Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Obama Still Firmly in the Lead, Strategist Says

Note: Please upgrade your Flash plug-in to view our enhanced content.


Presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) addresses his supporters from San Antonio after Tuesday's primary election results filter in.

By Shailagh Murray
SAN ANTONIO -- As Sen. Barack Obama wrapped up a brief speech to his supporters, who had huddled outside for two hours on a chilly night here, chief strategist David Axelrod sought to set the record straight about what appeared to be a good night for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

"When you've lost 12 in a row, any good news qualifies as a comeback," Axelrod said of Clinton's claim of resurgence. "The reality is, though, they promised to cut our delegate lead, and I don't think that's going to happen tonight. They set a test for themselves, which was to wipe out our lead in delegates in the Ohio and Texas primaries. I don't know if they're going to reduce our lead at all, and we may actually add to it by the end of the night."

He was just getting warmed up. "So, I think they have to spin this as best they can, but the reality is still the reality," Axelrod said. "We're in the lead. We've won 28 contests, they've won 13. We've won more popular votes. We've got somewhere in the neighborhood of a 160-delegate lead, and time is running out. And at some point, the party is going to coalesce around the nominee, and the nominee is going to be Barack Obama."

By Web Politics Editor  |  March 5, 2008; 12:25 AM ET
Categories:  Barack Obama , Primaries , The Democrats  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Clinton: Millions More Want Their Turn
Next: Onward to Guam!

Comments

Hillary Clinton has gone negative and personal against fellow Democratic Presidential Contender- Senator OBAMA. Pundits admire such reprehensible behavior.

I am now completely out of tune with this presidential process. I will rather vote for McCain in November than vote for Hillary Clinton. Her negativity spell trouble. I am not persuaded by her low life politics. So Long.

Posted by: apanyakora | March 6, 2008 11:08 PM | Report abuse

Obama's efforts to connect to the Republican Party, specifically Bush, and Dick Chaney, of the Halliburton Company, dates back to the Presidents Grandfather, Prescott Bush, and indeed Chaney was once an executive officer of Halliburton.

The American military pounds Iraq with Artillary, bombs, and the like, destroying large sections of cities, and infra-structures, then Halliburton comes in to rebuild. Halliburton and Halliburton associated companies have raked in ten's of billions.

Obama is just like the BIG HALIBURTAN. Haliburton has contracted to build detention centers in the U.S. similiar to the one in Quantanammo Bay, Cuba. Halliburton does nothing to earn the Two Dollars for each meal an American Serviceman in Iraq eats.

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

Halliburton was scheduled to take control of the Dubai Ports in The United Arab Emiirate. The deal was canceled when Bush was unable to affect the transfer of the American Ports.

Now we see what some might suspect as similiar financial escapading from the Democrats.

Two years ago, Iraq's Ministry of Electricity gave a $50 million contract to a start-up security company - Companion- owned by now-indicted businessman (TONY REZKO) Tony Rezko and a onetime Chicago cop, Daniel T. Frawley, to train Iraqi power-plant guards in the United States. An Iraqi leadership change left the deal in limbo. Now the company, Companion Security, is working to revive its contract.
Involved along with Antoin "Tony" Rezco, long time friend and neighbor of Democratic Presidential hopeful Barack Obama, and former cop Daniel T. Frawley, is Aiham Alsammarae. Alsammarae was accused of financial corruption by Iraqi authorities and jailed in Iraq last year before escaping and returning here.

LIKE FATHER LIKE SON --
Recently, Obama's campaign staff have been vetted by the IRS to disclose his connection to the criminal money generating underworld. Besides, his connections to the REZCO MAFIA types, his up-coming tax fraud charges -- Obama needs to disclose why he is a MUSLIM "PATWANG-FWEEE" and disclose Obama's MUSLIM Farrakhan mob connection to Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ. Its minister, and Obama's spiritual adviser, is the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. In 1982, the church launched Trumpet Newsmagazine; Wright's daughters serve as publisher and executive editor. Every year, the magazine makes awards in various categories. Last year, it gave the Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award to a man it said "truly epitomized greatness." That man is Louis Farrakhan. Farrakhan and Chicago's Trinity United Church are trumpeting Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama as the second coming of the messiah. Obama should stop suppoting our intervention in IRAQ. It's time to introduce this false, fake Xerox - X box Obama and invite the self-indicting thief plagiarizing pipsqueke "GLORK" Xerox - X box to meet the Buffalo "GAZOWNT-GAZIKKA" Police Department Buffalo Creek. He is MAD!!! --

OBAM YOU'RE NO JFK --

"GLORK" Obama looks like Alfred E. Newman: "Tales Calculated To Drive You." He is a MUSLIM "Glork" He's MAD!!! Alfred E. Neuman is the fictional mascot of Mad. The face had drifted through American pictography for decades before being claimed by Mad editor Harvey Kurtzman after he spotted it on the bulletin board in the office of Ballantine Books editor Bernard Shir-Cliff, later a contributor to various magazines created by Kurtzman.
Obama needs to disclose why he is a MUSLIM "PATWANG-FWEEE" and stop suppoting our intervention in IRAQ. It's time to introduce this false, fake "GLORK" Xerox - X box Obama and invite the self-indicting thief plagiarizing pipsqueke Xerox - X box to meet the Buffalo "GAZOWNT-GAZIKKA" Police Department Buffalo Creek.

Michelle Obama should be ashamed.

"GLORK" Michelle Obama should be ashamed of her separatist-racist connection to Farrakhan and Chicago's Trinity United Church trumpeting Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama as the second coming of the messiah. If Michelle Obama new what her husband -- the Hope-A-Dope, Fonster Monster -- Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama did in Harlem, she would wash her wide-open, Hus-suey loving MUSILM mouth out, with twenty-four (24) mule-team double-cross X-boX-BorraX. He is a MUSLIM "Glork" It's time to introduce this false, fake "GLORK" Xerox - X box Obama and invite the self-indicting thief plagiarizing pipsqueke Xerox - X box to meet the Buffalo "GAZOWNT-GAZIKKA" Police Department Buffalo Creek. He's MAD!!!

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

Posted by: jreno6 | March 6, 2008 3:34 PM | Report abuse

Let the American PEOPLE see your TAX RETURNS Clinton ! What are you afraid of ?

Posted by: PulSamsara | March 6, 2008 3:19 PM | Report abuse

Michigan and Florida Take Center Stage

Have you become important or what!!! Two candidates want to provide you with their credentials but your local party leaders say no.

The Democratic Party and the candidates should be willing to foot the cost of an election that counts. The national party and the two candidates should each pay a third of the costs up to a set amount for each state. Tell your party leaders you want to have an election not a beauty contest. Economically let your state take advantage of the massive amounts of money to be spent to make a difference.

It is funny how making rules can come back to haunt party leaders when they thought a front runner would emerge early and make their sanctioning a non issue at the convention. It just goes to show that the party leaders should not be trying to manipulate voters to their wishes.

This year goes to show that playing with dates to be first does not always make you the most important. These states may be the deciding factor in the race, long after the first caucus and primary.

I find the leadership of these states providing not one piece of evidence on how the people of these states were provided an opportunity to have candidates present their credentials and ideas to their state. That people had an opportunity to be informed and make choices.

I vote in every election even when government leaders screw up the process. Let the people of these states have an election that candidates must compete for.
http://mynonprofitwebsite.com/blog/2008/02/22/emo-why-do-you-want-this-job/

Posted by: robertguinto | March 6, 2008 12:24 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: nkla20 | March 5, 2008 9:19 PM | Report abuse

anyone even considering voting for Hillary Clinton should read this...

www.hillcap.org/pp_complaint_022504_njw.pdf

Posted by: designjoule | March 5, 2008 8:57 PM | Report abuse

Watch it people the pundits are trying to plant a seed in your brain they are saying that it doesnt matter about Hillary's wins she will never get the delegates to catch up and surpass obama so he will be the nominee and if she ends up being the nominee that means she was choosen by party insiders in the smoke filled rooms you know they are doing this to get people to go crazy if she is the nominee when it is the democratic rules to include super delegates and they are free to back whom they think is the most electable. Even obama is spreading this when there are clips of axilrod in a msnbc interview stating that super delegates are free agents and they vote the way they want to vote just like anybody else. They have alread attached a stigma to Hillary, they told us only uneducated poor folks vote hillary all the rich college educated vote obama now people that support hillary may be embarressed to show that with enthusiasm because they will feel like others are looking at them as racist or uneducated.

Posted by: nkla20 | March 5, 2008 8:34 PM | Report abuse

Well hill-stars dont think we are going to be getting fair media coverage from here on out because I took a peek at hard ball and chris matthews had ed gorden and he actually said hillary's come back is due to the media he said we the media had her dead and gone and we have to watch out and not bring her back anymore so get ready they are going to be slamming clinton hard and praising obama. i am not too worried because i think its no secret anymore that the media is biased especially MSNBC they are working hard to control and minipulate this election we cant let them do this, anyway it kind of seems now the more they do it the more agitated people will get.

Posted by: nkla20 | March 5, 2008 8:26 PM | Report abuse

I keep hearing about Hillary Clinton's "experience" - what experience is she talking about? Losing the congress & senate during Bill's administration? Not getting health care passed because it was done behind closed doors? Experience in taking 5.5 MILLION in LOBBY money? Kosovo - well can't be that because the border opened the day BEFORE SHE ARRIVED...so please tell me what experience other than 58 times of saying "I can't recall or "I don't remember" to the grand jury?

Posted by: frillymail1017 | March 5, 2008 8:05 PM | Report abuse

You know, as far as the way the media hypes it (and the Clinton campaign spins it), it's an expectations game.

A few weeks ago everyone (including the Clinton campaign) was saying that Hillary had to win and win big in both Texas and Ohio--that she had to close the delegate gap. That was, of course, when she was about 20 points ahead in both states. But when Obama closed that gap before the election, suddenly the goal post kept moving.

The facts remain that Obama still has a commanding delegate lead, that he rack up 12 decisive wins in a row before Hillary finally won her first 3 after Feb. 5, and that he closed the huge gap enough in both Texas and Ohio to make them both inconsequential in the delegate count, even if he fell just short of completely overtaking her. Just like in New Hampshire, everyone is thinking it's a comeback for Hillary just because they had prematurely counted her out, even though the real story is how much Obama closed the gap down to almost nothing.

All the salivating over her win in Ohio is particularly silly, since Obama never led in the polls there. Yet, again, what he did do was narrow the gap from what it was a few weeks ago.

OK. So Obama was not able to finish Hillary off and force her out of the race. That does not mean that she is ahead or that she has the momentum. You can talk about big states and small states all you want, but the facts are also that Obama racked up 12 wins in a row mostly by huge margins, while Hillary had one win by a sizable margin (Rhode Island), one by a moderate margin (Ohio/ though less than her margin there a few weeks ago), and one by the skin of her teeth (Texas).

Again, the media spin is an expectations game. Hillary did better than they expected her to a few days earlier. Yet, she still did far worse than was expected of her just a few weeks ago. People don't need to lose sight of that. She did manage to briefly arrest Obama's upward spike with a last minute flood of negative attacks, but Obama will adjust to that and turn her attacks back on her.

As it is evident that Hillary is going to run an increasingly negative campaign, it appears that Obama will have to be more aggressive in attacking her--e.g., demand that she release her income tax records and the records on the Clinton Administration that are being kept secret. He has tried to maintain the high road, but sometimes you have to fight fire with fire--sad but true in politics.

Posted by: PastorGene | March 5, 2008 6:10 PM | Report abuse

WELL'IT LOOK LIKE [OPRAH] DIDN/T HAVE A
$1.00 TO GIVES ALL OF THEM IN OHIO-
TEXAS, YOU SPEAK ABOUT [HUSSEIN OBAMA]
IS FROM ABOVE SENT HERE HIS CHILDREN
OUT OF BONDAGE LIKE, GOD'-SENT MOSES''
THAT ALL AMERICA. NEED IS SOME ONE THAT A BIG A CROOK AS THE GREAT-ONE
KING-GEORGE W. BUSH' AND THE FAMOUS BIRD
HUNTER DICK CHANEY' YOU COULD NOT STAND FOR A REAL AMERICAN LIKE THE
NOW FAMOUS HILLARY R. CLINTON, SAY HELLO TO THE NEXT PRESIDENT, OPRAH
THOUGHT WITH ALL HER MONEY, AND A
PREACHER BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA SHE COULD
BE THE FIRST [ BLACK-FIRST-LADY] WHAT
A JOKE..

Posted by: CSNEED1937 | March 5, 2008 3:03 PM | Report abuse

Yep, a cornered skunk does fight. But who would corner a skunk and think that it wouldn't fight?

Tsk tsk. Poor Judgment.

And you folks think that Hillary has Swift Boated Obama?? As Chris Matthews would say:
HA!!!!

Implying Clinton a race baiter or a racist, now there's your Swift Boat job.

And let us remember what Swift Boating is, children. Its when you take a candidate's strength, like Kerry's combat experience and the 5 medals he won and sell it as a fraud. He only faked his battle wounds.

So Clinton, who has incurred the enmity of White Southerners because he has advocated Civil Rights all of his adult life gets slimed as a race baiter.

That is Swift Boating someone. And that's what the Obama campaign did to consolidate its African American base, taking that constituency away from Clinton.

Not only is that old politics, its old Rovian Politics.

And if you think that Obama wins by stiffing Florida Democrats, that ain't happening either.

He has the ability to inspire. She has the ability to perform. However, performance trumps inspiration because inspiration without follow through turns into disillusionment. Performance without inspiration evolves into real change for the better. A little dull and uneventful, but improvement nonetheless.

Posted by: pkmc83a | March 5, 2008 1:58 PM | Report abuse

tjfrmla-Relax, the Dims can always vote for Ralph Nader-The "True Democrat"!

HALLELUJAH! HALLELUJAH!

Posted by: rat-the | March 5, 2008 1:12 PM | Report abuse

HILLARY CLINTON WILL NEVER GET TO THE WHITEHOUSE WITHOUT THE SUPPORT OF OBAMA VOTERS. Obama voters will NEVER vote for Hillary Clinton. Game Over.
Can you say President McCain?

Posted by: tjfrmla | March 5, 2008 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Touche Hillary! You should be proud as punch and pleased with the swift boat job you did on your opponent. I know the Republicans are proud of you.

I was on the fence before but Hillary just lost my vote in the general. I hope it was worth it Madame First Lady!

Posted by: sshields | March 5, 2008 12:58 PM | Report abuse

So Clinton knows how to fight? So what? So does a cornered skunk.

Posted by: cmsatown | March 5, 2008 12:49 PM | Report abuse

And if he did that, then he really is nothing new, but just old politics. There goes his youth vote.

Obama has put himself in a real box with this new politics of hope and joy, hasn't he? Too bad that real politics is not played that way. Now he either has to sit there and take it while strumming his guitar around his campfire, or he has to strike back in kind, ala Clinton.

So what is he to do?? He sings platitudes while his posse does the gut cutting on Clinton. That is how he has been doing it since January, anyway.

Oh but Clinton is no ordinary victim, she knows how to fight and she will do that.

So there really is nothing new about Obama. Oh well, there goes his youth vote.

Posted by: pkmc83a | March 5, 2008 12:41 PM | Report abuse

I think it's time for Obama to realize that being a nice guy is not going to get him the win. Clinton is clearly ready to do anything overhanded or underhanded to win.. very Bush-like by the way. He is going to have to start hitting back. A few ads showing her nafta waffling, tax return questions, and highlighting her Iraq vote and the fact that she didnt even read the NIE before voting ought to do it. If not then some more questioning 35 years of "experience" , part of which was as a Walmart board member, or ads highlighting her lack of support among independants and republicans ought to do it. Get tough Obama or you're going to lose

Posted by: cmsatown | March 5, 2008 12:28 PM | Report abuse

'Old Grey Bush' Vs. 'Bush in a dress with a higher I.Q.'. What a great choice.

Posted by: diabloquick.wa | March 5, 2008 12:22 PM | Report abuse

mngtscrwdup wrote: "Bottom line is that Hillary is now a destructive force, who must sink to the lowest level imaginable to find any way to win. If you want to support that type of leadership, then YOU are part of the problems with this country."

An uncompromising attitude like the above is probably a greater problem. Hillary and Obama are running pretty much neck and neck. You can't argue that he is way, way ahead. Nor can you ignore the significant numbers of people voting for Hillary. Are you saying that the people voting for Hillary are somehow duped, that they support destruction, back-biting, lack of morals? Come off it. Hillary is strong on many issues where Obama is weak. This is a good, fair fight. Maybe the best candidate win.

Posted by: dhayjones | March 5, 2008 12:09 PM | Report abuse

PDiddy:

Whether you think it would be a push with Independents (I am registered Independent) or not, the fact remains that SOME Democrats -- I will not call them "out of their right minds" -- will vote for McCain (remember the Reagan Democrats?). At this point, the only ways I see the Democrats winning this election are a joint-ticket or for something to happen to McCain.

Posted by: JakeD | March 5, 2008 12:09 PM | Report abuse

Hillary should absolutely not step down. 1.45M people voted for her in Texas. She should continue to the end. Even if she lost Texas but still won over a million votes, she should continue.

Posted by: PDiddy | March 5, 2008 12:05 PM | Report abuse

It really is amazing to see that in an election year where the Democrats couldn't possibly lose, that everyone up here is fulfilling the legacy of the Democratic Party to eat their young and grab defeat from the jaws of victory.

Again, folks: be civil.

Whoever wins the nomination is going to win this thing.

Posted by: PDiddy | March 5, 2008 12:02 PM | Report abuse

David's axle rod is broken.

As of now, 74% of primary and caucus delegates are chosen, with some of yesterday's tallies being incomplete. Of these, Obama has 39% and Clinton 35%.

If you throw in the superdelegates into the mix, (my numbers are from a CNN website, as of this morning) Obama has 36% and Clinton 34%.

Hillary Clinton has won in Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island, Tennessee, New Mexico, Arizona, California, Oklahoma, Arkansas, New York, Massachhusetts, New Jersey, (Florida, Michigan), and New Hampshire (a total of 13 or 15 if you include FL & MI). Barack Obama has won in Vermont, Maryland, Illinois, Georgia, Alabama, Wisconsin, DC, Virginia, Lousiana, Utah, Missouri, Connecticut, Delaware, and South Carolina (a total of 14)

With their performance being this close, what is the big rationale for the clamour for Hillary Clinton to step down from the race?

As to negative advertising, the press has been too picky on Clinton and far too lenient on Obama. The press is in bed with with Obama, tossing him pillows and fetching him coffee and singing lullabies to him. The 3am ad by Clinton is fiercely attacked, while the response to that from Obama is given a pass. Clinton's 3am ad is viewed as negative, while Obama's 3am response ad is not. The NAFTA waffle by Obama didn't get much of traction; does any one doubt what would have happened to Clinton, if she were caught in such disingenuous behavior?

Last night I was watching MSNBC and it ooked like an Obama staff strategy meeting, discussing ways of how he should "overcome". Chris M, Norah O', keith O, Howard F, the whole bunch of them.

As HST said, if BHO can't stand the heat, he should stay out of the kitchen. If HRC's campaign is viewed as negative, what does he think the republicans would do in the general election? Fawn all over him with a man-crush? Apologize, and coronate him?

McCain may say that it is going to be a dignified, courteous campaign. But by his comments on Hillary and Chelsea, he has already shown otherwise. And even if he were to behave from now on, there is absolutely no doubt that the republican party and and all the other 527 groups would show restraint.

Posted by: pKrishna43 | March 5, 2008 12:00 PM | Report abuse

Oh, the other thing about Pew...their research always seems to contradict itself.

As a stats nerd, I would love to see their methodology...

Posted by: PDiddy | March 5, 2008 11:59 AM | Report abuse

JakeD, Paul mischaracterized the Pew Research findings (which is typical for him). While it's true that the hardcore old, white voters of the Democratic Party look at Obama with suspicion, he draws Independents in a way that Clinton does not. It's a push.

Pew publishes their research online:
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/750/obama-lead-problems
("Obama and Clinton both lead McCain...but in different ways", in the inset)

Posted by: PDiddy | March 5, 2008 11:55 AM | Report abuse

These were supposed to be big wins by Hillary, but they really didnt change the delegate math.

The bottom line is that Hillary was ahead by sizeable margins in both states just three weeks ago, those margins fell quite substantially. Sure her negative tactics worked for a small pop in the past week, but look at how low she had to stoop to get that small bounce.

The remainder of the contests are Obama-land. Wyoming, Oregon, etc. The only place where she can win again is Pennsylvania.

So her only hope is that she can get the delegates in Florida and Michigan seated, but that would cause a huge uproar and would ensure a McCain victory.

Bottom line is that Hillary is now a destructive force, who must sink to the lowest level imaginable to find any way to win. If you want to support that type of leadership, then YOU are part of the problems with this country.

Posted by: mngtscrwdup | March 5, 2008 11:55 AM | Report abuse

JakeD, no Democrat in their right mind will vote for McCain after 8 years of BushCo. It's not going to happen.

Personally, I am really not fond of Hillary Clinton, but if she is the nominee I will vote for her. I won't donate for her, I won't travel to Ohio or Florida and volunteer for her, and I won't particularly care about the election. But I will vote for her. The country hangs in the balance, and as much as I admire John McCain, another 8 year window where the Republicans can continue to run roughshod over it is untenable.

Now, you could say that Ohioans are not in their right mind :-)

Posted by: PDiddy | March 5, 2008 11:53 AM | Report abuse

Paul Begala last night said that 25% of Clinton voters and 10% of Obama voters already say they'll vote for McCain if their side doesn't get the Democratic nomination.

Posted by: JakeD | March 5, 2008 11:52 AM | Report abuse

Also, this notion of a "do over" in Florida and Michigan is intriguing. It should be full on primaries, not caucuses. We caucused here in Washington State (which went overwhelmingly Obama, me included) and it was a zoo and a complete waste of time. Caucuses are an anachronism that should be done away with.

In any event, seating those delegates without doing a complete primary (which should be paid for by the Democratic Party, not the residents of those states, mind you) would be a travesty.

And I have not seen anyone in the Obama camp call for changing the rules about superdelegates. That's a gross mischaracterization. The Obama camp is only asking that the superdelegates themselves vote the way of the popular vote, not that the party mandate how they vote. Very important distinction.

Posted by: PDiddy | March 5, 2008 11:49 AM | Report abuse

PDiddy:

Either Democrat carries Ohio only IF the other Democrat's supporters don't stay home, or worse yet vote FOR McCain after a vicious Convention-floor battle ; )

Posted by: JakeD | March 5, 2008 11:48 AM | Report abuse

These races were Hillary's to lose, *not* Barack's. He narrowed a high double digit lead to a narrow lead in Texas and halved it in Ohio. He's still achieved a lot, and shouldn't be daunted at all. It is a sign of her weakness and incompetence that she couldn't maintain her high lead.

Ohio was a solid victory for her, but it was not a blowout like he dealt her in other states, especially Wisconsin. She needs to blow him away in Pennsylvania and the remaining contests and that's just not going to happen.

Posted by: Charlene-K | March 5, 2008 11:42 AM | Report abuse

This "Hillary has won the big states" argument is ludicrous. This whole line of thinking ("electability"), which I saw the Clinton spinmeisters peppering all over the news last night and today, is idiotic. Both of these candidates are equally electable. Clinton gets out the old white folks, while Barack gets out the young folks. In between the two extremes, they'll vote for whomever gets the nomination.

No Democrat is going to carry Texas in 2008. Either Democrat is going to carry all of the states even John Kerry couldn't lose in 2004. Once again, the battleground states will be Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida.

The turnout among Democrats is tremendous this year. Whoever gets the nomination will likely carry Pennsylvania. Florida is unpredictable, as always. Ohio is interesting because in 2004 Bush had to use the gay marriage bullet to get his base out. The issue where the Democrats are vulnerable (immigration) is not McCain's strong suit by any stretch of the imagination. And I don't think the gay marriage issue will work this year because I don't think McCain will go down that path. In the end, I don't think McCain energizes the conservative base, and I think either Democrat will carry Ohio.

Posted by: PDiddy | March 5, 2008 11:41 AM | Report abuse

Hillary won the battle but lost the war.

Posted by: zb95 | March 5, 2008 11:40 AM | Report abuse

Hillary actually lost last night because she failed to take advantage of a big opportunity to gain a big chunk of delegates. When the dust settles it looks like she will only net about 10 delegates. That's it. Big deal.

Posted by: zb95 | March 5, 2008 11:37 AM | Report abuse

It was interesting watching the coverage last night, particularly the Obama partisans. The Jamal guy on CNN was in denial. Even after CNN called Texas for Clinton in the primary vote, he refused to accept that because he said there was some African American vote in Houston still to count. Maybe so, but not enough to overcome the lead that Clinton had built.

After weeks of reading that Clinton had divorced herself from the reality of what was going on around her, last night it seemed that the Obama people had come down with that particular affliction.

Axelrod and the rest trying to say it was no big thing to lose Texas and Ohio. Wolf Blitzer mentioned that Team Obama had outspent Clinton in Ohio 4-1 and had put up saturation political ads over the whole state with a full 2 minute message from Obama. I guess the people of Ohio looked and then went out and voted for the other person, Clinton.

Obama's people also want to say that Clinton is running a "kitchen sink" campaign, that is, one where she throws everything at him including the kitchen sink. But when you are the one spending at that level 4-1 in Ohio and 2-1 in Texas, I believe that it was Obama using making Kitchen Sink campaign to finally push Clinton out of the race.

He has thrown everything at her that can be thrown. He has very effectively denied the African American vote to Clinton, but she has found a way, in Texas at least to appeal to White Males. Now there's a surprise. And still though she has been knocked down, she comes back stronger than she was before she took the hits. The lady is a fighter, that's for sure.

Now that Obama has taken some hits, it will be interesting to see how he responds. In politics good politicians are not the ones who avoid taking hits, no one can do that, but the winners are the ones who get back up and get into the fight.

We will see just how much fight Obama has in him. And Obamaites, why get all nervous that Hillary is checking out your candidate to see how much fight he has in him? Do you not think that the Real Carl Rove in the Fall will do this?

Isn't it better to address all issues in March rather than in October? If Obama can't pass the Clinton Machine, he for sure will not pass the Republican Machine. Regardless of what you want to say about Clintonian politics in Democratic primaries, it is mild compared to what Republicans do.

So the contest is good. Democrats have rightly said, by a margin of 3-2 that this should go on. The Obama people disagree. They have never been in this territory before in previous elections. To win his Illinois State Senate seat, Obama simply had his Democratic opponents disqualified from the race. To win his US Senate seat, Obama's Republican opponent disqualified himself.

So its only natural that Obama would be whinning and pleading that Hillary ought to step aside for him. But this ain't bean bag. This is Presidential Politics. You don't beg and plead that your opponent who has just won California, New York, Texas and Ohio should just quit because you can organize caucus goers in Alaska and North Dakota.

I think this betrays a certain naivete on Obama's part. If he thinks that Clinton should just give up, will this be his approach with Ahmadinejad, or Medvedev?

Listening to Obama last night, it seems he wants to be elected based on the fact that he once hearded goats in Kenya and now he can vie for the US Presidency. It is a rather compelling personal story. All Americans have compelling personal stories but these stories do not qualify you to become President. You would almost think that he was trying to play on people's sympathy. The story line went from don't kill your hope to don't kill his hope.

He seemed small last night and angry with a furrowed brow. His crowd was not what it has been. He has been reduced to a very loyal African American constituency and to the younger voters who are more attuned to voting for American Idol rather than the US President. Seems the grown ups are going with Clinton.

It will be interesting to see how it plays out. I agree with Paul Begala that its good for the Party and good for the eventual candidate to have been tested as these two are testing each other in these primaries.

Clinton has become a better candidate by going through this process. Long gone is the aura of inevitability. That was out the window with the question about driver's licenses for illegal aliens. Her whole campaign, however, was organized around this idea that she would win and have the thing wrapped up by February 5.

That didn't happen by a long shot, and its a credit to her flexibility that she has retooled her campaign and her message to wage a contested race in States that she never thought she would have to contest in order to win. That is change on the fly and it was change that took place with everyone on her from the right and left and the media making fun of her and worse. But she did it and this speaks volumes to me about what kind of person she is and what kind of President she will make.

Posted by: pkmc83a | March 5, 2008 11:37 AM | Report abuse

jj2000:

Those numbers do not include Florida, Michigan, and remaining super delegates -- see above.

Posted by: JakeD | March 5, 2008 11:36 AM | Report abuse

Everyone who is sick of BushCo (Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike) need to stop fighting with one another over Senators Clinton and Obama. You guys are polarizing an argument whose singular outcome is critically important: putting someone other than a Republican in the White House.

Both Clinton and Obama are competent and qualified to be Commander in Chief and POTUS. Both Clinton and Obama will be tremendous leaders and the country will be better off for having them. Both Clinton and Obama have a shot at ensuring that Americans have affordable access to quality health care. Both Clinton and Obama will end this silly notion of Creationism in our education system. Both Clinton and Obama will get us out of Iraq. Both Clinton and Obama will obliterate John McCain in the General Election.

There is a lot these candidates agree on. Sadly, both of their collective supporters up here on the WashPo look like juveniles in a 3rd grade classroom.

Grow up, people, and think of the big picture. Stop tearing one another down. Someone is going to emerge, and that someone is going to lead this country out of this abyss and enable us to hold our heads proud as Americans both here at home and when we travel abroad.

Senator Obama's speech last night was gracious (congratulating Senator Clinton) but, most importantly, spot on: "The world is watching".

Indeed. Be civil.

Posted by: PDiddy | March 5, 2008 11:35 AM | Report abuse

latinles1:

I hope SOMEONE in the McCain campaign is preparing for a Clinton-Obama ticket too.

Posted by: JakeD | March 5, 2008 11:35 AM | Report abuse

Let's spin this whole thing, Hillary won big states, did this, had experience blah blah. spin spin spin spin spin. Here comes the result.

Obama - 1451
Hillary - 1365

You cannot spin that. That's post Mar 4th primary result. Anyway, why does Obama need to win ALL the states? He won 12 out of 15 states post super Tuesday. That more than enough to show his strength.

One gentleman said that Obama outspend by 3-1 over Hillary. What about Obama having to fight two Clinton's instead of one? Is that fair?

Posted by: jj2000 | March 5, 2008 11:34 AM | Report abuse

The Obama campaign is trying to put a good spin on tuesday's results, but the facts are unavoidable...Outside of Illinois and Washington, Hillary has won all the big states that a Democrat needs to win in November. Obama may claim more delegates, sure. But the fact is that NO democrat is going to win Idaho, or Alabama. McCain has also been thrown off stride as he was awaiting a big Obama victory now he's gotta retool his message yet again.

Posted by: latinles1 | March 5, 2008 11:32 AM | Report abuse

Back on topic: speaking on "The Early Show" this morning, Hillary DIANE Clinton hinted at sharing the ticket with Obama: "that may be where this is headed, but of course we have to decide who is on the top of the ticket." Barack HUSSEN Obama replied: "It is premature to talk about a joint ticket."

Posted by: JakeD | March 5, 2008 11:26 AM | Report abuse

Two things seem clear: (1) the broadcast media, less cerebral than their print counterparts, are deliriously pleased with Hillary's victories in Texas and Ohio, for this prolongs the spectacle -their lifeblood - and also increases the chances of a November victory for their idolized choice, John McCain, aka Bush Lite. (2) the Clintons, whom once so many of us admired, will destroy the Democratic Party before they will cede the nomination. This is evident in Hillary's nearly throwing the general election by repeating (to the delight of the broadcast mavens) that November will be all about national security - as she extolls Bush Lite's national security credentials!!!!

Party elders and influentials have their work cut out for them, and need to come up with a solution before we lose another election that should have been a rout in our favor. Republicans must be salivating over the prospect that the couple they despise more than anyone since FDR and Eleanor are about to deliver them another eight years to complete their rape and destruction of the country - while the mindless broadcast media grin with the same simple pleasure as that of a pyromaniac watching a burning temple.

Posted by: lpettit | March 5, 2008 11:26 AM | Report abuse

PhilTR:

Good post, but I have one addition -- the argument can be made that Obama's campaign ads in Georgia WERE intended to be seen in Florida right before that primary.

Posted by: JakeD | March 5, 2008 11:25 AM | Report abuse

There are two likely scenarios henceforth. One, is Hillary is nominated, in an undemocratic way, overturning the will of the majority of voters in the primaries and caucuses. Winning is everything, isn't it for some people. Scare enough people and destroy the hopes of others has been a successful strategy before, is currently working and will be used in every election in the future until some people stop allowing themselves to be so easily deceived.

The other is the Clinton campaign continues to undermine Barack's candidacy so John McCain wins and Hillary becomes the clear frontrunner the day after the election for the following election.

The Democrats will need to change their name if the first scenario plays out. Maybe the Anti-Democratic or Know Nothing party.

Posted by: Koreen | March 5, 2008 11:24 AM | Report abuse

After last night Clinton has a commanding lead in Electoral College votes. For those of you who don't remember, it's the Electoral College that determines the Presidency in November. Not the number of states you win and not the popular vote. (Ask Al Gore that question.) Obama can continue to win small states and territories that don't even have electoral college vots but at the end of the day the Democrats need a candidate who can win in the Electoral College. And right now Hillary is ahead 261 to 193. With 7 more votes she would have the winning number. Why is she ahead. It's because of the 8 states with more than 15 electoral college votes Obama has only won his home state of Illinois. Hillary has won every other big state. Let's see Axelrod spin that!

Posted by: wamrail1 | March 5, 2008 11:23 AM | Report abuse

Joseph ISADORE Lieberman.

Posted by: JakeD | March 5, 2008 11:20 AM | Report abuse

Florida's delegates will have to be seated as is. The rules require that their appeal be heard. The DNC punished the Florida Democratic electorate for something out of their control. The Florida legislature controlled by Republicans with a Republican governor move its primary up never giving the Democratic party a say in the move.

Further, it failed to punish Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina Democratic party officials for moving their primaries up past dates set by the DNC rules. Each of these state should have had their delegates reduced by half. So far no rational has been put forth by the DNC to justify not reducing their numbers.

There is no need to hold another primary in Florida. Obama, Edwards, nor Clinton took their names off the ballots there. Each had the same opportunity to garner votes as the other. Further, neither candidate campaigned in Florida so neither can say the other had some unfair advantage. For the DNC to punish the Florida Democratic electorate while giving the Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina Democratic electorate a pass is patently unfair and the DNC will have to address this inequity.

Michigan on the other hand is a different matter. Obama and Edwards chose to take their names off the ballot there. Dennis Kuchinich and Hillary Clinton didn't. Remaining on the ballot gave Dennis Kuchinich and Hillary Clinton an advantage. Whether or not it was an 'unfair' advantage is debatable as it can be argued that Obama and Edwards should have known better. Perhaps a fire-sale caucus could be held although that process has its problems for who would finance it. Michigan is financially strapped with an unemployment rate around 7%.

Bottom line, the DNC screwed up this primary (as far as Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Michigan and Florida are concerned) by punishing Michigan and Florida and giving Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina a pass. The DNC jeopardized its ability to appear as fair and impartial arbiter of the rules by breaking the rules. The DNC has the burden of making this right. Reducing Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina's delegate count by half and seating Florida's will be a good start. Good luck with Michigan.


Posted by: PhilTR | March 5, 2008 11:19 AM | Report abuse

Well, of course, Obama's chief strategist says Obama is in the lead. So why doesn't the WaPo use someone unbiased to evaluate who is in the lead and by how much?
These primaries have a long way to go and neither candidate can get enough delegates to win. It will have to come down to the superdelegates. I think it would be tough to have do overs in Florida and Michigan or no state party will ever obey the National Democratic Party again.
I am glad I am not a super delegate. They are in a difficult position. But that's why they are super delegates.
I wonder if Obama has enough money to buy the number he needs?

Posted by: bghgh | March 5, 2008 11:17 AM | Report abuse

No matter what Hillary or Bill or Mark or Terry thinks, the only way the Clintons will ever get back in the WH is as invited guests.

Like Karl Rove is so fond of reminding us, Hillary's negatives are too high for her to ever win a general election.

If the leadership of the DNC wants to merely rearrange the deckchairs on the Titanic, they'll allow the Clintons to continue their bullying and arm-twisting of delegates, their smearing of the best candidate the Dems have had since JFK, and the destruction of the party along race and gender lines, all courtesy of Lady Macbeth and her equally selfish husband.

Obama has proven he can capture and coalesce the hopes and dreams of desperate people not only in the US, but also aroound the world.

But the Clintons will have none of that optimism, especially if it interferes with their destiny -- to regain the WH. No, it's hit 'em high, hit 'em low, and just beat the crap outta them! The end always justifies the means!

I wish Obama had a little more support from people like Bill Richardson & Joe Biden -- even John Edwards. When are these "brave" souls going to do what is right -- by the party and the common good?

Posted by: nads1 | March 5, 2008 11:15 AM | Report abuse

Well, laugh all you want -- did you at least read that thread yesterday -- I am giving the benefit of the doubt to the first Black President and his wife ; )

Posted by: JakeD | March 5, 2008 11:15 AM | Report abuse

I don't see that happening at all, SarahBB. It is more likely that Lieberman (I will have to check on his middle name) is picked.

Posted by: JakeD | March 5, 2008 11:13 AM | Report abuse

//"I'm not sure that the wider, blacker face in that ad was intentional."// -- LOL

Posted by: SarahBB | March 5, 2008 11:13 AM | Report abuse

Maybe, considering the way she is cozying up to McMoreWar on the experience question and gets the endorsement of Rush Limbaugh, Hillary is lobbying to be VP on McCain's ticket.

Posted by: SarahBB | March 5, 2008 11:11 AM | Report abuse

jamespy:

There was a thread on that yesterday, but I believe the concensus was that wide-screen ratio had something to do with the distortion -- please be careful when leveling charges of "racism" -- you do know that William JEFFERSON Clinton was known as the first Black President, right? I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt for now. I'm not sure that the wider, blacker face in that ad was intentional.

Posted by: JakeD | March 5, 2008 11:09 AM | Report abuse

svreader:

I agree with that assessment (I also don't know how many voters were convinced by Rush Limbaugh -- that is a dangerous game he is playing -- especially if she becomes the nominee because of Ohio ; )

Posted by: JakeD | March 5, 2008 11:05 AM | Report abuse

Why is no one mentioning the odious Clinton ad in which Obama is shown with significantly darker skin than he has. There was a link to it in yesterday's post. A clear appeal to racial prejudice. It appears that the media are going to give her a pass on this foul ad.
jamespy

Posted by: jamespy | March 5, 2008 11:04 AM | Report abuse

One of the strongest arguments for electing Hillary Clinton is the thug-like tactics of Obama's supporters and what it shows about the kind of people they are.

Contrary to Obama's claim of bringing people together, Obama's supporters have waged the most brutal below-the-belt attack campaign I've ever seen, viciously attacking Cliniton and her supporters in the most base personal way possible.

People with any sense of right and wrong have recoiled from seeing this and more and more people are deciding that Obama's supporters tactics show them to be vicious thugs, and certainly not the kind of people we want running our country.

Posted by: svreader | March 5, 2008 11:03 AM | Report abuse

Look at the numbers.
Give Clinton the 55 Puerto-Rico delegates; I understand that these are the only winner-take-all group in the Democratic run. That leaves Obama still ahead by more than 100 elected delegates, and 556 to go. Clinton will have to take 60% of those delegates to match Obama, and she has received 60% of the delegates in hardly any state thus far.
So, she goes into the convention behind in elected delgates; she needs to depend on the superdelegates believing her that the electorate changed its mind.

Posted by: F_L_Palmer | March 5, 2008 11:01 AM | Report abuse

Look at the numbers. Give Clinton the 55 Puerto-Rico delegates; I understand that these are the only winner-take-all group in the Democratic run. That leaves Obama still ahead by more than 100 elected delegates, and 556 to go. Clinton will have to take 60% of those delegates to match Obama, and she has barely received 60% of the delegates in any state thus far.
So, she goes into the convention behind in elected delgates; she needs to depend on the superdelegates believing her that the electoratte changed its mind.

Posted by: F_L_Palmer | March 5, 2008 10:59 AM | Report abuse

It's absolutely up to the party establishment and the superdelegates now, Hillary Clinton cannot overtake Obama, when it comes to the pledged delegates anymore.

http://tpzoo.wordpress.com/2008/03/05/europeanviews-view-absolutely-open-thread/

There is another possibility, however, the shared ticket. I'd balk at that, but some think it is a good idea.

http://tpzoo.wordpress.com/2008/03/05/clinton-hints-at-shared-ticket-with-obama/

Posted by: old_europe | March 5, 2008 10:58 AM | Report abuse

ajtiger92:

I doubt it, for the very reason dhayjones just pointed out. Either he is going to have to realize it, or a group of super delegates will have to approach Obama re: that topic, for there to be any hope of beating McCain this fall.

Posted by: JakeD | March 5, 2008 10:44 AM | Report abuse

Sorry folks, but Michigan and Florida are going to have to count. These are big states that Hillary won without campaigning (much) there. With those states, she is well ahead of Senator Obama. Watch the pressure for the Michigan and Florida results to be included in the count. Obama doesn't cut it in blue collar America. He needs a message that connects with American workers, not just kids and folks with doctorates.

Posted by: dhayjones | March 5, 2008 10:36 AM | Report abuse

I wonder if Hillary would accept a VP position?

Posted by: ajtiger92 | March 5, 2008 10:30 AM | Report abuse

Obama cultist and VRWC think saying something over and over and over again makes it true.

I does not does It? Did I not get the memo.

Just say Hillary is not the president Hillary is not the president over and over and over again.

I will wish for love :)

Posted by: mul | March 5, 2008 10:27 AM | Report abuse

No matter how or who spins it, the simple truth is that Obama is leading in total delegates, pledged delegates, number of states won, and total popular vote. Even with this said, neither Obama nor Hillary will have enough pleged delegates to reach the magic number of 2025 once the nomination process wraps up in June. The argument will inevitably go back to whom all the Superdelegates support. It's not good to be a Democratic Superdelegate in this stage of the nomination.

Obama in 08!

Posted by: ajtiger92 | March 5, 2008 10:26 AM | Report abuse

I am wondering if Obama would accept the VP spot now?

Posted by: JakeD | March 5, 2008 10:24 AM | Report abuse

If Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity told their listeners to go to work tomorrow, and they did, who gets that "credit"?

Posted by: JakeD | March 5, 2008 10:23 AM | Report abuse

Obama has been out smarted by Canadian Right wingers. Is this who you want dealing with Italy. I think not.

The CBC is crap. Obama said noooo meeting. There was a meeting. So Obama lied many many times right before OHIO. The CBC is in the tank too. The rest is how you look at it. Obama was BSing someone that is for sure - and that is no spin.

Obama makes Hammer threats on NAFTA gets B slapped by CANADA. That is the worst thing you can say about any presidential candidate. You want to send this little lamb to the VRWC.

Posted by: mul | March 5, 2008 10:22 AM | Report abuse

The only reason Senator Obama lost to Hillary in Ohio and Texas is because of her dirty, negative campaigning against him. People are sooooo stupid to believe what she says. And Rush Limbaugh was telling people to vote for Hillary just so the Republicans would have to go against her in November (possibly) and they know they will win against Hillary.
Barack Obama is a decent man. He won't stoop low to win the nomination like the Clintons will. He will continue to campaign honestly and with integrity.
Obama all the way!

Posted by: booklady07 | March 5, 2008 10:20 AM | Report abuse

Obama's rich contributors? Why don't you use rmcnicholl's own preferred source of data, opensecrets.org, and discover that Obama's number of $200 or less contriubtions was 81,637, Clinton's 60,794 or that the percentage of contributions under $200 for Obama was 34%, Clinton 16%; the percentage of donors at $2300 or more for Obama was 37%, Clinton 60%; the percentage of donors at the $4600 level for Obama was 7%, Clinton 30%. I admit that you can manipulate statistics to prove just about any point you can imagine, but the statement that Obama is taking money from the rich to a greater degree than Hillary is way off base. If Obama's campaign makes a claim about having more $200 or less donations than Hillary, the evidence for that is supplied by a source who manipulates numbers to prove Obama is unworthy to be President. That's the best kind of evidence you can get, testimony from your enemy's mouth.


Posted by: deucebollards | March 5, 2008 10:17 AM | Report abuse

Can anyone tell me what makes Hilary so qualified. If that is what she is using as her qualifications then why won't the republicans let laura bush run she has been in the white house just as long. We as Americans not as democrats or republicans need to see how we are getting pimped by the Bush's and Clinton's. If hilary wins then they would have occupied the white house for close to a quarter century. Is it not time to give someone else a chance either barack or mccain?. Can someone tell go johnny go to look into the camera and not at the teleprompter when making speeches. I like the guy but he is so bland can he at least show some emotion if not the state of the union will be one big snooze fest.

Posted by: givememymonee | March 5, 2008 10:16 AM | Report abuse

The overarching theme to this entire thread is that most of us are sick of the negative, pull out all the stops, grab whatever is necessary from our dirty bag of tricks mentality that HRC and her sense of entitlement enablers continue to foist on the American public. I, like many others here will vote for McCain if she is allowed to circumvent the democratic process and hijack this nomination. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. Please, Hillary go away.

Posted by: noel1963 | March 5, 2008 10:02 AM | Report abuse

This NAFTA/Canada 'mistake' of Obama's is funny.

As a Canadian, I have already heard a report from the Canada Broadcasting Corp, CBC - Radio the Canadian representative involved in the memo taking has said it is false!

Is there SPIN in American media. You better believe it.

Posted by: kvanzyverden | March 5, 2008 10:01 AM | Report abuse

All commentators say that Barack Obama is ahead in delegates, and most conclude that there is no real possibility that Hillary Clinton could catch him. But virtually no one mentions that if you take the results of the "unauthorized" primaries in Florida and Michigan into consideration, Hillary would be well ahead in the delegate count. Currently, Florida and Michigan are each officially entitled to 0 delegates each. Many see that as unfair. Indeed, I just saw a poll reported on televison that 58% of Democrats think that the delegates chosen in the Florida and Michigan primaries should be seated and able to vote at the convention. Shouldn't at least one of the TV and newspaper expert commentators mention that, if the results in Florida and Michigan are factored in, Hillary Clinton would be ahead and likely become the nominee? Wouldn't that be a newsworthy observation?

Posted by: inoni | March 5, 2008 9:54 AM | Report abuse

" all the delegates from FL and MI are still technically up for grabs!"
Posted by: ErikW65

Uh, no they're not, Erik.

'Technically' the delegates from those states won't be seated at the convention. I'm sure Clinton will issue a lawsuit to try and change the rules because she doesn't like the way the game turned out, but I'm equally confident that the Supreme Court will laugh her out of the building.

By any computation, she can't get enough delegates to catch Obama with the primaries that are left. She has zero chance of overtaking him. She's bluffing, praying for a miracle, or - more likely - in total denial.

But she's toast. So dream on if you like, it keeps us all amused.

===
Good point about the rules. The rules are Florida and Michian votes wouldn't count. The rules are the Superdelegates vote as they please. Obama wants to change those rules. Change one...change them both...or change neither.

Posted by: badger3 | March 5, 2008 9:52 AM | Report abuse

Clinton makes her position crystal clear now. She, obviously, can't win the nomination. So, she wants to become VP on Obama ticket, which, knowing her as the entire world and the entire country are, means the political of physical elimination of Obama in no time after the victory. So, however, if he doesn't agree to have her on the ticket, she would continue to pull him down into mud fights, which she has mastered so well within many years; and McCain would end up in White House, as the result. There would be no changes in current taxation, and the war with Iraq would continue for 100 plus more years, until USA would be completely eliminated. It is, of course, not so scary, as the entire world seems to be eliminated by global warming, pollution, etc. even much earlier. Dear Obama, do you see any other exit from the situation but to risk to introduce forgotten and persistently tortured by Mrs. Clinton Black genius and his concepts to solve most urgent world's problems, which I have mentioned above in this comment? If his prototype works, which is no problem to check out within less than a month or so, it would be no risk whatsoever. Please, be perceptive and exercise your best judgement now, as it is vitally important.

Posted by: aepelbaum | March 5, 2008 9:50 AM | Report abuse

Barack is going to slowly be opened up like a can of rotten tuna. Better he be vetted now than later against McCain should he win the Party nod. If Barack is indeed an empty suit, finding out now will only help Democrats against the Republicans for the general election by ensuring the better candidate faces them in the Fall. We can not expect the MSM to do its job as they are so vestally timid that they can't bring themselves to take a hard careful look at the object of their affections. He is their (and the Hillary loathers for Obama 's) golden (graven?) image.

Expect the Hillary loathers for Obama to crank it up a dozen notches or so taking of the look of crazed Furies and increasingly appear more and more like the right wing hate machine they do wantonly imitate. These loonies are Hillary's ace in the hole for the more unhinged they look the worse they make Barack look. After all, how could anyone with even the slightest appearance of normalcy want to be associated with a candidate who attracts such hateful as supporters?

Hillary arguably halted Barack's momentum Tuesday. The country has an opportunity to take a more careful nuanced look at him. The Rezko trial is underway and we may get a better understanding of his relationship to Barack. Now if only Barack's voting record in the Illinois state legislature were opened in such a way that everyone could easily look it over we could better determine Barack's character. We could see where he took principled stands, where he was politically expedient and where he was not up to the task. We could take a better measure of this man who would be president.


Posted by: PhilTR | March 5, 2008 9:50 AM | Report abuse

I don't want to belong to a party which i feel is a thing of the past.

Posted by: laland69 | March 5, 2008 07:03 AM

Ok you can leave the party bye bye go to Canada with there right wing government that just took you man out.

Ohio was big big big. Means the white working man prefers Hillary. Supers are going to take that as a sign she is stronger in the Midwest. Obama did not turn out the younglings in Ohio or Texas but he did get there votes.

I smell fear not hope coming from Obama's peeps.

Hillary gained in delegates - Obama lies again (that 2 in 46 years).


Posted by: mul | March 5, 2008 07:19 AM

Mull let me tell you something. I despise people like you who continually support corrupt and dishonest people like the Clintons who are nothing bunch of power hungry sleaze. I see why Ohio is having so much trouble getting out of their hard times. They have uneducated white trash like yourself who have no brains to see the forest from the trees. If Hillary wins the nomination, trust me she will lose big time. So many people will stay the hell home.

Posted by: laland69 | March 5, 2008 9:48 AM | Report abuse

I feel happy and warm all over.

Posted by: mul | March 5, 2008 12:47 AM
==================

Well, clean up and come in for dinner. And Don't track it inside!

Posted by: deucebollards | March 5, 2008 9:42 AM | Report abuse

The Clintons would do anything and everything to be the Democratic nominee. She does have this false sense of entitlement to the presidency. If she ends up being the Nominee, I like many other Democrats would not be voting for this polarizing figure and John MCcain would end up been president. The republican strategy orcestrated by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and sean Hannity suggesting to their listeners to subvert the democratic primary process by voting for Hillary would have worked.

Posted by: projectscope2002 | March 5, 2008 9:36 AM | Report abuse

Barack Obama has demonstrated his ability to think critically. The Clintons think politically. Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq war because she thought she needed to look "tough" as a woman candidate for president. We need a president who puts the best interests of the country first and foremost. That would be Barack Obama. If this country wants to move ahead BARACK OBAMA WILL WIN THE NOMINATION AND WILL BE ELECTED PRESIDENT. If this country is satisfied with the status quo.....God help us!

Posted by: joy2 | March 5, 2008 9:35 AM | Report abuse

The Clintons would do anything and everything to be the Democratic nominee. She does have this false sense of entitlement to the presidency. If she ends up being the Nominee, I like many other Democrats would not be voting for this polarizing figure and John MCcain would end up been president. The republican strategy orcestrated by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and sean Hannity suggesting to their listeners to subvert the democratic primary process by voting for Hillary would have worked.

Posted by: projectscope2002 | March 5, 2008 9:26 AM | Report abuse

Obama cannot continue to be a gentleman. He must start talking about Hillary's financial supporters. Hsu, the convicted felon contributed 850 thousand to the woman's campaign. Obama will begin talking about the cash bundling Clinton's crooked backers have done the past year. Clinton needs to be exposed for the politician, who has been running nationally, who takes the most cash from special interest foreign corporations. Knock the b1tch out Obama!

Posted by: sperrico | March 5, 2008 9:19 AM | Report abuse

The title of this article is so misleading. Against massive Media bias and with Obama outspending her 10-1, Clinton won these three states. He has won caucuses ... but in the general election there is no caucus ... just votes. CLINTON SHOULD BE GIVEN THE FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN DELEGATES SHE HAS EARNED! ... and then, we will have a fair playing field.

Posted by: paris1969 | March 5, 2008 9:11 AM | Report abuse

All Tuesday night proves is that, like the last two presidential elections, Ohio got it wrong.......again. The country has Bush/Clinton fatigue and there is only one way to cure it. Please HRC, for the love of all that is good, go away.

Posted by: noel1963 | March 5, 2008 8:45 AM | Report abuse

I am saying it again: The Obamites are a different breed. They are neither Democrats nor Republicans(some blacks crossed party lines just to vote for Obama). Their actuations are vitriolic, egotistic, and unpatriotic. They are mirror image of themselves: hypocrites. They are fun of attacking the other side for the things that they themselves are doing and much worse.
I hope the mainstream Democrats will distance themselves from this "third Force". Let them form their own party and stop destroying the Democratic Party. Their language are foul, distasteful, and full of hate. They cannot accept that they are losing.
Obamites accept it, if you lose you will cease to be Democrats and will vote against Hillary. "Wolves in Democrat clothing?"

Posted by: bobbyvalenz | March 5, 2008 8:25 AM | Report abuse

manavarth, I'm hardly considered "young" anymore, even though I'm only 31, and I'd say I did think, and consider, and took quite some time to decide to back Obama. I think he has the vision required to be president at this moment in history, and his outlook hasn't been tainted too much by cynicism to allow him to step in and make decisions and take risks based on actual conviction instead of political expediency.

I defended Clinton, even when I didn't back her, until her campaign started griping about FL and MI. Then the attacks started. Then the griping about the debates. Then the spin about NAFTA that has been completely debunked. She's shown me that she'll do and say anything, no matter if it's true or not, to win, because somehow she feels it's owed to her after putting up with Slick Willie all these years. No thanks. I don't want, and and I don't need her brand of politics.

Posted by: Mazarin | March 5, 2008 8:14 AM | Report abuse

Hillary win shows there are people with brains in their in their head left in US. Congratulations to those who stands by her.
It's nothing but lack of experience, lack of right thinking and inability to take studied decisions regarding a significant thing like electing people to run one's own country, that rallies young blood behind Obama. They're just excited about the slogan and carried away by the illusion of some kind of change from the known ways to some of kind a dreamy change that need not have to be real. hope they open their eyes and see light.

Posted by: manavarth | March 5, 2008 7:26 AM | Report abuse

Yes let me make it clear Obama lost last night and is weaker after 2 weeks of Mac attack.

He did not win or do OK, he lost. Lets see if he can come back.

300,000 votes to go for HRC. Go girl - just don't do anything un-lady like so Obama's women hating supporters don't get offended.

Posted by: mul | March 5, 2008 7:24 AM | Report abuse

I don't want to belong to a party which i feel is a thing of the past.

Posted by: laland69 | March 5, 2008 07:03 AM

Ok you can leave the party bye bye go to Canada with there right wing government that just took you man out.

Ohio was big big big. Means the white working man prefers Hillary. Supers are going to take that as a sign she is stronger in the Midwest. Obama did not turn out the younglings in Ohio or Texas but he did get there votes.

I smell fear not hope coming from Obama's peeps.

Hillary gained in delegates - Obama lies again (that 2 in 46 years).

Posted by: mul | March 5, 2008 7:19 AM | Report abuse

Gee, she won two states she was supposed to win by 20+ points.

Still no tax returns, still no info on the Library..what is she hiding...what's in the phone logs she doesn't want released for 2 years?

No one wants anymore of the Clinton dramas and scandals and no net gain for her in delegates last night

She's happy to destroy the party---say, do anything to win.

Half her own party hates her and won't vote for her. Corrupt as the day is long, we have had our fill of Clintons and first lady is no qualification for prez.

She's never been awakened at 3AM 'cept for state troopers bringing her husband home from his dates.

Posted by: mjzahara | March 5, 2008 7:07 AM | Report abuse

If Obama doesn't win the nomination, I really think he should start a third party. I don't want to belong to a party which i feel is a thing of the past.

Posted by: laland69 | March 5, 2008 7:03 AM | Report abuse

The Clintons are going to literally destroy the Democratic party. I have never seen such a bunch of selfish and self-serving people like the Clintons in all my life. They had their time in public office for so long. It is time for someone new. Dragging this nomination out much longer is really gonna help John McCain.

Posted by: laland69 | March 5, 2008 6:48 AM | Report abuse

Lot of "credit" for Tuesday's results going around, but where is the analysis of the "limbaugh effect"? There's lots of anecdotal evidence in smaller Texas and Ohio papers of many, many repubs voting for Clinton. Will El Rushbo claim "victory" today? Will the big MSM report on this, or are they in lockstep with Rush on extending what he's called the dem "soap opera" for the sake of ad revenue and TV ratings? I smell manipulation.

Posted by: flarrfan | March 5, 2008 6:37 AM | Report abuse

The all out effort by The Media and approximately 25% of the votes for Obama coming from Repubs in an effort to stop Hillary did not work. My earlier estimate of 10 to 15% of the votes for Obama was way low for Repubs that would never vote for him in the GE, but was part of their strategy to keep Hillary from getting the nomination. All indications now appear to be in favor of Hillary being our next POTUS.

Posted by: lylepink | March 5, 2008 6:34 AM | Report abuse

Obama needs to start throwing the kitchen sink right back at Billary. So far he's limited himself to respectfully responding to her Rovian tactics and attacs. She won Texas by only a small lead, and it is a mathematical impossibility for her to win ahead in delegate numbers. Why is the press not emphasizing this? Should she through some underhanded way get the nomination, anybody stop to think that she'll NEVER win in November if she loses the vote of disgruntled Obama supporters?

Posted by: AJBF | March 5, 2008 6:24 AM | Report abuse

What Axlerod is not telling you, is the fact that they outspent Hillary 3-1. Despite that spending, they still lost Texas and Ohio by double digits, so any fund raising advantage and media hype Obama's had, means nothing. His true colors, those of a politician who is all talk, but can't walk the walk, have been clearly exposed.


EX-SQUEEZE ME?

Yeah, they outspent Hillary and carved a huge hole in her strong hold. B. Obama had a huge task in and as far as introducing himself to a HRC stronghold and did a hell of a job.

THe time frame he had to work in was short and hectic. All in all, HRC won, but at what cost to her campaigning? HUGE DEBT.. NOT A HUGE victory as far as the big picture goes.

Barack is a savvy contender, they will bounce back from this at full tilt.

I've said before in these forums, I am a Republican, however I am backing Obama. Should he not get the nod, I too will vote for McCain.

Posted by: vance1 | March 5, 2008 5:45 AM | Report abuse

The bubble has burst and finally people seem to be voting based on reasoned analysis of the candidates ability and not just on rock star appeal. Democratic officials must find a way to allow Michigan and Florida voters to decide this contest before the convention.

Posted by: paul2150 | March 5, 2008 5:36 AM | Report abuse

Now is the time of maximum danger for the Democrats. Hillary will believe, rightly or wrongly, that the negative ads the last few days were decisive in her victories. Therefore, she will only increase them and get even more nasty. Obama will be forced to counter with his own such ads - and anyone who doesn't think there is plenty of ammunition for negative Hillary ads is out of it. So picture the next couple of months of increasing vitriol for the democrates, while McCain sits back and appears more presidential and more grown-up.

Posted by: olin137 | March 5, 2008 5:28 AM | Report abuse

Popular Vote 12,544,948 11,942,626
Popular Vote (w/FL 13,121,162 12,813,612
Obama HRC

She needs about 308,000 votes.

Then she will be the choice of voters who went to the polls.

That is a very powerful case. Obama can make his case as well. Right now he would be the Dem winner but the race is not over. Yes not even close to over.

Supers are going to make the choice either way (probably). The rules are not who has the most pledged at the end of the race. You have to have a 'majority' by any means under the rules of the democratic party. Those are the rules, I did not make them.

Posted by: mul | March 5, 2008 5:12 AM | Report abuse

This is the Clinton dynasty's historical legacy, an ironic tragedy for a woman I had supported for decades and now find despicable for her negative, destructive, lying manipulation of the worst elements in the American people.

To shape we the people with demonizing tactics into a hate-filled mass--that is truly unforgivable.

Posted by: mnjam | March 5, 2008 04:45 AM

Stop calling the Clinton's Racist.

Clinton won white males tonight.

Look at Obama's own words and his hate filled minions running on the B factor.

Posted by: mul | March 5, 2008 4:58 AM | Report abuse

I saw the CBC, Canada's BBC, on realclear. Even they are pro Obama. OMG

Thank you SNL for in two weeks giving the beat down to the WP, NY Times, and MSNBC, CNN for there crap 'reporting'. The WP has not changed but it matters. The can't run like a Putin rag for much longer. NY times shot its wad at Mac already.

Normally Networks follow the big papers lead because they fired all there reporters in the 90s.

Posted by: mul | March 5, 2008 4:51 AM | Report abuse

Rhode Island Democratic Party Primary (Mar. 4) - Total Delegates: 32 x .6 = 20 (+8 delgates)

Vermont Democratic Party Primary (Mar. 4) - Total Delegates: 23 x .4 = 9 (-5 delegates)

Ohio Democratic Party Primary (Mar. 4) - Total Delegates: 162 x .55 = 90 (+18 delegates)

Texas Democratic Party Primary (Mar. 4) - Total Delegates: 156 x .52 = 81 (+6 delegates)

Texas Democratic Party Caucus (Mar. 4) - Total Delegates: 72 x .48 = 35 (-2 delegates)

After tonight, depending on how the Texas Caucus ends up, Barack will still be about 80 delegates ahead.

Posted by: buzzm1 | March 5, 2008 4:49 AM | Report abuse

Shirleylim, you said it all. It's worth repeating:

Well, March 4th saw the Clinton dynasty's kitchen-sinking of the Obama campaign in Ohio and Texas.

Hillary was ahead by double digits two weeks ago, then when her numbers went down, she positioned herself as the underdog.

She whined about Obama's media treatment, and got herself to become the media darling of SNL and the Today Show. H

er ads colored Obama charcoal black.

Then she did the nuclear fear 3 a.m. ad to show Obama as unable to be commander-in-chief. Her going nuclear on Obama won her back the gullible undecided voters.

But against McCain her readiness and experience "values" (which are the only possible values the Clinton dynasty can claim without rousing derisive laughter) will get her nowhere.

Hillary's going nuclear has just about devastated the Democratic Party. The Clintons have permanently lost the African American voters with their racist colorization of Obama. They may have permanently lost the (white) male votes with their playing of the gender card. The Clintons will lose the new younger voters who will return to apathy or see the light and become independent (like my son). The Democratic Party is now moving toward a (white) older women demographic, becoming a party of the past. And as a senior citizen feminist, I will move with my son and re-register as an independent. This is the Clinton dynasty's historical legacy, an ironic tragedy for a woman I had supported for decades and now find despicable for her negative, destructive, lying manipulation of the worst elements in the American people.

To shape we the people with demonizing tactics into a hate-filled mass--that is truly unforgivable.

Posted by: mnjam | March 5, 2008 4:45 AM | Report abuse

Obama keeps on lying about everything just so he can win. But you know what they say about liars? There will come a day when they cant keep up with it anymore. That day has come for Obama. People now see thru his lies.

And its just about time.

Posted by: fjstratford | March 5, 2008 4:20 AM | Report abuse

No wonder Obama got whupped...his campaign magaers are as dellusional as his supporters are. Let's see Obama is ahead by 50 delegates, there are several primaries left including PA, which she will proabably win...and their are 800 super delegates who may well vote for her. Hmmm, 800 to 50....even George Bush could do that math...just not Jim Axelrod, Oh well, I guess he will have to learn the hard way:)

Posted by: devin79 | March 5, 2008 4:17 AM | Report abuse

The obamites has only disdain for the "poor and illiterate" voters who supported Clinton. Obama's rich and elite followers are in a better position to judged this primary according to them. Wait and see.
Why are the Obamites talking about numbers. This primary has long past that. It is now about integrity in dealings like Rezko and NAFTA back stabbing. It is about who your friends are like the Syrian and the Iraqi. It is about asking if anybody is really ready to become a president which shows an unsure and weak personality. It is about being proud of your country all the time. It is about nationalism.
Hillary has lots of faults but they pale in comparison with Obama. I'd rather have Bill as first gentleman than Michelle as first lady. Not because of gender but because Bill is an asset 100x better than Michelle. Everytime she opens her mouth everybody cringe in fear. We cannot survive four years of that.
Hillary and Bill v.s. Obama and Michelle. Make your choice.

Posted by: bobbyvalenz | March 5, 2008 4:08 AM | Report abuse

Well, March 4th saw the Clinton dynasty's kitchen-sinking of the Obama campaign in Ohio and Texas. Hillary was ahead by double digits two weeks ago, then when her numbers went down, she positioned herself as the underdog. She whined about Obama's media treatment, and got herself to become the media darling of SNL and the Today Show. Her ads colored Obama charcoal black. Then she did the nuclear fear 3 a.m. ad to show Obama as unable to be commander-in-chief. Her going nuclear on Obama won her back the gullible undecided voters. But against McCain her readiness and experience "values" (which are the only possible values the Clinton dynasty can claim without rousing derisive laughter) will get her nowhere. Hillary's going nuclear has just about devastated the Democratic Party. The Clintons have permanently lost the African American voters with their racist colorization of Obama. They may have permanently lost the (white) male votes with their playing of the gender card. The Clintons will lose the new younger voters who will return to apathy or see the light and become independent (like my son). The Democratic Party is now moving toward a (white) older women demographic, becoming a party of the past. And as a senior citizen feminist, I will move with my son and re-register as an independent. This is the Clinton dynasty's historical legacy, an ironic tragedy for a woman I had supported for decades and now find despicable for her negative, destructive, lying manipulation of the worst elements in the American people. To shape we the people with demonizing tactics into a hate-filled mass--that is truly unforgivable.

Posted by: shirleylim | March 5, 2008 4:06 AM | Report abuse

I voted for John Edwards in my state's primary. Of the two remaining, I would prefer Obama. But the comments in this story are just spin. On a day that Obama could have ended the race, Hillary thumped him. I think her campaign has been shrill and self-centered, but apparently a lot of people in Ohio, Texas, and Rhode Island disagree. I will vote for either in a contest against another 4 years of Republican disasters. But at this point I would enthusiastically vote for Obama, or dejectedly vote for Clinton only to avoid an extension of what we've had to live through the past 8 years.

Posted by: SharptonVoter | March 5, 2008 4:01 AM | Report abuse

Hillary should still be able to get the nomination. It is true that she has won the big states and these are the states that the Democrats must win if they want to win in November. Obama cannot take the heat when it is thrown at him. He has ridden the "Life Of Riley" train so far. Once the media runs Obama through the vetting train he will lose. Mccain will beat Obama. Hillary is actually showing a personality that is nice.

Posted by: Scruffy1970 | March 5, 2008 3:26 AM | Report abuse

There seems to be a lot of disagreement between the two campaigns about the delegate math, but it's actually relatively straightforward.

According to CNN, Obama leads by 130 delegates.

According to Wikipedia, there are 585 delegates left to win.

So, Hillary will need to win 130 more delegates than Obama in order to break even .

This means, Hillary will need to win at least 357.5 delegates. That would leave Obama with 227.5 delegates. 357.5 - 227.5 = 130. (ie. the delegate lead she needs)

357.5 out of 585 remaining delegates = 61%

i.e. Hillary will need to win ALL the next primaries by at least 61% to 39%. In other words 22 points to break even, more than that to win. That's all there is to it.

Posted by: copernicus73 | March 5, 2008 3:09 AM | Report abuse

The U.S. message to the world: throw away the salt & pepper shakers.

Underlying all of the political hoopla in the race to the White House is the possibility of something as momentous as the ratification of our venerable Constitution. At last our country has the opportunity to say to the world that practicing what one preaches means more to Americans than the titular and sanctimonious words, composed by men who were conflicted by the actions of their deeds and the egalitarian words that preceded their signatures. On that august day in 1776, hypocrisy was quilled into sheepskin, because true equality was actually foreign to their hearts.

Someone needs to pinch everyone of this planet to assure them this may no longer be just another dream. Yes, in America, perhaps all men and women are truly created equal; and not just in the eyes of God.

Senator Barack Obama represents "Change," the latest zeitgeist. Change, as a mantra, has probably been used as a platform since the first animal-skin-wearing politician stood on top of a rock and claimed he possessed the plan to improve the lives of those willing to trust their futures to the one who promised to lead the group to a better life, or maybe the Promised Land.

Besides one of the recent characterizations of Obama as messianic, notwithstanding whether or not he really is, the important thing is more than what he is pledging; it is what is in the hearts of our citizens: they truly want to be the epitome of human development, where race has become as passé as a topic of contention as the notion of our earth being the center of the universe.

Although Hillary Clinton could be the first female president of the United States, she would not be the first woman to be head of state in the Western World. One of the first is believed to have been Artemisia I of Caria, now a part of modern day western Turkey. Since that time, many women have ruled or headed the governments and churches in what we still consider to be our part on this big blue marble; therefore, if the United States decides it truly wishes to be number one in the world again, let it do it with the election of the first man, who is not of color, but an amalgam of racial diversity. Our country is finally growing up. No longer will we need to add qualifying elements when referring to a person, who may be of color or not of the politically dominant gender. If that happens on the shores of America, then the choices in this country will cease be salt and not pepper, but a medley of all the good intentions of mankind.

York Van Nixon III 3/5/08 YorkVanNixonIII.Com

Posted by: YorkIII | March 5, 2008 3:06 AM | Report abuse

I added up some unofficial totals on my own. Even winning all the "big states" besides Illinois, Clinton has fewer total votes than Obama. The only way she can claim that a greater number of Americans have chosen her is by counting Michigan, where Obama wasn't even on the ballot. No worries here, though, I started out backing McCain and I can always go back.

Posted by: ViejitaDelOeste | March 5, 2008 2:58 AM | Report abuse

WP has a head like pushing the Obama line about "Math".

Read realclear.

She needs 53 percent from now to overtake Obama in the popular vote.

That will seal the deal probably. Dems care about votes. At least I do.

If she does not do that she will not and should not win.

The WP is not doing its job. I grew up with it so I makes me sad.

BTW - Rove (on fox) is a great analyst. And I even sort of like him. He did a great brake down on the youth vote.

Posted by: mul | March 5, 2008 2:51 AM | Report abuse

Finally people start to see how P***y Obama is.

He could not handle a couple of soft hits from HRC, he is just a P***Y

Can you imagine him taking shots from Republicans?

obama is a P***Y
HRC will bend him over and ....heeee


GO HRC!!!

Posted by: ebubuk2004 | March 5, 2008 2:48 AM | Report abuse

By the time she is done with Obama he will be so Gay.

Two slaps the guy couldn't even talk...OMG,
He is going to stand against Rove?

HRC 08

Posted by: ebubuk2004 | March 5, 2008 2:46 AM | Report abuse

Finally people start to see how P***y Obama is.

He could not handle a couple of soft hits from HRC, he is just a P***Y

Can you imagine him taking shots from Republicans?

obama is a P***Y
HRC will bend him over and ....heeee


GO HRC!!!

Posted by: ebubuk2004 | March 5, 2008 2:43 AM | Report abuse

Finally people start to see how P***y Obama is.

He could not handle a couple of soft hits from HRC, he is just a P***Y

Can you imagine him taking shots from Republicans?

obama is a P***Y
HRC will bend him over and ....heeee


GO HRC!!!

Posted by: ebubuk2004 | March 5, 2008 2:42 AM | Report abuse

We have as much illiteracy as any third world countries. People who support HRC do not know what they are doing. They think they were reelecting Bill. It is not about how smart Obama is or if he is experienced. It is about who has the capacity to play dirty and spin. HRC is winning just because she is one of the ugliest women politicians who know how to play dirty and win. She is using scare tactics as Bush did. It is shame to see women and many uninformed people voting for this person whose only aim is to make history. With her McCain definitely has better chance in November.

Posted by: alfa2 | March 5, 2008 2:40 AM | Report abuse

I just want to point out the obvious. I keep hearing Obama supporters saying that the party elders should pressure Hillary to drop out of the race and let Obama win. What a stupid stupid idea. In case you haven't noticed, Hillary is the Dem Party. Give me one person that has given her life to built the progressive left, from party apparatus to think-tanks. Hillary is the one. Deal with it. She will win the nomination.

Posted by: jjmicaiah | March 5, 2008 2:39 AM | Report abuse

I would like to thank ebubuk2004 for elevating the level of discourse.

Posted by: JoeBewildered | March 5, 2008 2:27 AM | Report abuse

HRC will bend him OVER and..... Obama heeeee....

Posted by: ebubuk2004 | March 5, 2008 2:27 AM | Report abuse

Finally people star to see how P***y he is.

He could not even handle a couple of soft hits from HRC, he is a P***Y

Can you imagine him taking shots from Republican?
obama is a P***Y


Posted by: ebubuk2004 | March 5, 2008 2:24 AM | Report abuse

I get a kick out of the people who say Obama can only win the small states. The inability to win in smaller (red) states has been the achilles heal of the Democratic Party. Compare his vote totals in those states to the Republican totals. Now consider that in the general he will probably carry the big ones that even John Kerry couldn't lose and that he will be competitive in the red states, and that McCain is a few cards shy of 52, and that Obama will be able to hang George Bush around McCains neck, I think his chances look pretty good.

Posted by: JoeBewildered | March 5, 2008 2:23 AM | Report abuse

Finally people star to see how P***y he is!!

He could not even handle a couple of soft hits, he is a P***Y

Posted by: ebubuk2004 | March 5, 2008 2:19 AM | Report abuse

HE IS A FRAUD

FINALLY PEOPLE SEE HE IS A FRAUD!!!!

Posted by: ebubuk2004 | March 5, 2008 2:18 AM | Report abuse

I told you, he is a FRAUD!

He is a FRAUD!

Finallt people see how not smart he is

HRC 08

Posted by: ebubuk2004 | March 5, 2008 2:17 AM | Report abuse

HRC 08
HRC 08
HRC 08
HRC 08
HRC 08
HRC 08

Posted by: ebubuk2004 | March 5, 2008 2:15 AM | Report abuse

I agree with whoever it was that said a Clinton presidency will bring more of the same kind of politics, simply with different policies. I am a 40s woman from Ohio and I voted for Obama because I want to see a different kind of politics: Clinton has run a dirty campaign; Obama has not. Moreover, I believe that if Clinton gets the nomination (which, given everything I have read on the subject, is unlikely [unless she tries to bring Michigan and Florida back into the picture -- more underhanded tactics]) McCain will be the next president.

John Nichols provides a succinct analysis of what is at stake for the Democratic party in his blog: "Now It Gets Dangerous for Democrats" --http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=294426

Posted by: dtaylor | March 5, 2008 2:11 AM | Report abuse

This race is over. The delegate grab tonight is a near push. Obama heavily favored in Wyoming and Mississippi. The Clintons are to be respected for the 90's, but shot their proverbial load this week. It's over. Obama will destroy McCain in the general; especially when voters get tired of his brown teeth.

Posted by: jmventre | March 5, 2008 2:11 AM | Report abuse

When you stop to consider how big a dream this was for Hillary, and how close she was to realizing it, it really is quite tragic. That she will go down fighting like a pit bull is hardly surprising.

Posted by: JoeBewildered | March 5, 2008 2:11 AM | Report abuse

This race is over. The delegate grab tonight is a near push. Obama heavily favored in Wyoming and Mississippi. The Clintons are to be respected for the 90's, but shot their proverbial load this week. It's over. Obama will destroy McCain in the general; especially when voters get tired of his brown teeth.

Posted by: jmventre | March 5, 2008 2:11 AM | Report abuse

Well hell. The day of the pensive and thoughtful discussion has returned. I enjoy reading some of your Billary dripping comments when they at least seem original. I resent having to listen to dumbed down reenactments by the authentically challenged minnions of her Clintonship.

Where are her phone records by the way. Lets get authentic and let her put her mouth where her money is. Put it out there first-lady, ambassador white house aide and foreign policy advisor -NOT- FOR HER HUSBAND. Get real!!!!!!!!!!! NOW...is good.


Posted by: cdcrooms | March 5, 2008 2:00 AM | Report abuse

why people want bush-lite i will never understand. hrc has run a rove-like campaign w/ dirty tricks. i guess some people are just into that type of stuff. we just need to keep you type of people out of the wh before you sink us even further into the abyss.

barack just needs to remind voters why they dont want hrc in the white house. remind people why they dont like her. she is arrogant, smug (im smarter than you), an old baby boomer mother who wants to tell everyone what to do, she is full of secrets (where are those tax returns?) which she will transfer to the wh and follow the bush line of meetings behind closed doors...the bush/clinton years must end if america is ever going to move forward again. if she wins, i vote mccain!

Posted by: michaelb_2004 | March 5, 2008 1:54 AM | Report abuse

What Axlerod is not telling you, is the fact that they outspent Hillary 3-1. Despite that spending, they still lost Texas and Ohio by double digits, so any fund raising advantage and media hype Obama's had, means nothing. His true colors, those of a politician who is all talk, but can't walk the walk, have been clearly exposed.

Posted by: autowx | March 5, 2008 1:52 AM | Report abuse

Obama will very probably continue to crush Hillary in all the smaller states, and fight her to near draws in Indiana and Pennsylvania.

I doubt Hillary is going to change her tactics since trying to tear Obama down (documented instances of mocking and sarcasm with respect to uniting people) has produced some positive result for her; but it does not reflect well on her. The longer she has to keep it up, the more pressure will build from within the party for her to drop out.

Posted by: JoeBewildered | March 5, 2008 1:47 AM | Report abuse

Ok mul, I am going to give another $100 to Obama right now. You are so right.

Except for one thing. Hillary is not the problem. If she had divorced him the first time he humiliated her and their daughter and the insisted on leaving American politics as a Democratic killing field...I'd be donating to her. I just don't want to ever see Bill Clinton in the White House ever again.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 5, 2008 1:43 AM | Report abuse

Hillary's Math Problem
Forget tonight. She could win 16 straight and still lose.
by Jonathan Alter

http://www.newsweek.com/id/118240

It was over after the Potomac Primaries. Another three months of trying to tear Obama down is only going to strengthen the Republicans. At some point, Hillary has to decide if she's really in it for the people or for herself.

Posted by: mschoerner | March 5, 2008 1:41 AM | Report abuse

Well done Hillary! Obama can have his victories in Utah and Idaho, places like that, which will vote Republican in the presidential election. Hillary has California, New York, Texas, Ohio, and other states with a lot of people. She's back in the driving seat. What a fighter!

Posted by: dhayjones | March 5, 2008 1:38 AM | Report abuse

I will not think of Obama as the front runner until the fat lady sings, cause if she resorts to that, it is over. He has built a political operation that has come out of nowhere to be on the cusp of taking down a the , rather powerful, extensive, well connected Clinton machine.

If Obama wins the nomination, he will have solved a very big problem for about 40% of the country. And he will have done it with a high level of civility. That is change.

Posted by: JoeBewildered | March 5, 2008 1:35 AM | Report abuse

Just had a thought usually when one side loses the peeps on the other side say

"I am going to Canada"

Now what are the Obama cultist going to do. Canada F you magic man up big time.

Ha ha ha ha

Posted by: mul | March 5, 2008 1:31 AM | Report abuse

Outside his home state of Illinois, Obama has yet to win a major state. Idaho and Nebraska are not equivalent to Ohio and California. The working people of America have spoken again. When will the social elites realize that they are not what makes America great. Forget Clinton dropping out; Obama ought to read the tea leaves: he cannot win a big state, and the workers who have always been the core of the Democratic Party do not want him. Stop reading your press clippings and support the real candidate of the people: Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: tschneider | March 5, 2008 1:28 AM | Report abuse

Obama has been running on Hillary is a B. Has anyone noticed? Have you seen the crap that comes out from his supporters and mailings.

Posted by: mul | March 5, 2008 1:28 AM | Report abuse

The Karl-Rove style attacks on Obama are to expected from the presidential dynasty that hired Dick Morris.
But to attack Obama on NAFTA double-talk is a bit rich from a woman who praised her husband's "shining achievement" repeatedly.
To attack Obama on ethics (Rezko) is rich coming from Mrs. Whitewater.
Billary will find solace in the racial identity politics that shore up her leads in those blue collar states. Billary will delight that the Latino vote has come home and, surprise, it is anti-black. Those of us disgusted by all this will support Obama all the more enthusiastically.

Posted by: windleyob | March 5, 2008 1:27 AM | Report abuse

Any second someone is going to tell me they just made a donation to Obama!

Posted by: mul | March 5, 2008 1:26 AM | Report abuse

On pure merits Clinton cannot win against Obama. She had to cry, whine, say untrue things, get the support from Rush Limbauh to win with a small percentage vote. She whined that she always gets the question first. Well why did she not complain when the field had 10 candidates. Stupid media buys into it.

Posted by: rchenna | March 5, 2008 1:25 AM | Report abuse

Show me a politician at the national level who has not compromised their integrity a time or two for political expediency and I will show you a bridge in New York I have for sale.

If we judge the fitness of the candidates by the campaigns that they have run, I think it answers a lot of questions about Obama being ready for the job. Obamas political machine is performing like a well tuned (cool car of your choice) and Hillary's is performing like and AMF era Harley Davidson.

Posted by: JoeBewildered | March 5, 2008 1:24 AM | Report abuse

Looking at how things are going now I am struck most of all by how decently Obama has conducted himself, responding to Clinton attacks but not going negative himself... I know there are some Clinton supporters who think that the Obama campaign has been the source of much negativity, but they seem to confuse some of the lunatics who post on these blogs with the Obama people. She has been going after him full blast -- the 'fun part' of campaigning -- and he has largely tried to keep above the fray.

What worries me now is that these attacks seem to be working, and at some point he may feel that he has to respond in kind. Start reminding people why she is seen as so polarizing, recall the past scandals that are certain to be dredged up against her by the Republcians, and all the potential new ones from Bill's enriching himself so hugely in the years following his presidency. Go more directly after the male vote by raising legitimate questions about all that experience that she keeps talking about, referring almost entirely to her years as first lady, etc.

The thought of these two Democratic leaders going all-out against each other is scary indeed. This is a very dangerous moment.

Posted by: lostintranslation | March 5, 2008 1:24 AM | Report abuse

JoeBewildered,
nice try, but look at the psychotic post below you.

savagepolitics.com

They will not stop.


Posted by: shrink2 | March 5, 2008 1:22 AM | Report abuse

As for the comments here that tend to use 1. racism, 2. xenophobism, 3. religious intolerance, 4. fear mongering, 5. slander, and 6. truly atrocious grammar and spelling, I would have to give the slight lead to Hillary supporters on those counts. Statistics do show she appeals to the "less educated" voters, natch.

And I'll trade you one Axelrod for your Wolfson and Penn any day.

Posted by: hillmannic | March 5, 2008 01:10 AM

Obama leads in blind sheep cultiest, women haters (big time), and A-holes.

Posted by: mul | March 5, 2008 1:21 AM | Report abuse

rmcnicoll-You seem to have an awareness about the matter, so I ask you:

How are Foreign Contributions/ Contributers accounted for, if at all?

Your George Soros and World Labor Party Types?

Can they just set up a general fund in a Bahama Bank?

Inquiring little Minds want to know! ;~)

Posted by: rat-the | March 5, 2008 1:21 AM | Report abuse

It seems that if one is nasty enough, one will get WHATEVER it is that one wants.

Call me what you will, but I'm not interested in mudslinging. The Clinton's will reload the kitchen sink and will probably find more of the race and religion cards to throw out to people who are less educated and less informed. These tactics incite fear and emotional responses in people. But do whatever is necessary to win.

The democratic party will suffer with a Clinton nomination. The people of this country will remain divided; the world's communities will still not respect America; and US citizens will continue to get the same old same old.

Posted by: 14u2thinkabout | March 5, 2008 1:20 AM | Report abuse

I did notice that Mr. Obama sure looked mad tonight. Gone were the lofty words. Gone the dreams & hope. Nope, he was mad. Man, he sure hates to lose!
He can continue to blame Hillary or "The Clintons" as he's fond of calling her for his media this week but it's all his own. I personaly saw 3 different stories about how, why & who happened with the Canadian Embassy event. 2 were told by Mr. Obama within the span of a day.

Rezko, how does he blame her for his 20 yrs of collecting dirty money? I do think he will be called in that case. Not for Rezko tho, but by the prosecution for his involvement with his letter writing to help cut deals that swindled people. But, what do I know? I'm a dumb American woman.

I do think there is a lesson here for Mr. Obama. Maybe it's time to stop trying to use the media & every strongarm tactic that Chicago is so famous for to win this election by being nasty. Pot calling the kettle?

For every contest he's won, he's lost by near numbers. Many millions of us don't like him & we won't vote for him.

If I lose Hillary, the DNC loses me & everyone I can take to vote for John McCain. How many of us "grassrooters" can our party afford to lose?

Posted by: msophia | March 5, 2008 1:17 AM | Report abuse

Media repeats Obama falsehood: "We are receiving Campaign Contributons from over 200,000 individual contributors thru Internet". NOT TRUE!

According to the Center For Responsive Politics, a non-partisan, non-profit research group based in Washington, D.C. that tracks money in politics, and its effect on elections and public policy, the 20 top contributors to the Barack Obama campaign are Wall Street financial companies, their registered lobbyists, and go-to law firms.

Seven of the campaign's top 14 donors are officers and employees of the companies that either originated or bundled fraudulent mortgages.

These seven Wall Street firms are in the order of money given: Goldman Sachs, UBS, AG, Lehman Brothers, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley and Credit Suisse. There is also a large hedge fund, Citadel Investment Group, which is a major source of fee income to Wall Street. There are five corporate law firms that are also registered lobbyists; and one is a corporate law firm that is no longer a registered lobbyist, but does legal work for Wall Street.

The cumulative total of these 14 contributors through February 1, 2008, was close to 3 million ($2,872,128).

But this was merely a drop in the Obama bucket. Major fundraisers, often called 'bundlers', are playing a gigantic role in financing the campaign. In the last half of 2007, Obama raised $58 million, of that amount at least $13 million came from 'bundlers' and Chicago Tribune Staff reporters Mike Dorning and John McCormick wrote, "the total is probably much higher." SOURCE

But I bet you still thought his campaign was a movement powered by everyday Americans? We have been fed a load of pablum.

60% of the Obama campaign's funds have come from people who have given at least $1,000, the kind of donors who are most often recruited by 'bundlers'. Only 30% of his contributions have come from people who gave less than $200.

The inability or outright refusal of the press to report the reality as opposed to the myth goes back to the beginning of his campaign. In an early democratic debate, former Senator Mike Gravel of Alaska said Obama's much repeated disavowal of lobbyist contributions is "less than pure" because he has wealthy executives who employ lobbyists raising money for him.

Gravel singled out Obama fundraiser, Robert Wolf, America's chairman for Swiss-based UBS Investment Bank, a "foreign owned bank" he said with "lobbyists in Washington." At that point employees of UBS had given at least $142,000.

As the campaign has progressed so has the duplicity. These top five contributors to the Obama campaign have filed as registered lobbyists: Sidley Austin LLP; Skadden, Arps, et al; Jenner & Block; Kirkland & Ellis; Wilmerhale, aka Wilmer Cutler Pickering. Bob Bauer, counsel to the Obama campaign, is an attorney with Perkins Coie, that law firm is also a registered lobbyist.

But here is where the duplicity takes on the dimension of the "Big Lie" and the sort of deception that could only happen in a country which no longer has an objective and impartial press corps. Nothing that follows is innuendo or conjecture or even supposition. It is fact..

On February 10, 2005, Obama voted in favor of the passage of the misnamed Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 which seriously hampers the rights of ordinary citizens to challenge corporations. Senators Biden, Boxer, Byrd, Clinton, Corzine, Durbin, Feingold, Kerry Leah, Reid and 16 other democrats voted against it.

So did 14 state attorneys general, including Lisa Madigan of Obama's home state of Illinois. She called it a "corporate giveaway." The Senate also received a desperate plea from more than 40 civil rights and labor organizations, including the NAACP, Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Human Rights Campaign, American Civil Liberties Union, Center for Justice and Democracy, Legal Momentum (formerly NOW Legal Defense Fund) and Alliance for Justice. SOURCE

They wrote:

"Under the Act citizens are denied the right to use their own state courts to bring class actions against corporations that violate state wage and hour and state civil rights laws, even where that corporation has hundreds of employees in that state. Moving these state law cases into federal court will delay and likely deny justice for working men and women and victims of discrimination. The federal courts are already overburdened. Additionally, federal courts are less likely to certify classes or provide relief for violations of state law"

The bill which will seriously impair labor, consumer and civil rights involved five years of pressure from 100 corporations, 475 lobbyists, and tens of millions of corporate dollars to buy influence. It also involved the active participation of the Wall Street firms now funding the Obama campaign. The Civil Justice Reform Group, a business alliance comprising general counsels from Fortune 100 firms, was instrumental in drafting the class action bill, according to Public Citizen which also said in a 2003 report that Mayer-Brown partners and employees gave close to $100,000 [$92,817] to the Obama campaign by December 31, 2007. Mayer-Brown, hired by the US Chamber of Commerce, spent $16 million in 2003 lobbying the government on class action reform.

Follow the Money: http://savagepolitics.com/?p=165,

Posted by: rmcnicoll | March 5, 2008 1:15 AM | Report abuse

Peolple need to get a grip. These threads are good examples of the results of "the politics of division". You can almost cut the animosity. This is the game that Hillary is a veteran of. That is why I believe that under a Clinton Administration, the policies would change, but the way of doing business would be the same. It is the way of doing business in Washington that is the single greatest threat to our national well being. I believe Obama recognizes this and would strive to achieve positive change simply through promoting civility and leading by example.

Posted by: JoeBewildered | March 5, 2008 1:13 AM | Report abuse

"we are who we have been waiting for"

If this is true not to worry.

If Obama is going to win in a landslide not to worry (think 60 dem senators).

If Clinton can't win not to worry.

If all of these things which Obama and his cultist have said are true, why are you guys so worried?

Posted by: mul | March 5, 2008 1:13 AM | Report abuse

Zuckermand, are you serious? You want to claim SVreader, Iowatreasures, JakeD, et. al as part of Hillary's campaign?

I certainly don't think she would. She would have to "reject and denounce" every single one.

As for the comments here that tend to use 1. racism, 2. xenophobism, 3. religious intolerance, 4. fear mongering, 5. slander, and 6. truly atrocious grammar and spelling, I would have to give the slight lead to Hillary supporters on those counts. Statistics do show she appeals to the "less educated" voters, natch.

And I'll trade you one Axelrod for your Wolfson and Penn any day.

Posted by: hillmannic | March 5, 2008 1:10 AM | Report abuse

" all the delegates from FL and MI are still technically up for grabs!"
Posted by: ErikW65

Uh, no they're not, Erik.

'Technically' the delegates from those states won't be seated at the convention. I'm sure Clinton will issue a lawsuit to try and change the rules because she doesn't like the way the game turned out, but I'm equally confident that the Supreme Court will laugh her out of the building.

By any computation, she can't get enough delegates to catch Obama with the primaries that are left. She has zero chance of overtaking him. She's bluffing, praying for a miracle, or - more likely - in total denial.

But she's toast. So dream on if you like, it keeps us all amused.


Posted by: alexandersharkey | March 5, 2008 1:09 AM | Report abuse

The Buzz now is that the Two Dimocrat Socialists are going to have to Pair Up! :-(

Good News! I have already printed Bumper Stickers up!

You place them on the Front Bumper!

They Read: Run O'Billary- RUN!

The straight Talk express is a'comin! ;~)

Posted by: rat-the | March 5, 2008 1:08 AM | Report abuse

It is truly rich to criticize Obama on "honesty" when the comparison is with Hillary. Too many examples to even go into here.

Amazing how those who support her either have selective memories on this account, have never truly followed politics before, or were in grade school in the nineties....inexplicable.

Posted by: hillmannic | March 5, 2008 1:04 AM | Report abuse

OK cultist there is an election if you like it or not. Do you understand what I am writing.

This Big Lie is ca-put.

If Obama is going to win he will win.

He has been running on Hillary is a B and that narrative has run out of steam. Lets see what he does next.

Posted by: mul | March 5, 2008 1:03 AM | Report abuse

Oh Hillary, Oh Hillary, what other dirty, attacking comments will you come up with. You are a horrible role model to young women and continue to make people weary of politicians. The Republicans are licking their chops, hoping that you get the nomination, they have already hitched their wagon to the dumpster that you and Bill have filled just waiting to pull it into play. Why do you think that they are campaigning against Obama and not you? You are a fox in sheeps clothing. Remember when you were President of the Republican club in college, I guess you never lost those ideals.

Posted by: bdm1brulin | March 5, 2008 1:01 AM | Report abuse

...and why does Mr Axelrod always come off so taunting? He sounds like a schoolyard bully, or a republican.

Posted by: zukermand | March 5, 2008 1:01 AM | Report abuse

Can anyone explain why Clinton wants to delay the release of her phone records (from when she was first lady), when the rest is due to be released, well, already?


Clinton schedule release in late March
(AP) but, ask judge for delay on phone records:

http://newsusa.myfeedportal.com/item.php?itemid=503389

Posted by: davidmwe | March 5, 2008 1:01 AM | Report abuse

While Sen Obama's rhetoric is indeed lofty, I must say the manifestation of his campaign in his supporters here is a bit more, shall we say, earthy?

Posted by: zukermand | March 5, 2008 12:59 AM | Report abuse

bghgh (if that is your real name, just kidding), Obama would not be the youngest president.

At 47 this August, he is older already than Bill Clinton when he took office. If you google "youngest presidents" you find the top 10:

Rank President Years Days
1. Theodore Roosevelt 42 322
2. John F. Kennedy 43 236
3. Bill Clinton 46 154
4. Ulysses S. Grant 46 236
5. Grover Cleveland 47 351
6. Franklin Pierce 48 101
7. James Garfield 49 105
8. James K. Polk 49 122
9. Millard Fillmore 50 184
10. Chester A. Arthur 50 350

Obama would be the new number 5, sorry Grover.

Considering the other "slackers" who were younger than Obama (Teddy Roosevelt, JFK, Clinton, Grant), I think he's in pretty good company.

Posted by: hillmannic | March 5, 2008 12:58 AM | Report abuse

Good night for Hillary, but overlooked if you look through the hype, was a great night for Obama. In Texas and in Ohio, people have known Hillary Clinton for a long time and many people admire her, in short, political strongholds. Obama had a respectable to strong showing in Ohio, and fought here to a virtual draw in the other. These results in the face of numerous political dungbombs. Hillary had to pull out all the stops just to hang on. I think she's done.

Posted by: JoeBewildered | March 5, 2008 12:57 AM | Report abuse

Mul, Obama has substantial lead in popular votes, does he not? It is the real time for Clinton to concede. The country and the party have together lost too much already to her idiotic ambition to occupy the position, which she is so unsuitable pick for.

Posted by: aepelbaum | March 5, 2008 12:57 AM | Report abuse

bghgh asks for Obama to learn more about honesty?

First I want to know about what "is" means.

Where are Bill and Hillary's tax returns?

Hubris? Before we take a walk through what the Clintons could have done. Back when we all were behind them...

shhesh. Little Bush. Bush has charisma? Go finish high school.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 5, 2008 12:56 AM | Report abuse

The difference in pledged elected delegates between Senators Clinton and Obama will likely be about the same, assuming there are no big surprises in the caucus results. Barack made a remarkable comeback in Texas in being so far behind just two weeks ago. However, "credit" must go to the Clinton campaign for its use of highly negative, smear tactics to sway a couple hundred thousand voters over a few days. Some voters, whether Republicans, Democrats or independents are highly susceptible to misleading or false ads.

Senator Clinton will likely continue as a candidate until at least May or June. The Clintons can still unfairly win the nomination by having the Democratic party overrule decisions agreed upon previously by all candidates to not seat any delegates from two states and persuading enough superdelegates to overturn the will of majority vote in the overall primaries.

Senator Obama and his leading supporters need to become more assertive in their campaign or his nomination could be swindled away.

Posted by: Koreen | March 5, 2008 12:55 AM | Report abuse

What is Hilary thinking? She can't win enough delegates to take the nomination and yet she's strutting around like it's "Mission Accomplished"? It's almost like Bush's insistence that everything is going great in Iraq, going great with the economy! What's with these folks. Spin and deny reality, spin and deny reality. Someone needs to have a talk with that women.

Posted by: thebobbob | March 5, 2008 12:55 AM | Report abuse

Hillary is just warming up... warming up her bile filled negative attack machine. One thing you see the Republicans do is call something the opposite of what it is, or accuse the opponent of doing what you are doing. For example "Clear Skies" or "Support Our Troops" when what they mean is looser regulations for pollution and fund our war (we'll skimp on body armor)

Well Hillary recently accused Obama of using tactics out of Karl Roves playbook... just as she was doing it herself. The terrible thing about that accusation is Obama can't point out the obvious because then he gets into a game of "I know you are but what am I".

Obama says his campaign is about change... and so far we have seen his campaign take the high road. The Clintons have a history of nefarious deals and associations but I haven't seen Obama or a surrogate go after a single one of them. Perhaps it is not hard to find the action behind those words.

So yeah... I'm scared of what will happen if Clinton doesn't give up. I'm scared she's going to drive a wedge right in the middle of our party with her tactics. I don't feel a brokered convention is in the best interest of our party or this country.

Posted by: pdxgeek | March 5, 2008 12:54 AM | Report abuse

Naturebook, Clinton seems to lose Texas, look at the numbers. She won Ohio, but just narrowly. So, what? The Obama's lead is not decreased, just increased.Clinton should be forced to cocede!!!

Posted by: aepelbaum | March 5, 2008 12:54 AM | Report abuse

Ok lessen no one can win out right unless there is a huge shift.

Hillary needs 53 percent of the popular vote to over take Obama in votes. Thems is the facts.

Many delegates are chosen in Caucuses which are not very democratic.

I believe the popular vote will decide the election.

Obama is in a slight lead.

Posted by: mul | March 5, 2008 12:54 AM | Report abuse

Liup, what you are seeing is just that. Despite winning Ohio, and even with winning the Texas primary, she still can't close the gap and get anywhere near the magic number.

mul, her chance is slim as hell if you look at the states that are coming up. Montana, Wyoming, South Dakota, North Carolina, Mississippi, Oregon, even Indiana. Winning the big states by a little clearly hasn't proven to trump racking up the little states.

Posted by: dadly | March 5, 2008 12:48 AM | Report abuse

McClintons, open your minds.

Will Clinton employees get creepier and creepier about how much you need to worry about people with foreign names?

Can they out creep the Republicans? Who can scare you the most?

Posted by: shrink2 | March 5, 2008 12:47 AM | Report abuse

I feel happy and warm all over.

Posted by: mul | March 5, 2008 12:47 AM | Report abuse

With all due respect to David Axelrod, the "delegate lead" has nothing to do with it. Hillary can still win the Dem nomination similar to the way Bush won in 2000. That is, in delegate count, not popular vote. Fritz Mondale showed in '88 how to steal pledged delegates, and John Edwards' delegates, as well as all the delegates from FL and MI are still technically up for grabs!

Posted by: ErikW65 | March 5, 2008 12:44 AM | Report abuse

Hillary can't quit whining, can she? How far ahead was she a couple of weeks back? "Inevitablity" has proven to be a myth. Now can she close the deal, without a bloody convention? I enjoyed 1968; will there be blood in the streets again? McCain must be enjoying the spectacle!

Posted by: thrh | March 5, 2008 12:44 AM | Report abuse

Obama's numbers began to decline 3 days ago as Nafta gate and other of his sins began to be opposed. Hillary is coming up again and could still win. Frankly, our country would be far better off if a more experienced hand were at the wheel.
Obama needs to work harder on honesty and getting some experience. He could be the president in 8 more years, but it isn't his time and he should have known that before he became so hot to trot on being the youngest President ever. He has a lot of talent and might make a good president some day, but he has to learn to tell the truth every single time, not just when it is convenient.
Bush won on charisma. Obama should not try to be like Bush. Let him be the brilliant guy he is, after some experience. He needs to watch out for hubris.

Posted by: bghgh | March 5, 2008 12:44 AM | Report abuse

If Hillary has no chance than Obama peeps should not worry.

If she does they are in deep do-do.

Posted by: mul | March 5, 2008 12:43 AM | Report abuse

The B.O. camp should stopping whining about
a few percent's lead in delegates. If you
can't reach the magic number, it means
NOTHING!!!

Posted by: Liup | March 5, 2008 12:41 AM | Report abuse

What the Clinton campaign said was they had to win in Ohio and Texas. They did. They said nothing about numbers. The whole 12 in a row thing is irrelevant. Look at each state. Ohio and Texas are Huge.

Posted by: naturebook | March 5, 2008 12:40 AM | Report abuse

No worries, the Clintons have shot their entire arsenal of stink.

Now, should he need to, Obama can deliver to the Clintons what they just did to him.

Should Barak tip MCain's hand?

Posted by: shrink2 | March 5, 2008 12:40 AM | Report abuse

Today is the beginning of the end for Obama candidacy. Hilary is right, she is just warming up. At the end Democrats will come to their senses and vote for the best person to lead the country out of Bush's mess.

Posted by: lskjf | March 5, 2008 12:38 AM | Report abuse

With all the people backing him as of late and with nationwide figures like these...

Barack vs Hillary Analysis
The Home Stretch- the Google Effect:

http://newsusa.myfeedportal.com/viewarticle.php?articleid=53

... still leaves Obama in a good position. But have Clinton's tactics worked and we we see her grab further gains?

Posted by: davidmwe | March 5, 2008 12:28 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company