the only one I've seen that negates it.

Posted by: alkitwain | February 10, 2008 12:16 PM | Report abuse

I hope Obama becomes president and the world starts respecting the USA again.

Posted by: Agnostic | February 10, 2008 12:10 PM | Report abuse

Clinton supporters keep pointing Obama did not win the big DP states like NY and CA. Of course, that was expected and it was OK with the Obama camp, hell Clinton is one of us! He won IL as expected as well. Obama gets the upper hand only because he is competitive among the independents and some republicans. Surely, DP party should be proud to bag in Ms Eisenhower's vote in Nov and create a working majority. FYI Obama stressed at the JJ dinner last night DP is united going to Nov. Obama has the better shot in getting independents and harnessing the young people to join the DP for long term strength. Clinton is a great fighter, she will be pivotal in the success of the transformation of this country in the coming years as a senate majority leader. Yes we ALL can!

Posted by: FebM | February 10, 2008 12:08 PM | Report abuse

No need to spin that. He swept!
If the super delegates override the popular vote, the Democratic party will have commited suicide.

Posted by: dslowik | February 10, 2008 11:56 AM | Report abuse

There's a lot to admire about Hillary -- her grace under pressure during Bill's constant sex scandals was astonishing; she raised a really cool daughter; her concern for the tornado victims sounded real while Obama's sounded like a bad xerox copy of her earlier remarks on Super Tuesday. But her tolerance for the ugliest kind of politics is intolerable.
Here's a story you won't see anywhere in the media. A buddy of mine is a long-time union carpenter, and in the course of digging into his union's corruption, he came across a murder or two that seemed to be ordered, or even committed, by union officials. He got a call from the union's lawyer, warning him to back off and shut up. Guess which politically-connected Long Island lawyer Hillary chose as her top adviser and strategist when she was first entering New York politics? Same guy! Does Hillary defend the right of corrupt union bosses to murder dissident members who demand honest, open, fair union elections? I say yes, she does, indirectly -- by snuggling up with the kind of scum who do exactly that, she shows which side she's really on. The Clintons care about their blue collar supporters exactly as much as they cared about their Black supporters.
(I wish I had space for footnotes documenting these murders, but some determined Googling, and visits to the 1950-1995 archives of the Times and Newsday, will bring up some of the relevant stories.)

Posted by: puma11978 | February 10, 2008 11:56 AM | Report abuse

p.lampkin,

When two states (big ones at that) have no say in who wins the nominee I think it's fair to say we already have big, big problems with our democracy already. The superdelegates wouldn't be an issue if these two states primaries had been counted. I'll be honest, if Hillary doesn't win I'll feel like she got cheated but will still vote for Obama because to me it's the issues that matter most. I would hope that most Obama supporters will do the same. The issues at stake are just to important.

Posted by: chriszick | February 10, 2008 11:51 AM | Report abuse

We can remember back to Nevada when the rules on where the caucuses were to be held was challenged. The rules benefited Obama and no change was made.

Now we have the rules governing super delegates. Obama believes that he may lose the nomination on the basis of super delegates. He is now talking in that direction in terms of using only pledge delegates to decide the winner.

He is the same old tired politican that we are used to hearing but in a brand new wraper.It's interesting that people automatically assume that Edwards will endorse Obama. Edwards made a point of making his campaign about the poor. Well, Obama's message seems to resonate (don't you just like that word) with the affluent Democrats and not blue collar working Democrats. The wealth Democrats have health coverage and they are not interested in Clinton's health care plan that would cover everyone.

We see the pettiness in Obama - the snub at the state of the union message and later the denial.

He has low negatives becuse the media has limited Clinton's ability to criticize Obama. Not so with the Republicans who will remind us daily about his lack of experience, leadership, absent voting record and prolific use of drugs. Do you like the word resonate now!

Posted by: FredCDobbs | February 10, 2008 11:48 AM | Report abuse

"Hillary is pulling her punches."

Just like she did when the Iraq war and the Patriot Act legislation were debated? Is that what we could expect more of from a Hillary presidency? If she has something on Obama other than petty Jesee Jackson comparisons, she should dish it. If her campaign truly beleives that McCain would defeat Obama, and she truly beleives that McCain would be harmful to America, then doesn't she have an obligation to not pull any punches??

Of course, all of this presumes that anything coming from the Clintons could be called 'believable'.

Posted by: ojordan3 | February 10, 2008 11:48 AM | Report abuse

Someone wrote, "Obama wins in caucus states where college aged volunteer foot soldiers can rule the day, ..."

That statement is an insightful comment. The youthful voters are helping Barack Hussein Obama significantly.

Now, look at hard, cold facts. 75% of adults between 18 and 24 (inclusively) years of age do not know that most people in Indonesia are Muslim. (Visit news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/0502_060502_geography.html for other shocking information about the utter stupidity of young adults.) The ignorance of young adults is disturbing.

Yet, Barack Hussein Obama and his supporters claim that the youthful voters are smart and that they can correctly pick the "best candidate". Obama certainly attracts the youth vote.

If a person is a dummy, he bases his decisions on emotion. He is drawn to the inspirational speeches -- of Barack Hussein Obama.

Posted by: blueboat | February 10, 2008 11:40 AM | Report abuse

I agree completely with all of the readers who have asked, rhetorically: "Why is a brokered convention so bad?"

That is EXACTLY the way the process is intended to work. Pledged delegates should control the first ballot. If no candidate is chosen after the first ballot, then everyone is released to find an acceptable candidate.

In my opinion, Al Gore is by far the best Democratic presidential candidate, and a Gore-Obama ticket is the best ticket. At a brokered convention, Obama can say to Gore: "I'll give you all of my delegates, if you will make me your VP running mate."

And we Democrats will all live happily ever after.

Posted by: ripcord1965 | February 10, 2008 11:29 AM | Report abuse

In my opinion, if Obama keeps up the MOmentum he has going, he just may get Texas and Pennsylvania, too. If so, Hillary should bow out gracefully right away. Why? If Obama gets these two states, then her prospects of getting the nomination go downhill quickly. She will be smeared, I think. And, while nobody except John McCain is talking about it now, National Defense is going to be the #1 item on the voters minds....not universal health care. I think if Obama gets the nomination, John McCain would be wise to choose Condoneeza Rice as his running mate. She knows the world leaders like no one else.

Posted by: ArmyVet | February 10, 2008 11:27 AM | Report abuse

I am sick to DEATH of Republicans, AND Republican lite [ Bill and Hillary Clinton]. Bill gave away the store, literally, with NAFTA, ad nauseum. Bill was never my choice[Tom Harkin was my pick], but The Democratic Leadership Council held sway in 1992. Talk about a Republican 5th Column within the Democratic party. Disgusting! I'm not sure Obama isn't Dem Lite too, but at least I KNOW the Clintons will be handing out more goodies to the Corporatacracy if they get back in office. I'm afraid Hillary won't have the courage of her convictions, not because of her femininity, but do to Bill and the other corporate shills in the Clinton hierarchy triangulating and pandering to anyone with money.

Posted by: hapibeli | February 10, 2008 11:25 AM | Report abuse

This is not about white nor black voters. Obama won white states by a substantial margin. You have to keep in mind that Bill Clinton is well known by a lot of african americans. Many African Americans i have spoken to at work and during my time off aren't afraid to support Hillary Clinton. I do believe they weren't making a decision on race alone in Louisiana; they saw in Obama someone who can help rebuild their broken state, and deliver some change in these big corporations who are making filthy money at the expense of people.

Posted by: WIKKIDINSANE | February 10, 2008 11:22 AM | Report abuse

I have noticed an increase in the number of emails in my mailbox railing the false rumor that Obama is a Muslim, or he doesnt recite the Pledge of Allegiance, etc. All these rumors are so easily debunked by Googling...urban legends, then putting in Obama is a Muslim, or...CNN debunks Obama is a Muslim. I cannot understand why people just forward such stupidity. Just take a minute to do a Google, then shut up. I guess some people are getting real desperate to force feed the ignorant any Kool Aid they will drink.

Posted by: drivensnow2525 | February 10, 2008 11:19 AM | Report abuse

What kind of headline is this? How is it that Obama has to "spin" a sweep? He swept! He won! By a lot! And the focal point of the Post and the other pro-Hillary outlets? He won in Louisiana because lots of black people live there! Umm...Nebraska (cough), Kansas (cough), North Dakota (cough), etc. etc.

There are lots of Obama supporters I know who will NOT support Hillary if she wins. Why choose another boring Gore/Kerry clone when we have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to really change the game?

If the democrats choose to nominate Hillary, we deserve what we get. Enough of this garbage--I'll stay home.

Posted by: shabistari | February 10, 2008 11:17 AM | Report abuse

Harried --

This is America. We don't do "logic" Yesterday demonstrated that.

Wake up America!!!

OBAMA = NO HEALTH INSURANCE FOR THE POOR!!!

IS THAT REALLY WHAT DEMOCRATS STAND FOR???

Posted by: svreader | February 10, 2008 11:05 AM | Report abuse

chriszick,

Obama has no say on the negated contests in Michigan and Florida. All he is doing is winning the most delegates in the most states that are NOT negated. He will have the most delegates won in heads up races.

BUT Hilary will be handed the nomination by the DNC. If this happens there is no democracy in America. If this happens we are no better than Bush re Florida in 2000.

Posted by: ppl1158 | February 10, 2008 11:04 AM | Report abuse

So, according to Mukaseyan logic, the Justice Department cannot investigate those who may have committed torture, because the Justice Department said it was O.K. and Justice cannot be expected to investigate itself.

Posted by: harried | February 10, 2008 11:02 AM | Report abuse

Hillary is pulling her punches.

McCain won't.

If we nominate Obama, the'll be only one question on the ballot:

"Should I vote for the war-hero or the cocaine-addict?"

Posted by: svreader | February 10, 2008 11:00 AM | Report abuse

I don't know if the media is giving candidates like Clinton & Huckabee a fair game. They are pushing Obama no matter what and assuming McCain is the sole republican running. Overall I do enjoy the WP editorials.
Also, check out the articles "Red States' and 'Latino States" http://savagepolitics.com/?p=78 and "The Numbers Game" http://savagepolitics.com/?p=84 on www.savagepolitics.com. It offers a refreshing/brilliant analysis on voters, what the polls really mean, etc... I haven't seen this type of analysis in a long time. It was about time someone unbiased analyzed the current presidential race!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: elsylee28 | February 10, 2008 10:59 AM | Report abuse


Posted by: intcamd | February 10, 2008 12:54 AM

In Louisiana, he got 90% of black vote and 30% of white vote? Very unifyig, as he says.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
According to figures from 2004 John Kerry got the Black vote overwhelmingly, 84%.

So what is your point?

Obama is getting many dissatified crossover votes in the red states. The color is bleeding blue. LOL

Posted by: AverageJane | February 10, 2008 10:55 AM | Report abuse

I have a different proposal. Let's get a petition removing the votes from any of the "Super (sic) Delegates" in Congress who voted FOR giving George W. Bush the authority to start a pre-emptive war that violated international law. They've clearly and publicly demonstrated their cowardice and complete lack of leadership, and have no right to decide who our dog catchers will be, let alone presidents.

What say you all?

Posted by: B2O2 | February 10, 2008 10:41 AM | Report abuse

In a race where two big states have had their results negated, can Obama make a strong arguement that super delegates need to feel obligated to pick him if he edges out Hillary? I don't think so.

Posted by: chriszick | February 10, 2008 10:37 AM | Report abuse

With Obama's Saturday sweep, are the Democrats headed for their own version of Bush-Gore 2000 in which the candidate with the most popular votes ends up losing?

If the trend continues, as it may very well do, Hillary Clinton could lose in the popular voting but win the Democratic nomination as a result of what 796 Super Delegates decide, just as George W. Bush moved into the White House in 2001 based on what nine members of the Supreme Court ruled.

That could lead to a contentious convention like the one in 1968 that tore the Democratic Party apart and resulted in the election of Richard Nixon by less than one percent of the vote.

http://ajliebling.blogspot.com/2008/02/democratic-trainwreck-scenario.html

Posted by: connectdots | February 10, 2008 10:31 AM | Report abuse

p.lampkin-

MAN, I hope your wrong, but I see where you are coming from.

That eventuality WOULD be a nightmare!

What a let down THAT would be.

Anyway, I've still got plenty of cynicism left in the tank to fall back on!

Posted by: LeftwithNochoice | February 10, 2008 10:28 AM | Report abuse

Obama may win the popular vote and win the most delegates in primaries and caucuses, but Hilary will be the nominee. In the end, this nomination will be decided by the Superdelegates, many of whom are longtime party flacks. Party flacks don't want change.

This is a nightmare!

Posted by: ppl1158 | February 10, 2008 10:23 AM | Report abuse

Well, it is important to remain focused. EACH of us HAS to vote for this to happen.

We cannot wait for someone else to do it.

We have to wait in line and do it. It's the only way.

By downplaying the results, Obama is keeping the pressure on his supporters... Take nothing for granted.

Again, the guy is smart. He knows complacency is what got us into this mess.

Posted by: LeftwithNochoice | February 10, 2008 10:22 AM | Report abuse

In every American generation there comes a call to duty. It is now our duty to stand up and demand real change in Washington. Change that comes from new ideas and new vision not that of a Clinton/Bush dynasty. We must demand an equal domestic and foreign agenda for all Americans left behind. We must demand fair trade that puts Americans back to work and does not reward the shipping of our jobs overseas.
Barack Obama needs your support but no more than America needs Barack.
Yes we can!
To see where we have been and where we can go check out this video at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJjSGXUb1x4

Posted by: rory07 | February 10, 2008 10:19 AM | Report abuse

If this is spin, it is the most understated spin one could expect after a resounding three-state sweep.

Ploufe wisely underplays the results--which gives them more power.

Clinton must now adopt the "wait and see" approach for Ohio and Texas that worked so poorly for Guiliani with Florida.

In the meantime, the Obama momentum will build and will be hard to stop.

If you can't make it to an Obama rally, here is the entire Obama rally setlist--from "City of Blinding Lights" to which he takes the stage to "Signed,
Sealed, Delivered" on Itunes:

http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewIMix?id=273867065&s=143441&v0=575

Posted by: caraprado1 | February 10, 2008 10:11 AM | Report abuse

AND ANOTHER THING...

I can relate to Obama. He just paid off his college loans, so he's some years ahead of me.

He moved around as a kid, as did I. That really develops a more open mind and a sense of community with those of different backgrounds.

He went from Harvard law to community activism...Now, who wouldn't have gone for the money? He could have gotten in on the ground floor with Google through his old Harvard buddy Drummond. That's admirable.

He grew up black. I, though white, grew up all along the east coast, but almost always in black neighborhoods. That gives you a different perspective on "our" quality of life... from potholes, to dysfunctional traffic lights and intersections, to poor transit systems, to lack of health care, to terrible schools, to over-aggressive police forces, to a broken justice system, to a lack of fathers... things Hillary has only read about.

The proof is abundantly in the pudding: Hillary can talk a good game, Barack knows it. Feels it.

Posted by: LeftwithNochoice | February 10, 2008 10:07 AM | Report abuse

Support Obama for President the first 8 years and Hillary for President the next 8 years Spin the 16 year deal after all McCain is 72 and she will be close to that age range in 9 years.

Obama is for all the people just look at the facts/faces in his 20 state win. Stop polarizing and categorizing Americans.

Keep Florida (chads) out, they made their choice knowing what the consequencious would bring.

Posted by: smpteam | February 10, 2008 10:06 AM | Report abuse

It's not just the money advantage for OBAMA it is the Real People who are coming out to vote for him, some who have never voted before, others who have never donated before, BARACK OBAMA has the true momentum not Hilary.

America wants to rid itself of the past, I HOPE the Grand of the Party acknowledge the peoples wishes and do not go with the dynasty if it goes so far.

It is up to Voters to get out and back OBAMA only he can beat McCain.

Posted by: jaybs1 | February 10, 2008 9:57 AM | Report abuse

Of course, there are racial / gender preferences, but I'm a white male, in CA, 36 years old, and I voted for Obama.

Not because he is black, but because he is more trustworthy, less cynical, more positive, and inspirational.

Cynically, however, I could reason that 'red' states will never vote for a black man. Or, that 'red' states hate Hillary so much, they will never vote for her either.

But, because of Obama's message, I have, at least temporarily, laid my cynicism, my fear, and my defeatist attitude down... in order to reach for something better.

Call me crazy.

Posted by: LeftwithNochoice | February 10, 2008 9:48 AM | Report abuse

We shall see about the Maine caucuses. The weather up here is going to be crap today.

Posted by: kparrparr | February 10, 2008 9:34 AM | Report abuse

If you think that having health insurance through your job means you won't have to pay Hilary's mandatory health insurance premiums - think again! According to a September 18 Associated Press article, Clinton said in an interview with the AP: "... she could envision a day when 'you have to show proof to your employer that you're insured as a part of the job interview -- like when your kid goes to school and has to show proof of vaccination,' but said such details would be worked out through negotiations with Congress."

Go Obama!

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20070918-0856-clinton-apinterview.html

Posted by: bluefusion | February 10, 2008 9:30 AM | Report abuse

I keep hearing people say Obama biggest supporters are "Blacks", then how did he is winning in states where there are no "Blacks".

That's just people trying to make "whites" choose Hillary or McCain simply based on the false notion of "race".

Wait until you meet GOD, Then you will know your "race".

Come Together for America. This is about the future of the country.

YES WE CAN fix it.

Posted by: OneFreeMan | February 10, 2008 9:28 AM | Report abuse

February 10th, 2008 8:49 amThe Clinton Machine continues their disingenuous spin that the states Obama has won don't matter, after-all, she won the bluest of blue NY & CA. But after getting buried yesterday by huge margins in completely diverse parts of the country, their desperate and increasingly pathetic argument rings hollow. By every metric the momentum building behind Barack is becoming a tidal wave, a virtual tsunami cascading across the country. It is creating massive turnouts at his rallies and more importantly, at the polls. Donations are flooding into his campaign by hundreds of thousand individuals, many of whom have never engaged in the political process. Meanwhile, the Clintons write $5 million checks to themselves.

The incredible, uplifting enthusiasm exuded by Barack Obama's supporters is unprecedented in the history of American politics. We can envision the end of twenty years of Bush/Clinton polarizing warfare and the beginning of a united, optimistic America. It is no wonder that McCain and his listless, dispirited followers witness the Obama phenomena in awe and can only pray for a Clinton match-up.
-- Robert Luciano, Atlanta, GA

Posted by: ccoblas | February 10, 2008 9:25 AM | Report abuse

The Clinton folks can take comfort in the fact that they should win the Maine caucus today preventing a what would otherwise be a week long wipe out.

Posted by: nysteveo2 | February 10, 2008 9:23 AM | Report abuse

We keep hearing that it isn't Obama's time or turn. I think the elecrorate is increasingly saying it isn't Clinton's time. 20 years of Bush & Clintons has created some clear voter fatigue. Just as Jeb B. wasn't going to be nominated, maybe Clinton needs to sit out for 6 years and build a stronger Senetorial resume, or serve as a Governor. Then people will think Hillary when they hear Clinton, and not think Bill. Just a rambling notion....

Posted by: mythbusters | February 10, 2008 9:23 AM | Report abuse

A campaign like this is a test of character, leadership, strategic thinking and decision-making. No knock on Clinton's character, but so far, Barack is schooling her in the other areas. How can they spin, "well, he spent more money." That's like saying, "well, the Giants sacked Tom Brady a lot."

For all the raves about Hillary's experience and Barack's supposed lack thereof, she keeps falling into traps of her own making, and Barack has not put a foot wrong. I expect the pattern to continue.

Posted by: kparrparr | February 10, 2008 9:22 AM | Report abuse

Technically.....following the rules.....none of Obama's caucus delegates are "pledged" or certified until a vote is taken at the state conventions later this year.

Only primary votes are actually "pledged" by DNC rules.

Posted by: auntmo9990 | February 10, 2008 9:20 AM | Report abuse

If this is Obama's spin. It's mine, too. That's because it's actually not spin. Obama is the better candidate, pure and simple. Let's win that nomination and work together to take that White House!!!!!

Posted by: mrhamham | February 10, 2008 8:54 AM | Report abuse

doctorbird, did you think about what you wrote before hitting submit?

You said: "How can Mrs. Clinton manage the finances of this large economy if she's proven it difficult to manage the finances of her own campaign?" She has problems financing her campaign, not managing its funds. That has nothing to do with a President's task,i.e. managing the practically unlimited funds available to the government.

Posted by: lnguyen | February 10, 2008 8:40 AM | Report abuse

Why can't we see the "vote" counts and not just percentages? I can't seem find them anywhere.

Posted by: mtravali | February 10, 2008 8:01 AM | Report abuse

Steven4,
Hillary Clinton is an amazing candidate: amazingly bad. You can keep your 16 year plan and retire with it. Hillary Clinton has done everything imaginable to be disqualified from the possibility of holding high office or representing the Democratic Party. Her prime spokesperson, co-president, is a self-confessed practitioner of perjury. This divisive sabotage of the Democratic Party by The Clintons has gone on long enough and it is heartening to see voters from coast to coast putting their collective foot down. Your attempts to insinuate some kind of parity or equivalence between Hillary and anyone else is insulting to the non-Clintons in politics. I am waiting for all those super-delegates to peel away, one by one, to leave The Clintons alone, at last, to consider their actions with some sobriety. They carry a heavy burden. You go, girl, indeed!
Obama is also an amazing candidate: amazingly good. Yet he needs to add a little bit of verbal detail specifying exactly what kinds of sacrifices lie before the public. It's not enough to bury the essential aspects of his plan for moving forward in position papers that receive little attention on the stump, where everything is overshadowed by a motivational lecture to get out the vote. Whatever Obama's shortcomings, he has not betrayed the public yet, and, who knows, maybe he is for real. He has been steady in the face of adversity; he has hewn to the high road; he has not gone into the wallows when The Clintons started mucking about. He has continued on his hopeful campaign despite all the clouds the rainmakers sought to drum up. That's already more the kind of leadership that is needed, rather than someone leading the public towards more racism, divisiveness, distortions, swift-boating, and dirty-tricks.
Hillary's greatest appeal to voters, that she continues to spout, is that she knows how to be a real dirty player, loves the mud and slime and is Ready on Day Zero to get down to wrestle with Carl Rove. I say let her; if that's her thing. Meanwhile, let's elect Senator Obama in 2008.

Posted by: rarignac | February 10, 2008 7:36 AM | Report abuse

Hillary needs to win Maine or she has real trouble.

OH and PA are in play. If Obama sweeps this month, he will win or very narrowly lose there.

Time to prepare for John McCain:

McCain will frame the election as being about national security.

Obama or Hillary will win if he frames the election as a choice between Cold War and Hot War.

Cold War plays to our strengths. To date, Bush has totally failed at Cold War. It requires informing the enemy that they, and all they know and care about, will be totally obliterated if they nuke us.

As with the Soviet Republics, Muslim nations from Marrocco to Indonesia need to know that a Muslim nuke against the US will turn them all to glass.

If we weren't afraid of thousands of Soviet missiles, why are we afraid of a few Muslim ones? Because Bush hasn't responded the way every president from Kennedy to Bush the father did!

It cost our country billions to learn how to run Cold War. And the idiot NeoCons are too dumb to see how it worked. All the Soviets junked that system...with no intervention by us.

Either the Dems grab the mantle of Cold War, and compare it to Iraqian/Vietnamese Hot War (a laughable comparison) ... or they lose in November.

John McCain has run so far out on the plank of Hot War that he has left himself very vulnerable to humiliation when tough Dems show him how we beat the Soviets.

Dems -- be willing to announce the response plan to nuke the Muslims from Marocco to Indonesia if we get nuked, or prepare to lose.

(Yes, that would kill many innocent Muslims. And that's just the point. That's what will hold the tyrants and terrorists in check. They're mad. But they're not that mad. e.g. It wasn't Osama flying into the Twin Towers!!

We need to remember that in the Cold War, if we'd nuked the Soviets into history, many innocents would have died.

Courage. Intelligence. Real policy grounded in very real history.

Or we're marching with John Mac of to Tehran.)

Posted by: tdn0024 | February 10, 2008 7:34 AM | Report abuse

A stronger American President can make America more Stronger. And that President would be Mr Barack Obama. This person reminds me of Mr Lincoln.

Posted by: pari_kishor | February 10, 2008 7:24 AM | Report abuse

I say the voters have spoken, back off super delegates. To me, the message is that Clinton is the 90s and Obama is the future.

Posted by: kwoodgr | February 10, 2008 7:21 AM | Report abuse

The simple solution to the "super delegates" is to replace them with the elected delegates.

Regardless of the what happens with the super-delegates and the delegates from FL and MI, the voting will go more than one round, after which they are no longer committed.

Posted by: YesWeCan_2008 | February 10, 2008 7:15 AM | Report abuse

Obama's main claim to fame is his opposition to the war In Iraq. Let me predict, 10 days after he takes over as President, should he do so, he will be listing out a dozen reasons why he cannot pull US troops out. Reality will bite not just him but the millions of youngsters who have got carried away by rhetoric. No wonder affluent white males, the WASPs, are rooting for him.

Posted by: sar1turbo | February 10, 2008 7:04 AM | Report abuse

In New Hampshire, exit polls suggested an Obama win, but he lost.
How did that happen? New Hampshire was a secret ballot, but people wanted to look tolerant and politically correct, so they lied to the reporters.

Obama does well in open Caucases where people see who is in which camp. It is the simple psychological issue of social desirability: you do what is desirable or acceptable. It is far more difficult to stand up against a majority than to just join it.

Most of the causases are over now, next thing up are the secret ballots. We will see how they play out and I sure hope that the voters finally start to question 'rockstar' Obama on the issues, about his huge amounts of money, about what kind of change will happen, about who will pull his strings. then people should finally wake up and vote Hillary, if it is not too late...

Posted by: flosstoss | February 10, 2008 7:00 AM | Report abuse

Obama spent about $600,000 on media in three states. $600,000 is about what a rural congressional race may cost.

If Hillary can't compete on the small states, how is she going to put together a national campaign?

Posted by: dpsa27 | February 10, 2008 7:00 AM | Report abuse

I expect a sweep here in the Potomac Primaries as well. I am a Obama volunteer in MD and yesterday we did door-to-door canvasing in Montgomery county. We had thousands of volunteers going all over the county. I saw them everywhere. By contrast I saw only two Hillary workers. I heard similar stories from volunteers in DC and VA. The canvassing will continue again today and Monday and then Tuesday a huge get-out-the-vote effort is planned. I am convinced that MD, VA, and DC will go Obama, the only question is how big.

Posted by: zb95 | February 10, 2008 6:42 AM | Report abuse

Well, it's wierd to sit in Scandinavia, Europe and watch this US elections, knowing that we're so dependent on your choise. Don't fool yourselves; this is no Joe Sixpack deciscion, not by far.

The better part of you does not vote; the lesser part of you chooses on performance. And what you see is what you get.

And eventually, that's what the rest of the world will have to live with, albeit we have no saying in the matter.

Posted by: jandanoe | February 10, 2008 6:30 AM | Report abuse

My own prediction at the beginning of this campaign was that whoever the media wanted our candidates to be would win and I thought those two candidates were: McCain and Obama. So far, I still think I'm right.

Second, when this is over - not now because the Obama people would see him as the target - the Democratic party needs to seriously re-think how it chooses a nominee. Because most campaigns have not been so long or so close, most of us had no clue, but we've learned a lot about the process this time. Caucuses are seriously ****ed up! I think every state should go to primaries where everyone has a voice, not just those who are lucky to have the time, health, etc. to caucus. I always thought the Democrats stand for inclusion, not selectivity. Caucuses, by their nature, seem to result in lopsided results (both Republican and Dem) that don't seem to reflect actual voter breakdown.

Last, I think it is past time to end the outsized influence of Iowa and New Hampshire. This whole mess with Michigan and Florida (two huge states) came about because of how jealously Iowa and NH (two relatively small states) guard their privileges.

Posted by: vdeputy.sheriff | February 10, 2008 6:28 AM | Report abuse

Campoton, did you think about what you wrote before hitting submit?

How can Mrs. Clinton manage the finances of this large economy if she's proven it difficult to manage the finances of her own campaign? We need to look at her actions, not listen to her spin.

Posted by: doctorbird19010 | February 10, 2008 6:08 AM | Report abuse

Even though the Clintons lost last night, as well as in Spain's Democrats Abroad Primary on SuperTuseday -- 70% Barack Obama, Spain's Governing Socialist Workers Party appears to favor the new underdog!

http://www.elconfidencial.com/cache/2008/02/06/65_obama_arrasa_espana_votos_democratas_madrid_barcelona.html
"Al acto también acudió el portavoz del Grupo Socialista en el Congreso, Diego López Garrido, quien se mostró entusiasmado por la emoción de los resultados y las expectativas de cambio en la primera potencia mundial. El diputado socialista, que destacó la buena comunicación existente entre el PSOE y el Partido Demócrata, aseguró que sería muy importante para el mundo que Estados Unidos tuviera una mujer como presidente, en referencia a Hillary Clinton, aunque reconoció que Obama estaba "lanzado" hacia la nominación.

Posted by: davidpeck | February 10, 2008 6:08 AM | Report abuse

As a former resident of both Maryland and Virginia, I'm hoping voters there will do better than we did in New York. Keep the Obama momentum going! Another sweep on Tuesday will put him unequivocally ahead in delegates. You can influence how they think in Ohio and Texas, and across your borders in Pennsylvania and North Carolina. Let your voices be heard even in Hawaii, where commentators have said Hillary Clinton will win because of Asians. Ridiculous! Obama's half-Asian sister still lives in their home state of Hawaii. Give him a clean sweep for everything from Super Tuesday forward. That's the momentum he needs going up against McCain in November. Clinton has no chance to match him for enthusiasm and victory now.

Posted by: joneiric | February 10, 2008 6:05 AM | Report abuse

I am a great believer that it is about time that we have a woman president. We are now strapped financially because of the incompetence of the present one. I see in my very eyes the successes of two succesive female mayors in the City of Salisbury, N.C. since we moved down here 27 years ago. Except probably to those wives of the wealthy and filthy rich, ordinary wives are the financial wizzards of the households. What a perfect time for us to let a woman change the way Bush is handling our economy. "It's the economy stupid" is again the problem that we face today.

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

When the press state the number of delegates, they include the Super delegates to make it look close for Hillary.
Truth be told, Obama has garnered more pledged delegates than Hillary and if put side by side, it is not a close call. The Super delegates Hillary brandishes and brags about are people Bill Clinton brings in as a result of being ex two time Prez and also because he and her has been there for over 35 years interacting with these politicians. Elections are won by an electable candidate. It is clear that Bill Clinton is a factor in Hillary's performance so far and unfortunately the constitution does not provide for a joint Presidency. Since Hillary must be supported by Bill to get so far, it will not be wise to give her an assignment she might nor cope with. Obama is changing the landscape of politics in America, Republicans are crossing over, youths are now involved, he is a gift that the Democratic party should tap into, to reclaim the White House after all these long years. Hillary and the Clintons should give it up to avoid humiliation by the American people they have deceived all these long years ... Failed Health Care programme while in office, NAFTA and all the scandals cannot be wished away. Obama is like fresh air that people want as the Clintons are becoming repulsive to yet many Americans who view their ambitions of instituting dynasty as an affront to every other ordinary American who can become President. YES WE CAN choose our own destiny and Obama will suit us. Obama 08.

Posted by: tzinc2002 | February 10, 2008 5:55 AM | Report abuse

What I get a kick out of the most is the better Obama does, the more excuses I hear for why he is and that it doesn't hold water.

The longer this race goes on, the better he does. The only thing Obama is fighting is name recognition. Hillary thought it would be all wrapped up by now, and she planned accordingly. Now she must regroup.

Let us not forget, Hillary KNOWS Obama, she knows what she is up against and she is worried. As well she should be.

Obama has what it takes to beat her, and she is on the ropes.

It is an interesting race and a very exciting time in our political process.

I feel they are both great candidates, however I do feel HRC would be a throw back to times we are all tired of.

I am old enough to remember the NOT SO GOOD TIMES HRC is a fixture in.

I have not forgotten.


Posted by: vance1 | February 10, 2008 5:44 AM | Report abuse

Yesterday was not close at all. Can we say it yet?--Hillary is losing. Yesterday was a beatdown.

Posted by: gmundenat | February 10, 2008 5:30 AM | Report abuse

To hotnuke2008 who is comfortable with Gutter language.
I wonder where you SCUMBAG, SCALLYWAG is right now. I told you you will hide after Super Tuesday when all your insults to Obama will fail as he moves forward towards the nomination.
Hope we no longer get to read you IDIOT. I noted that you are a bad PR for Hillary Clinton. I hope you will change to the CHANGE we can BELIEVE in. YES YOU CAN.

Posted by: tzinc2002 | February 10, 2008 5:17 AM | Report abuse

Obama wins in caucus states where college aged volunteer foot soldiers can rule the day, and in Southern states where the African American vote, of which he gets 80%, is the largest voting bloc- of the DEMOCRATIC party. If Obama manages to win in Pennsylvania, Ohio and Texas I'll agree he's ahead and deserves the nomination. Otherwise, if he couldn't win in states the Democrats HAVE to win in November like New York, Ohio, Penn., California, Michigan and Florida, the idea of Obama having any chance in November at all is a complete fantasy, and yes, a fairy tale. Most (but not all) of the delegates he has picked up have been low-hanging fruit-good tactic for the nomination, but meaningless for the election.

Posted by: dyinglikeflies | February 10, 2008 5:17 AM | Report abuse

You can't win the election if you don't transform the electoral map or build a wide base.

48% of the country are Democrats. 48% of the country are Republicans. 4% are independents. Hillary does very well among Democrats, horribly among Republicans, and poorly among independents.

Clinton will lose the independent vote, and won't be able to chip away at the Republican vote. She'll win all the "blue states" and lose all the "red states." The map will end up looking like 2004. Not enough to win.

Obama, meanwhile, will have a serious shot at winning all 50 states. He'll win all the blue states and win many "purple" states. He might even win a diehard "red" state like Georgia or Louisiana.

Obama's independent appeal is crucial to victory. Without it, we're toast.

Posted by: scharb | February 10, 2008 5:02 AM | Report abuse

I think the democratic party should be ashamed of suggesting that Barack only wins in the south because of the black vote. Very few people ever mention how Hillary won CA based on the Asian-American and Latino vote.

Moreover, what does this say about our party when we espouse "equity" as a platform and resort to highlighting differences among our base? I find this in very poor taste, and I believe that if the black vote has carried white democratic candidates--men and women, young and old--and racial distributions in the allocation of votes among previous candidates weren't pointed out, I do not believe they should be used as a divisive wedge in the current race. (FYI, blacks only constitute 12% of the general population, so Obama's wins can't be due to the black vote!)

Democrats, stop using race and gender to divide us; use your heart and mind on what you believe is the right course of action on these issues and we'll be unified. The truth shall set you free, and I believe Obama has been most forthcoming and transparent about his background, finances, agenda, and political plans. We have serious work to be done, and it'll take all of us--black, white, male, female, young, and old--to help put America back on the right path. Let's get it together and reclaim the White House with the strongest candidate most likely to see our agenda to fruition without causing needless partisan division from the outset.

Posted by: blsykes | February 10, 2008 4:28 AM | Report abuse

For all you Democrats who want the best, most electable candidate in November, please peek at this piece by Frank Rich in today's NY Times:

www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/opinion/10rich.html?hp

Posted by: walden1 | February 10, 2008 4:09 AM | Report abuse

The Clinton campaign downplayed the news by stating that Obama is now "expected" to take the nomination. So when he does take the nomination as expected, then it's no big deal because, uh, wait a minute.....Mark, did you read this before we sent it out?....OK...uh, nevermind.

Posted by: jsherm45 | February 10, 2008 3:51 AM | Report abuse

Many of you Clinton supporters who say Obama's only winning because of the black vote have not looked at the numbers. Look very closely at the numbers: Obama is taking the white male vote everywhere and that's his electibility edge over Clinton. White and black women have kept Hillary in the race but Obama is gaining there as he becomes better known to the "scared"portion of the Democratic party. Only Obama can beat McCain and this should be obvious.

Posted by: walden1 | February 10, 2008 2:55 AM | Report abuse

The Clinton campaign just released this statement:

"While Barack Obama may have won the day, Hillary will win some states too. And if Obama wins the nomination, it will be because he spent more money than us on advertising. If we had spent as much as he did, we would have won. So nya nya."

Posted by: mwfree | February 10, 2008 1:51 AM | Report abuse

You have a good idea there, adwei.

Posted by: bourassa1 | February 10, 2008 1:50 AM | Report abuse

intcamd,

You obviously haven't looked at any election maps for the last several presidential elections. Washington state is a fairly safe Democratic state overall. Bush didn't even particularly bother campaigning there, and although the eastern part of the state tends more conservative and Republican, the state overall is solidly Democratic.

Of all the wins today, this one is most significant for Obama. Yes, it is another caucus instead of a primary, but the results are also a trouncing in a reliably Democratic state. Clinton will have a hard time weathering this blow. A 5-point loss or even a 10-point loss would have been manageable. This? Obama took Washington by more than 30 points. Even if the sweep today was expected, I don't think anybody could have called 20- and 30-point margins, with a bigger margin of victory in Washington than in Louisiana.

Posted by: blert | February 10, 2008 1:37 AM | Report abuse

I have been posting in Louisiana papers this past week and I can swear, 30% of the white vote is INDEED unifying. I was startled at so many casually racist comments...but when questioned, most did back of & get more serious, usually saying well, they would vote for Alan Keys or Condi Rice.

Posted by: SoldiersMom | February 10, 2008 1:35 AM | Report abuse

The spin that he was "expected to win" LA fails to acknowledge the obvious fact that he did win. Is winning. Will Win.

I wonder, how many other states does the Clinton camp expect him to take?

:)

Posted by: salme | February 10, 2008 1:29 AM | Report abuse

To celested9 who wrote:

"I agree that, for Obama, blacks are his bulwark and for Clinton it is women, particularly, older women. I am for Clinton, being 59 and a woman, so I can only hope Ohio and Texas are kinder to her."

Sadly, it is true that in the south there has been a clear racial divide. However, I would point out that in many states, such as Nebraska and Washington State, with small African-American populations, Senator Obama has done well.

Posted by: JasonT910 | February 10, 2008 1:17 AM | Report abuse

steven4: How about a 16 year plan with Sen. Obama at the top of the ticket? Would you like that? I would. (And I think the voters are saying they do, too.) Why don't we just let the electorate decide, whachasay?

I think it's out of Dean's hands at this point, anyway. (Thank heaven for small blessings on that last point.)

Posted by: miraclestudies | February 10, 2008 1:17 AM | Report abuse

The prefix "super" means "over or above"--I don't think the Democratic party will risk being known as the party whose overseers override the will of participants in a democratic process. But we voters have to keep an eye on this process, including trying to understand who these people are; one big problem with this rule in the DNC is that access to these people is not equally available to the people, nor is access to their individual philosophies about how to cast their votes. Here's a great site that tracks committed and non-committed superdelegates:

http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/superdelegates-who-havent-endorsed.html

I think Hillary Clinton's call for Florida and Michigan delegates to count in the nominating convention brings up another problematic situation. But the rules for these states were decided on by all campaigns, including Clinton's. I hope the press will not let her off the hook with the red-herring claim that "the Florida voters voices deserve to be heard." Of course they do--and I hope those voters make the phones at the Florida Democratic Party's offices ring like crazy.

Let's all think for ourselves, and regain some control over our gear-slipping government!

Posted by: shelchris | February 10, 2008 1:06 AM | Report abuse

I agree that, for Obama, blacks are his bulwark and for Clinton it is women, particularly, older women.

I am for Clinton, being 59 and a woman, so I can only hope Ohio and Texas are kinder to her.

It seems a shame that this race has devolved to blacks and women but there it is.

Having said that, please, let's all play fair and stop the extraneous hate speech. Let's leave that to the Repubs. That way we can all back the eventual nominee with joy and a clean conscience.

Posted by: celested9 | February 10, 2008 1:03 AM | Report abuse

Let's get the superdelegates to pledge to follow the popular vote. Then for the first time in 8 years we will have the president that the people voted for.

Posted by: anncuseo | February 10, 2008 12:59 AM | Report abuse

Let's harness the excitement we're seeing among Democrats for BOTH amazing candidates. Sign the petition to Howard Dean and the DNC at http://www.16yearplan.com

Posted by: steven4 | February 10, 2008 12:58 AM | Report abuse

Obama continues to win in all the red states. How exciting. Oh wait a min, he does not even see a red Amercia and blue America, right? May be he will see them clearly in November.

In Louisiana, he got 90% of black vote and 30% of white vote? Very unifyig, as he says.

However, McCain can not seem to win the red states either. Perhaps if McCain and Obama are the nominees, McCain can win all the blue states and Obama in the red states. We will finally have the unity promised by the sainted one.

Posted by: intcamd | February 10, 2008 12:54 AM | Report abuse

why is a brokered convention a nightmare scenario? isn't it how our democracy is supposed to work? i say bring it on!

Posted by: alarico | February 10, 2008 12:53 AM | Report abuse

A simple solution for avoiding the nightmare scenario of a brokered convention is to convince a majority of the 796 superdelegates (i.e. 399 or more) to sign a pledge to support the candidate who wins the most elected delegates. This voting block plus a majority of elected delegates will guarantee the delegates needed for the nomination.

This solution has three advantages: 1) It's simple and foolproof for electing the person with the most pledged delegates, 2) It only requires convincing 399 superdelegates to vote this way, easier than convincing all 798 superdelegates to vote a certain way, and 3) It's candidate neutral at this point and politically low risk.

The Democratic leadership should act quickly, before a clear winner of delegates emerges and more superdelegates have publicly committed.

Posted by: adwei | February 10, 2008 12:49 AM | Report abuse

I know that the Clinton camp's spin is Obama was supposed to win. That spin might fly with a 5 to 10 point loss - but not when you get crushed by 35 points.

There's simply no way to spin a 35 point loss. (particularly in 2 states with a small African-American population)

Posted by: JasonT910 | February 10, 2008 12:41 AM | Report abuse

The voters speak to the Democratic Convention through the pledged delegates they elect. Senator Obama is the better candidate of the two Democratic candidates. That is why he continues to gain more pledged delegates than Senator Clinton. Senator Clinton has many delegates who are unpledged on her side, but these unpledged delegates are free to change their minds. The count of pledged delegates is a barometer of popular choice. It is clear that Senator Obama is not just the right choice for the American people, he is being seen that way popularly as well.

Posted by: junkmail | February 10, 2008 12:38 AM | Report abuse

At this rate the Republican race may be more interesting in April then the Democratic race.

Posted by: claronridge | February 10, 2008 12:35 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company