Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Obama Sweeps

UPDATE, 11 pm: Barack Obama made a clean sweep of today's votes, securing the third of a trio of victories in Louisiana this evening.

ORIGINAL POST

Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) won the Democratic caucuses in Washington state and Nebraska today and seems likely to claim a third win in Louisiana's primary when returns come in later tonight from Louisiana.

Obama was expected to win all three contests, which the campaign of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) only lightly contested.

The Clinton campaign sought to downplay the results in an e-mail sent to the media tonight by deputy communications director Phil Singer. "Tonight there are contests in three states that the Obama campaign has long predicted they would win by large margins," wrote Singer -- noting that Obama outspent Clinton on television in each of the states.

"Although the next several states that hold nominating contests this month are more favorable to the Obama campaign, we will continue to compete in them and hope to secure as many delegates as we can before the race turns to Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania," he added.

While it's very unlikely either Obama or Clinton will be able to secure a significant delegate lead before next month (or perhaps ever before the convention), it remains an open question whether there is symbolic importance attached to Obama's expected wins over the next few weeks. Clinton is running a serious race in Maine, which holds a caucus tomorrow, but all three states in the upcoming Potomac primary -- Maryland, D.C. and Virginia -- seem to favor the Illinois senator. Hawaii and Wisconsin, which hold contests on Feb. 19, also favor Obama.

What do you think? If Obama wins every vote or every vote but Maine between now and March 4 -- when Ohio and Texas are set to go -- is the race fundamentally altered? Or not? Sound off in the comments section below.

By Chris Cillizza  |  February 9, 2008; 9:20 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Huckabee Wins Kansas; Democratic Results Later
Next: Clinton Campaign Manager Steps Aside

Comments

It's Monday here in California and Obama HAS won Maine.
"if obama runs against mccain he will loose.
Posted by: sd71 | February 9, 2008 10:07 PM"
REALLY? Which imaginary poll is telling you that? What I am pasting below was on (believe it or not) Fox's news site:

"This weekend's net gain of 57 pledged delegates represents more than the 42 delegate net gain that Clinton won in Massachusetts, New Jersey, Tennessee and Arizona - combined.

While Obama's victories demonstrate his broad national appeal, he still faces an uphill battle in every upcoming contest because the Clintons are far better known and have a political machine that's been honed over two decades. But the more voters get to know Obama and his message of change, the more they support him, which bodes well for the upcoming primaries.

Obama's victories reflect what a recent Time poll confirmed the other day - that he is the candidate best suited to win Independents, play well in Red States, and beat John McCain in November. As the nominee, Obama will also help down-ballot Democrats get elected to Congress across the country, especially in those Red States where Democrats haven't fared well for decades. So Obama won't just win an election, he'll win a new majority for change, so we can finally solve the problems we've been talking about for decades."

AMEN!

Posted by: sheridan1 | February 11, 2008 4:45 PM | Report abuse

"The fact that Senator Obama won the 3 states yesterday, as expected, does NOT discount the fact that Senator Clinton is still ahead in this nomination process. Somehow, the news media seems to continuously miss this VERY IMPORTANT fact. The national news media is also showing its true corporate colors by presenting misleading information to the public, including slanting reports to present Obama as the "people's choice." Yet, although we will never hear this or see this in print from corporate news, there are currently more voters who prefer Hilary Clinton as their presidential nominee."

Hillary is leading in delegate count SOLELY by virtue of the superdelegates. When you eliminate those, Obama is leading. That means that, contrary to your mistaken assertion above, currently more VOTERS prefer Obama over Billary.

Posted by: bellis | February 11, 2008 1:27 PM | Report abuse

Hello. Bueler? Bueler? Bueler? :)


tHE OBAMA BASHERS ARE FUNNY. What has obama done to justify it? I know clinton looks to be done, and rightfully so. But why hate obama?

you gop'ers are fooling nobody. HEr people are democratic sabotuers. Republicans trying to burn both ends of the candle. The american people are not dittoheads. We are smarter than out fathers and grandfathers. Thank the internet. Don;t hate and blame obama. blame the internet for the lack of accountability of the gop (clinton included). Blame truth for their downfall. Not obama.

do you hear me now fix'ers?

I know I know. I am the worst guy in the world. For telling you all what time it is and trying to encorporate you into the fold.

Anyone else feel like the results were burying all weekend. Msnbc and cnn are in the tank for clinton. Doing all they can to help clinton and sabtaoge obama. I guess they stand to lose millions without the bush like constant scandel news coverage.

How then is cnn and msnbc any differant than fox? What is a newperson with zero credibility? A propogandist? Yes they are.

Take what is real, take what you need for those lying pig propogandists for profit. Discard the rest. The trick is knowing what is what. For that you must look to people whom have credibility to you. If one is not going to think for themselves, then at least that them have a genius or someone who knows what time it is doing teh thinking for you.

And I'm not talking about rush dittoheads. :)

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | February 11, 2008 11:20 AM | Report abuse

Explain to me when the number of state wins determines the Nov. candidate? I thought that the number of delegates was the determining factor. Or is a win in Idaho equal to a win in California? Does a red state win for Obama guarantee a win for him in November? Every caucus state win he has represents red states that will not be voting for him in November. I love the enthusiasm of contributors to the Fix, but they don't appear to know much about elections.

Posted by: jflcta32 | February 11, 2008 4:00 AM | Report abuse

Clinton's effort in Maine resulted in only losing by nineteen points. Better than the doubling up she took Saturday, but not exactly a momentum turner.

Her only hope is an upset in VA, MD or WI or for Obama to stumble in one of the two debates they are supposed to have. Clinton needs something to energize her campaign going into TX and OH. A month of losses and campaign staff shakeups isn't how you regain the initiative.

Currently Obama is ahead in pledged delegates. All Obama has to do is tie her in pledged delegates in OH, TX and PA and keep expanding his lead in the other states (and hope PR is close). Otherwise she will finish second to Obama in pledged delegates and will either have to concede or try to engineer the convention. If she engineers the convention with unpledged delegates a significant number of black voters will sit out the general election and many an independent will either do the same or vote McCain. Dean knows this and I hope enough of the unpledged delegates do too not to give her the nomination if she cannot win the democratic popular vote.

Posted by: caribis | February 11, 2008 12:03 AM | Report abuse

rmcnicol: Not only are your prejudices showing, so is your ignorance of the true facts of the online funding phenomenon. Perhaps you missed the Rush Limbaugh show on Feb. 7 when he renewed his call for true conservatives to contribute to Mrs. Clinton's campaign (hmmm, and this is the week she's broken all of her own fundraising records and captured an enormous number of new donors):

"But the reason for raising money for Hillary is because that apparently my party is relying on fear and loathing of Hillary to get the nomination, to unite Republicans, who are, some of them, off the reservation. The Republicans do not seem to be relying on leadership in their party to unite the party. They seem to be relying on all these external things, nobody is going to vote for Hillary, negative turnout factor. What if she's not the nominee? We've got make sure she's the nominee if the Republican Party is to be unified. What more loyal thing could I do than to run a fundraiser for Mrs. Clinton? You watch, though, you watch how that will be questioned."

For those of you considering your vote on the eve of the Potomac Primary this should cause you great pause. As an Obama supporter, I continue to cite the facts: the last 6 polls show Obama beating McCcain by between 6 and 9 points (49-41% most recently). Mrs. Clinton's negatives with independents, Republicans and even some Democrats are significantly higher than Mr. Obama's. Mr. Obama's momentum in mounting his Super Tuesday come-from- behind challenge to draw even with Mrs. Clinton and best her in number of states won, and winning every single contest since then positions him to continue to rack up enough delegates to secure this nomination. Unfortunately, I don't think it can be done without Super Delegates but again, when those elected officials look at whose coattails, or skirttails, they'd rather attach to I believe that Mr. Obama will begin to draw his fair share of them as well. And for all of those posters who continue to ridicule the effect of Sen. Obama's inspirational message, I invite you to look at e2holmes' posts about the practical impact on Washington voters in getting them to the caucuses and participating. Fabulous. Yes, I am fired up and do believe WE CAN! So from someone who lived in the DC area for 20 years before relocating to CA 10 years ago -- ask not what your country can do for you ask what YOU can do for your country. You can go to the polls, vote for the best possible candidate to win in November and continue Sen. Obama's momentum to the nomination.

Posted by: Omyobama | February 10, 2008 11:57 PM | Report abuse

A convention fight is the last thing the Democrats want. The pundits want it because it would be great theater. But the party knows that a divisive fight would be a gift to McCain to rival the one given Nixon when McGovern got the nod in '72. I think we will start to see a real movement of party insiders to consolidate behind Obama making it clear to Hillary that he is the annointed one unless Clinton passes him in pledged delegates.

I agree with those above who think Ohio and Pennsylvania will swing into his camp on the wave of his momentum coming out of February. If Hillary had won every state in which she had a lead three weeks before the primary she would have run the table.

Posted by: kuhoops | February 10, 2008 11:48 PM | Report abuse

Why does the "Post's" delegate count include Michigan and Florida for Clinton? All I see is Obama winning everywhere, but Hillary remains in the lead with delegates that will not be seated or superdelegates who are not supposed to pledge until the voting's over.

Posted by: highwayscribery1 | February 10, 2008 10:23 PM | Report abuse

Here is a question for you junkies, in order to bring the party together if Obama wins every primary in the month of February should Clinton drop out?

Posted by: thebaked | February 10, 2008 8:57 PM | Report abuse

Chris Would you please ask some of the older guys around the office about the thinking behind the superdelegates - were they pro-Kennedy people or anti Kennedy elements of the party post 1980 which supported the institution of the superdelegates?


It is remarkable now that there is a backlash against the superdelegates.


Maybe they should not let them vote. How do you think that would go over?

Posted by: Miata7 | February 10, 2008 8:45 PM | Report abuse

Bringing in Williams was a smart move--not a sign of desperation. Read the news: Hillary is pulling in grassroots money like never before--and even the media is taking notice that her base is much more committed than his (check out WP poll).
Yes, she has to win. But don't count her out too quickly. This woman is made of steel.

Obama? Who IS Obama? This guy comes from out of nowhere, never having achieved much of anything. Yes, he's eloquent--but WHERE'S THE BEEF? His recovery plan for New Orleans--plaigarized almost word for word from hers. Not cool.

Also: he claims not to take money from special interests. So what was the $160,000 from Exelon--the nation's largets nuclear producer? A valentine?

This guy will get swiftboated so fast by the Republicans we won't even see the bubbles. C'mon. He's a good talker & handsome & all--but basically He's a puffball.

Posted by: spabeles | February 10, 2008 8:16 PM | Report abuse

OK, so Obama won Maine -- convincingly. That means 8 for 8 if the polls hold up in MD-DC-VA. Yeah, I'd say it would "fundamentally alter" the race, if Clinton does an ofer in the month of February, because when they're all over Obama will have a significant lead in PLEDGED delegates. My guess is that the superdelegates, looking at how Obama is polling against McCain (and those who are officeholders recognizing that he'll have longer coattails), will start to line up with Obama. If that happens, pressure will start building on Clinton to drop out - which, of course, she won't. So on to OH-TX-PA. If Obama wins one of those, I think it's over.

Posted by: jac13 | February 10, 2008 8:09 PM | Report abuse

I just saw the 60 Minutes pieces on Obama and Clinton, taken the couple days around Super Tuesday.

As an Obama supporter, the whole editing job they did was an embarrassment. Steve Kroft and Katie Couric both did puff pieces, but did 60 Minutes have to focus the whole Clinton piece on questions like "do you ever think that you are going to lose?" and "what would you do if you lost?". If I were a Clinton supporter, I'd be angry. THAT was some biased editing.

Posted by: steveboyington | February 10, 2008 8:00 PM | Report abuse

Super Delegates seems to be a great political scam. These 795 folks which are equal to 10,000 voters and are 40% of total delegates gets to pick their fav. For some reason it feels a slap on democracy, isn't it?

Somebody explain me, the great brains in the DNC never thought of that ?

Posted by: rocky_rhapsody | February 10, 2008 03:43 PM


Not sure I'd put 'great brains' and 'DNC' in the same sentence, but, OK....

Just to correct you, each superdelegate is worth 140,000 votes from the little guys (you know, the Dem's supposed electorate), not 10,000. That's based on 2004 turnout, last year we have to judge from.

Posted by: JD | February 10, 2008 7:22 PM | Report abuse

'Democrats in the aggregate are like a perfecter version of America -- smarter than average, better looking than average, more diverse than average, kinder than average'

..sounds like we must all be from Lake Woebegone.

Posted by: drindl | February 10, 2008 6:17 PM | Report abuse

Obama will win Texas....

Posted by: nancye1549 | February 10, 2008 5:33 PM | Report abuse

One other point i'd like to add. Hillary's 5 million dollar loan to her campaign indicates that she is unable to properly manage her campaign . The presidential race is essentially a fortune 500 company and she is the CEO. If a private company earned 100 million in revenues and ended up with a 5 million dollar debt, the CEO would be fired. Put another way, if you can't run your campaign, how can you run the country ?

GOPhunter.blogspot.com

Posted by: brokenglassdemocrat | February 10, 2008 5:04 PM | Report abuse

If Obama wins 7 of the next 8 contests , Hillary's chances of winning are slim to none. She seems to be banking on the racist hispanic vote in Texas to carry her. But as Mark in Austin illustrated most likely they will split the delegates in Texas even if she wins , same with Ohio. Hillary has tried to win this race by turning us against each other. Black against white, latinos against blacks and so on. Obama wins instead by bringing people together. Hillary is losing momentum, money and is now firing people ( Patti Solis Doyle ) She's done, she just doesn't know it yet.

Posted by: brokenglassdemocrat | February 10, 2008 4:56 PM | Report abuse

rcmcnicoll, wake up. Take your troll self home. Anybody who thinks Obama is a Muslim and a Marxist is not voting for a Democratic candidate anyhow. I expect most of them aren't even registered voters and John McCain isn't pure enough for that sort of lunatic fringe. Nothing but nothing will energize the Republicamn base like Hillary Clinton. I'm an old white woman making less than $50k and I'm proud to support Obama.

Posted by: greyparrot | February 10, 2008 4:18 PM | Report abuse

Obama is taking Maine....just like LA, NB, WA: 2 to 1

http://news.mainetoday.com/updates/022070.html

Posted by: e2holmes | February 10, 2008 4:01 PM | Report abuse

Super Delegates seems to be a great political scam. These 795 folks which are equal to 10,000 voters and are 40% of total delegates gets to pick their fav. For some reason it feels a slap on democracy, isn't it?

Somebody explain me, the great brains in the DNC never thought of that ?

Posted by: rocky_rhapsody | February 10, 2008 3:43 PM | Report abuse

A defense of the super delegates and DNC:

I think there is wisdom in the current system giving party pros 20% of the convention votes. Here's one reason why. Let's say this thing wraps up after Pennsylvania and Clinton, out of money and slightly behind in delegate count, but woefully behind in energy and momentum, suspends her campaign. Then imagine one of the following catastrophes happening, a stock market meltdown of dire proportions, or a terrorist attack on American soil, or a category 5 hurricane strike on a major city, say Miami. And let's further say that Obama's initial remarks are judged to be non-presidential. And he becomes the focus of an angry backlash from the party faithful, but after the primaries are complete. The current mechanism allows the super delegates to switch allegiances and save the party from nominating the wrong candidate. The flexibility of the current system is a very good thing if used wisely. (This was just a hypothetical. As an Obama supporter, I think he'll be up for any challenges thrown his way.)

I will also support the DNCs harsh penalties of Michigan and Florida. If allowed to stand, we may finally have a tool to end the senselessness of the race to have the first primaries and caucuses on the calendar. DNC needs the power to restore some sanity to the process. If their penalties are overturned, there will be nothing stopping the states from outwitting themselves in future campaign seasons. There is plenty to criticize in our current process, but let's at least pause to consider some of good we have left before we jettison it without thinking.

Posted by: optimyst | February 10, 2008 3:15 PM | Report abuse

rmcnicoll -- cheap shot ! I guess this is what Clinton surrogates doing now-a-days after tearing up !

Posted by: rocky_rhapsody | February 10, 2008 3:04 PM | Report abuse

After 220 years and no Woman ever President, a 55% majority of population is ignored, Instead enamoured of extreme Left Democrat 12% minority candidate. Result: Defeat like 72 McGovern, 84 Mondale, and 88 Dukakis... all Liberals on Dem Left Wing! Only Centrist Dems Carter & Bill Clinton, have won presidency SINCE Kennedy!

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by: rmcnicoll | February 10, 2008 2:52 PM | Report abuse

rspenceroliver.... Sure hope you're right, otherwise the Dems risk tearing the party apart and losing the election. But I don't see the Clinton's withdrawing... it's all about them.

Mark in Austin.... Thanks for the Texas tutorial. According to Rich in today's NYT, they may be playing race-dirty trying to capture the Texas Latino vote, pitting blacks against Hispanics. Ugly.

If there must be superdelegates, their number needs to be slashed to a token few.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth_Hunter | February 10, 2008 2:32 PM | Report abuse

I was at the J-J dinner in Richmond last night and want to make a few observations:

*Politics is basically tribal, and it sure was fun to be among my tribe. Democrats in the aggregate are like a perfecter version of America -- smarter than average, better looking than average, more diverse than average, kinder than average.

*The Hillary support was there, but the Obama support was bigger and louder. I've gone to a few J-J dinners over the years, and they're usually pretty sedate affairs dominated by insiders. I heard over and over that this was the biggest J-J crowd ever for Virginia, and a lot of that had to be due to ordinary folks coming out to cheer for Obama. I'm not quite sure how the VDP insiders took this infusion of enthusiasm, but people like Governor Kaine and House D caucus chair Brian Moran seemed to be reveling in the buzz.

*Somebody just IM'd me asking what the ratio of supporters was, and I'd guess it was about 2 to 1 or 5 to 2 Obama to Hillary.

*I liked Hillary's speech. She struck the right notes about party unity, and seemed to be aware that she needs to drive down her negatives among D base voters if she's going to have any chance in November. The Hillary I heard last night is a woman I could vote for pretty cheerfully in the general. She's not exciting, she's not inspiring, but she is solid, and I'll gratefully take solid, stolid Hillary over McCain.

*I have a deep and abiding mancrush on Mark Warner.

*If Hillary was being conciliatory, Obama was stepping on the gas. That was no Obambi last night. He laid down the contrasts with Hillary, not just on aura but also on policy, and it was really sort of stunning. None of it seemed unfair at all, but it really belied the notion that Obama is somehow above the fray and unwilling to take his gloves off. There was a lot of hope and uplift in his speech, but there was also a lot of confidence and contrast. Obama's going to make McCain cry this fall.

*The two people I went down to Richmond with were pretty excited about Obama before. But all three of us were really, really excited about Obama on the way back.

Posted by: novamatt | February 10, 2008 2:26 PM | Report abuse

Not to get too off topic, Obama's drug use is irrelevant. Bush 43 was similarly attacked for past alcohol and drug use and it had no effect. It would be seen as a personal attack way out of line.

I can see a normal candidate dropping out if they lost two out of three with PA, OH and TX. Hillary is not a normal candidate and would start pressing for MI and FL. Only if all options are exhausted will she cede the race. I can see Obama conceding easier than I can see Hillary. Like Peggy Noonan asked, do the Clintons know how to lose? I mean, apart from the House, Senate and their successor's election.

Posted by: GabeQuixote | February 10, 2008 2:22 PM | Report abuse

THIS THING HAS BEEN OVER FOR NEARLY A WEEK AND THE RESULTS IN WASH,LA, NEBRASKA,VI AND PROBABLY MAINE ARE CONFIRMING THAT,WINS IN THE POTOMAC PRIMARY ON TUESDAY,FOLLOWED BY HAWAII AND WISCONSIN WILL DRIVE OBAMA´S NUMBERS UP IN OHIO AND TEXAS, INCREASE HIS FUNDRAISING MARGIN, DRY UP HILLARY´S MONEY, AND THE SUPER DELEGATES--WHO ARE ALMOST ALL PROS--- WILL MOVE QUICKLY TO OBAMA´S SIDE, MY GUESS IS IT WILL NEVER GET AS FAR AS PA. AND MAYBE NOT EVEN TO ELECTION DAY IN OHIO AND TEXAS.

Posted by: rspenceroliver | February 10, 2008 2:06 PM | Report abuse

The people of the United States want a fresh face and a fresh approach -- not anger, edge, and eight years of tumultuous payback. Looking at the "comfort-level" aura each projects, he is more feminine than she.

Barack has tuned in to the zeitgeist, and when it is over I hope his opponent will show a little class - and not bring Michigan and Florida to the convention credentials committee, Frank Rich's prediction in todays NYT notwithstanding.

Posted by: nicksak | February 10, 2008 1:46 PM | Report abuse

A quick perusal of the Maine local papers shows signs of the same pattern seen in WA:
1. Absentee ballots twice what they were in 2004
2. Obama bringing in much more local donations
3. Obama's rally attracted over 2x as many as Hillary's -- with many locals mentioning that they had never seen voters so motivated and enthusiastic
4. Informal polls on newspapers - which are not scientific, of course - are going 2-to-1 to Obama.
5. While the newspapers tout Maine's women congresswomen and govenor, WA also has a woman governor & 2 women senators

My prediction: Obama ca. 60 to Clinton ca. 30, just like in Nebraska and Washington.

Posted by: e2holmes | February 10, 2008 1:30 PM | Report abuse

If one of the candidates puts together a solid series of popular-vote majorities in the February/March primaries and caucuses, the other candidate could begin to look like a spoiler (even while winning a fair share of delegates). Pressure could then build for Democrats to unite, especially while McCain is uniting Republicans and building his war chest. Right now, the primary/caucus calendar seems to favor Obama, but who knows?

I suspect that the Pennsylvania primary on April 22 might be decisive.

People are fretting too much over the super-delegates. They're politicians, so they'll sway with the prevailing winds. Everyone should take a deep breath and let the contest play out over the next two-plus months. At this point, the conventional wisdom is that Hillary and Barack will remain tied until the very end, but I don't necessarily agree. An actual tie (number of states won, number of delegates, total popular vote nationwide) is like a perfect storm, but perfect storms are very rare. One of them could easily pull away, and even if that candidate does not have enough delegates to win the nomination, the super-delegates probably would move en masse to that candidate (in the interest of party unity) and the deal would be sealed.

Posted by: harlemboy | February 10, 2008 1:26 PM | Report abuse

OH NO ! THE REPUBLICANS ARE COMING !

They'll say Obama used Cocaine! Then, they'll put Bush back in the White House for the next hundred years!

Easy there 'svreader,' Let's not wet our panties so fast. Candidates can get away with a lot if they're likable. Remember Bush with the cocaine and the drunk driving? Remember Clinton with the didn't inhale? Just look at Hillary with her fuzzy math campaign funds. McCain's a flip-flopper on taxes and a tempermental maniac.

Doesn't matter. Nobody's perfect.

This election is about people, and people seem to like Obama.

It's not that they hate Hillary. They just don't seem to like her quite as much.

She's comes across as frantic, insincere, angry, ambitious, conniving, and predictably boring, with a fake smile to boot.

Come to think of it, most of her Supporters also come across as frantic, insincere, angry, ambitious, conniving, and predictably boring, too. Though I have no idea about the fake smile.

Posted by: LeftwithNochoice | February 10, 2008 1:15 PM | Report abuse

It was known in advance that Obama was going to have a couple of good weeks up till Ohio & Texas. Since Hillary has won the big states I think she'll be fine going into Ohio & Texas despite losing states like Nebraska. Californians went to vote hearing about an Obama wave & polls giving him double digit leads. It still didn't give him a win nor will it with the rest of the big states that favor Hillary.

Posted by: chriszick | February 10, 2008 12:57 PM | Report abuse

Correction. Obama is now ahead in the popular vote as well. Superdelegates will inevitably go where the pledeged delegates go.

Posted by: bruce.w1 | February 10, 2008 12:49 PM | Report abuse

Texas will pattern itself after California, but lay this followership of the Golden State's lead to some other factor like Clinton's "experience" and "toughness."

Hard to know what will happen today in Maine, where Clinton has high expectations, or in coming state votes. But if Hillary does prevail in Maine like her campaign hopes, it will be interesting to watch the spin.

Posted by: FirstMouse | February 10, 2008 12:06 PM | Report abuse

"Who should I vote for, the war-hero or the cocaine-addict?"

Republicans are already printing up the bumper stickers.

OBAMA = LOST ELECTION!!!

Say no to cocaine. Say no to Obama.

Republicans will never let it go!!!

Posted by: svreader | February 10, 2008 12:03 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is the quintessential establishment candidate. If she cannot win fair and square in the overall primary and caucus contests with Obama, she will win in the same way as every other machine politician before her regardless of party affiliation - through the support of a majority of 'super-delegates', well-esconced party hacks who have a vested financial and career interest in maintaining the status quo. Unfortunately, a convention decided by 'super-delegates' will not bode well for the Democrats' chances in November. It will be hard to sell a message of 'change' to the general electorate if the nominee's convention victory is owed to the machinations of back-room wheelers and dealers.

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

Yet, although we will never hear this or see this in print from corporate news, there are currently more voters who prefer Hilary Clinton as their presidential nominee.

Posted by: giayami | February 10, 2008 11:31 AM


You're not exactly telling the entire story, of course. HRC is ahead (barely) in the popular vote, Obama is ahead in the delegates count and number of states won, and HRC's superdelegates lead gives her a very slight advantage in overall delegates.

The real question is, what if Obama wins more 'standard' delegates, but HRC's superdelegates give her the Dem nomination? Would the Dem rank and file revolt because of their party's elites subverting their choice? Would the Dems end up snatching defeat from the jaws of victory (in what *was* shaping up to be a Dem year)?

Interesting, given that the GOP doesn't go in for those kind of shenanigans like 'superdelegates'; and it's the party who claims to be for the little guy who actually has a process that subverts the little guy's vote.

Posted by: JD | February 10, 2008 11:54 AM | Report abuse

Obama will oblomarate her. He will be called an obamanation by some, and some will say this is the obamanation. I stand with the latter! OBAMA, coming to a country near you!

Posted by: johng1 | February 10, 2008 11:49 AM | Report abuse

I think she has to at least come close in Wisconsin. If racks up a big win, I suspect he'll win Ohio too. And put it away in PA.

Posted by: sfmandrew | February 10, 2008 11:36 AM | Report abuse

The fact that Senator Obama won the 3 states yesterday, as expected, does NOT discount the fact that Senator Clinton is still ahead in this nomination process. Somehow, the news media seems to continuously miss this VERY IMPORTANT fact. The national news media is also showing its true corporate colors by presenting misleading information to the public, including slanting reports to present Obama as the "people's choice." Yet, although we will never hear this or see this in print from corporate news, there are currently more voters who prefer Hilary Clinton as their presidential nominee.

Posted by: giayami | February 10, 2008 11:31 AM | Report abuse

Waiting for Ohio, Texas, PA.....starting to sound like Rudy in FL.

Posted by: 643gwozdz | February 10, 2008 10:44 AM | Report abuse

As an independent that was originally for Clinton, I have to say the tone of her campaign has turned me off. The general election will be a conundrum for me if she is the Democratic nominee.

Posted by: eor11 | February 10, 2008 10:09 AM | Report abuse

Why is is ok for Democrats to hate Obama.
It is ok because he is causing such division among the Democratic party. ... Obama is using not only using his race to get ahead he is using the lack of trust in women.

Posted by: hughmarc | February 10, 2008 06:33 AM


This is a joke posting, right?

Your girl's boyfriend, Bill, is the one who has overtly injected race into the discussion.

I happen to disagree with most of his niave policies, but as far as causing division in the Democratic party... just because he decided not to lay down for Cruella DeVille?

What an 'un-Democratic' thing to say.

Posted by: JD | February 10, 2008 9:42 AM | Report abuse

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

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

Posted by: ccoblas | February 10, 2008 9:40 AM | Report abuse

I voted in the MI Democratic primary, even though my candidate was not on the ballot. The reason I went to the polls was two local millage issues. I was told my vote didn't count. Many of my friends who did not have local issues on their ballots did not vote at all. And why would they? Our votes didn't count - all the candidates agreed.

Now Hillary Clinton can't shut up about how the MI and FL delegates should be seated because she won pretend races. It looks and smells like fraud.

If she wins the nomination without the FL and MI delegates, seat them by all means. But if those delegates are added to her totals any time before, I will not only sit out the election in November, I will quit the Democratic party. And so will many of my friends and family. But it will spread wider. All those young people and first time voters who have been inspired to get involved this year - how many of them will be disillusioned and sit out the election? We might as well get used to saying President McCain now.

Is it worth it to sell your soul Mrs. Clinton?

Posted by: corridorg4 | February 10, 2008 9:04 AM | Report abuse

Given the incredible organization and enthusiasm on the Obama side in Maine, I think he will win the state. Clinton's support is fairly limited. And even lots of older women are for Obama. The women volunteers for Obama are seasoned political activists and members of school boards and town councils. The Obama campaign has been organizing for weeks.

The Clintons parachuted into the state, trying to pull out a win. If they do win, it will be narrow.

Posted by: mainer2 | February 10, 2008 8:14 AM | Report abuse

Extraordinary!

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

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

Obama is becoming even more self-assured and Presidential in his rallies. One cannot help but become hopeful and enthused.

BTW, if you can't make it to a rally, but want to feel that you are there, you can find the entire Obama rally setlist--from "City of Blinding Lights" to which he takes the stage to "Signed, Sealed, Delivered"--the entire setlist!--on Itunes, here:

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

Posted by: caraprado1 | February 10, 2008 7:55 AM | Report abuse

For me there is no doubt that Obama will be the democratic candidate and he will beat the "others"(no matter who).

Posted by: absurdistan2007 | February 10, 2008 7:08 AM | Report abuse

It looks like a 40-45 delegate net gain for Barack Obama last night. That is huge. Most expected only 30 at best. Definitely the BigMO is on Obama side now. Maine today will be tough. Many were predicting a Hillary win there but with these big wins last night he could get a nice bounce and win Maine today. Obama will win MD,VA,DC on Tuesday. It could be quite a nice run for him that Hillary may not be able to recover.

Posted by: zb95 | February 10, 2008 6:59 AM | Report abuse

Of course the race is fundamentally altered. As a member of the demographic that the news media assume will vote for Mrs. Clinton (i.e. over 60 and in New York City and female) I find it outrageous that the Clinton team has such a strong hold on some super delegate positions. It is not only undemocratic it is un-American that Bill Clinton is allowed a superdelegate vote at all in this election.
Americans will not put up with corruption or giving the delegates in Michigan and in Florida to anyone as they stand now when the process was not handled fairly. One of the CNN commentators last night pointed out that the Clintons will "scratch or claw" or do whatever it takes to win in November (if not before)should she be the nominee even though it's likely that many more Americans across the country are going to vote for Barack Obama. Are people who "scratch and claw" their way to the top really what we want in the White House? Are we really not looking for change in ethical values? Which is more important the people's nominee or the party nominee?

Many of my friends are concerned that something will happen to Barack Obama in which case the establishment Democrats should look very closely at the politicians and special interests who oppose him. He is risking his life more than most high profile politicians as we all must know. Finally, The Washington Post as well as other papers/media (including the New York Times) should be evaluated carefully for exactly how fairly they handle the news including whose pictures are featured in what part of the paper. Endorsing a candidate does not give any newspaper license to skewer the news.

Robin

Posted by: rrcutler | February 10, 2008 6:59 AM | Report abuse

Of course the race is fundamentally altered. As a member of the demographic that the news media assume will vote for Mrs. Clinton (i.e. over 60 and in New York City and female) I find it outrageous that the Clinton team has such a strong hold on some super delegate positions. It is not only undemocratic it is un-American that Bill Clinton is allowed a superdelegate vote at all in this election.
Americans will not put up with corruption or giving the delegates in Michigan and in Florida to anyone as they stand now when the process was not handled fairly. One of the CNN commentators last night pointed out that the Clintons will "scratch or claw" or do whatever it takes to win in November (if not before)should she be the nominee even though it's likely that many more Americans across the country are going to vote for Barack Obama. Are people who "scratch and claw" their way to the top really what we want in the White House? Are we really not looking for change in ethical values? Which is more important the people's nominee or the party nominee?

Many of my friends are concerned that something will happen to Barack Obama in which case the establishment Democrats should look very closely at the politicians and special interests who oppose him. He is risking his life more than most high profile politicians as we all must know. Finally, The Washington Post as well as other papers/media (including the New York Times) should be evaluated carefully for exactly how fairly they handle the news including whose pictures are featured in what part of the paper. Endorsing a candidate does not give any newspaper were license to skewer the news.

Robin

Posted by: rrcutler | February 10, 2008 6:54 AM | Report abuse

Why is is ok for Democrats to hate Obama.
It is ok because he is causing such division among the Democratic party. This is blindingly obvious except to those who are entranced by his sermons. Obama is using not only using his race to get ahead he is using the lack of trust in women. Clinton should be fighting Republicans like she did in New York by showing how she can be likeable. Obama has served to point out how she was before she grew politically in New York. He is putting her back in the political kitchen and taking away her shoes. This madness could only happen to Democrats.

Posted by: hughmarc | February 10, 2008 6:33 AM | Report abuse

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

Posted by: zb95 | February 10, 2008 6:28 AM | Report abuse

Steveboyinton - your Feb 9 10.04pm post sums up my feelings perfectly. Well done.

Posted by: jimoneill50 | February 10, 2008 6:22 AM | Report abuse

Sometimes I wonder about this system. I was looking at the delegate totals for each state, and in Alabama, Obama won 56-42 but LOST the delegate count to Clinton 23-21. Ridiculous.

Posted by: jimoneill50 | February 10, 2008 5:48 AM | Report abuse

Clinton campaign: "Tonight there are contests in three states that the Obama campaign has long predicted they would win by large margins"

Why do I get the feeling that this is more Clinton campaign distortions? Can someone find me a quote from the Obama campaign that backs this statement up?

Posted by: jimoneill50 | February 10, 2008 5:44 AM | Report abuse

Many people comment on how Obama's campaign is nothing but "inspiration" built upon his messages of hope and change. While I firmly disagree with the basic premise of this statement, let's examine what inspiration can mean at the level of politics, when it involves a movement of the people.

Inspiration is:
1. Stimulation of the mind or emotions to a high level of feeling or activity.
2. The condition of being so stimulated.
3. An agency, such as a person or work of art, that moves the intellect or emotions or prompts action or invention.
4. Something, such as a sudden creative act or idea, that is inspired.
5. The quality of inspiring or exalting: a painting full of inspiration.
6. Divine guidance or influence exerted directly on the mind and soul of humankind.
No one need look further than the speeches Hillary and Barack gave at the Jefferson-Jackson meeting last night for how "inspiration" can affect the tone and quality of one's ability to effectively generate enthusiasm and to effectively lead. Hillary was playing the "us vs. them" card over and over in her speech, looking for the old, tired applause lines that her husband used repeatedly, so long ago, even before George W. Bush became president. We yearn for something beyond the obvious palpable differences between the radical right and the liberal leftist elites.

Barack's talk makes it easy to remember that he has the innate ability to inspire a new, invigorated passion in people. Whether they be young, disenfranchised voters, whether they be leaders of foreign nations, whether they be fellow congressional representatives, or whether they be his cabinet members, who will go about spreading the message that America is, once again, filled with the vision and the dedication that made her a great country of free people with the divine inspiration of innovative creativity that allows us to unite with a common purpose and a desire to affect a positive change in humanity that is greater than any one selfish motivation. Now, more than ever, genuine care for others is necessary, an inspirational guide to lead us, once more, down this path to selflessness and genuine purpose.

Obama '08

Posted by: trmasonic | February 10, 2008 5:22 AM | Report abuse

I think that winning caucus states by limited voter participation of about fifty thousand people is not an indication of how America will vote in the end. There is an element of peer pressure on the participants in caucuses. The primaries indicate the true trends. In Louisiana, for example, race divisions were predominant in the outcome, and this is not good for Obama either in the nominating process or the general elections. Unless Obama can win some of the big states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas etc., I still think his chances for being nominated is limited. After all one large state like California may be many times larger than some of the caucus states in not only voter participation, but also in delegate count. So I will watch the outcomes in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Texas before I will call the final outcome. And remember, some ting has to be done about Florida and Michigan results. While I agree that Obama's strength in some of the states yesterday was remarkable, I have to consider his ability to get majority support from Latinos, seniors, blue collar workers etc. as central to his chances, and this can only be judged in the big states and primary states. One reason for Ronald Regan's success was his ability to connect with blue collar workers and seniors. Unless Obama can do the same, the excitement about his candidacy may fall short of capturing nomination.

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


Does the Clinton campaign really believe it can win in all three big states? Are they paying attention? Bow out with grace Sen Clinton.

Posted by: markbirdsall | February 10, 2008 5:07 AM | Report abuse

On reading my comment regarding the WA caucuses, I realize I sound like the over-awed voter blinded by Obama-hype. My objective was simply to describe what a overwhelming change in public opinion looks like on the ground.

Clinton supporters would have one believe that candidates win by detailed discussions of their policy positions. This is not the case. We are watching the dynamics of mass public opinion. The dynamics of this are so unpredictable as to seem almost supernatural (who would have thought Jimmy Carter could have gotten nominated!). Malcomb Gladwell's book 'The Tipping Point' gives a number of examples of how mass public opinion can make very sudden shifts. Obama just took three states, in the west, middle and south, each with a 2 to 1 margin (or so). Turn-out was record-breaking. To me this looks like a classic 'tipping point' -- a simultaneous rapid shift in mass public opinion across widely disparate parts of the country.

Posted by: e2holmes | February 10, 2008 4:49 AM | Report abuse

As a Mainer, I'm very curious as to how we vote today. From how The Fix and others are talking, it seems that HRC is expected to win. I'm not so sure...

Since there are no polls to be found and refer to, I looked at the donation stats. Obama has gathered nearly FIVE times as much money from Maine as HRC...$330,000 compared to $70,000. This might mean nothing...or fortell an Obama "upset".

Just the fact that HRC is taking MAINE seriously with TX, OH, and PA upcoming shows to me a high level of concern...

A previous poster mentioned that HRC not winning Maine would be significant since we are open-minded towards women politicians. I absolutely agree. Hell, we have a Dem. Governor, two female Rep. Senators, and two male Dem. Representatives. We're as open-minded a state as they come.

A solid win (10+%) for either today I think would be quite the statement IMO...given current momentum maybe HRC SHOULD be taking us seriously! Shame I can't vote against her since I live overseas...

ME Prediction: Obama: 52% Clinton: 48% Gravel: 12 votes, 2 blueberry pancakes, and a complimentary lobster.

Posted by: Nerrt45 | February 10, 2008 4:46 AM | Report abuse

If Obama wins with such overwhelming margins between now and March, he need win only one of the big states, provided he comes close in the others.
Personally, I think he should concentrate on Texas to show the pundits they have no idea what they are talking about.
He will probably do well in all three big states, because he will have time to campaign. Everywhere he has time, he can get the voters, and he has plenty of time now.


Posted by: markbirdsall | February 10, 2008 4:42 AM | Report abuse

I keep waiting to hear from Obama what he will actually "change." If he actually thinks that just being nice to Republicans is going to help in reaching Democratic policy goals then he's got another thing coming. HRC is a fighter and has done very well as a senator for New York(and got upstate New Yorkers to vote for her. I think her message will resonate very well in those parts of the country that have suffered the most in the last 8 years of warfare against labor conducted by the Bush administration such as Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Posted by: claimarc | February 10, 2008 4:33 AM | Report abuse

Whenever I hear the "what's he got but charisma" argument I recall George H.W. Bush and his utter incomprehension about what he called "the vision thing." I also wonder about how much LONGER it would have taken to end Jim Crow without Martin Luther King's charisma and JFK's eventual willingness to put some of his political capitol behind the civil rights movement How would the country have fared during the great depression and WWII without FDR's considerable charisma? Or, how much more irreparable would have been the division of the nation during the Civil War without Lincoln's charisma and refusal to demonize the South. I wonder, too, if we would have managed to ratify the Constitution that has lasted for 200+ years without the considerable charisma of Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, Washington and Franklin--the various states were not especially pre-disposed to ceding rights to a federal authority. The Reagan "revolution" came about largely because of Reagan's charisma (utterly lost on me, personally, but undeniable as a political force nevertheless) And, S. Africa would have completely melted down after the end of White rule without the charisma of Nelson Mandela.

Charisma is not to be taken lightly.

See also: John Kerry, Al Gore, Michael Dukakis--for examples of how far the party gets when it ignores the power of charisma.

Posted by: tlmck3job | February 10, 2008 3:29 AM | Report abuse

it may not have been a tsunami for Obama on Tues, but it clearly is a rising tide. I don't see how Hillary can stop it.

If you are a Democrat and you want to beat John McCain, the rational evidence is pretty straight forward:
--Obama consistently polls better against McCain as noted in this article.
--Obama is more effective at fund raising.
--Obama generates more enthusiasm.
--Obama puts many states into play that Clinton will not. Obama would win every state that Clinton would win, but the opposite is not true.
--Clinton fatigue is likely to grow over time
--Clinton will motivate Republicans to vote against her. She has much higher overall negatives than Obama.

Given all of this, I don't see how you can make a case that Clinton is more "electable" than Obama. She is going to have to wage her campaign on some other issue. Let's hope Obama can maintain some substantial momentum and secure the nomination.

Posted by: hermanSF | February 10, 2008 3:02 AM | Report abuse

I just wanted to say how astute the comments of all my fellow voters/Democrats are, compared to the strictly conventional wisdom Chris the Fix offers, as do all traditional media. You will not hear any sense from them, in their journalistic fog of non-ideas.

Posted by: Anis_Shivani | February 10, 2008 2:53 AM | Report abuse

I call BS on the comment that Hillary "lightly contested" Washington State. After initially planning not to campaign in the state she flew to Seattle for a Thursday rally and then two rallies in other parts of the state on Friday. Her endorsements in this state include the two senators, murray and cantwell, and her state chairman is former Governor Locke. The caucus set a record for turnout and all the newbies went for Barack.

Posted by: krantsu | February 10, 2008 2:47 AM | Report abuse

Little states can create momentum but big states turn tides. If Clinton wins NY, CA, OH, PA TX, FL, and MI (and she is technically already 4 for 4 in those and ahead in polling in the other 3)...she may still be looking at the lead come Convention time.

Posted by: reganfla | February 10, 2008 2:28 AM | Report abuse

Oops! Sorry about the triple post. I didn't think that post even made it on the board at all, much less three times. Not sure if it was my pc or the site getting bogged down.
I think Obama is smart enough--and capable of enough long-term thinking to step away from the "16 year plan." He's only 47. IF Clinton does win this one, he still has plenty of time to make another run. My personal preference would be for Obama to take this one and for Hillary to take the next 8--AFTER Obama has managed to be the one to set a new tone. Unlike most people, I will be voting MAINLY on foreign policy and Hillary's vote for the war AND on Lieberman-Kyle (another vote giving the White House authority to go to war --this time against Iran) can ONLY be understood as the politically poll-driven (and lobbyist-funded) calculations they are. Obama is our best hope for repairing relations around the world. The enthusiasm in the international media about the prospect of an Obama presidency is astounding. Hillary is a competent politician. Obama has the potential to be a transformative one.

Posted by: tlmck3job | February 10, 2008 2:14 AM | Report abuse

With these 3 wins and reports of the record-breaking participation in Nebraska and WA, voters are going to take a look at Obama. YouTube is just a little click away. I'm in WA and I watched Obama's rally here over the internet (BTW the rally was to a crowd of close to 20,000). Boy, I was blown-away. I had never actually heard him speak; I'd only read policy statements. Their policies are basically the same it seems to me -- but you listen to him speak and you feel like you need to get up save the world. There was no way I was going to miss my caucus even though I'd never been to one.

The (few) Clinton supporters at our caucus rolled their eyes at this. "Oh what's he got going for him except that he is ""inspirational"" ". Just like that with a little hand motion. As if being inspirational and being able to inspire 100,000 more people in WA to take off Sat afternoon and go to a stupid caucus that everyone hates going to anyhow is a bad thing!!

The line out my caucus stretched 4 abreast around the block. It was the first caucus for almost everyone -- but like me that had seen Obama's speech and they were simply determined to vote for him. Boy did they; my caucus went 4 to 1 for Obama. Many people brought their children -- because they believed they were making history. Mind you, this is in a basically 100% white precinct.

I have never seen WA voters so motivated -- unheard of turnout happened in every county and the same thing happened in Nebraska. I think this is the beginning of the end for Hillary.

Posted by: e2holmes | February 10, 2008 2:12 AM | Report abuse

The three largest commodities in the Democratic race right now are perception, momentum, and money, and all of these flow in the same direction. Obama wins, especially by these margins, mean that more money flows his way, which means that he is more and more able to dominate Clinton in visibility in future contests. Clinton can spin all she wants, but the headlines on the front of every newspaper and news website speak louder. Each state that Obama won today translates into another $2 million for his campaign over the coming week.

Unless Clinton can win more than Maine over the next three weeks, and I'm not even convinced she can win that, her race is done. Her only other alternative is an extremely dirty battle to flip unbound precinct caucus delegates to vote for her instead of Obama at district and state levels, or else to try to swing the convention in her favor with a commanding majority of superdelegates. Either strategy stinks, but it's increasingly all Clinton has left.

Predicting Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania with absolute certainty is still an impossible task, but I have to imagine that today's numbers give Obama boosts in all of those states. Especially given that a large number of Clinton supporters consistently poll as saying they would be very satisfied with either candidate as the nominee, those not strongly behind Clinton may well drift toward Obama, and those still undecided will be rushing toward Obama.

In states with open primaries and caucuses, one has to wonder what the effect of people who traditionally vote Republican crossing over to vote in the race that still matters, too. Of course, had Huckabee completed the sweep of McCain today, which he darn near came close to accomplishing, the Republican race might still have drifted back toward being wide open as well. Maybe Republicans don't quite have their nominee yet, and the obvious unease and uncertainly in crowning McCain means that Democrats may feel less pressure to rally behind one candidate.

Posted by: blert | February 10, 2008 2:11 AM | Report abuse

"The Clinton campaign sought to downplay the results in an e-mail sent to the media tonight"....


And I guess it worked on you...

"Obama was expected to win all three contests, which the campaign of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) only lightly contested."

What a bunch of bull.

Obama was WAY WAY behind until recently. You just regurgitate what the Clinton camp says?
Pathetic. Disgusting.

Posted by: julieds | February 10, 2008 2:11 AM | Report abuse

"The Clinton campaign sought to downplay the results in an e-mail sent to the media tonight"....


And I guess it worked on you...

"Obama was expected to win all three contests, which the campaign of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) only lightly contested."

What a bunch of bull.

Obama was WAY WAY behind until recently. You just regurgitate what the Clinton camp says?
Pathetic. Disgusting.

Posted by: julieds | February 10, 2008 2:11 AM | Report abuse

"The Clinton campaign sought to downplay the results in an e-mail sent to the media tonight"....


And I guess it worked on you...

"Obama was expected to win all three contests, which the campaign of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) only lightly contested."

What a bunch of bull.

Obama was WAY WAY behind until recently. You just regurgitate what the Clinton camp says?
Pathetic. Disgusting.

Posted by: julieds | February 10, 2008 2:11 AM | Report abuse

"The Clinton campaign sought to downplay the results in an e-mail sent to the media tonight"....


And I guess it worked on you...

"Obama was expected to win all three contests, which the campaign of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) only lightly contested."

What a bunch of bull.

Obama was WAY WAY behind until recently. You just regurgitate what the Clinton camp says?
Pathetic. Disgusting.

Posted by: julieds | February 10, 2008 2:11 AM | Report abuse

"The Clinton campaign sought to downplay the results in an e-mail sent to the media tonight"....


And I guess it worked on you...

"Obama was expected to win all three contests, which the campaign of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) only lightly contested."

What a bunch of bull.

Obama was WAY WAY behind until recently. You just regurgitate what the Clinton camp says?
Pathetic. Disgusting.

Posted by: julieds | February 10, 2008 2:11 AM | Report abuse

"The Clinton campaign sought to downplay the results in an e-mail sent to the media tonight"....


And I guess it worked on you...

"Obama was expected to win all three contests, which the campaign of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) only lightly contested."

What a bunch of bull. Obama was WAY WAY behind until recently. You just regurgitate what the Clinton camp says?
Pathetic. Disgusting.

Posted by: julieds | February 10, 2008 2:11 AM | Report abuse

The 16-year-plan is a Clinton scam. When you read the spiel it tells you to sign a petition, without ever specifying WHICH "exciting candidate" leads the putative "dream ticket".

Only in the small print of the petition itself do the words Clinton-Obama appear.

"Barack, no! Spare my life and I will give you vice-presidential powers beyond your wildest dreams!"

Don't think so. Let the voters speak and the chips fall where they may.

Posted by: bourassa1 | February 10, 2008 2:05 AM | Report abuse

16year plan?? What a bunch of desperate non-sense from the Hillary camp. As an Obama supporter I cannot accept anything with her name on it. Hillary represents what I hate most about politics. Barack is a fundamental polar opposite from her. Oil and water. Never ever. Obama just slaugtered her tonight. He will also win big in the Potomac primaries as well. She is getting steamrolled by the Obama express! No plan, no deal!

Posted by: zb95 | February 10, 2008 1:53 AM | Report abuse

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

Posted by: steven4 | February 9, 2008 10:33 PM"

Tell me...why would Obama, someone with honor and integrity, even consider going on a ticket with Clinton - who has neither honor NOR integrity?

Posted by: ndolan622 | February 10, 2008 1:38 AM | Report abuse

Just donated another $25 after taking about 3 hours to get through to the Obama site. lol

Posted by: miraclestudies | February 10, 2008 1:38 AM | Report abuse

I agree with scott, in the sense that Obama accepting the VP slot is dangerous for his political future.

To quote Daniel Webster, when he was offered the Vice Presidency by the Whig party:

"I do not propose to be buried until I am dead."

Posted by: cam8 | February 10, 2008 1:09 AM | Report abuse

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

Posted by: steven4 | February 9, 2008 10:33 PM"

This so-called petition is now being widely circulated on blogs and chats but here's the problem: there is no excitement for BOTH candidates -- only Obama. If Obama were not in the race, does anyone truly believe we would be seeing record Democratic participation in this year's primaries and caucuses? I don't think so.

I have no idea if this poster is actually sincere, but my guess is this is just another ploy by the Clinton campaign to convince people who know little about politics and history to vote for her in the belief that it is also, somehow, a vote for him.

Set aside why anyone would want to be the veep in a Clinton administration where Bill and Hillary will keep everything between them and let's note that (a) sitting vice presidents have won the presidency exactly once in the past 200 years or that (b) only once in the past 124 years has one party kept control of the White House for 16 consecutive years.

No, this is an attempt to consign Obama to political oblivion, not a sincere effort to unify the party. In politics, timing is everything. The Clintons' time was 16 years ago. Unfortunately, their presidency was not quite as grand as they (and many of their former supporters, like me) had hoped for. Now, they want a do-over. No can do. Obama's time is now. This is a unique window in American history where his particular talents are sorely needed.

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

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

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

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

Posted by: adwei | February 10, 2008 12:39 AM | Report abuse

Congratulations to the coolest politician on earth to sweep the three caucuses! I hope he win the presidency this year! He has inspired so many of us to go on diet! Where can we sign up for the next year's contest?

Posted by: sgr_astar | February 10, 2008 12:30 AM | Report abuse

Sorry about the multiple posts-my computer had a meltdown...

Posted by: ASinMoCo | February 10, 2008 12:17 AM | Report abuse

I think the fact that Obama wins caucus states should NOT be taken lightly. This means that his supporters truly care about changing the world, not simply getting power in Washington.

Think about the difference between a caucus and a primary. Obama's supporters are willing to travel through snow, ice and freezing cold, blowing winds (and that was just in my state of Idaho!) to caucus for him. They're willing to stand in a sweaty, clammy and stuffy room for 2-3 hours with no room to even sit (again, in Idaho) just so they can make sure Obama knows they were there for him.

Now look at primaries. These are the "weekend" voters who won't even show up in November if they have something better to do. People who stop by to vote on their way to the grocery store after work. People who don't want to spend any real time or money (look at their individual donor numbers, Obama has more than 650,000) on their candidate or their causes. They are convenience voters.

The Democratic Party and its super delegates need to realize that Obama's supporters aren't going to fade between the convention and November like Clinton's would. They will give time, money and passion to make sure the White House goes to Obama this fall.

Passion is a hard thing to quantify but Obama's 8 million supporters have done a great job at giving passion a face. These are people that will do ANYTHING for their cause. It's because they truly believe Obama can do great things for our country, not because he's dedicated to 'beating' the Republicans. Only a superficial and relatively uninspired candidate would set their sights so incredibly low.

Obama is the only real choice for Democrats. He is the only one who cares about our country as a whole and not just strategic partisan politics and power games. Simply put, Obama is the man.

Posted by: thecrisis | February 10, 2008 12:16 AM | Report abuse

Mark in Austin-

Gotta love those maps show the county-by-county vote break-downs.

Looking at the county-by-county numbers --and seeing how the momentum is swinging--is the most awesome (and I mean "awesome" in its original, starry-eyed, un-valley-girled coinage) thing about this race.

It's impossible to look at the numbers from "fly-over" country and claim that Obama is in any way a marginal candidate or that he lacks broad support across rural/urban, income or racial demographics. The ONLY region Clinton is winning by big margins are the few mid-south states. Even in that region, her big lead in OK is eroded by the fact that Edwards still managed to take 10% of the vote there.

Posted by: tlmck3job | February 10, 2008 12:14 AM | Report abuse

Mark in Austin-

Gotta love those maps show the county-by-county vote break-downs.

Looking at the county-by-county numbers --and seeing how the momentum is swinging--is the most awesome (and I mean "awesome" in its original, starry-eyed, un-valley-girled coinage) thing about this race.

It's impossible to look at the numbers from "fly-over" country and claim that Obama is in any way a marginal candidate or that he lacks broad support across rural/urban, income or racial demographics. The ONLY region Clinton is winning by big margins are the few mid-south states. Even in that region, her big lead in OK is eroded by the fact that Edwards still managed to take 10% of the vote there.

Posted by: tlmck3job | February 10, 2008 12:14 AM | Report abuse

stewardj1: I agree with your post, but I would offer one correction. Maryland is most definitely not a swing state. We are a solid blue Democratic state and have been for a long time. But for that reason, *when* Obama wins here on Tuesday, it will let the air out of Hillary's argument that only she can win the "real" Democratic states that the Dem candidate will have to win in November. If the Democratic candidate lost Maryland in the general election, it would be a very bad sign indeed for the party.

Also, demographically, Maryland should be an interesting case study. We have large African-American and Latino populations, a huge number of wealthy college graduates, and a number of rural communities. Examining the exit poll data could be quite instructive. Same goes for Virginia, which has similar demographics but actually is a major swing state.

Posted by: ASinMoCo | February 10, 2008 12:14 AM | Report abuse

stewardj1: I agree with your post, but I would offer one correction. Maryland is most definitely not a swing state. We are a solid blue Democratic state and have been for a long time. But for that reason, *when* Obama wins here on Tuesday, it will let the air out of Hillary's argument that only she can win the "real" Democratic states that the Dem candidate will have to win in November. If the Democratic candidate lost Maryland in the general election, it would be a very bad sign indeed for the party.

Also, demographically, Maryland should be an interesting case study. We have large African-American and Latino populations, a huge number of wealthy college graduates, and a number of rural communities. Examining the exit poll data could be quite instructive. Same goes for Virginia, which has similar demographics but actually is a major swing state.

Posted by: ASinMoCo | February 10, 2008 12:14 AM | Report abuse

stewardj1: I agree with your post, but I would offer one correction. Maryland is most definitely not a swing state. We are a solid blue Democratic state and have been for a long time. But for that reason, *when* Obama wins here on Tuesday, it will let the air out of Hillary's argument that only she can win the "real" Democratic states that the Dem candidate will have to win in November. If the Democratic candidate lost Maryland in the general election, it would be a very bad sign indeed for the party.

Also, demographically, Maryland should be an interesting case study. We have large African-American and Latino populations, a huge number of wealthy college graduates, and a number of rural communities. Examining the exit poll data could be quite instructive. Same goes for Virginia, which has similar demographics but actually is a major swing state.

Posted by: ASinMoCo | February 10, 2008 12:14 AM | Report abuse

stewardj1: I agree with your post, but I would offer one correction. Maryland is most definitely not a swing state. We are a solid blue Democratic state and have been for a long time. But for that reason, *when* Obama wins here on Tuesday, it will let the air out of Hillary's argument that only she can win the "real" Democratic states that the Dem candidate will have to win in November. If the Democratic candidate lost Maryland in the general election, it would be a very bad sign indeed for the party.

Also, demographically, Maryland should be an interesting case study. We have large African-American and Latino populations, a huge number of wealthy college graduates, and a number of rural communities. Examining the exit poll data could be quite instructive. Same goes for Virginia, which has similar demographics but actually is a major swing state.

Posted by: ASinMoCo | February 10, 2008 12:14 AM | Report abuse

Mark in Austin-

Gotta love those maps show the county-by-county vote break-downs.

Looking at the county-by-county numbers --and seeing how the momentum is swinging--is the most awesome (and I mean "awesome" in its original, starry-eyed, un-valley-girled coinage) thing about this race.

It's impossible to look at the numbers from "fly-over" country and claim that Obama is in any way a marginal candidate or that he lacks broad support across rural/urban, income or racial demographics. The ONLY region Clinton is winning by big margins are the few mid-south states. Even in that region, her big lead in OK is eroded by the fact that Edwards still managed to take 10% of the vote there.

Posted by: tlmck3job | February 10, 2008 12:10 AM | Report abuse

The landscape will definitely be altered. If Obama wins 8 or 9 (or even 7, I'd say) of the contests, he gets media coverage as a "winner," and people start asking why Hillary isn't winning. In an environment where people only look at who won, even in a state like Nevada or New Mexico where it's been ambiguous, having your name on the front page for three or four days over the course of a month saying "Obama is the big winner" has to make a difference.

Posted by: qkanga | February 9, 2008 11:57 PM | Report abuse

I just don't get the Clinton caucus argument. Are they implying that Obama supporters are lay-about college students, and they (Clinton campaign) have the support of salt of the earth workers who have to put in time on a Saturday instead of caucusing? Having caucused in Nevada I find this both amusing and maybe even ironic, seeing as their surrogates here were trying to prevent the at large sites for the workers on the Vegas strip, and now suddenly these things are totally unfair. It would come as a surprise to Clinton caucusers in Nevada that they were supposed to be of doing jobs on that Saturday, instead of voting for Hillary.

I agree that secret ballot primary is more Democratic and should be the policy of every state, but caucuses are an effective evaluation of passion for a candidate and candidate's organization and GOTV. It strikes me that Clinton supporters are only complaining because they have gotten whacked in most of them. I wonder if they will be trying to delegitimize the caucus process if they win Maine tomorrow. Or will they crow about possibly their only win between 2/5 and 3/4. Something tells me they would not seek to delegitimize it and use it stem Obama's momentum. I wonder if they want to undermine the momentum they gained from Nevada's caucus? Back to Back with NH it helped them weather a blow out in South Carolina, but I guess since these things are un-democratic it should be discounted.

Bottom line for the Clinton folks, you are just getting thumped in those states. Deal with it, lick your wounds, and maybe try to improve your GOTV. Stop blaming 35 point losses on the inequity of the system. Obama and you had the same handicaps, you just got beat. If anyone should complain it should be the working poor that supported Edwards campaign.

Posted by: bradleyhirsh | February 9, 2008 11:53 PM | Report abuse

Lightly contested? HRC was campaigning pretty hard in Washington! If Obama spent more money on TV it was because he had more money to spend!

Posted by: jenny_hoots | February 9, 2008 11:53 PM | Report abuse

The Clinton campaign's spin on the next month of primaries sounds like Rudy Giuliani's strategy of waiting for Florida. By the time he got there, he was toast. It can't help but have an effect to have a full month of nothing but Obama victories, most by huge margins. These are not insignificant states either--Washington, Louisiana, Virginia, Maryland. And Virginia and Maryland are key swing states in November. It is also inevitable that, even without all these intervening Obama victories, Hillary's lead in the polls in Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania would be likely to shrink as Obama campaigns vigorously in these states. Clinton's campaign is in serious trouble.

Posted by: sewardj1 | February 9, 2008 11:51 PM | Report abuse

It's amazing to me that the only thing that saved Clinton from total irrelevance were 3 pts in NH, and yet now somehow she's still "in it" after losing by 2:1 margins in what, a DOZEN states?

Screw the delegate count. Obama is trouncing her in all but the bluest states. (Oh, sorry OK and AR) Were it the other way around, and she were pummeling Obama in most states, the narrative would undoubtedly be that she had the nomination in the bag. With any luck, a month of nothing but losses will make the MSM realize that most people just don't want that kind of nominee.

I even caucused for her in IA, but after what she did before SC, I just can't support her anymore.

Posted by: finnpillsbury | February 9, 2008 11:49 PM | Report abuse

My younger sister has only been following the election in a peripheral manner. But, she was moved by the Obama/Will I. Am "Yes, I Am" music video,oddly enough.

She was struck by the creativity of the venture, the poetry of the language - she felt it was a sermon Abe Lincoln may have preached - and by the fact that it was garnering a million views a day for the week it had been up.

And while she was perturbed that Hillary had seemed to attempt to co-opt Obama's message of "change", it wasn't until I Tivo'd back Hillary's speech in Virginia yesterday in which she declared that while Obama refuses to offer health care to everyone, her response is "Yes, We Can!".

Only then was she finally thunderstruck by the shallow, calculatingly soul-lessness of the campaign this woman who has never had an original thought in her life is running.

She pretends she has been servicing America for 35 years, yet none of her supporters can offer nary a word on what has come out of that 35 years.

Except perhaps to note she stopped being a Goldwater Girl who canvassed poor Chicago neighborhoods looking for "Democratic voter fraud".

She pretends she has this vast experience as opposed to the "first term Senator" when in reality, Barack Obama will have held elected office for 12 years before becoming President. Hillary Clinton will only have held office for 8 years.

The stench of the Clintons, whom Frank Rich notes in the Sunday Times is willing to take the party down with them, has become so strong that even non-political junkies like my sister have been forced to choose light over darkness.

Posted by: filmex | February 9, 2008 11:46 PM | Report abuse

The 16 year plan is another indication of the same cluelessness on behalf of the same weaselly Democratic Leadership Council-led party that LOST the Dems control of both Congress and the White house for most of the last 25 years.

Obama is winning because he has not allowed himself to be associated with the ill-conceived and unsuccessful political calculations by the DLC that led to Hillary's (and Edward's) vote in favor of the Iraq war--just one of many morally indefensible but thought to be politically expedient positions the DLC and the DNC have taken since Reagan scared the bejesus out of the party in 1980.

There's really not much of a percentage for Obama in running on a ticket with Clinton. It might seem like an appealing idea on the surface--but NOT if Clinton heads the ticket. Much as the Clinton campaign would like to spin it otherwise, SHE is the candidate of the establishment, simply by virtue of all of her much vaunted "experience." (I was more than willing to support Hillary at the beginning of this campaign but that whole line of "experience" reasoning put me off from the start--it puts me more in mind of Evita Peron than it does of, say, Margaret Thatcher who, awful as she was, at least worked her way up through her party's machinery on her own.)

Obama is appealing largely because he has escaped the DLC/Clinton/Gore/Kerry/Dukakis taint. If he runs on a ticket with Clinton, he loses that shine and that edge and becomes just another cog in the irreparably compromised, broken-down DLC machine.

It's time for the architects of what has been a largely unsuccessful strategy of "triangulation" (read: political cowardice) for the past 20 years to give it up.

Posted by: tlmck3job | February 9, 2008 11:42 PM | Report abuse

all i know is if barack has the majority of delegates and states won there are going to be a whole lot of pissed off young people.

many will be disappointed and probably won't bother to vote again this year, myself included.

Posted by: autoprt | February 9, 2008 11:41 PM | Report abuse

So Clinton thinks the Michigan vote should count, even though Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot, but Washington, Nebraska and Louisiana shouldn't count because she didn't run ads there? She's trying to have it both ways again.

Posted by: jkinnaman | February 9, 2008 11:41 PM | Report abuse

jpc at 10:40P -

This may help you out on E. Washington -

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/states/WA.html

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 9, 2008 11:40 PM | Report abuse

Yes, today Obama earned "little mo." Another two weeks of wins should give him "Big Mo." Once that happens, the fundamentals should change. That doesn't guarantee wins in TX, OH or PA, but it should tighten up the results so that he'll get at least a draw in delegates. Once he's got that momentum, you'll see a lot of movement from uncommitted super delegates and even a few previously committed ones changing their endorsements.

Another fundamental change will be his claim on the electability argument. After a parade of wins across the country, that will become apparent.

Within days, Hillary's fund raising will start sputtering anew just as Obama's gets a boost from his string of wins. That could be the most serious of all consequences. The internal pressures on her campaign will start to affect her performance on the ground.

Finally, even though Howard Dean can't play favorites yet, his whole mantra has been the 50 state strategy. He's gotta love Obama's breadth of victories across the nation with record turnout with independents and an energized youth vote. This is the base of a new democratic consensus that animates the Dean strategy. There's a synergy between the Obama movement and the DNC party building plan for the future. Expect Dean to be an important player behind the scenes to prevent any convention controversy and clear the way for Obama if he has a clear lead in pledged delegates.

Posted by: optimyst | February 9, 2008 11:37 PM | Report abuse

The last time we had a candidate claim they could lose all the contests in the month prior to winning one, he ended up spending $60 million and losing atrociously. Jewels then endorsed McCain the next day.

Posted by: muaddib_7 | February 9, 2008 11:36 PM | Report abuse

It is important to remember that New Mexico is still counting its provisional votes. Therefore, the delegate count for Senator Obama may increase still further prior to the Ohio and Texas primaries.

Senator Obama has the money and the momentum and the honorable thing for Senator Clinton to do is to concede the nomination in early April so that there is no need for a brokered Democratic convention.

It is long past time for the candidates to set aside the minor differences and to concentrate on the more important goal of ensuring that this nation does not have to suffer a third "Bush" nation which would be the result if, God forbid, a Republican should win in November. It is time to put the past behind us and to ensure a Democratic win with a greater vote margin than was achieved when Barry Goldwater was the candidate.

The world does not need another day of Republican policies and Senator Clinton needs to join the majority of Americans who want to crush the Neocons and get the USA back on the road to peace and prosperity.

Posted by: lavinsr | February 9, 2008 11:36 PM | Report abuse

Okay, everyone chill with predicting Obama is going to sweep NINE contests in a row. To do that would be truly phenomenal and would suggest he's really the only person to take the White House.

But Hillary has a strong campaign, tons of money (even if she loans it to herself) and never gives up. Plus she's a pro at playing the teary-eyed underdog role.

But Obama is professionally modest and never gets riled up in the excitement of winning. When Hillary wins, she gloats and boasts how the country loves her. When Obama wins, he says "thanks for the votes, we've got more work to do" and this is because he's the true underdog. Anyone denying this is a fool. He has had to build a gargantuan presidential campaign from next to nothing in less than 12 months. Clinton has been famous since 1992. She has 15 years of exposure helping her out, while Obama has about 12 months of exposure. Again, anyone saying Clinton is the underdog in this race, EVER, is off their rocker.

Obama is winning because when people get to know him, they side with him consistently over Clinton. Only the crazed loyalists don't leave Clinton's side - people that wouldn't even support Jesus Christ if he came back from the grave and ran for president.

However, if Obama sweeps the next six states (after the three today), and that's a big IF, it would dramatically change the race. It would be Giuliani in Florida all over again. Clinton doesn't realize that support lasts forever. Look at Louisiana - she didn't even make an appearance, let alone buy TV ads, and she got pounded by a state right next to her home state. That's pretty sad.

Besides, sweeping nine states, then having two solid weeks to campaign in Texas and Ohio without any distractions would give Obama undeniable strength and influence through the rest of the nomination process. Clinton is going to look like she gave up - and I think it'd be nice if she did - if she can't win anything for nearly a month.

Posted by: thecrisis | February 9, 2008 11:35 PM | Report abuse

It 's not just the wins, it's the margins and the enthusiasm. Solid double digit win in LA, but margins of more than 2-1 in WA & NEB. Beyond that, the flood of new voters in open primary states and the eagerness with which people are participating, even the most staid democrats will recognize the potential to reshape the political landscape that an Obama candadacy represents.

Posted by: cubsbear9 | February 9, 2008 11:30 PM | Report abuse

In the same way that Rudy awaited Florida to spark his campaign thereby losing momentum and ceding the race to McCain, Hillary appears to be doing the same. Those of us who could vote either way for Obama or Clinton will be compelled by Obama's steady wins in the coming races. I actually now believe that Obama is going to win the nomination. I have been studiously interviewing libertarians, centrists, and independents. In all cases, they prefer Obama's magical leadership even if he is more liberal than Clinton. Obama really does seem to have the secret sauce to be the Democratic Reagan: A Tranformational President.

Posted by: andrewf | February 9, 2008 11:22 PM | Report abuse

Dude!

I like your work but was dismayed tonight to see the extended excerpt from the Clinton campaign's email... How cheap! These guys live to insert their talking points into journalists' work.

C'mon. Let's stick with some arms length analysis here or, at the very least, paraphrase the darned faxes...

Posted by: bill14 | February 9, 2008 11:19 PM | Report abuse

mark_in_austin's comments are very interesting about Texas.

It looks like Obama may take Virginia by 20 points. I think Obama is building momentum in his big results in primaries and caucuses, his outspending, and his dominant message of hope. There's more positive energy coming out of his campaign, and like always I think this will win in the end. It's just human nature.

Hillary will HAVE to win Texas and Ohio to stop Obama. Split decisions probably won't save her. I think Democrats by then will have seen more of Obama and be ready to bring closure and avoid the long battle.

I've not been a huge Obama supporter from the beginning. I started out with Biden. Obama is my last stand. I don't know who I would vote for or whether I would vote if he doesn't get the nomination.

I believe that people will look back to this week when he swept Feb. 9 and performed well or swept the Potomoc Primaries and say this was the turning point. Lots of people were talking about a long, drawn out battle, but the momentum shifted.

Posted by: MNobserver | February 9, 2008 11:15 PM | Report abuse

There is nothing to say other than get ready for revolution. Rush Limbaugh is shouting - Obama is coming, Obama is coming. One if by land, two if by sea - three if in all directions. It's three!
Ohg
http://thefiresidepost.com/2008/02/05/this-american-revolution-2008/

Posted by: glclark4750 | February 9, 2008 11:12 PM | Report abuse

Still no end in sight. If Obama carries all those states except Maine it will be much better for his fundraising, but I don't think it will lead to a bowing out anytime soon. The DNC needs to prepare for the possibility of as tie. I am very scared of the idea of a brokered convention. Not only is it in August with almost no time for campaigning before November, our nominee is going to be chosen, not by us, but chosen for us in some smoke-filled room based on how many super delegates can be bought. This is the seedy underbelly of our democracy, and we need a plan to avoid that.

Cmon, Dr. Dean! We need to have a backup plan. Do Florida and Michigan need a do-over primary with delegates? Do we do popular vote total? By state? By county? I don't know what would be fair, it could decide one candidate with one plan and another with another plan. But we should pick one and stick with it. Our votes need to count here, otherwise we had the largest primary turnout in history for nothing.

Posted by: grimmix | February 9, 2008 11:09 PM | Report abuse

The new storyline:
Sen Clinton desperately needs to duplicate her NH win in ME tomorrow. Anything less than a decisive win there does serious damage to her candidacy.

Posted by: bsimon | February 9, 2008 11:07 PM | Report abuse

Votes of all delegates from Michigan & Florida should not be counted in the final tally at the Dem convention. Then, perhaps in 2012, all states will abide by the rules to participate properly in the Dem primaries (and at the convention). Otherwise, at this rate, states will start their 2012 primaries the week after the 2008 winner occupies WH.

Posted by: srk2233 | February 9, 2008 11:05 PM | Report abuse

Nothing that happened tonight was unexpected. Obama keeps winning in states that hold caucuses (with few - namely privileged - voters) or in states with large African-American populations. Very few of these states are actually going to be important for winning the general election - the South and the Great Plains will likely go Republican no matter what! In short, I have yet to be convinced that Obama can win in big and/or more diverse states like NJ or AZ (FYI - in CA, he lost 43 of the 53 House districts!). He and Clinton essentially tied in MO & NM, which suggests that either one of them would be equally strong in the general election.

Posted by: Lbrown | February 9, 2008 11:02 PM | Report abuse

Ah ok jimd52 thanks for the info. I didnt know it worked like that (Im a Brit and american politics nerd as i am thats one aspect i didnt know about. Its 4am here so u can see what a geek i am!) . caucus it will have to be.

Posted by: the_skilled99 | February 9, 2008 10:59 PM | Report abuse

hillary is still the best candidate. obama's campaign is about hype, big money and winning a football game.and this is the guy who is supposed to 'change' washington. i can see where this is going.

Posted by: sd71 | February 9, 2008 10:59 PM | Report abuse

I caucused in Nebraska tonight. Momentum is definitely playing a role. Western Iowa, which is similar in many ways to Nebraska went for Clinton in the Iowa Caucuses. But we did not see the same result tonight in Nebraska.

In my precinct (one of the largest Democratic ones in the state) we started with about 28 undecided, 45 for Clinton, and 135 for Obama. After the discussion period, most of the undecided went to Obama. Those left with Clinton were 80% women and 75% over the age of 45. Only one young man.

My friends in other precincts tell of the same story.

Nebraska allowed Republicans and Independents to come to the caucus and change party registration (and participate). About 20 caucus goers did this at my site. Nearly all of them went for Obama

It is clear that Obama is seen as the most viable candidate in winning the independent vote and the marginal voters.

Tonight Clinton was abandoned by all but her most hardened supporters.

Goodnight Hillary.

Posted by: bkdvorak | February 9, 2008 10:52 PM | Report abuse

I think it's BS that Clinton's folks downplay undeniable Obama victories in states that clearly matter (as far as delegate count), and yet the candidate herself travels to Florida and trumpets a "victory" in a state that (at least for now) has no bearing on the eventual winner. She claimed victory in Michigan, as well, where Obama was not even on the ballot (and again no delegates count). Clinton and her crew have to realize this thing is probably not going to go her way if the rest of the month goes the way tonight did.

Posted by: avalle | February 9, 2008 10:47 PM | Report abuse

JimD writes
"meant to copy one post and reply to it but I wasn't paying attention and copied every post above it as well."

Yup. I was just giving you grief. Its Saturday Night!

Mark- thanks for the info. Save & repost in 3 weeks!

Lastly, steveboyington and casbasura make excellent points.

Posted by: bsimon | February 9, 2008 10:47 PM | Report abuse

What's sad here is that the WaPo seems to think this is a football game and they're the (incompetent) sportscasters.

In actual fact, we're trying to decide who's going to be president. Instead of just calling the game, the WaPo should get out there and start asking real questions and making the candidates defend their policies.

Why won't the WaPo do that?

Posted by: LonewackoDotCom | February 9, 2008 10:46 PM | Report abuse

The only answer i can see for Michigan and Florida is to hold their primaries again. If they are smart the will hold then in mid June.

Posted by: the_skilled99 | February 9, 2008 10:41 PM

I am a Floridian and I can tell you that the chances of the Republican legislature and the Republican governor approving and funding another Democratic primary are absolutely nil. The only option for a re-do is a caucus.

Posted by: jimd52 | February 9, 2008 10:45 PM | Report abuse

Jim, the 67 are the ultimate result of the
7PM caucuses in the precincts after the polls close. They are "pledged". I think 2/3 of the 67 will be for BHO, frankly. When they go to the National Convention they are pledged for one ballot, only.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 9, 2008 10:44 PM | Report abuse

If Clinton looses 9 in a row then it surely aint gonna look good. Though it depends largely on how the media plays it. On election night the CNN team had seemed to make much of the supposed importance of Missouri "hugely symbolic, vital victory" ect ect while Clinton appeared to be the likely winner while ignoring Obama's massive lead in Minnesota which had exactly the same number of delegates at stake. When Obama won Missouri they then started making clear that he and Clinton would split the delgates down the middle...

This is annoying and rather inexplicable. In the run up to NH they seemed to be in love with him. Perhaps they are all annoyed at him for not sweeping NH like they said he would...

Ohio Texas and Pennsylvania will be key. But lets not forget NC and Indiana on May 6 (bigger delegate day than April 22) or indeed any of the May races. This one is gonna go right into June i think. Then the Superdelegates will have to go with whoever wins the most pledged delegates.

The only answer i can see for Michigan and Florida is to hold their primaries again. If they are smart the will hold then in mid June. Then they will be key. The powers that be in Pennsylvania especialy must be laughing in the faces of all those fools who rushed to hold their primaries early. They are gonna get the candidates all to themselves for a whole month! ha!

thats enough from me...

oh and good call steveboyington btw. 100% with you on that one. Though all campaghns do it not just clintons...

laters.............

Posted by: the_skilled99 | February 9, 2008 10:41 PM | Report abuse

The strategy of focusing on a few states didn't play out so well for Guiliani, but Sen Clinton is a far more formidable candidate than the mayor. At least the primaries are in her favor going into the convention. If she can hold on to those later states, the super dels may roll her way. Still, you have to hand it to the Obama campaign. They seem to be extremely well organized, energized and creative. If they can maintain their composure, humility and respect, the Obama camp is in a good position to pull off something akin to the New York Giants super bowl.

Posted by: casbasura | February 9, 2008 10:40 PM | Report abuse

Has anyone see Wash exit polls? I could only see LA exits. East Wash has a sizeable Hispanic population, so it would be interesting to see if they broke more like CA hispanics or AZ/NM hispanics.

Posted by: jpc.murphy | February 9, 2008 10:40 PM | Report abuse

Mark

You said that 67 delegates will be elected IN JUNE by the State Convention,

If one candidate is the clear leader at that point - would that influence the decision - the old bandwagon effect?

What about the head to head polling against McCain - if BHO continues to perform well and HRC continues to perform less well, would that influence the process? How much will electability concerns and down-ticket impact weigh on the state convention delegates?

Posted by: jimd52 | February 9, 2008 10:38 PM | Report abuse

It seems Howard Dean and the DNC didn't get the memo that all these new voters (and donors) are sending out.

FactCheck.org has the lowdown (literally) on his plan to begin smearing Sen. McCain even before the Democratic nominee is selected. (Boy am I GLAD I refused to donate yesterday!)

McCain is an honorable man. Obama is an honorable man. And you can't smear McCain enough to make the Clintons look good.

We're tired of these low-ball tactics - someone needs to get that through to Mr. Dean asap! Those numbers we're seeing on the tally boards in the last few weeks are because people are HUNGRY and YEARNING for a NEW kind of politics. That's WHY Obama is leading! (Doesn't Dean get it?)

Get a clue, Howard Dean, and follow the electorate's lead or step aside.

All the way to Washington. Yeehaaaaaaaaaa!

Posted by: miraclestudies | February 9, 2008 10:34 PM | Report abuse

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

Posted by: steven4 | February 9, 2008 10:33 PM | Report abuse

Maine is traditionally a state that supports women who are strong candidates, so I think if Mr. Obama manages a win or maybe a close second - it will be significant indication that the Clinton campaign is faltering.
Regardless of the Clinton strategy of low expectations, these losses by large margins in Washington and Nebraska, and probably Louisiana, have to be deeply disappointing. Senator Clinton is talking in Maine about how she matches better against Senator McCain, but does she?
Senator Obama does not arouse the antipathy of conservatives that McCain does -largely because of Obama's character and tolerance for people with opposing viewpoints as well as his charismatic way of evoking possibilities for the future. Hucklebee's surprising margins of victory show McCain's vulnerability all too well.
John F. Kennedy's narrow victory in 1960 was due to his ability to speak about what the American people saw as critically important about their future. JFK captivated the younger generation, inspired people to see themselves and the nation differently, and said we can do better. His telephone call to Mrs. King shifted the black vote away from Richard Nixon - the annointed Republican with the greater political experience.
If Obama can win in Texas and Ohio and Pennsylvania, he will shatter hopes of establishment Democrats for another Clinton presidency. If he can win in Pennsylvania and Texas, he should be able to beat Clinton to the finish line for the majority of delegates needed for the nomination.

Posted by: LiveFree | February 9, 2008 10:32 PM | Report abuse

JimD, you goin' all Rufus on us here?

Posted by: bsimon | February 9, 2008 10:22 PM

I meant to copy one post and reply to it but I wasn't paying attention and copied every post above it as well.

Posted by: jimd52 | February 9, 2008 10:32 PM | Report abuse

I am going to explain TX to you. Please pay attention.

1. Only 126 of 228 delegates will be selected by the Primary vote. It is likely that none of the 5 metros of more than 1.3m will split as much as 60-40 for anyone. Harris, Dallas and Travis Counties will probably go for BHO and Tarrant and Bexar for HRC. But neither candidate is likely to get a ten delegate lead among the 126. Call it 67-59. For the sake of argument, call it 67-59 for HRC on the assumption the Valley Machine supports her and actually gets out the vote down there.

2. 67 delegates will be elected IN JUNE.
But that is by the State Convention, which will have been filled with delegates from the County Conventions, which will be filled by delegates from the Precinct Conventions, run just like IA's, after the Primary polls close! In other words, when you hear the TX Primary vote, you won't
know anything about who won. Because if the BHO voters come back to the Precinct Conventions in big numbers, they can overwhelm an 8 delegate HRC lead from the Primary!
25 of the caucus selected delegates are supers, but "pledged" by their caucus vote.

3. Additionally, there are 32 unpledged supers, 12 of whom have endorsed HRC, 3 of whom have endorsed BHO, 17 of whom are waiting. These supers could tip the scale back to HRC or change their minds.

4. Just in case you think this was EZ so far, let me add that the 126 primary elected delegates are chosen by State Senate Districts. The SSDs got votes allocated by how strongly D they voted in 2004.

Of the 31 Senate Districts, the 4 largest in terms of delegates are:

* Senate District 14 (Austin) - 8 delegates. Home to the University of Texas at Austin and an enormous young, vibrant D community.

* Senate District 13 (Houston) - 7 delegates. Home to one of the largest African-American communities in the state and Senator Rodney Ellis, one of two African-Americans in the Texas Senate.

* Senate District 23 (Dallas) - 6 delegates. Home to Texas' other African-American State Senator, Senator Royce West, this district contains inner-Dallas and has over 280,000 African-Americans and over 270,000 Hispanics, just in this single district.

* Senate District 25 (San Antonio) - 6 delegates. This contains southwest Austin, north San Antonio, and the rural country in-between (Guadalupe, Hays, Comal and Kendall). The only district with more than 6 delegates that has a Republican Senator.

So whoever thinks TX is going heavily for anyone forget it. TX splits near even. Toward BHO if the Valley Machine sits out to make peace for Noriega, Toward HRC if the Valley Machine works its tail off for her.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 9, 2008 10:25 PM | Report abuse


what do i think?

i think hillary will be getting teary-eyed and have her voice crack monday.

Posted by: boyohboy | February 9, 2008 10:25 PM | Report abuse

Steveboyinton: agreed.

When smart people act dumb, it is insulting to the audience.

I distinctly remember my personal reaction to Hillary's Iraq vote.

On the one hand, a wave of angry disbelief.

On the second hand, a cringe of knowing what a crass political calculation she was making, just looking to be viable for future presidential election.

On the third hand (yep), I wondered if she was so smart that she was 5 steps ahead, and it would work.

I think the reason that Hillary is losing this election is that people sense what a political calculation that was. Then when Bill said Jesse had also won SC, that made it explicit.

Obama's goose would have been cooked after SuperTuesday, if Hillary had presented her best self over the years. But she Romneyed.

She has no one to blame but herself.

Obama's breaking even SuperTuesday was a political miracle. Today is a bona fide 3 state washout.

If Hillary doesn't win in Maine tomorro, the die are cast.

Only if Obama, or his team, does something vastly offensive would Hillary have a chance to stem this.

If Obama wins Maine, I suspect he will also inflate the momentum to win OH and/or PA.

And thus the nomination.

Hillary's weaknesses are real. She played us on the Iraq war, for her own gain. The chickens are coming home to roost.

Posted by: tdn0024 | February 9, 2008 10:22 PM | Report abuse

JimD, you goin' all Rufus on us here?

Posted by: bsimon | February 9, 2008 10:22 PM | Report abuse

obama has the momentum, fundraising, and enthusiasm of supporters across the geographical spread.

Super-armtwisting and backroom deals are likely to shine light in disgusting corners of our electoral sham.

it is like a protracted, pre-emptive constipation of MAYBES.


so much for transparency in democracy.

Posted by: forestbloggod | February 9, 2008 10:21 PM | Report abuse

Sorry about my last post - I had no idea I had copied almost the whole thread

Posted by: jimd52 | February 9, 2008 10:20 PM | Report abuse

I want our Democratic candidate to show strength. Clinton is clearly not doing so if she cannot win liberal strong holds like Western Washington, and We see Obama doing so as he also takes Conservative leaning areas like Eastern Washington.

Obama isn't just winning tonight, he is blowing Clinton away!

Posted by: DanKirkd | February 9, 2008 10:19 PM | Report abuse

Of the last 25 Clinton v Obama contests. Clinton has been unable to get more than 1/3 of the vote in 9 states and less than 40% in 11. Obama has consistently got higher than 40% in all states except OK and Arkansas(her home) Now remember this is just among democrats. You've got to be from another planet if you think she has any chance of winning the general election. Of course this will boost Obama, just like NH boosted Clinton and SC boosted Obama. Everyone loves a roll and a winner. Unfortunately Hillary is the only thing that will unite all strands of republicans and most independents in the general.

Posted by: martinor108 | February 9, 2008 10:17 PM | Report abuse

And don't rule out an Obama win in Maine on Sunday. He spoke to 7000 in Bangor late this afternoon which is a big crowd for such such a small state.
After Tuesday, if he wins, money will continue coming in and the national polls should start moving in his direction. The whole landscape could look quite different by March 4.

Posted by: welchd | February 9, 2008 10:16 PM | Report abuse


washingtonpost.com's Politics Blog
About This Blog | Meet Chris Cillizza | RSS Feed (What's RSS?)
Obama Sweep Looks Likely
Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) won the Democratic caucuses in Washington state and Nebraska today and seems likely to claim a third win in Louisiana's primary when returns come in later tonight from Louisiana.

Obama was expected to win all three contests, which the campaign of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) only lightly contested.

The Clinton campaign sought to downplay the results in an e-mail sent to the media tonight by deputy communications director Phil Singer. "Tonight there are contests in three states that the Obama campaign has long predicted they would win by large margins," wrote Singer -- noting that Obama outspent Clinton on television in each of the states.

"Although the next several states that hold nominating contests this month are more favorable to the Obama campaign, we will continue to compete in them and hope to secure as many delegates as we can before the race turns to Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania," he added.

While it's very unlikely either Obama or Clinton will be able to secure a significant delegate lead before next month (or perhaps ever before the convention), it remains an open question whether there is symbolic importance attached to Obama's expected wins over the next few weeks. Clinton is running a serious race in Maine, which holds a caucus tomorrow, but all three states in the upcoming Potomac primary -- Maryland, D.C. and Virginia -- seem to favor the Illinois senator. Hawaii and Wisconsin, which hold contests on Feb. 19, also favor Obama.

What do you think? If Obama wins every vote or every vote but Maine between now and March 4 -- when Ohio and Texas are set to go -- is the race fundamentally altered? Or not? Sound off in the comments section below.


By Chris Cillizza | February 9, 2008; 9:20 PM ET | Category: Eye on 2008
Previous: Huckabee Wins Kansas; Democratic Results Later |


Add The Fix to Your Site

Be the first to know when there's a new installment of The Fix! This widget is easy to add to your Web site, and it will update every time there's a new entry on The Fix.
Get This Widget >>

CommentsPlease email us to report offensive comments.

He was behind by nearly 10pts in a recent WI poll. Wisconsin is not a sure thing.

Posted by: cmss1 | February 9, 2008 09:24 PM

Symbolic my fanny!

A delegate is a delegate.

Posted by: mhonley | February 9, 2008 09:29 PM

If Obama carries every state but Maine I think he'll definitely win Pennsylvania and Ohio. Texas is going to be Clinton's, there's virtually nothing he can do about that except for having a good showing and rack up delegates.

Btw, I'm a Wisconsinite and I can tell you that with all of the college campuses and all of the endorsements that Obama has racked up, Obama is going to take Wisconsin. Take it from a Wisconsin political junkie.

Posted by: walter.bond | February 9, 2008 09:30 PM

"If Obama wins every vote or every vote but Maine between now and March 4 is the race fundamentally altered? Or not?"

How could it not be? When Sen Clinton wins, it is usually by narrow margins. When she loses, it is usually by wide margins. To put the question differently, in which primary or caucus has Obama come in third? None.

If Dems want to pursue Dean's 50-state strategy, Obama is clearly the better candidate.

Posted by: bsimon | February 9, 2008 09:32 PM

Momentum has definitely been at work so far. Also, it appears that the more an electorate sees Obama, the better he does. It certainly looks like Obama would have carried California if not for the early voting. I think he has momentum.

Posted by: jimd52 | February 9, 2008 09:43 PM

The race is definitely altered in such a scenario. The Clinton team plays down expectations to such an extent, saying things like "we hardly campaigned there," or "we expected Obama to win by a large margin," but at some point, she must win, and if he has taken 7/8 going into March 4, her strategy begins to feel like Giuliani's Florida strategy. . .

Posted by: benjamingeballe | February 9, 2008 09:43 PM

NOT fundamentally altered, but when we look back on this I think we may very well see that this sweep was an early sign of Clinton's weakness: slower fundraising, outright losing and/or uncompetitive in some states, weaker against McCain, etc.


Posted by: egc52556 | February 9, 2008 09:48 PM

Based on CNN's exit polls, Obama should win LA by about 53%-47%

Posted by: jimd52 | February 9, 2008 09:50 PM

So, let me get this straight: Phil Singer is saying that Clinton will use the famed "Giuliani strategy"? Lose, lose, lose, etc, and then finally win? I don't think prolonged elections work that way. If Clinton can't find a way to win before March 4, she won't win those contests either. Not even Texas. Giuliani proved that being labeled a consistent loser doesn't help you to win.

Posted by: jchaney | February 9, 2008 09:53 PM

"If Obama wins every vote or every vote but Maine between now and March 4 -- when Ohio and Texas are set to go -- is the race fundamentally altered? Or not? Sound off in the comments section below."

The "winner" must be the candidate who emerges with a clear plurality of votes and PLEDGED delegates. The superdelegates will have to swing to that person -- any other result would be intolerable -- a "steal."

That candidate will be Obama if he can sweep February and leverage that into wins in two of the three "big" states of TX, OH and PA.

Conversely, if HRC sweeps all three large states, it will likely be her.

PA will the real test. It is a must state for the Democrats in November. It has every "element" of the Democratic electorate. The candidates will have five weeks to campaign in PA without any other contest intervening or distracting. One of them should win PA decisively by causing putative supporters of the other to "defect" and thereby become the clear frontrunner, "winner" and nominee.

Posted by: mnjam | February 9, 2008 09:53 PM

If the polls continue to show Clinton running poorly against McCain and Obama doing well against him - that will definitely influence the super-delegates. They are not bound to a candidate simply because they publicly endorsed that candidate. It will also influence primary voters concerned with electability.

Posted by: jimd52 | February 9, 2008 09:55 PM

What "bsimon" has written is of utmost importance: Obama typically wins big, while Clinton wins narrowly - especially since this race will inevitably come down to superdelegates, and Obama will have won more total states.

And while Dean's 50-state strategy may be a bit overambitious, the underlying notion seems to hold - that Democrats now have an opportunity to shift the center leftward, due in large part to the polarizing folly of modern conservatism.

Each Obama romp, no matter the state's demographics, highlights the fact that he is the better candidate to lead the Democrats' march toward a lasting majority... which indeed "fundamentally alters" this primary contest.

Posted by: walkasking | February 9, 2008 09:57 PM

There is only ONE poll from Wisconsin, that means nothing, we need multiple polls to predict who will win.

Posted by: sjxylib | February 9, 2008 10:01 PM

How can I find out what happened in the Virgin Islands. And how were delegates from American Somoa (Feb 5) distributed between Clinton and Obama?

I think journalists are missing out on the math. Although I have not seen the formula for distributing delegates, it seems to me that if Obama wins by these kind of margins that we are seeing tonight, it won't much matter if he loses Ohio and Texas by California-like margins. I would also like to know more about Puerto Rico - Michael Barron says that may have a winner-take-all election for their 67 delegates that could swing the election either way.

Posted by: franky35 | February 9, 2008 10:01 PM

hillary won california, new york, new jersey and new hampshire. only illinois went to obama.
when was the last time a democrat won all the big states and did not get nominated ?

Posted by: sd71 | February 9, 2008 10:02 PM


Momentum matters - and Hillary is losing it - at some point a perception will set in that Hillary is simply not winning any more - she is hanging onto the hopes that the Superdelegates are going to put her over the top.


This is a mess.


Hillary is going to have to come to a point in which she has to decide whether to put the party first. The Obama people will have less and less reason to feel that they have to step aside.


Hillary has a dicey situation on her hands with Michigan and Florida - she has delegates which were not elected according to party rules - she leaves herself open to allegations of cheating and changing the rules if she tries to use those delegates to win.


The only way out is to re-vote both States with primaries. It is that simple. She probably does not want to do that until she is sure she will have enough money to run ads, however she really has to take a position that everyone will perceive as fair. The other thing, if it really does come down to the Superdelegates, that vote is going to have to be taken at Convention, or at a special meeting. Those delegates are going to have to commit or vote at some point, and without that date certain, this may remain unresolved. The party really has to settle this by May or June, so to move up the votes of the Superdelegates and to re-vote Florida and Michigan - and just call it as soon as possible.


Yea.


Howard Dean is going to have to put together a plan like that. A special meeting to call the votes of the Superdelegates and get new primaries in Florida and Michigan and get it done way before the Convention. Just do it and let it happen. Call for a vote, settle the issues and call a winner.

Posted by: Miata7 | February 9, 2008 10:03 PM


Momentum matters - and Hillary is losing it - at some point a perception will set in that Hillary is simply not winning any more - she is hanging onto the hopes that the Superdelegates are going to put her over the top.


This is a mess.


Hillary is going to have to come to a point in which she has to decide whether to put the party first. The Obama people will have less and less reason to feel that they have to step aside.


Hillary has a dicey situation on her hands with Michigan and Florida - she has delegates which were not elected according to party rules - she leaves herself open to allegations of cheating and changing the rules if she tries to use those delegates to win.


The only way out is to re-vote both States with primaries. It is that simple. She probably does not want to do that until she is sure she will have enough money to run ads, however she really has to take a position that everyone will perceive as fair. The other thing, if it really does come down to the Superdelegates, that vote is going to have to be taken at Convention, or at a special meeting. Those delegates are going to have to commit or vote at some point, and without that date certain, this may remain unresolved. The party really has to settle this by May or June, so to move up the votes of the Superdelegates and to re-vote Florida and Michigan - and just call it as soon as possible.


Yea.


Howard Dean is going to have to put together a plan like that. A special meeting to call the votes of the Superdelegates and get new primaries in Florida and Michigan and get it done way before the Convention. Just do it and let it happen. Call for a vote, settle the issues and call a winner.

Posted by: Miata7 | February 9, 2008 10:03 PM

Does the Clinton campaign figure to write off all these states in November?

Do they really want us to believe that, say, in October, they figured "we better not try in Washington, Louisiana and Nebraska. Everyone knows Obama will win there."

Hogwash.

Once, just once, could they seem somewhat genuine?

Once, just once, stop with the spin. You make yourself look like fools at times. I know you are not fools, but really.

Admit you are disappointed with the losses. Say you will work to win the next few states.

Be human.

Posted by: steveboyington | February 9, 2008 10:04 PM

if obama runs against mccain he will loose.

Posted by: sd71 | February 9, 2008 10:07 PM

Perhaps, but Clinton would be swamped and it would have a disasterous effect on down-ticket Democrats in swing states.

Posted by: jimd52 | February 9, 2008 10:15 PM | Report abuse

CNN just called Louisiana for Obama.

Posted by: jimd52 | February 9, 2008 10:14 PM | Report abuse

Howard Dean is going to have to put together a plan like that. A special meeting to call the votes of the Superdelegates and get new primaries in Florida and Michigan and get it done way before the Convention. Just do it and let it happen. Call for a vote, settle the issues and call a winner.

Posted by: Miata7 | February 9, 2008 10:03 PM

As a Floridian, I can tell you that the Florida Legislature would have to vote to hold another primary and pay for it. The governor and both houses are Republican. It will not happen, no way no how. There is absolutely nothing that Howard Dean can do about it. Furthermore, the Florida Democratic establishment, who mostly support Clinton, are lobbying to have the delegates seated - an obvious ploy to help Clinton. The only way the DNC can get the Florida Democrats to choose new delegates is via a caucus and the Florida Democrats are strenuously resisting this idea.

Posted by: jimd52 | February 9, 2008 10:10 PM | Report abuse

if obama runs against mccain he will loose.

Posted by: sd71 | February 9, 2008 10:07 PM | Report abuse

Does the Clinton campaign figure to write off all these states in November?

Do they really want us to believe that, say, in October, they figured "we better not try in Washington, Louisiana and Nebraska. Everyone knows Obama will win there."

Hogwash.

Once, just once, could they seem somewhat genuine?

Once, just once, stop with the spin. You make yourself look like fools at times. I know you are not fools, but really.

Admit you are disappointed with the losses. Say you will work to win the next few states.

Be human.

Posted by: steveboyington | February 9, 2008 10:04 PM | Report abuse

Momentum matters - and Hillary is losing it - at some point a perception will set in that Hillary is simply not winning any more - she is hanging onto the hopes that the Superdelegates are going to put her over the top.


This is a mess.


Hillary is going to have to come to a point in which she has to decide whether to put the party first. The Obama people will have less and less reason to feel that they have to step aside.


Hillary has a dicey situation on her hands with Michigan and Florida - she has delegates which were not elected according to party rules - she leaves herself open to allegations of cheating and changing the rules if she tries to use those delegates to win.

The only way out is to re-vote both States with primaries. It is that simple. She probably does not want to do that until she is sure she will have enough money to run ads, however she really has to take a position that everyone will perceive as fair. The other thing, if it really does come down to the Superdelegates, that vote is going to have to be taken at Convention, or at a special meeting. Those delegates are going to have to commit or vote at some point, and without that date certain, this may remain unresolved. The party really has to settle this by May or June, so to move up the votes of the Superdelegates and to re-vote Florida and Michigan - and just call it as soon as possible.


Yea.


Howard Dean is going to have to put together a plan like that. A special meeting to call the votes of the Superdelegates and get new primaries in Florida and Michigan and get it done way before the Convention. Just do it and let it happen. Call for a vote, settle the issues and call a winner.

Posted by: Miata7 | February 9, 2008 10:03 PM | Report abuse

Momentum matters - and Hillary is losing it - at some point a perception will set in that Hillary is simply not winning any more - she is hanging onto the hopes that the Superdelegates are going to put her over the top.


This is a mess.


Hillary is going to have to come to a point in which she has to decide whether to put the party first. The Obama people will have less and less reason to feel that they have to step aside.


Hillary has a dicey situation on her hands with Michigan and Florida - she has delegates which were not elected according to party rules - she leaves herself open to allegations of cheating and changing the rules if she tries to use those delegates to win.

The only way out is to re-vote both States with primaries. It is that simple. She probably does not want to do that until she is sure she will have enough money to run ads, however she really has to take a position that everyone will perceive as fair. The other thing, if it really does come down to the Superdelegates, that vote is going to have to be taken at Convention, or at a special meeting. Those delegates are going to have to commit or vote at some point, and without that date certain, this may remain unresolved. The party really has to settle this by May or June, so to move up the votes of the Superdelegates and to re-vote Florida and Michigan - and just call it as soon as possible.


Yea.


Howard Dean is going to have to put together a plan like that. A special meeting to call the votes of the Superdelegates and get new primaries in Florida and Michigan and get it done way before the Convention. Just do it and let it happen. Call for a vote, settle the issues and call a winner.

Posted by: Miata7 | February 9, 2008 10:03 PM | Report abuse

hillary won california, new york, new jersey and new hampshire. only illinois went to obama.
when was the last time a democrat won all the big states and did not get nominated ?

Posted by: sd71 | February 9, 2008 10:02 PM | Report abuse

How can I find out what happened in the Virgin Islands. And how were delegates from American Somoa (Feb 5) distributed between Clinton and Obama?

I think journalists are missing out on the math. Although I have not seen the formula for distributing delegates, it seems to me that if Obama wins by these kind of margins that we are seeing tonight, it won't much matter if he loses Ohio and Texas by California-like margins. I would also like to know more about Puerto Rico - Michael Barron says that may have a winner-take-all election for their 67 delegates that could swing the election either way.

Posted by: franky35 | February 9, 2008 10:01 PM | Report abuse

There is only ONE poll from Wisconsin, that means nothing, we need multiple polls to predict who will win.

Posted by: sjxylib | February 9, 2008 10:01 PM | Report abuse

What "bsimon" has written is of utmost importance: Obama typically wins big, while Clinton wins narrowly - especially since this race will inevitably come down to superdelegates, and Obama will have won more total states.

And while Dean's 50-state strategy may be a bit overambitious, the underlying notion seems to hold - that Democrats now have an opportunity to shift the center leftward, due in large part to the polarizing folly of modern conservatism.

Each Obama romp, no matter the state's demographics, highlights the fact that he is the better candidate to lead the Democrats' march toward a lasting majority... which indeed "fundamentally alters" this primary contest.

Posted by: walkasking | February 9, 2008 9:57 PM | Report abuse

If the polls continue to show Clinton running poorly against McCain and Obama doing well against him - that will definitely influence the super-delegates. They are not bound to a candidate simply because they publicly endorsed that candidate. It will also influence primary voters concerned with electability.

Posted by: jimd52 | February 9, 2008 9:55 PM | Report abuse

"If Obama wins every vote or every vote but Maine between now and March 4 -- when Ohio and Texas are set to go -- is the race fundamentally altered? Or not? Sound off in the comments section below."

The "winner" must be the candidate who emerges with a clear plurality of votes and PLEDGED delegates. The superdelegates will have to swing to that person -- any other result would be intolerable -- a "steal."

That candidate will be Obama if he can sweep February and leverage that into wins in two of the three "big" states of TX, OH and PA.

Conversely, if HRC sweeps all three large states, it will likely be her.

PA will the real test. It is a must state for the Democrats in November. It has every "element" of the Democratic electorate. The candidates will have five weeks to campaign in PA without any other contest intervening or distracting. One of them should win PA decisively by causing putative supporters of the other to "defect" and thereby become the clear frontrunner, "winner" and nominee.

Posted by: mnjam | February 9, 2008 9:53 PM | Report abuse

So, let me get this straight: Phil Singer is saying that Clinton will use the famed "Giuliani strategy"? Lose, lose, lose, etc, and then finally win? I don't think prolonged elections work that way. If Clinton can't find a way to win before March 4, she won't win those contests either. Not even Texas. Giuliani proved that being labeled a consistent loser doesn't help you to win.

Posted by: jchaney | February 9, 2008 9:53 PM | Report abuse

Based on CNN's exit polls, Obama should win LA by about 53%-47%

Posted by: jimd52 | February 9, 2008 9:50 PM | Report abuse

NOT fundamentally altered, but when we look back on this I think we may very well see that this sweep was an early sign of Clinton's weakness: slower fundraising, outright losing and/or uncompetitive in some states, weaker against McCain, etc.

Posted by: egc52556 | February 9, 2008 9:48 PM | Report abuse

The race is definitely altered in such a scenario. The Clinton team plays down expectations to such an extent, saying things like "we hardly campaigned there," or "we expected Obama to win by a large margin," but at some point, she must win, and if he has taken 7/8 going into March 4, her strategy begins to feel like Giuliani's Florida strategy. . .

Posted by: benjamingeballe | February 9, 2008 9:43 PM | Report abuse

Momentum has definitely been at work so far. Also, it appears that the more an electorate sees Obama, the better he does. It certainly looks like Obama would have carried California if not for the early voting. I think he has momentum.

Posted by: jimd52 | February 9, 2008 9:43 PM | Report abuse

"If Obama wins every vote or every vote but Maine between now and March 4 is the race fundamentally altered? Or not?"

How could it not be? When Sen Clinton wins, it is usually by narrow margins. When she loses, it is usually by wide margins. To put the question differently, in which primary or caucus has Obama come in third? None.

If Dems want to pursue Dean's 50-state strategy, Obama is clearly the better candidate.

Posted by: bsimon | February 9, 2008 9:32 PM | Report abuse

If Obama carries every state but Maine I think he'll definitely win Pennsylvania and Ohio. Texas is going to be Clinton's, there's virtually nothing he can do about that except for having a good showing and rack up delegates.

Btw, I'm a Wisconsinite and I can tell you that with all of the college campuses and all of the endorsements that Obama has racked up, Obama is going to take Wisconsin. Take it from a Wisconsin political junkie.

Posted by: walterbond | February 9, 2008 9:30 PM | Report abuse

Symbolic my fanny!

A delegate is a delegate.

Posted by: mhonley | February 9, 2008 9:29 PM | Report abuse

He was behind by nearly 10pts in a recent WI poll. Wisconsin is not a sure thing.

Posted by: cmss1 | February 9, 2008 9:24 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company