Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The Hoosier-Heel Primary: Winners and Losers

In a primary race that has been defined by its unpredictable twists and turns, the voters of North Carolina and Indiana provided yet another swerve in the narrative.



Photo Gallery: Democrats Split Indiana and North Carolina. Sen. Barack Obama won North Carolina's presidential primary by a wide margin Tuesday, while Sen. Hillary Clinton narrowly won in Indiana.

Barack Obama's convincing win over Hillary Rodham Clinton in North Carolina's Democratic presidential primary was a big boost after Clinton's recent win in Pennsylvania, and the narrowness of the Indiana result further boosts Obama's standing.

But here at The Fix we seek to go beyond the obvious story -- looking inside the numbers and the personalities in these two states to offer our own take on the winners and losers from last night.

Our take is below. Feel free to agree or disagree in the comments section.

WINNERS

Black Voters: Time and time again, African American voters have propelled Obama in the nomination fight. From South Carolina's primary through Feb. 5 states like Georgia and Alabama and into Tuesday night's result in North Carolina, black voters turned out in record numbers and lined up solidly behind Obama. One-in-every-three voters in North Carolina were black and Obama won a whopping 91 percent of them. Make no mistake: If and when Obama formally becomes the nominee, he will owe the black community a significant debt of gratitude.

"Dream Ticket": The polite victory speeches of Clinton and Obama -- full of kind words for each other and gestures of potential outreach -- drove cable commentators wild about the possibility of the New York senator accepting a spot on the ticket as vice president. Harold Ford Jr., a former Democratic congressman from Tennessee, broached the possibility during an appearance on MSNBC, telling hosts Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann that a shared ticket is "something that this party is going to have to think very seriously about in the next few weeks." Somewhere House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) is rolling her eyes.

Rush Limbaugh: Whether or not you believe in "Operation Chaos," the conservative talk radio host got lots and lots of credit for disrupting the Democratic race. Obama's campaign sent out several e-mails touting Limbaugh's call for Republicans to cross over and support Clinton (thereby extending the Democratic contest). And exit polling showed that Republicans made up 11 percent of the vote in Indiana, and that bloc went to Clinton by a 53 percent to 45 percent margin. The Limbaugh Effect? That probably gives the conservative talker a bit too much credit, but the publicity he got last night from cable television was priceless.

Young Voters: No age group has been more ridiculed for their lack of participation than those under 30. But in Indiana that age group comprised 16 percent of the overall vote while those 65 or older comprised 15 percent. Under 30s went for Obama 61 percent to 39 percent, a margin that all but neutralized Clinton's 44 percent margin among older Hoosiers.

Gary, Indiana: Not since the Jackson Five or perhaps "The Music Man" has this northwestern Indiana city got so much national attention. For a few hours last night, the Mayor of Gary was the biggest "get" in the world of cable television and print reporting.

The Picket Fence Play: Were we the only ones who, in the wee hours of Wednesday morning, started making comparisons between Obama's Lake County comeback and the play Dennis Hopper drew up to win the championship game for Hickory High in "Hoosiers"?

LOSERS

Evan Bayh: The Indiana senator put his own political chops on the line in the two weeks between Pennsylvania and Tuesday night's vote -- serving as an aggressive voice for Clinton (and against Obama) in the hurly burly leading up to the primary. Despite reports from both campaigns about Bayh's popularity among state voters, he simply wasn't able to deliver his candidate the sort of victory she needed to claim momentum going forward.

Mike Easley: The North Carolina governor's decision to endorse Clinton was seen as a potential turning point in the race. Or not. Obama hammered Clinton in the Tarheel State, and Easley, who will be looking for a job when his second term expires later this year, did himself no favors in positioning for a possible Obama cabinet. (On a more positive note, Easley's heir apparent -- Lt. Gov. Bev Perdue -- claimed a solid win in the Democratic gubernatorial primary.)

The Wright Controversy: Exit polling in Indiana and North Carolina suggests that the comments made by Rev. Jeremiah Wright last week weren't the anchor around Obama's ankle that many believed they would be. About a third of voters in both states said Wright was "very important" in deciding their vote, and those blocs went strongly for Clinton. About a third of voters said Wright was "not at all important" in their choice of candidate, and they opted for Obama by even wider margins. What do all those number say? That if you came into the Wright controversy favoring Clinton, you came out of it thinking the same thing. And if you were an Obama supporter before the Wright reemergence, you remained one afterwards. Put simply -- much ado over not all that much.

The Fix's Bedtime: With polls closing at 7 p.m. in Indiana and 7:30 p.m. in North Carolina, The Fix was ready for an early night. Little did we know Lake County would keep us waiting ... and waiting.

By Chris Cillizza  |  May 7, 2008; 8:27 AM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Is It (Finally) Over?
Next: Clinton Still In The Race, But Faces Major Hurdles

Comments

ud7bjhpg4mgwc esrpmilywqzts6kt [URL=http://www.731827.com/274979.html] 1y19hmofaji5 [/URL] haaocgq0525

Posted by: 1kqfwcabds | May 21, 2008 6:12 AM | Report abuse

n1efw6ro2rc9 ni4l5ffpfvt j6qnjyq2vjazhcnp

Posted by: cxo8ik3y8v | May 16, 2008 2:45 AM | Report abuse

p7xmdquuoi5k3r2hz [URL=http://www.212909.com/725193.html] ul9069w8yn [/URL] e9nw4lqssc

Posted by: 7suj6w2umf | May 16, 2008 2:45 AM | Report abuse

w1yert1py8l9fhb12 http://www.354266.com/557084.html b58zcku4v9

Posted by: e54pvbaqn8 | May 13, 2008 9:44 PM | Report abuse

When members of HRC's senior staff speak of a big, tranformational event that could change the dynamics of the nomination battle, I just hope that they are not given ideas to some racist crackpot with a finger itching to express his support for the Second Amendment.

Posted by: Daniel Young | May 13, 2008 2:31 AM | Report abuse

a6j3kyq50704dg8nq te56cr53mg4 nn1qd72muz1

Posted by: it7g18s4bu | May 11, 2008 2:31 AM | Report abuse

I would add Tim Russert to the wins list. He was the first big pundit to say that the race is basically over, and that "we now know who the nominee will be." It's on youtube and has been pushed heavily not only by (ugh) Drudge but is also pretty popular amongst Obama supporters, one of whom messaged me with it about 30 seconds after it aired. And now a lot of other pundits are following.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2008 12:46 PM | Report abuse

Everyone says Obama can't win. But truth be told - there is only one candidate of the three running, who cannot win...

That's Hillary. She can't even get her own party's nomination.

If Obama can beat Clinton, McCain isn't going to be a problem.

Posted by: wolf | May 8, 2008 4:04 AM | Report abuse

My Vote's for Obama (if I could vote) ...by Michael Moore

Friends,

I don't get to vote for President this primary season. I live in Michigan. The party leaders (both here and in D.C.) couldn't get their act together, and thus our votes will not be counted.

So, if you live in Pennsylvania, can you do me a favor? Will you please cast my vote -- and yours -- on Tuesday for Senator Barack Obama?

I haven't spoken publicly 'til now as to who I would vote for, primarily for two reasons: 1) Who cares?; and 2) I (and most people I know) don't give a rat's ass whose name is on the ballot in November, as long as there's a picture of JFK and FDR riding a donkey at the top of the ballot, and the word "Democratic" next to the candidate's name.

Seriously, I know so many people who don't care if the name under the Big "D" is Dancer, Prancer, Clinton or Blitzen. It can be Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Barry Obama or the Dalai Lama.

Well, that sounded good last year, but over the past two months, the actions and words of Hillary Clinton have gone from being merely disappointing to downright disgusting. I guess the debate last week was the final straw. I've watched Senator Clinton and her husband play this game of appealing to the worst side of white people, but last Wednesday, when she hurled the name "Farrakhan" out of nowhere, well that's when the silly season came to an early end for me. She said the "F" word to scare white people, pure and simple. Of course, Obama has no connection to Farrakhan. But, according to Senator Clinton, Obama's pastor does -- AND the "church bulletin" once included a Los Angeles Times op-ed from some guy with Hamas! No, not the church bulletin!

This sleazy attempt to smear Obama was brilliantly explained the following night by Stephen Colbert. He pointed out that if Obama is supported by Ted Kennedy, who is Catholic, and the Catholic Church is led by a Pope who was in the Hitler Youth, that can mean only one thing: OBAMA LOVES HITLER!

Yes, Senator Clinton, that's how you sounded. Like you were nuts. Like you were a bigot stoking the fires of stupidity. How sad that I would ever have to write those words about you. You have devoted your life to good causes and good deeds. And now to throw it all away for an office you can't win unless you smear the black man so much that the superdelegates cry "Uncle (Tom)" and give it all to you.

But that can't happen. You cast your die when you voted to start this bloody war. When you did that you were like Moses who lost it for a moment and, because of that, was prohibited from entering the Promised Land.

How sad for a country that wanted to see the first woman elected to the White House. That day will come -- but it won't be you. We'll have to wait for the current Democratic governor of Kansas to run in 2016 (you read it here first!).

There are those who say Obama isn't ready, or he's voted wrong on this or that. But that's looking at the trees and not the forest. What we are witnessing is not just a candidate but a profound, massive public movement for change. My endorsement is more for Obama The Movement than it is for Obama the candidate.

That is not to take anything away from this exceptional man. But what's going on is bigger than him at this point, and that's a good thing for the country. Because, when he wins in November, that Obama Movement is going to have to stay alert and active. Corporate America is not going to give up their hold on our government just because we say so. President Obama is going to need a nation of millions to stand behind him.

I know some of you will say, 'Mike, what have the Democrats done to deserve our vote?' That's a damn good question. In November of '06, the country loudly sent a message that we wanted the war to end. Yet the Democrats have done nothing. So why should we be so eager to line up happily behind them?

I'll tell you why. Because I can't stand one more friggin' minute of this administration and the permanent, irreversible damage it has done to our people and to this world. I'm almost at the point where I don't care if the Democrats don't have a backbone or a kneebone or a thought in their dizzy little heads. Just as long as their name ain't "Bush" and the word "Republican" is not beside theirs on the ballot, then that's good enough for me.

I, like the majority of Americans, have been pummeled senseless for 8 long years. That's why I will join millions of citizens and stagger into the voting booth come November, like a boxer in the 12th round, all bloodied and bruised with one eye swollen shut, looking for the only thing that matters -- that big "D" on the ballot.

Don't get me wrong. I lost my rose-colored glasses a long time ago.

It's foolish to see the Democrats as anything but a nicer version of a party that exists to do the bidding of the corporate elite in this country. Any endorsement of a Democrat must be done with this acknowledgement and a hope that one day we will have a party that'll represent the people first, and laws that allow that party an equal voice.

Finally, I want to say a word about the basic decency I have seen in Mr. Obama. Mrs. Clinton continues to throw the Rev. Wright up in his face as part of her mission to keep stoking the fears of White America. Every time she does this I shout at the TV, "Say it, Obama! Say that when she and her husband were having marital difficulties regarding Monica Lewinsky, who did she and Bill bring to the White House for 'spiritual counseling?' THE REVEREND JEREMIAH WRIGHT!"

But no, Obama won't throw that at her. It wouldn't be right. It wouldn't be decent. She's been through enough hurt. And so he remains silent and takes the mud she throws in his face.

That's why the crowds who come to see him are so large. That's why he'll take us down a more decent path. That's why I would vote for him if Michigan were allowed to have an election.

But the question I keep hearing is... 'can he win? Can he win in November?' In the distance we hear the siren of the death train called the Straight Talk Express. We know it's possible to hear the words "President McCain" on January 20th. We know there are still many Americans who will never vote for a black man. Hillary knows it, too. She's counting on it.

Pennsylvania, the state that gave birth to this great country, has a chance to set things right. It has not had a moment to shine like this since 1787 when our Constitution was written there. In that Constitution, they wrote that a black man or woman was only "three fifths" human. On Tuesday, the good people of Pennsylvania have a chance for redemption.

Yours,
Michael Moore

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2008 12:13 AM | Report abuse

WoW,

Why hasn't Hillary Clinton sewed this all up by now? The strategy was to blow it out of the water by Super Tuesday, Feb. 12. She shouldn't even by in the race by now, yet, there she is. Mark Penn had the 48 state strategy which was why she was more than willing to sign a document that MI and FL's delegates wouldn't count because they broke the rules. But it's white educated women like me that are ruining the Democratic party right? Because everyone knows that being uneducated is the best thing for a party right? So if a miracle doesn't happen and Hillary loses, just vote for McCain and don't let the door hit your butt on the way out of the Democratic party. You're no true Democrat and never were.

Posted by: raduodogi | May 8, 2008 12:00 AM | Report abuse

lylepink:
Sorry to hear about the diagnosis. I add my prayers to proud's. I'm hopeful that the Cyberknife treatment will be effective.

Posted by: mnteng | May 7, 2008 10:28 PM | Report abuse

Damn, that's bad news, lyle. I'll be praying for you. Hang in there buddy.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 7, 2008 8:21 PM | Report abuse

Proud: The big "C" is there. I see a CyberKnife surgeon Monday.

Posted by: lylepink | May 7, 2008 7:18 PM | Report abuse

and one more time for you- 4 more today for Obama, vs 1 for Clinton. The SD gap is now down to 13, it'll be gone by the end of the week. The idea that 70% of the Supers are going to turn around and give the nomination to Hillary for no concrete reason despite losing the pledge delegate race dramatically and despite the long-term dmage it would do to the Democratic Party and their own races this year is just nuts.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | May 7, 2008 7:01 PM | Report abuse

With all due respect and admiration for The Fix, Dennis Hopper's character Shooter called the picket fence - "we're gonna run the picket fence at 'em...don't get caught watching the paint dry!" - but it was not in the championship game.

Props for the Hoosiers reference though...

Posted by: tyler | May 7, 2008 6:56 PM | Report abuse

Not more important than your job, more important than your semi-anonomous postings on a webpage, moron.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | May 7, 2008 6:49 PM | Report abuse

NEWS FLASH


McGovern has now switched to Obama - I guess that is a sign


sign of things to come..........


Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 7, 2008 6:08 PM | Report abuse

kreuz_missile


Seriously, I think your ego has got the most of you if you are going to blog that your "job is more important than someone else's"


First you have to be some elitist snob. A real pathetic little wiesel to say something like that.

Most importantly, you don't know what my job is and you are wrong.

So take your attitude and walk buddy.


By the way, don't give us anymore "math" until you come up with your 100 additional superdelegates - they are holding on Obama and they have good reason.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 7, 2008 6:04 PM | Report abuse

Thanks, lyle. You know how military life is... they say jump and you say "how high?" I am blessed to be married to a man in uniform; it's an honor to be among those who serve. Iraq vets are the next Greatest Generation. btw, I hope your biopsy results came back o.k.

I will enjoy imagining you robustly casting your vote in a couple weeks.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 7, 2008 5:57 PM | Report abuse

kreuz_missile:

"IDK, everyone knows his true dream job is Gov, and he was pushed to forego that to take the Senate seat. A deal with Rendell as VEEP could pave the way for him to secure the governor's office."

Yeah, but Rendell's term limited out after 2010. So, Casey would have to wait a couple of years anyways.

Besides, Fast Eddie HAS to stay -- otherwise we get two years of Catherine Baker Knoll. Talk about a loon.

Posted by: mnteng | May 7, 2008 5:41 PM | Report abuse

Proud: I think WV has the most military servers, past and present, according to population, than any other state. I know I volunteered and went into the AF in 1957 because of my economic condition. We are at or near the bottom in this area and have been for many years. Hope your next station is not in the war zones and you can remain with your husband. Wishing you the best of luck.

Posted by: lylepink | May 7, 2008 5:24 PM | Report abuse

Good list, Chris -- you're so right about bedtime. I made the mistake of telling people I'd be home in time for the Daily Show. Oops. If you're curious here's how the Ws and Ls looked from Texas: http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/05/winners-and-losers-from-indian.html

Posted by: RJR | May 7, 2008 5:19 PM | Report abuse

"Diane, she's just not that into you."

You need to wait at least three days, you can't appear too desperate.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | May 7, 2008 5:06 PM | Report abuse

"Sen Feinstein appears to be waivering..."


I like this part- "Feinstein said she called Clinton two days ago, but said she hasn't heard back from the New York senator yet."


Diane, she's just not that into you.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 7, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Biggest Loser of the night: THE MEDIA. Including YOU, Chris. Trying to give this race to Hillary Clinton by race-baiting blue collar whites with the Jeremiah Wright angry-black-man bogeyman for weeks now, and serving as an echo chamber for the Clinton spin. Navel gazing over "why can't he close the deal" when her path to the nomination continued to get exponentially tougher as the race went on.

You are the big losers, you just don't want to admit it.

Posted by: you forgot the media! | May 7, 2008 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Four more SD's for Obama today, one is a switch...

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/07/992182.aspx

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Poll results of how people see John McCain versus Hillary Clinton or versus Barack Obama will change next week. If Obama wins the nomination, the comparison with his Republican opponent will show voter thinking changing before the conventions, and then changing after the conventions. Then the polls will show change again before the November election voting.
Rabid Republican pundits will little matter next fall when Obama takes on McCain. People in this country will have completely wakened up to the Republican nonsense (or warped sense of reality about life outside Washington, D.C.). Remember, there are still many who just don't realize yet that the emperor is not really wearing clothes.
The main reason Obama would not select Clinton as a running mate is because his change campaign theme needs a young and upcoming Democratic leader. Otherwise his intended contrast with the "establishment" candidate McCain will not be as stark or as effective.
JFK did decide to pick his rival LBJ as a running mate to ward off criticism about his legislative experience as well as pick up needed support in the South. However, next year we will need a president who will change the way our nation's capitol operates, and Hillary Clinton is far too experienced in "business as usual" to qualify for vice president on an Obama ticket.

Posted by: Jonathan R. Seaver | May 7, 2008 4:43 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone really think that the Democratic SuperD's are really going to tell an African-American, "Ummm... Yeah... So you say you have the most delegates/votes. Let me check. See... you made an error here. You got your delegates too quickly and didn't maintain your momentum. We're given the job to someone else." I really don't think that will play well with a large, loyal base of the party. They could try it, but they'd be validating every nasty thing Sharpton or Wright say in the eyes of the AA population. It could very well drive many from the party. I just don't see it.

Posted by: Mason | May 7, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 4:26 PM | Report abuse

"I voted for a Democrate."


Barabara BOXer?

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 7, 2008 4:20 PM | Report abuse

"That would go over like a ton of bricks with Bob Casey, who spent a lot of time and energy promoting BHO here in PA."

IDK, everyone knows his true dream job is Gov, and he was pushed to forego that to take the Senate seat. A deal with Rendell as VEEP could pave the way for him to secure the governor's office.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | May 7, 2008 4:17 PM | Report abuse

People that believe that all AA voters who voted for Obama voted for him because they understood what he stood for and what his solutions were to our problems and issues are basically naive and ignorant. Of course many of the AA votes were because Obama was a black man. I have heard AA commnetators on TV state that they support Obama becasue he is black. But "we" the people are supposed to think that is not considered racist. Anything you say gainst Obama, or state you are for someone else brings up "you are racist". That is the ugly part of this. On the other hand there are many women that voted for Clinton because she is a woman. Or there are many "whites" that voted because she is white. Let's not all be naive and ignorant to think that this does not happen. The sad thing is that race and gender did come in to play and now that we Democrates want to win the White House this time around there are some that will not do what it will take to win. If it takes an Obama/Clinton ticket to win the White House then that is what we should be concerned about ... that is if you do not want a Republican in again. I think it is great that we have record breaking numbers coming out to vote Democratic this time around. True Democrates will come out and vote in the general, and they will vote Democrate. The ones that do not, were the ones that really only voted because he was black or she was a woman/white. I want the White House back! If it takes an Obama/Clinton ticket then I think it is time the Democrates that voted stand up and say that is what it will take. Hating either person, Obama or Clinton, is not a true supporter so all of you that spew that from your mouth are not true Democrate supporters. Obama and Clinton see eye to eye on the majority of issues facing us today, very small differences. Let's get off this race and gender wagon and the hating and start getting down to business .... beating the Republicans. By the way, I voted for a Democrate.

Posted by: luckyme2 | May 7, 2008 4:12 PM | Report abuse

proud:
"I also heard someone suggest Ed Rendell for Obama's VP. Not bad for a lib."

That would go over like a ton of bricks with Bob Casey, who spent a lot of time and energy promoting BHO here in PA.

I could be wrong, but I don't see a HRC supporter ending up as BHO's VP.

Hope your next undisclosed location isn't somewhere like Diego Garcia ...

Posted by: mnteng | May 7, 2008 4:11 PM | Report abuse

"The math is this: Obama needs 100 additional superdelegates or he doesn't get the nomination."

And Clinton needs almost 300. Why weren't they onboard last November when she was the inevitable nominee? Why have ZERO Obama SD's converted to Clinton, while several have gone the other way? Why is your only argument "sure, he's winning, but he can't competely destroy her, therefore she should get the nomination by default?" She was the frontrunner, she blew it big time, she ignored many contests, she blew through an overwhelming financial advantage at the beginning of the year, she has run a disasterous campaing, she is barely able to compete even after a solid month of nothing but trash being talked about Obama. Obama won't have a worse week than this politically, and he still solidly beat her in NC and fought back to a draw (yes, HE fought back, look at the polls http://www.pollster.com/08-IN-Dem-Pres-Primary.php ). Who's the one blowing smoke here?

100 votes are still needed, and Obama will have them shortly, don't you worry about that.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | May 7, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse

WoW -

Oops. You'd think I would get that, when I brought up the Holy Grail in the first place!

Thanks for the "translation." (A little humor back at ya!)

Posted by: jac13 | May 7, 2008 4:01 PM | Report abuse

"If you look at the exit polls from last night and from the recent primaries, one thing leaps out at you: the further left you go, the more support Obama gets. The more centrist a voter is, the less likely he or she is to support him."

Need to factor in Operation Chaos as well, that's been more pronounced recently...

Posted by: kreuz_missile | May 7, 2008 3:58 PM | Report abuse

"If there are 50, why dont you want Florida and Michigan to count ???"

Same reason Hillary didn't until she needed them

Posted by: kreuz_missiel | May 7, 2008 3:56 PM | Report abuse

"He has failed to produce the Virginia-type numbers in North Carolina."

He won NC by more votes than Clinton won PA- despite the smaller population. Get real.

"You know the history of bad blood between Shelton and Clark, right?"

Exactly why I bring it up, Shelton pushed hardest for his removal as SACEUR and called him to dinner specifically to humilate him in the eyes of some...

Posted by: kreuz_missile | May 7, 2008 3:55 PM | Report abuse

Obama has had since mid-February to line up enough superdelegates - he should have been able to do it already - seriously Obama needs 100 more superdelegates - all these people talk about the math.

The math is this: Obama needs 100 additional superdelegates or he doesn't get the nomination.


Next time, the Obama people start figuring this that - ask them, where are all the superdelegates Obama needs for the nomination.

It's not that hard. The have been blowing smoke in everyone's faces.

To be honest, I am sick of it.

Obama claims to be a different kind of campaign.

They are not.

OK how about this question Obama - how many states in the US ???

If there are 50, why dont you want Florida and Michigan to count ???


Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 7, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

"Mark, You know I've been a Jindal fan for a while now. Go Bobby!"

Good, negate the whole lack-of-experience meme in one fell swoop.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | May 7, 2008 3:50 PM | Report abuse

Dennis Hopper's character was in the hospital during the championship game. Watch the movie again; you have Clintonian confusion on the facts.

Posted by: 33rdSt | May 7, 2008 3:50 PM | Report abuse

"I do not hear your response."

I actually have a job that's quite a bit more important than you, believe it or not.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | May 7, 2008 3:50 PM | Report abuse

"The reason the white vote has been analyzed is the Obama campaign started talking about it after the Wisconsin primary."

Actually, it goes back to Bill's comments after the SC primary.

"The superdelegate primary has been going on since mid-February - Obama is the frontrunner and the weight has been on him to close this out.":

And since then, he's been steadily cranking them out at a 4-1 pace. Are you actually trying to argue that because all of them didn't just come out at once, that's a sign of weakness on his part? Get real.

"Where's your 100 additional Superdelegates? You need them to be the nominee."

Nancy Pelosi and her group in CA gives us 22 waiting to come on board, same with Carter and numerous other SDs, all of whom have stated they will vote for the pledged vote leader after the final primary. This doesn't include as many as 30 right now who are ready to come out, doing so when the campaign asks them too (hence the steady daily stream). Clinton said let the voters decide a while back, they're simply waiting for them to do just that.

Superdelegates:
Today: Obama 256, Clinton 273
20 Apr (Pre-PA): Obama 230, Clinton 255
30 Mar: Obama 212, Clinton 246
10 Feb: Obama 127, Clinton 212
3 Feb: Obama 88, Clinton 184

A nice graphic for you as well:
http://www.swivel.com/graphs/image/27712508

By whatever metric you guys come up with here, Clinton is toast.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | May 7, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

Mark, You know I've been a Jindal fan for a while now. Go Bobby!


I also heard someone suggest Ed Rendell for Obama's VP. Not bad for a lib.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 7, 2008 3:47 PM | Report abuse

jac13

Its a Monty Python reference

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 7, 2008 3:47 PM | Report abuse

kreuz_missile


I do not hear your response.

Now can everyone see through the smog that the Obama campaign is blowing ????

Their math has been clear all along - they keep on talking about remaining contests and this percentage, that percentage.

The superdelegates should vote this way, the Obama people say.


The Obama campaign is has been completely HALTED at 100 superdelegates short.

Plus they are acting like Florida and Michigan are not part of the country.

It's all pretend pretend pretend.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 7, 2008 3:45 PM | Report abuse

Dennis Hopper's character was in the hospital during the championship game. Watch the movie again; you have Clintonian confusion on the facts.

Posted by: 33rdSt | May 7, 2008 3:44 PM | Report abuse

from the lylepink West Virginia dictionary:

Iraq

When we got to the pool hall I told my uncle you break Iraq.


Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 7, 2008 3:43 PM | Report abuse

Kreuz, you certainly held up your end today and when you posted that HRC was now claiming Shelton as a supporter I learned something. You know the history of bad blood between Shelton and Clark, right?

Proud, your use of relocated detainees - masterful. Mnteng is joined by me in saluting.

There are rumors of Veeps - Nunn [D] and Jindal [R]. I am spreading them, of course, but they originate in the MSM - NYT and PBS.

jac13 - there are folks who post here who cannot be taken seriously because they have an agenda and post all day. Ignore them.

Posted by: MarkInAustin | May 7, 2008 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Wanted to add, WV [my state] is the only one voting next Tuesday.

Posted by: lylepink | May 7, 2008 3:13 PM

Now it all makes sense!

West Virginia: One Big Happy Family ... Really!

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 7, 2008 3:33 PM | Report abuse

WoW -

Was that supposed to be some kind of insult? If so, and you want me to consider being insulted, you really should explain, 'cause it went right over my head.

Posted by: jac13 | May 7, 2008 3:28 PM | Report abuse

mnteng, Are you kidding? This state is great! Incessant wind all year 'round, 30 below for weeks, quarter-mile swarms of ravenous mosquitoes all summer, not to mention mind-numbing flatness as far as the eye can see - and that's pretty far. Good news, though -this week, the last of the snow finally melted, I am happy to report.

Also happy to report that the military will be relocating Mr. proudtobeGOP and me to our next assignment this summer! The next undisclosed location awaits.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 7, 2008 3:27 PM | Report abuse

Obama has stalled as a candidate - he is 100 superdelegates short and he has had enough time to get them lined up.

It's time.


How much longer do we have to wait for Obama to get his act together???


If he doesn't have the 100 superdelegates, he doesn't have them.

He should step aside and let another candidate unite the party - Obama's campaign is weakening. At this rate, what will it look like come November????

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 7, 2008 3:27 PM | Report abuse

the NYT reports: If you look at the exit polls from last night and from the recent primaries, one thing leaps out at you: the further left you go, the more support Obama gets. The more centrist a voter is, the less likely he or she is to support him.

Once upon a time, Obama had strong support from wide swathes of very religious people. Now he has wide swathes of support among secular voters.

Obama has a much more liberal profile than he did several weeks ago.

Clinton should fight to the death. She should make Obama earn 2025. It's only Wright, oops, I mean right.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 7, 2008 3:18 PM | Report abuse


The truth is Obama is weakening as a candidate.


He has failed to produce the Virginia-type numbers in North Carolina.

Obama has failed to perform in the white community as his campaign was talking after the Wisconsin primary.

Most Importantly, they have known since mid February how many superdelegates they would need - they are 100 Superdelegates short right now.


Obama's campaign is stalled -


Obama is stalled 100 superdelegates shy of the nomination.


In the old days, this all would happen at the Convention, they would go on to another ballot.

New candidates could jump in at the old style Conventions.

Maybe the people here who are talking about a third candidate are not so nuts.

If Gore said tomorrow he wanted to jump in, what would happen ???

If McGovern said tomorrow he wanted to jump in, what would happen ???

Just kidding, McGovern switched to Obama today - is he a superdelegate or just up at some ranch in South Dakota ????

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 7, 2008 3:15 PM | Report abuse

**Sighs** The race for the nominee is over. I guess we're stuck with Obama.
Tim on MSNBC last night had an interesting observation. He said that one of the reasons Clinton is still pressing on is bc of debt. Need to get donors to make up some of it.

The media makes me sick - first they predicted that Obama would win Indiana, but when he lost, they didn't give credit where credit is due. They took her victory from her and down played it. All in all, I thought it has been a great and close race. The candidates are very similar. I commend Clinton for not giving up so easily. If we were going to have our first woman president, it would be her. I think that she's going to leave on a high note and that maybe she's doing all this to run again in 2012.

I pray that Obama can now prove us Clinton-supporters wrong and lead this country in the right direction. Don't let us down, Obama!

No McBush in 2008!

Posted by: Disappointed | May 7, 2008 3:13 PM | Report abuse

Wanted to add, WV [my state] is the only one voting next Tuesday.

Posted by: lylepink | May 7, 2008 3:13 PM | Report abuse

Yesterday, Ira Waltrip, an employee for Iraq contractor KBR, was formally charged with possession of child pornography. According to a court affidavit, Waltrip was first caught with pornographic materials in 2006 and fired from KBR. However, KBR rehired Waltrip before the year ended, and he returned to Baghdad, where he returned to his past behavior:

Last month, while working as a KBR bus driver in Baghdad, Waltrip, 48, was again discovered with suspected child pornography, including some pictures of prepubescent children engaged in sex with adults and some pictures of Waltrip with nude females who "appear to be young teenagers," according to the federal affidavit.

Today, in U.S. District Court in Austin, where Waltrip has been charged with possession of child pornography, U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert Pitman appeared dismayed that Waltrip was rehired.

"He was rehired by that employer and participated in the same behavior...and then may have possessed child pornography he produced," Pitman said in explaining his decision to order Waltrip detained without bail.

A Houston-based KBR spokeswoman had no immediate comment today.

The latest scandal further illustrates KBR's refusal to hold employees accountable for their actions. Last week, a former employee testified that a camp manager caught stealing from Iraqi palaces was promoted by KBR, rather than disciplined.

Even more disturbingly, more than thee dozen women who worked for KBR have come forward saying they were sexually assaulted by coworkers while stationed in Iraq. The alleged assailants will likely never face a jury, and KBR is determined to settle these allegations in private arbitration, without "public record nor transcript of the proceedings." In fact, Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX) told a story that one KBR employee who told her superiors she was raped found her rapist assigned to work next to her.

Posted by: the benefits of privatization | May 7, 2008 3:05 PM | Report abuse

I have seen Polling for Ky. and WV with Hillary leading in the 30%+ range. This will be somewhat of a surprise to me if these numbers hold when I consider the Repubs and Independents change of Registration to vote for Obama. WV is a closed Primary and I don't know about Ky.

Posted by: lylepink | May 7, 2008 3:01 PM | Report abuse

proud:

"Calling Howard Dean a loser is an insult to losers everywhere."

Hmm. Since I'd like to think of myself as being part of the civil discourse crowd, does that mean I insulted myself?

I did like your "Gulag of the North" comment on a previous thread. Not enjoying ND?

Posted by: mnteng | May 7, 2008 2:58 PM | Report abuse


kreuz_missile, Blarg, et al

Where's your 100 additional Superdelegates

You need them to be the nominee.


Get them, and then come back to us with your bogus numbers - and your "mathematical impossibilities"


YOU NEED 100 ADDITIONAL SUPERDELEGATES.


Go get them.


IF YOU CAN'T OBAMA IS NOT THE NOMINEE.

YOU HAVE KNOWN ABOUT HOW MANY SUPERDELEGATES YOU NEEDED SINCE MID FEBRUARY


YOU HAVEN'T DONE IT


HOW MUCH LONGER DO YOU WANT ???

THE PARTY HAS TO MOVE ON AND GET A CANDIDATE THAT CAN WIN IN NOVEMBER.

OBAMA HAS NOT DONE IT.

LETS SEE THE 100 ADDITIONAL SUPERDELEGATES, OR YOU CAN TAKE ALL YOUR TRASH TALK ELSEWHERE.


Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 7, 2008 2:57 PM | Report abuse

this county is on the coast of NC,
These are Carteret County's unofficial results from the primary elections, as supplied by the County Board of Elections:

President

Democrat

Clinton 60%

Obama 37%

Gravel 1%

Republican

Huckabee 10%

Keyes 2%

McCain 81%

Paul 4%

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 2:56 PM | Report abuse

kreuz_missile


The superdelegate primary has been going on since mid-February - Obama is the frontrunner and the weight has been on him to close this out.

We are at 3 months now and Obama has failed to do this.

Obama is failing as a candidate - he has failed to line up the 100 additional Superdelegates which he needs. -


Obama has failed to expand his appeal among white voters - this was a key criteria set up by the OBAMA CAMPAIGN after Wisconsin - they have failed to expand their appeal among white voters.

Obama has failed to match his numbers in North Carolina compared to similar states of Virginia and Georgia - Obama's support is eroding, it is not going up.

Most Importantly, Obama himself said Indiana would be the "tiebreaker" meaning Hillary would win Pennsylvania, Obama would win North Carolina, and Indiana was the tiebreaker.

Hillary won the tiebreaker.


Simple Clear.

You want Obama to be the nominee? Call your local Superdelegate.

Obama needs 100 more.

If he doesn't get them, he can drop out.


Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 7, 2008 2:54 PM | Report abuse

If the super delegates are half smart, the nominee will be neither Clinton or Obama in the convention. Hide and watch.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 2:48 PM | Report abuse

Where's the posts

Posted by: Downtowner | May 7, 2008 2:48 PM | Report abuse

Quote: "The fact that the Superdelegates did NOT go to Obama in MARCH in sufficient numbers is very telling."

Let's reverse this and put Hillary's name in the place of Obama. Works both ways.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 2:46 PM | Report abuse

kreuz_missile


Obama should have been able to line up 100 additional superdelegates in March and close this race out.

Everyone wants the race closed out - Obama was unable to do it.

The fact that the Superdelegates did NOT go to Obama in MARCH in sufficient numbers is very telling.

The 100 Superdelegates that Obama needs ARE HOLDING HIM BACK.


Hillary knows this, she is calling the Superdelegates all the time.

Obama is the one who has failed to close the deal.

kreuz_missile you and your people are under an illusion that Obama is close to the majority.

Obama is NOT close to getting those 100 Supderdelegates.

The "rules" say that Obama needs more delegates.

100 Superdelegates SHOULD have backed Obama in March.

That did not happen.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 7, 2008 2:44 PM | Report abuse

Reason: 120000 North Carolina Republicans went to the polls to vote against McCain. That's 23% of the people who voted yesterday. When that many people make a meaningless vote against the party nominee just to state that they don't like him, I don't see how you can call it a great day for your state party.

Posted by: Blarg | May 7, 2008 2:39 PM | Report abuse

there no way bloomberg and edwards will lose..figure all you want

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Words of Wisdom, my advice is don't ever use your "possibility theories" to bet in Las Vegas.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Response to kreuz_missile

The central reality here is that Obama has been the front-runner since February and he has been unable to close the deal with the superdelegates.

The Superdelegates ARE holding Obama back.

By any political measure, there must be enormous pressure on the superdelegates to END this process and select a nominee.

THE SUPERDELEGATES ARE REFUSING TO GIVE OBAMA ENOUGH SUPPORT.

Obama has had the same basic calculations since February - nothing has changed.

The Superdelegates are holding back Obama.

Blame them, but realize there is a REASON they are holding back.

The REASON is that they do not believe Obama can win in November and they are AFRAID of OBAMA HURTING THE TICKET.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 7, 2008 2:38 PM | Report abuse

From May 6:

"So far only 277 super-delegates remain undeclared. Mrs Clinton has 269; Mr Obama 249 -- yet since February 10 he has gained a net total of 121 super-delegates to just 45 for her. If the remaining elected delegates are roughly divided, the former First Lady will need to persuade three quarters of the undeclared super-delegates to support her. It is a very tall order."

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 2:35 PM | Report abuse

Pretty good list, CC. We (North Carolina Republican Party) had a great night last night. We avoided a run-off in a contentious Republican gubernatorial primary with Pat McCrory roaring to victory in a 4 way race with over 46% of the vote. Fred Smith, getting about 37% of the vote, immediately endorsed McCrory and said he looks forward to helping him get to the governor's mansion! It was a great coming together for McCrory. On a personal note, McCrory is from "reason's" small school of Catawba College! Indian Pride! Hoo hoo! In any event, Dole got 90% of her primary and a fairly weak challenger in Kay "tax hike" Hagan. We have a great team at the top of the ballot here in NC for 08, CC. Dole should re-election with not real sweats against Hagan, especially with Obama at the top of the ticket. Plus, NC Republicans have our best shot in a long, long time to win the governor's mansion with a McCrory vs. Perdue race. This race will be costly & tough, but McCrory has a great shot to win with an already united Republican party & being able to siphon some Moore votes his way. The North Carolina Republican party was a big winner last night!

Posted by: reason | May 7, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

kreuz_missile


Also, if you review your posting, I think you are counting the remaining contests twice in your calculation.


Obviously Hillary has to score among the superdelegates.

The truth is so does Obama - Obama needs about 100 more superdelegates.

Obama has needed those superdelegates since March.


The campaign is basically stuck in the same position since late February.


The only different is Hillary has proven that the crap that the Obama campaign put out that Obama was beating her with the white vote was untrue.

The reason the white vote has been analyzed is the Obama campaign started talking about it after the Wisconsin primary.

I have never seen a post-racial campaign so obsessed about race.

The truth is Obama is not polling enough among white democrats to make him viable in the November election.


The only thing that gave the Obama people a little support on that issue was the Wisconsin primary.


IF the Wisconsin numbers among white voters held up through the March April May primaries THEN Obama would have been viable in the November election.


That did not happen.

The point is this: the superdelegates re holding Obama back. He needs only 100.

Those 100 are not going with Obama.

The Superdelegates are STOPPING Obama from winning.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 7, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

"If you give Hillary a net gain of 70 out of Florida and Michigan using your numbers"

Not gonna happen.

"So if Hillary can get a 40 - 10 split there"

Not gonna happen, maybe a 30-20 split

"With about 200 remaining uncommitted superdelegates which really do not want to make a decision."

But will have to, and so will vote their interest, the interest of the party, and the easiest to justify, giving it to the leader- still Obama under every circumstance you've outlined. Possible? Technically yes. Reasonable under any measure- absolutely not. Not impossible in the mathematical sense, but certainly impossible in the real world sense.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | May 7, 2008 2:27 PM | Report abuse

Quote: "The poster who said it was "impossible" is creating some deception or lying outright."

Speak for yourself. I, unlike Senator Clinton and her husband, don't lie, period. As for creating a deception, you, my friend, are grasping at straws. The last time I saw anyone so sure of anything was on another political blog some years ago. A rabid poster said that if Bush could win another term, he would shoot himself. Well Bush won, and I guess the poster shot himself, as he was never heard from again.

The super delegates would have to be super dumb to go for Clinton as they would ruin the democratic party for years to come.


Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

STOP PEDDLING THIS RETROGRADE "DREAM TICKET" BULLS---.

Posted by: John Lumea | May 7, 2008 2:24 PM | Report abuse

It looks very much like the the middle mainstream moderate democtats will prevail again..... but this time on the republican side....

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 2:23 PM | Report abuse

Response to kreuz_missile


OK Let's take your numbers at this point:


Obama 1905, 120 shy
Clinton 1779, 246 shy

If Hillary comes out of the DNC Rules Committee on May 31 with the vote - half the pledged and all the superdelegates get seated.


That changes the number needed for a majority up to 2135


If you give Hillary a net gain of 70 out of Florida and Michigan using your numbers about

Obama 120 shy


Hillary 176 shy

with about 250 superdelegates to go.

NOW 50 of those superdelegates are Add-On Superdelegates, yet to be chosen - Hillary has the inside track on those because those selection bodies are weighted with women's groups.

So if Hillary can get a 40 - 10 split there
then it is:

Obama 120 shy


Hillary 146 shy

With about 200 remaining uncommitted superdelegates which really do not want to make a decision.

That is the bottom line - mathematical possibilities are all over the place.

The poster who said it was "impossible" is creating some deception or lying outright.


Which do you think it is???

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 7, 2008 2:19 PM | Report abuse

"LOL. It is theoretically possible for the Libertarian Party to win also, but it ain't a gonna happen."

My exact point. Bob Barr 08!!

Posted by: kreuz_missile | May 7, 2008 2:18 PM | Report abuse

"mnteng, Calling Howard Dean a loser is an insult to losers everywhere. No wonder he's in Obama's corner, they're both from the McGovern-Kerry wing of the Democrat party....the ultra left tax-and-spend elitist wing."

Which is why his 50-state strategy has been such a bust and Dem candidates aren't competing in deep Red districts...oh wait...

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 2:17 PM | Report abuse

"At that point, the Superdelegates have to wonder how they can go with Obama who has failed to close the deal, failed to poll well among key demographics and failed to show how he can win in November. It's not like baseball where a team can clinch the pennant by losing that day and "backing in" - Obama needs to have a winning streak going in. Where is it ????"

No, it's more like a marathon where someone opens up a wide lead and can coast to the finish. It doesn't matter if the one who finishes second finished a little stronger, they still finished second. They are not going to say Obama can't close the deal and therefore we'll hand it to the person who couldn't manage a campaign, win delegates, etc. to begin with as an alternative. They're not going to say Obama has a problem with blue collar white men (a demographic Dems haven't won since 1964) and therefore hand it to a woman who pulls in less than 10% of African Americans, Dems strongest contingency, while in the process denying the first viable African American candidate the nomination, that's a recipe for suicide not just for the candidates but all Dems nationwide (You win PA as a Dem by winning Philly and Pittsburg big, and you win Michigan by dominating Detroit and S. Michigan- either of those happening without a substantial black vote, and what about congresspersons not just there but in districts inside of 60-40 nationwide?). They are also, schrivner, not going to pull another 1968 and hand the nomination to someone who hasn't even run or expressed an interest in seeking the nomination. The race is over, Obama will be the nominee.

And one more thing, he has shown how he will win. He holds every single Blue state (McCain only seriously challenges him in PA, and Obama still holds a wide lead), and picks up Colorado, New Mexico, Iowa, Nevada, Ohio (currently a tie- Strickland as VP puts them easily over the top), and makes NC, VA, FL, and a number of other Red States competitive enough to draw away McCain's resources and helping candidates downticket as well. That's exactly what the Supers want to hear- not making it another repay of 2000 with everything riding on PA, OH, and FL.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | May 7, 2008 2:15 PM | Report abuse

mnteng, Calling Howard Dean a loser is an insult to losers everywhere. No wonder he's in Obama's corner, they're both from the McGovern-Kerry wing of the Democrat party....the ultra left tax-and-spend elitist wing.


To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, conservatives believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the liberals believe every day is April 15.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 7, 2008 2:14 PM | Report abuse

Polls: Obama over McCain by 2.4 percent. That's up .3 percent today:


General Election: McCain vs. Obama
Polling Data
Poll Date Sample Obama (D) McCain (R) Spread
RCP Average 04/28 - 05/06 -- 46.7 44.3 Obama +2.4


Gallup Tracking 05/02 - 05/06 4382 RV 46 45 Obama +1.0
Rasmussen Tracking 05/03 - 05/06 1600 LV 45 44 Obama +1.0
Ipsos 04/30 - 05/04 755 RV 46 42 Obama +4.0
USA Today/Gallup 05/01 - 05/03 803 LV 47 48 McCain +1.0
CBS News/NY Times 05/01 - 05/03 601 RV 51 40 Obama +11.0
CNN 04/28 - 04/30 906 RV 49 45 Obama +4.0
FOX News 04/28 - 04/29 900 RV 43 46 McCain +3.0

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 2:12 PM | Report abuse

"There are still 50 uncommitted Add-On Superdelegates yet to be chosen."

What's an add-on Superdelegate?

And also, does anyone know how many delegates are in Michigan and Florida?

Posted by: DDAWD | May 7, 2008 2:10 PM | Report abuse

Quote: "No, it is theoretically possible for Clinton to win 80% of the popular votes in all remaining contests including Oregon to close the gap to convince a majority of Supers to cross over."

LOL. It is theoretically possible for the Libertarian Party to win also, but it ain't a gonna happen.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 2:08 PM | Report abuse

WoW: Your 1:16 PM Post is pretty well on target. I have been watching the Cable/News Talk shows most of last night and today, and not ONE of them is giving Hillary a chance at anything. Talk about the "Liberal Media" all anyone wants to, but they are supporting a candidate for POTUS that they MUST KNOW cannot win. I am beginning to think this is some sort of "Mass Optimising or Hypnosis" if there is such a thing.

Posted by: lylepink | May 7, 2008 2:06 PM | Report abuse

Quote: "The DNC Rules Committee meets on May 31 to vote on Florida and Michigan's 360 delegates."

Even with Michigan (where Obama wasn't on the ballot) and Florida, Senator Clintons's campaign say that they would still be short.

Quote from news today:
"Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign acknowledged this morning that even if all delegates from Michigan and Florida were seated at the Democratic convention, she would not have enough delegates to claim the presidential nomination."

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 2:05 PM | Report abuse

"The poster at 1:25 simply does not understand the delegate selection process.

You throw around phrases like "mathematical impossibility" which creates a deception about the entire process. There are still 250 uncommitted superdelegates. There are still 50 uncommitted Add-On Superdelegates yet to be chosen. The DNC Rules Committee meets on May 31 to vote on Florida and Michigan's 360 delegates. You are pretending that those three groups of delegates do not exist. Or you know they exist, however you are chosing to create a deception."

On the road to 2025 per CNN:
Obama has 1818, 207 shy
Clinton has 1669, 356 shy

There are 544 still to allocate; Thus Obama needs 38%, Clinton needs 65%;

Factor in proportional representation for the 217 pledged delegates left, which at BEST Clinton can get a 60-40 split on (even though she hasn't won a single contest that big in the popular vote since Arkansas much less the delegate split, but let's give her the benefit of the dounbt for the sake of argument), that leaves:

Obama 1905, 120 shy
Clinton 1779, 246 shy
366 to allocate

Obama would need 33%
Clinton would need 70.1%

Throw in FL and Mich, maybe Clinton nets 30-40 votes in a compromise, but no more than that, not changing the math all that much.

Truly mathematically impossible? No, it is theoretically possible for Clinton to win 80% of the popular votes in all remaining contests including Oregon to close the gap to convince a majority of Supers to cross over. Is it going to happen? Maybe, but we wouldn't be here to discuss it because we'd all be too busy trying to catch the monkeys flying out of my butt.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | May 7, 2008 2:02 PM | Report abuse

Quote: "Many many things are possible."

Except, Senator Clinton winning the nomination.

Quote from one of the 134,000 posts on the mathematical impossibility of Clinton winning on Google:

Only 22 thousand and 2 percent means that it was a "Virtual Win" for Obama Who can afford such losses from here on out as the number to win in EVERY state to catch Obama goes into ASTRONOMICAL LEVELS.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 1:59 PM | Report abuse

I've been off the boards. A few quick retorts.

AdrickHenry

Indeed it could be a great cabinet and, yes, I'd take Edwards as AG.

Words Of Wisom

When i spoke about the Majority of Obama's supporters being Educated White and Youth voters, I was speaking about his national base. He's got a very broad spectrum of support of which AA's are but a portion.

On top of this I simply don't by any thoery that says a vote for Hillary is a vote "against" Barrack. When given the choise of two Democrats some people preferred Hillary. Come November the vast majority of them will vote for the Democratic Nominee.

Posted by: swalker3 | May 7, 2008 1:55 PM | Report abuse

Obama would be wise to support the resolution before the DNC Rules Committee on May 31.

First of all, the passage would take Florida and Michigan's dispute off the table.

Seating half the pledged delegates and all the superdelegates is fair compromise to this controversy which has decended into insanity and electoral wackiness.

The Democrats need to vote a vote of confidence in Florida and Michigan way before the August Convention.

To have this dispute drag on into the summer, closer to the November election is crazy. It is much better for Obama to have the dispute behind him.


Obama does not want headlines that his campaign is opposing the seating of delegates from Florida and Michigan. Wouldn't it be better if he had the headline that he was supporting this resolution ????

The legitimacy of the nomination is at the heart of this issue. If Obama supports the resolution on May 31, he assures that if he does win the nomination, it will not be tainted by Florida and Michigan.


These are Words of Wisdom.

These are Words of Wisdom.

These are Words of Wisdom.


Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 7, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse

Winners:
The media. Since HRC isn't leaving the race yet, there is plenty for the pundustry to yak about and feel like they are earning their salaries.

Local media outlets in WV. More political ad money being spent in the next state to have a primary.

Wacky posters on The Fix. No clear D candidate means much discussion using faulty logic, cherry-picked statistics, and pie-in-the-sky predictions.

Losers:
Howard Dean. The longer the contest goes, the closer he is to having to make a decision.

Chelsea Clinton's inheritance. How much money would HRC have made if she had just invested her $11.4 million in oil future instead of her campaign?

Civil discourse on The Fix. Finding reasonable posts among all the wacky posts and flames becomes more difficult. Bring back registration soon!

To abuse an analogy, this contest now seem like the end of a very close basketball game where the losing team is fouling to stop the clock and hoping the winning team will miss its free throws.

Posted by: mnteng | May 7, 2008 1:44 PM | Report abuse

"Unfortunately Clinton is the only Democrat standing in the way of the elite far-lefts attempt to take full control of the Democratic Party."

And soon we will dispatch with her as well...MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Posted by: DDAWD | May 7, 2008 1:44 PM | Report abuse

The poster at 1:25 simply does not understand the delegate selection process.


You throw around phrases like "mathematical impossibility" which creates a deception about the entire process.

There are still 250 uncommitted superdelegates.


There are still 50 uncommitted Add-On Superdelegates yet to be chosen.

The DNC Rules Committee meets on May 31 to vote on Florida and Michigan's 360 delegates.

You are pretending that those three groups of delegates do not exist.


Or you know they exist, however you are chosing to create a deception.

Which is it.

We all know which states are yet to vote and how many delegates each have.

Mathematical Impossibility??? What about the above pools of delegates ?????

Many many things are possible.


Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 7, 2008 1:43 PM | Report abuse

JamesCH


Your numbers are getting better on the Florida and Michigan break-downs. Where are you getting 74 pledged delegates for Obama out of Florida from?

Remember Edwards was on the ballot too.

The proposal before the Rules Committee is to seat half the pledged delegates and all the superdelegates.

There are lists around the internet which name all the superdelegates from Florida and Michigan and project who is for Hillary, Obama and who is uncommitted.

All the numbers are a little sketchy, however the estimates are a net gain of 50 - 70 delegates for Hillary, which mean Obama's lead would be cut in half.

Remember these two things: There would be uncommitted superdelegates out there from Florida and Michigan - Obama's campaign did not do the right thing by attempting to prevent the Florida and Michigan re-votes. Those Superdelegates were not happy with Obama over that episode.

If the DNC Rules committee passes the resolution which appears likely, the number of delegates needed for a majority would go to 2135.

Remember, the candidates would need approximately 110 more delegates.

So Obama really needs about 300 more delegates at this point.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 7, 2008 1:35 PM | Report abuse

You could see some of the intensity of the African-American vote the night before the election, when Michelle Obama held a get-out-the-vote rally in Charlotte. Nearly 1,000 people came, the overwhelming majority of them black (although the Obama campaign arranged for the group sitting behind Mrs. Obama on stage -- the people who would appear with her in head-on camera shots of her speech -- to be mostly white).

Blatantly stage managing race out of the equation, Obama campaign crys "Get me more white people, we need more white people"

Posted by: byron | May 7, 2008 1:34 PM | Report abuse

When given a choice between Hillary and Obama, the white working class voters opt for Hillary. But when they are given the choice between another 4 years of a Republican administration which will not pay any attention to the economic issues and will plunge more American dollars into Iraq, these voters will stand behind the Democratic nominee - Obama.

Voters tend to vote based on their fears. Fears about who will raise taxes, fears on who will continue our involvement in Iraq, fears about national security, fears about the economy. They vote for the person who best addresses and alleviates their fears.

The fear of voting for a person who happens to be African American should not even be a consideration especially if he is the person best suited to rectify all their other more fundamental fears that afffect their daily lives.

Posted by: nevadaandy | May 7, 2008 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Words of Wisdom is correct about the translator guy who is constantly taking other poster's words, twisting them around, and then mocking.

There is no place for that on this forum.


The translator has to go.

If you have an opinion, leave the other posters out of it, state your own thoughts and then support your thoughts.

Stop mocking people and dragging down the forum.


Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 7, 2008 1:27 PM | Report abuse

Win in WV, etc.??

Nope, she has to win practically every vote in the following primaries. She has to win by a margin much greater than she has been getting. Why do you thing that the math says she can't win and even her own campaing is saying even with Florida/Michigan they will not have enough delegates.

It is a mathematical impossibility, as all now realize, but yet she goes on to the ruin of her party, of which she doesn't give a hoot.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 1:25 PM | Report abuse

scrivener, what interest would Obama have running as VP for a "compromise" candidate? Last time I check he was in the lead. Why would he suddenly decide he doesn't want to be President? Your theory makes no sense.

Posted by: JNoel002 | May 7, 2008 1:24 PM | Report abuse

To poster, supra, who points out that Hillary never had a good explanation for sticking with Bill:

I couldn't agree more. Hillary already has disqualified herself...

...which is why the supers are pondering a compromise candidate with Obama as veepee pick.

Posted by: scrivener | May 7, 2008 1:24 PM | Report abuse

I'm not sure I'd put Bayh in the losers column, he did deliver a win, although much narrower than needed. If 10,000 votes swung the other way, there'd be no question, but that one's more a judgment call right now.

As for the "dream ticket/VP" talk, Obama/Clinton ain't gonna happen. Ford was talking about the prospect the loudest, but even conceded it wasn't going to be on the ticket. She will have a lot of influence over the party leadership, the VP selection, etc., but she herself won't be on the ticket. Look at Reid's position possibly opening up the door for her to be Majority Leader, having some role in the future of the DNC charimanship (though not as much as, say, Jackson did in 1988 which was his driving force at the convention), and getting one of her staunch supporters n the ticket to unify the wings of the party- I'm thinking Strickland, Rendell, or to a lesser extent Clark (this may be less likely now that they seem to already be going their separate ways with her looking more to Shelton and Clark allegedly calling last night to encourage her to get out).

Posted by: kreuz_missile | May 7, 2008 1:23 PM | Report abuse

Actually, I did base it entirely on the total delegates in MI and FL. If you take the supers out of the equation, it bodes even worse for Clinton.

FL: Clinton 110, Obama 74
MI: Clinton 77, Obama 51 (assuming that the uncommitted delegates split and give Clinton a 60-40 advantage overall)

Net pledged delegates: Clinton +62

Even though she will pick up 62 pledged delegates and 15 supers, she trails by over 100 pledged delegates, and the supers are breaking toward Obama in significant numbers recently. FL and MI only prove that the race is out of reach for her.

Posted by: JamesCH | May 7, 2008 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Once again, WOW nails it.

WOW, does your scenario raise the odds of a brokered deal that results in a compromise candidate, with Obama running as VP to deliver his constituency?

I say that looks more likely today than it did yesterday..

Posted by: scrivener | May 7, 2008 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Hey WoW, no one is cutting and pasting, or mocking. You are just having your bizzare and rambling views translated into something readable. He's doing you a favor, if anything. Now I understand better what you are saying.

Posted by: TheTruth | May 7, 2008 1:19 PM | Report abuse

Quote: "Fact is, he never came up with an adequate explanation for his staying in the pews."

Did Hillary come up with a reason that she stayed with Bill for 35 years. He was accused of rape, accosted women, was impeached for lying under oath, shamed the presidency, was disbarred from practicing law in the supreme court and his own state, and things we won't go into, but Hillary stayed right there sending him out to help her be crowned.

Hmmm?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 1:19 PM | Report abuse

"blert, Obama overwhelmingly won North Carolina, largely by the black vote which he dominated 91 percent, but only carried 26 percent of the white vote."

Proud: According to exit polls, Obama carried 37% of the white vote in NC, not 26%. He got 40% of the white vote in IN.

Of course, his performance in the primary has little to do with his performance in the general. I'm not sure why everyone is so obsessed with racial analysis of exit polls; it's practically useless.

Posted by: Blarg | May 7, 2008 1:17 PM | Report abuse

HILLARY'S PATH TO VICTORY


The democratic race is essentially a tie - we have analyzed the popular vote totals and the various anomalies in the delegate distribution forumulas which explain over half of the difference in the delegate totals between the candidates - WHAT IS THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE ? Hillary right now is exactly where she thought she would be -


Here is Hillary's Path to Victory There are more than enough delegates for Hillary to win a majority:


1) Win West Viriginia on May 13


2) Win Kentucky on May 20


3) Lock up the vote at the DNC Rules Committee on May 31 on Florida and Michigan giving Hillary PLUS 70 delegates cutting Obama's lead in half.


4) Win the majority of the 50 Add-On Superdelegates which have yet to be chosen.


5) Win Puerto Rico.

Pretty Clear ahead - all of these things are likely to happen.

At that point, the Superdelegates have to wonder how they can go with Obama who has failed to close the deal, failed to poll well among key demographics and failed to show how he can win in November.

It's not like baseball where a team can clinch the pennant by losing that day and "backing in" - Obama needs to have a winning streak going in. Where is it ????

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 7, 2008 1:16 PM | Report abuse

I have to make clear that the founding fathers did not trust white men to make the decision as to who to vote for President.


Therefore, they created a system of electors who would cast votes FOR the white men.

Clearly, this version of history is correct.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 7, 2008 1:12 PM | Report abuse

Blert:

The early primaries were pre- Rev. Wright. The pundits say Obama has weathered that storm. Fact is, he never came up with an adequate explanation for his staying in the pews. He's high on rhetoric but has yet to come up with an answer that will hold up to the GOP attack machine.

The undeclared supers are tearing their hair out. I just saw Hillary in W.VA. and she's going to continue to hurt Obama. The compromise candidate solution is the only way to checkmate Hillary. She won't give up. She's the iron lady. Only Obama can defeat her, now, by using his delegates as a wedge to back a compromise candidate solution.

That's the way the supers are thinking. They are NOT going to allow Hillary to hijack the nomination, and the realists know that Barack will face a tough time in the fall. And he lacks sufficient experience to become president in this cycle.


Add it all up. It spells G-O-R-E/Obama.

Posted by: scrivener | May 7, 2008 1:11 PM | Report abuse

dyinglikeflies


The Constitution does not say that. It says clear "shall be determined by the video clip of a pundit selected by Matt Drudge and placed as a headline link"


Where did you get the other version from??


Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 7, 2008 1:09 PM | Report abuse

Quote: "After all, the Founding Fathers never intended the election process to be controlled by the voters."

You thought that you were joking, right?? That is why the US is a republic and not a democracy. A republic is where the voter elects a representative and the representative can vote any way he wishes. The founding fathers did not trust the common people's votes. Read up.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 1:09 PM | Report abuse

off topic, any comments about the down ticket races?

here are some of note while i was surfing around.

North Carolina Gov
Beverly Perdue(D) Vs. Pat McCrory(D)

NC-Senate
Kay Hagan(D) Vs. Elizabeth Dole(R)


Ind Gov
Jill Long Thompson(D)Vs.Mitch Daniels

from my best guesses. i would imagine that the team dems take both gov seats and come very close to taking the NC senate seat, depending on who's at the top of the ticket(looking like obama now) and the buzz around hagan being the next webb,the dems are in the best position to at least win North carolina.

Posted by: jay spartan | May 7, 2008 1:08 PM | Report abuse

Chris,
This is very irresponsible reporting. You forgot to mention by far the biggest loser of the night, Hillary Rodham Clinton, who lost any plausible claim to "momentum," any plausible path to winning a majority of elected delegates, any plausible path to winning a majority of the popular vote, and in consequence of all of the above, lost any plausible path to winning even a majority of the remaining uncommitted superdelegates, much less the overwhelming margin among superdelegates she'd need to wrest the nomination from Obama. Game, set, match.

As NBC's Tim Russert said last night, "We no know who the Democratic nominee will be."

Or as today's New York Post blared on its front page, referencing Hillary: "Toast!"

Posted by: Brad K | May 7, 2008 1:06 PM | Report abuse

"Want to know who is behind Obama's sudden popularity?"

It's a conspiracy. Do not people's votes in the primary/caucuses, the most delegates, even counting Michigan, (where Obama was not even on the ballot) and Florida, and the most superdelegates have any pull??

No, the conspiracy made them vote that way??

Get real.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 1:06 PM | Report abuse

The press has decided to declare this race over, so the fact that Clinton could still win the popular vote must be irrelevant. After all, the Founding Fathers never intended the election process to be controlled by the voters. Article 7 specifically states that "Henceforth the office of the Presidency shall in all cases be filled by the person determined by the moderator of Meet The Press to be entitled to said position". It's right there, didn't you read it?

Posted by: dyinglikeflies | May 7, 2008 1:05 PM | Report abuse

blert, Obama overwhelmingly won North Carolina, largely by the black vote which he dominated 91 percent, but only carried 26 percent of the white vote.

It's worth noting Obama won 92 percent of black Democrats in Indiana, where the black population is considerably smaller than North Carolina. Your Clinton wedge theory didn't hold up there.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 7, 2008 1:05 PM | Report abuse

You forgot Barack Obama. No one was a bigger winner than him last night. Come on, Chris.

Posted by: R | May 7, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Response to Translator


Did you read the Comment on Comments on Monday?


You were told to stop the constant stream of personal attacks on this forum.


I suggest you simply make a point and support it.


Do NOT mention other people here - Do NOT copy and paste other people's comments and then mock them.


YOU are dragging down this forum.


Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 7, 2008 1:03 PM | Report abuse

Jeff C


I think they have alot of dogs


Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 7, 2008 1:02 PM | Report abuse

Coach Norman Dale: "Barack, God wants you on the floor."

Preacher Purl: "And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and she fell to the ground. Amen."

That was a great movie indeed.

Posted by: amaikovich | May 7, 2008 1:01 PM | Report abuse

JamesCH


In your numbers did you divide out the actual results and break it down number of pledged delegats / number of superdelegates?

There are lists floating around the internet of leanings of the superdelegates from Florida and Michigan.

Also, Michigan's Democratic Party did meet to fill the slots created for the uncommitted - the break-down is out there on the internet.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 7, 2008 1:00 PM | Report abuse

scrivener,

The argument about working-class whites is a smokescreen. The race between Obama and Clinton is entirely different from the race between Obama and McCain, and supporters of Clinton will largely shift over to Obama in the end.

In fact, Obama has won strongly among working-class white voters. How do you explain Iowa? Kansas? Wisconsin? Idaho? Missouri? For many of these contests, the black vote was either minimal in terms of population, or else the black community was still much more divided between Clinton and Obama at that time. Obama won on the votes of white supporters, and 60% of Wisconsin or 75% of Idaho are not college-educated.

Obama can win over those voters. He has done so, and with Clinton no longer acting as a wedge, Obama will be able to reclaim those votes.

Posted by: blert | May 7, 2008 12:59 PM | Report abuse

Unfortunately Clinton is the only Democrat standing in the way of the elite far-lefts attempt to take full control of the Democratic Party. Read More about the New American Disenfrachisement.

How did Barack Obama become the front-runner? With little Washington experience, no foreign policy experiece, no record of ever crossing party lines either in Washington or in Illinois, and consistently trailing Clinton for 2 years prior to the first primary.

Want to know who is behind Obama's sudden popularity?
You might be surprised!
Visit: http://politicallydrunk.blogspot.com

Posted by: JB | May 7, 2008 12:58 PM | Report abuse

Quote: "The last night's white vote tally for Obama..."

The percentage of black voters in Texas in 13 percent. The latinos (a big percentage) voted for Clinton. Obama won the most delegates in Texas.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 12:58 PM | Report abuse

Loser: Michelle Obama , America's unhappiest millionaire. She has the audacity to extrapolate her misery and her husband's alleged victimization to the "vast majority of Americans."

In SC, she called America "just downright mean" and bemoaned "a nation of struggling folks who are barely making it every day." And in case you hadn't heard enough of her carping about how hard it is for a seven-figure-earning family to pay for ballet lessons and piano lessons and pay off college loans, Mrs. Oh-Woe-Is-Me was at it again on the campaign trail in Indiana and North Carolina before Tuesday's primary.

On the stump, she warmed up (or rather, berated) supporters by complaining about how her husband is an underdog even after he keeps winning primary and caucus after primary and caucus.

With a scowl etched on her face, she bellyached that "the bar is constantly changing for this man." Call the waambulance, stat.

Barack Obama, the missus explains, is Everyman who has ever been put down by The Man. And "understand this" (a condescending verbal tic shared by both Obamas): Mrs. Obama is here to make sure you feel their pain. Which is really your pain.

Because the hardships of a privileged Ivy League couple are "exactly" the same as the travails of miners or service workers or small-business owners: "So the bar has been shifting and moving in this race," she grumbles, "but the irony is, the sad irony is, that's exactly what is happening to most Americans in this country."

Don't tell Miss Michelle about the Great Depression or the Carter Malaise. "Folks are struggling like never before," she seethes.

Well, yes, gas prices are up. Some food prices are rising. And borrowers who bought more housing than they could afford are underwater. But "struggling like never before"? Didn't they teach her about Hoovervilles and stagflation?

Michelle O is less Jackie O and more Wendy W -- as in Wendy Whiner.

Posted by: michelle m | May 7, 2008 12:58 PM | Report abuse

Quote: "I do agree that an "I Feel Pretty" candidate probably would get creamed in the general. So Gore may be the only hope. I just don't think the holdout supers think Obama is electable, and these primaries keep proving the point.

Show me where I'm wrong, starting with last night's white vote tally for Obama..."

OK, where you are wrong. The average of the polls show Obama over McCain by 2.2 percent. You are wrong.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 12:56 PM | Report abuse

buzzardist


Sorry about that - I was responding to an earlier post so I should have fully identified which numbers I was talking about.


We were discussing the North Carolina exit polls.


The other poster was attempting to breakdown Obama's 56 percentage points in North Carolina.

My numbers came from the North Carolina exit polls.


Of Obama's 56 % - 30.9% identified themselves as black - the other 25.1% where white or other. Those two numbers add up to the 56%.

One could break down those numbers as a percentage of 56 - however I prefer this method so that those numbers are easily compared to similar numbers of the other candidates.

Thank you.


Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 7, 2008 12:56 PM | Report abuse

Show me where I'm wrong, starting with last night's white vote tally for Obama...

Posted by: scrivener | May 7, 2008 12:44 PM

For starters, last night's vote was a Democratic Primary, not the General election. You can't just cut and paste John McCain's name over Hillary's and say "See? He can't win in the general."

Posted by: JNoel002 | May 7, 2008 12:53 PM | Report abuse

Quote: ??Weasel, slimeball" ??

You are talking about the next president of the US.
Hillary Clinton is seeing to that.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 12:53 PM | Report abuse

I can't believe the Fix missed the biggest loser: California. Traditionally CA came in June, but this year they had to get all anxious and move up to February. What a campaign it would have been if California and it's trove of delegates was still up for grabs.

Posted by: muD | May 7, 2008 12:50 PM | Report abuse

jac13


What's your favorite color ?

Blue, NO, RED


aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 7, 2008 12:49 PM | Report abuse

DO YOU LIKE HILLARY'S BLAZING RED JACKET IN WEST VIRGINIA AT NOONTIME TODAY?

Like Scarlet's red dress at her husband's funeral!

This woman DOES have major BEHTZIM!

Posted by: scrivener | May 7, 2008 12:48 PM | Report abuse

Obama's VP list has three names:

Ted Strickland
Jim Webb
Bill Richardson

Posted by: swalker3 | May 7, 2008 10:43 AM


What about Joe Biden?

Posted by: AdrickHenry | May 7, 2008 10:47 AM

adrick-ill raise you a janet napolitano of arizona, for two reasons, 1)if the clintonistas are so determined to have a woman on the ticket, then she fits the profile,and 2) it forces McCain to defend his home turf.

5 cool points for the monty python reference. every time i think of the dead parrot skectch i think of the clinton campagin.

Posted by: jay spartan | May 7, 2008 12:47 PM | Report abuse

Blert:

You didn't respond to the contention that Obama can't draw enough white working class votes to win the general.

What's your answer to that? The results show that Obama's got a serious electability problem in the general, and the supers, being politicians, recognize that.

I do agree that an "I Feel Pretty" candidate probably would get creamed in the general. So Gore may be the only hope. I just don't think the holdout supers think Obama is electable, and these primaries keep proving the point.

Show me where I'm wrong, starting with last night's white vote tally for Obama...

Posted by: scrivener | May 7, 2008 12:44 PM | Report abuse

Merry,

My take on it would be that he is limiting the impact of the moderate to left-leaning majority (when Kennedy joins them).

Mark,

I never said Roberts was not a lawyer of prodigious talent. I hear he's brilliant. That's what makes me a little bit afraid.

Posted by: jac13 | May 7, 2008 12:44 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is now the official "Huckabee" of the Democartic party! In the least, she should follow suit - and like him,quit the continuing of her negative and offensive campaigns against Obama. This if she is REALLY interested in everyone voting and hearing from all of the remaining states.

Posted by: SS | May 7, 2008 12:40 PM | Report abuse

To Mark in Austin and Jac: It seems our new SC leader is very narrowly defining every issue thereby limiting the impact of the Roberts court. Too simplistic?

Posted by: Merry | May 7, 2008 12:36 PM | Report abuse

a couple of comments...

The Mayor of Gary is a mental midget. He was asked no less than 5 times by CNN why the machine voting results weren't reported yet and he continually responded with "we're counting the absentee ballots as fast as we can.."

I think Rush Limbaugh has a different agenda. He's scared stiff of an Obama vs McCain contest. Extending the contest as the goal of Operation Chaos is probably just a smokescreen.

There's a story being reported HRC was fired from her job on the House Judiciary Committee for ethics violations during the Watergate investigation. Check out http://www.northstarwriters.com/dc163.htm

Apparently HRC conspired with several others to deny Richard Nixon the right to counsel. After learning there was legal precedent to support his right to counsel, she (and others) hid the documents that proved the precedent and HRC fabricated a brief to the contrary. This is like whoa!

Posted by: Elektrik | May 7, 2008 12:35 PM | Report abuse

scrivener,

Take a break. It's barely noon on the day after the primaries. Superdelegates don't begin to scuttle around until after lunch at least.

Obama has been picking up superdelegates at a much faster rate in the past weeks, despite the losses in PA and Ohio. He'll pick them up even faster now. Arguing that superdelegates either have to delare for Obama before noon or else they are on Clinton's side is absurd.

And don't expect a Gore or Edwards nomination. Edwards, in particular, would make a terrible general election candidate. He couldn't take charge in a Democratic field, so why should he do any better on the bigger stage? Obama is in the driver's seat right now, and he has a clear path to the nomination. He has no reason to consider a VP bid from anyone. Conversely, his team is probably working furiously on its own VP list even as we write.

Posted by: blert | May 7, 2008 12:35 PM | Report abuse

"So Obama wins 1 out of the last 6 and folks have nerve to say that Hillary should back out?"

The last 6 contests have been North Carolina, Indiana, Guam, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, and Wyoming. Obama won 3 of those 6, Hillary won 2, and Guam was a tie. Put another way, Obama won about 198 delegates in the last 6 contests, while Hillary won 189. (Exact numbers may change; IN and NC delegate counts aren't final yet.)

Posted by: Blarg | May 7, 2008 12:33 PM | Report abuse

Till the last dog dies!! Bill will only take the oval office, not the executive office building. Power at all cost!! The Clinton's
are looking more and more like Hugo Chavez
than Thomas Jefferson.

Get out Hillary!

Posted by: Jeff C | May 7, 2008 12:32 PM | Report abuse

The problem for a Clinton VP ticket is that he doesn't need her like she needs him. He can probably build a strong enough coalition by picking someone who is similar enough to her - a McCaskill or Sebelius if he thinks he needs a woman - who Midwesterners would appreciate and who could fill Clinton's role. Moreover, the longer she stays in, the more selfish she looks and the less likely she makes her chances at receiving a VP nod. She might think that the caclulus is the opposite - the longer she's around the more she can gain - but she just looks more desparate and with last night's results she has no leverage on which to obtain the VP bargain. She should have left after PA, when she could command any price she wanted for her concession.

Posted by: alterego1 | May 7, 2008 12:32 PM | Report abuse

Assuming that FL,

a) seats the full 210 delegates, which may not happen, and

b) delegates are apportioned based on the January 29 primary,

Clinton will receive 126 to Obama's 84.

MI will likely seat a split 50-50, because of a lack of valid data. However, it is possible that they will give Clinton 55% percent of the delegates based on her primary results, and give the remaining 45% to Obama.

Clinton receives 86 to Obama's 71.

As a result, Clinton will net 57 delegates over Obama. He'll still have a 100+ lead in pledged delegates.

Posted by: JamesCH | May 7, 2008 12:29 PM | Report abuse

I believe the entire Democratic Party is a winner in this nomination fight. There is no reason why our nominee should be decided after two or three primaries. Regardless of who the Democratic nominee is (and, at this point, I have to believe it will be Barack Obama), we have had a good fight. The fact that Democrats have two candidates who want so badly to lead this country is a win-win for everyone concerned. Now is the time to come together to ensure that we send a Democratic to the White House and we start restoring to this country and its citizens the pride and dignity that our current administration has stolen from America!

Posted by: Kay Decker | May 7, 2008 12:28 PM | Report abuse

And for all you people expecting an Obama-Biden ticket, get used to disappointment.

If Obama were to pick a senator, Biden would be a good choice in terms of experience, foreign policy credentials, etc. However, he is the most tedious, long-winded person in the Senate, a body that is known for being tedious and long-winded. Biden would not make a dynamic campaigner on anyone's behalf.

Also, membership in the Senate tends to be a black mark when running for president. Against anyone who is not a senator, senators tend to lose presidential elections. This election is rare in that both candidates are senators, but putting two senators on a ticket could be folly.

Posted by: blert | May 7, 2008 12:25 PM | Report abuse

Time has run out.
If Clinton would get 180 0f the remaining 127 pledged delegates to be elected, she would beat Obama in p[ledged delegates (by 1).
If Obama would get 180, he would win the nomination without another pledged delegate.
Neither is going to happen.
BUT note the difference in targets.
Obama needs some superdelegates (fewer than half those not yet committed). Clinton needs the supers (almost all of those not yet committed) to overrule the elected delgates.

Posted by: Frank Palmer | May 7, 2008 12:23 PM | Report abuse

I believe Hillary should fight on, however, as an African-American female, I am not swayed by the color Omaha's skin. I will vote and support Hillary. It is something about her, that acutally appeals to me!

If Obama wins the nomination, Then I will write in Hillary. Afterall, according to everyone he has done so well, he will not heed my vote at all.

p.s. I am college-educated--Georgetown University.

Posted by: Liz | May 7, 2008 12:21 PM | Report abuse

So Obama wins 1 out of the last 6 and folks have nerve to say that Hillary should back out?

Posted by: Cheryl | May 7, 2008 12:20 PM | Report abuse

TO PUNDITS WHO THINK HILLARY IS GIVING UP:

Yes, I heard Chris & Co. on the Diane Rehm show and their wishful thinking that Hillary is looking for a "graceful" way out. Or Russert saying the nomination is Obama's.

I am not buying it, and neither are the supers.

Hillary remains determined to prove that Obama is unelectable in the general. She will do well in West Virginia and Kentucky, casting further doubt on Obama's ability to draw white suburban and rural voters. She will pull out the nastiest of opposition research in an attempt to denigrate Obama's character.

Hillary's intransigence eliminates her from consideration on a "dream (?) ticket." Any talk of Hillary accepting the veepee slot is simply delusional.

Hillary will succeed in the next few weeks in planting more seeds of doubt about Obama's electability. He drew only about a third of white voters in NC -- better than in his last outing, but arguably not good enough to assure victory among the white vote in the general.

"THE THIRD WAY" -- THE ONLY WAY TO FORCE HILLARY OUT NOW

Last night's split decision increases the likelihood that the supers will seek to broker a deal that could lead to an Al Gore or John Edwards candidacy, with Obama on the ticket as veepee. The "third way" increasingly looks like the only way to force Hillary out of the race before she does even more damage to the party. Either Gore or Edwards could unite the party; only the most extreme factions of the Hillary coalition would hold out, and the party can afford to lose the fringe feminists, gays and older women who would reject a compromise candidate.

Why, you ask, should Obama, who is ahead, settle for number two and withdraw from the presidential race? The answer is simple: Party unity and the chance to checkmate Hillary once and for all. Obama would be hailed as the peacemaker while in fact assuming the mantle of Dem kingmaker. The party would unite enthusiastically around a Gore-Obama or Edwards-Obama candidacy, if Obama gives his blessings.

Obama's NC victory proves nothing about his electability. The results show he's still got a problem with white voters. Hillary soldiers on, each day doing further damage to Obama. This must end. Hillary must be stopped. Obama has failed to seal her fate himself. It is time for Obama to parlay his delegate lead into a substantive power play that will ensure his legacy and his future viability as a potential presidential candidate in 2016.

OBAMA FAILED TO CLOSE THE DEAL -- AGAIN

Obama has had ample opportunities to "close the deal." He failed to do it again last night. You can blame Operation Chaos or whatever; the fact is, Obama's electability remains in doubt. Hillary has alienated the supers and the party's base; she is done. But that doesn't mean the party will stick with Obama as their nominee, not as long as these primaries continue to show that he cannot draw a sufficient percentage of the white suburban and white rural vote.

Last night may have convinced the pundits, people like Tim Russert and yes, Chris Cillizza, that Obama is the nominee. But the supers, rest assured, remain very much unconvinced, and very much concerned that Hillary's slash-and-burn campaign is hurting the party's chances each day it is allowed to go on.

BARACK MUST ATTACK WITH A DECISIVE POWER PLAY THAT CHECKMATES HILLARY FOR GOOD

It's time to lance the boil, and only Barack can do it. That is the message the supers are delivering to him today. If the message was otherwise, they'd be declaring their support for him. Today, only George McGovern has done so. The rest of the supers remain tellingly quiet.

What they are saying with their silence: This must end, and it may not end with the supers throwing their support to Obama -- unless it's part of a "third way" that gives him the veepee slot on a compromise ticket that stops Hillary cold, once and for all.


ps. Chris, I hit the vote prediction in IND spot on, and was off by only 1 point in NC, and got the story line right. Do I get a T-shirt?!

Posted by: scrivener | May 7, 2008 12:19 PM | Report abuse

To be fair, Words of Wisdom, your 11:33 a.m. post and its convoluted math made no sense whatsoever. You need to do better math and to explain yourself better.

Posted by: buzzardist | May 7, 2008 12:19 PM | Report abuse

Add to the winner column:

* Howard Dean--with a slightly stronger win by Clinton in Indiana, her position would be much stronger now, and superdelegates would be more likely to remain on the fence. As it is, Clinton isn't conceding yet, but most people think the race is effectively done. If superdelegates can validate the NC vote by coming out in support of Obama, the May 31 meeting about Florida and Michigan could become a lot less contentious. He needs Clinton to concede before then, and yesterday's results make that much more likely.

Posted by: blert | May 7, 2008 12:14 PM | Report abuse


In March, the Politico reported that a "top adviser" to Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said former Bush aide Karl Rove is "now informally advising the campaign." As ThinkProgress has regularly noted, since Fox News hired Karl Rove as a "contributor," the network has refused to identify him as an informal adviser to McCain, disregarding an obvious conflict of interest.

Since being on Fox News, Rove, a maxed-out donor to McCain, has provided electoral maps to the campaign, admitted learning about insider information in a "private gathering" with the senator, and has repeatedly shilled for McCain on the network. Rove has been embraced by Fox, and now he jokes about hosting the Colmes and Rove Show.

Posted by: McClone | May 7, 2008 12:14 PM | Report abuse

jac13, I agree with you that Roberts is showing some signs of being a conservative activist. I stand by what I said: his career prior to being nominated was a model. He had argued more cases on both sides of the docket than any lawyer in private practice in recent memory, and his win record was amazing.

Did you know that he argued and won an anti-trust case as Plaintiff-Appellant in the DC Circuit [I think, this is from memory of the hearings] and turned around and presented oral argument to the Supremes on a court appointed criminal defense ON THE SAME DAY?

A junior associate had prepared the writ in what I think was a pro bono death penalty case - and came to him and said "you have to make the argument - they will listen to you. So the junior associate and Roberts worked on the oral argument together and ROberts presented it and won. Same day as the Circuit argument.

I am an AV rated lawyer and I have won some tough appeals in my life but I think that story, which I believe the Dean of the Duke Law School [a female D] told at the hearings, is like talking about Superman.

I may not have every detail of that story down - but I recall listening to the hearings and being WOWED.

Posted by: MarkInAustin | May 7, 2008 12:14 PM | Report abuse

WoW wrote, "all of these things are likely to happen."

Says who?

1, 2, and 5 -- sure.

But "lock up the vote at the DNC Rules Committee?" How, exactly? By packing the committee? By bribing the committee?

"Win a majority of the 50 add-ons." With what arguments, exactly? The same ones she's been using since Super Tuesday, that have worked so well that Obama has whittled her 100-super lead down to 15? (Two to one just since PA.)

One other flaw in your reasoning: Obama's not exactly going to stand still for the next four weeks. He's going to be talking to superdelegates, and if his percentages continue at at least the same level as they've been since February 5, he could get to 2025 before Oregon/Kentucky -- maybe even before WV.

Dream on, WoW. You -- and Hillary's campaign -- are sounding more like Monty Python's Black Knight all the time!

Posted by: jac13 | May 7, 2008 12:05 PM | Report abuse

Words of Wisdom,

Hillary doesn't have a path to victory. You're still in denial.

Posted by: Steve | May 7, 2008 11:58 AM | Report abuse


HILLARY'S PATH TO VICTORY


1) Win West Viriginia on May 13


2) Win Kentucky on May 20


3) Lock up the vote at the DNC Rules Committee on May 31 on Florida and Michigan giving Hillary PLUS 70 delegates cutting Obama's lead in half.


4) Win the majority of the 50 Add-On Superdelegates which have yet to be chosen.


5) Win Puerto Rico.

Pretty Clear ahead - all of these things are likely to happen.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 7, 2008 11:54 AM | Report abuse

I don't want the Clintons anywhere near the White House again. Obama/Hillary won't happen. She would be a drag on his positive message, and there's no way to put a lid on Bill.

Posted by: Steve | May 7, 2008 11:51 AM | Report abuse

Second, if Clinton supporters truly make enough of a stink that this "dream ticket" needs to be considered, Obama can add any white woman, it doesn't have to be Clinton. The most diehard among them aren't diehard for her, they want some female representation. Specifically, middle aged white woman representation. Clinton long ago blew her chance on this one, and it's no secret as to where her loyal following comes from, it simply needs to be replicated.

Posted by: squintz | May 7, 2008 11:45 AM


How 'bout Geraldine Ferraro ?

Posted by: JD | May 7, 2008 11:47 AM | Report abuse

She is not viable. She loaned her campaign $6.4million in just the last month and still we receive solicitations for donations.

NOTE TO ALL CLINTON SUPPORTERS: We need to stop donating, stop the nomination fight, and support the presumptive nominee, Obama! I will not donate a single cent so the campaign can pay Hillary back!

Posted by: PW, Stillwater MN | May 7, 2008 11:46 AM | Report abuse

First, God Bless America. Is this the greatest country in the world or what?

Second, if Clinton supporters truly make enough of a stink that this "dream ticket" needs to be considered, Obama can add any white woman, it doesn't have to be Clinton. The most diehard among them aren't diehard for her, they want some female representation. Specifically, middle aged white woman representation. Clinton long ago blew her chance on this one, and it's no secret as to where her loyal following comes from, it simply needs to be replicated.

Posted by: squintz | May 7, 2008 11:45 AM | Report abuse

If Hillary is to make any deal I doubt it's for VP, she played second fiddle for far too long, I can see her taking over Senate Majority, Reid has been horrible.

Posted by: Patrick NYC | May 7, 2008 11:41 AM

Actually, I think that sounds like the right role for her.

Posted by: AdrickHenry | May 7, 2008 11:44 AM | Report abuse

MarkinAustin,

Nice to hear from you, Counselor.

I beg to disagree as to Roberts being "a model for the job." John Roberts is a right-leaning judge who has thus far exhibited a willingness to be quite activist, indeed, in limiting, distinguishing, or overturning earlier decisions that offend the right. He is a very smart, very congenial and, indeed, very handsome guy, but do not be fooled by the charm and the smile. He has an agenda every bit as much as any alleged left-wing "judicial activist," and I predict that he will be very clever in paying lip service to stare decisis while overturning precedents he does not agree with.

And Alito? Roberts without the looks and charm, but maybe even brighter.

Scary.

Posted by: jac13 | May 7, 2008 11:44 AM | Report abuse

11:41 am post

"Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!"

Posted by: Words of Wisdom Translator | May 7, 2008 11:43 AM | Report abuse

The big winner: The American People

Posted by: pemco | May 7, 2008 11:42 AM | Report abuse

Response to Translator


Did you read the Comment on Comments on Monday?

You were told to stop the constant stream of personal attacks on this forum.

I suggest you simply make a point and support it.

Do NOT mention other people here - Do NOT copy and paste other people's comments and then mock them.

YOU are dragging down this forum.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 7, 2008 11:41 AM | Report abuse

I don't see either picking a Senator for VP, they do not want to lose seat. Richardson is ify, will they want to put two minorities on the ticket? Obama will wnat someone with more years in office.

If Hillary is to make any deal I doubt it's for VP, she played second fiddle for far too long, I can see her taking over Senate Majority, Reid has been horrible.

Posted by: Patrick NYC | May 7, 2008 11:41 AM | Report abuse

swalker3, that's turning into a pretty good cabinet, isn't it?

How about John Edwards for AG?

Posted by: AdrickHenry | May 7, 2008 11:38 AM | Report abuse

My take on Limbaugh. He is working an act of desperation to put a positive spin on republicans leaving their old party in droves this election cycle. They are going to both camps in near equal numbers.

Posted by: EdA | May 7, 2008 11:38 AM | Report abuse

11:33 a.m. post

Untranslatable, nothing makes sense.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom Translator | May 7, 2008 11:37 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: AdrickHenry | May 7, 2008 11:29 AM

Agreed. Strickland or Richardson for VEEP.

Webb for Secretary of Defense

Posted by: swalker3 | May 7, 2008 11:36 AM | Report abuse

swalker3


Run the numbers through again - the black vote was 34% of the voters - Obama had 91% of that which is 30.9% of the total voters -


that is against Obama's 56%

so of Obama' 56% it was black vote 30.9 everyone else 25.1 .

Go to the exit poll date and multiply the percentages.


Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 7, 2008 11:33 AM | Report abuse

11:26 am post:

"I'm cherry-picking numbers to prove something, I'm not sure what. The NC blowout is double-digits, but not as big a drubbing as Senator Obama handed out in other states.

I won't mention that his numbers in Indiana as the 'losing' candidate are better than in other primaries he lost, because that would contradict my other point."

Posted by: Words of Wisdom Translator | May 7, 2008 11:31 AM | Report abuse

novamatt writes
"The idea has a certain appeal to it, as a way of healing the fissure in the party, but, realistically, he hates her guts."

More importantly, she doesn't add much to the ticket. Picking her in order to 'heal the rift' in the Dem party would jeopardize a general election victory. He will pick someone else.

Posted by: bsimon | May 7, 2008 11:31 AM | Report abuse

Are you kidding. People vote their interest and their pocketbook when you come down to it. I would say as bad as things are now, wait till November when things are even worse and gas is close to $5.00 a gallon. (it will be you know). The public would vote for a baby killer before they would vote for the Republican. He is too covered with the stink of the current administration. Obama is a stone lock to win.


=========
e exit polls showed that 17% of voters in the democratic party would vote for McCain in a Hillary-McCain match up; and of those 17% 41% voted for Hillary. The similar numbers for an Obama-MCCain match up were 19% and 12%- in other words 6.97% of her support and 2.28% of Obama's support came from people who wouldn't vote for them. Thus in fact Hillary's victory of 50.7%:49.3% is actually a loss of 43.73%:47.02% amongst voters who will vote democratic in the fall.

Posted by: crazyv | May 7, 2008 10:38 AM

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 11:30 AM | Report abuse

The only thing I keep hearing from The Media is that Hillary cannot win the nomination. This has been their rallying cry for months to the SDs in their and the Repubs effort to stop Hillary as I Posted back in January how Repubs KNEW they could not beat her in the GE and Obama was a snap for them. From everyone I have heard from these past weeks, since the Rev. Wright and other BAD stuff coming out appears to prove how accurate I was about how the Repubs thought he would be the weakest of all the Dems from the start.

Posted by: lylepink | May 7, 2008 11:30 AM | Report abuse

I don't think HRC is BHO's first choice for VP. And I've never thought that HRC would accept that role. Until today. We've always known that Cheney has really been calling the shots (oops, I punned!) in the White House. I suspect Hillary can imagine herself as an Activist Veep (my play on Republicans' "Activist Judges" baloney), albeit a better one than Cheney. She could accent Obama's Big Ideas Presidency by being the hard working get-your-hands-dirty VP. Or she might feel that she'd be more effective in the Senate. Who can say?

Posted by: dognabbit | May 7, 2008 11:29 AM | Report abuse

See... with Obama's Veep pick, I think he has the auspicious (for the USA) luxury of choosing the best person to serve the country, rather than, making his choice based on political expediency.

Richardson or Strickland makes good political sense to win the election.

But the hard, cold fact is that McCain is so far over on the wrong side of history (stay in Iraq, tax breaks for richest American made permanent, Blood for Oil, no health care for the 48,000,000 uninsured Americans), that Obama can choose the best person for the job (he does not have to choose an LBJ to win).

Consider this:

Yesterday, in Indiana, over 1.6 million Dems voted. That turnout shattered the last record of 1 million set in '92.

Obama is bringing SO many new voters into the process that McCain is going to lose on the order of Barry Goldwater or Alf Landon.

Does McCain not get it that 2/3 of the Voters want us out of Iraq?

Posted by: AdrickHenry | May 7, 2008 11:29 AM | Report abuse

Surest losers: Words of Wisdom, race-baiting, sock-puppetry.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom Translator | May 7, 2008 11:27 AM | Report abuse

37th&O Street writes
"It is clear: Hillary is more than viable."

What is clear is a majority of participants in the Dem primary process thus far have preferred someone other than Senator Clinton.

Posted by: bsimon | May 7, 2008 11:27 AM | Report abuse

Obama did relatively poorly last night compared to neighboring states - in the two person races:


Obama polled 63% in Virginia


Obama polled 60% in Maryland

Obama polled 66% in Georgia


NOW Obama is down to 56% in North Carolina

That is the way everyone should be looking at these numbers - Obama is weakening as a candidate.


Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 7, 2008 11:26 AM | Report abuse

I sort of doubt Obama will pick Hillary as his veep. The idea has a certain appeal to it, as a way of healing the fissure in the party, but, realistically, he hates her guts. Bet he'd much rather see her not the majority leader either.

My pick for Obama's veep: Daschle.

Posted by: novamatt | May 7, 2008 11:25 AM | Report abuse

Absolutely right, Fat Joe. That was the game coach Dale intentionally got himself ejected to see if Shooter could handle it on his own.

"Don't get caught watching the paint dry."

Posted by: John in Mpls | May 7, 2008 11:23 AM | Report abuse

The truth is Obama walked into two states with MASSIVE ADVANTAGES and he did OK.


Obama did not blow off the roof. (pun intended)

Obama had the advantage of a huge black population in North Carolina, and the nothern corner of Indiana is part of the Chicago television market.


PLUS Indiana has alot of colleges which are very liberal.

Seriously folk, what did you have penciled in for Hillary last night?? Realistically this was set to be her most difficult day in the schedule from late February until the end of the primaries.

It is clear: Hillary is more than viable.


Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 7, 2008 11:23 AM | Report abuse

11:01 a.m. post

"I remain obsessed with race and the mind-boggling possibility of an African-American candidate. Let me cherry-pick some empty statistics in a lame attempt to justify my anachronistic attitude."

Posted by: Words of Wisdom Translator | May 7, 2008 11:23 AM | Report abuse

WINNERS:

Obama
Young Voters
Educated Liberals

LOSERS:

MSM (that never knows what's happening)Hill/Bill & their delusional supporters
White Racists
Old White Women Voters
60s Black Militants

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 11:22 AM | Report abuse

Limbaugh used to be dangerous. Now he is just a pathetic punchline.

The day of the neo-con, xenophobic, chicken-hawk, lactose-intolerant, right-wing fear-monger is OVER!!!

Obama / Biden '08

Posted by: AdrickHenry | May 7, 2008 11:19 AM | Report abuse

The big losers: Bush/Rush/Fox and the rest of the destroy-America-for-profit crowd. It's time to put them back under the rock from whence they came.

Posted by: maninthebooth | May 7, 2008 11:18 AM | Report abuse

I know this is a BHO/HRC thread, but does anyone have an idea why McC can't break 80% in the R primaries? Are 20% of the R's just throwing away their votes because it doesn't matter or are they registering dissent on McC being their nominee?

Posted by: mnteng | May 7, 2008 11:17 AM | Report abuse

I like Biden but he is probably on the short list for Secretary of State.

Posted by: | May 7, 2008 10:53 AM


Biden as Sec of State would serve the country well...

Posted by: AdrickHenry | May 7, 2008 11:15 AM | Report abuse

I thought Hopper's picket fence play clinched a victory somewhere along the line before the title game. Thanks for providing an excuse to watch Hoosiers again!

Posted by: Fat Joe | May 7, 2008 11:13 AM | Report abuse

On the "Rush effect"--

I'm not going to walk through all the math, but at this point, the margin between Clinton and Obama in Indiana is less than 1.5%. Back when the Republican nomination was wide open, say, February 19, when the Wisconsin primary was held, Obama won the Republican share in the Democratic primary 3-to-1. Now that that the Republican contest is over, they are free to cause mischief, and now she is pulling a majority of cross-overs. While it might be a bit much to attribute it all to Rush (except where they specifically say so), I think it's established there is something funny going on. If even 20% of the Republicans cross-overs are casting votes for Clinton just to prolong the contest, that explained the margin of victory in Indiana. (Not that that it actually matters much in terms the actual allocation of delegates...)

Posted by: TRM | May 7, 2008 11:11 AM | Report abuse

bsimon,

I got the same impression after listening to both speeches. The Clintons are running out of time and they have already run out of money. George McGovern just asked her to drop out. She obviously dodged the morning shows to avoid answering questions, then quickly scheduled a new stop in West Virginia. I fully expect the Clintons to further fracture and damage the party with their partners in the corporate media. The supers will have to boot them out.

Posted by: maxfli | May 7, 2008 11:11 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 7, 2008 10:49 AM

Actually, the MAJORITY of voters in Obama's block are College Educated White voters and the Youth Vote.

He won EVERY district in North Carolina except the Rural West portion of the state.

Obama's so called lead in Indiana was from a poll taken in Mid-February. For the last Month in has actually been Clinton with the lead in Indiana. Obama closed ranks and exceeded expectations in the state.

Anyhow, this changes everything because she lost out on her last chance to gain in the Pledged Delegates, Popular Vote and the ability to sway the SD's.

And she's out of money.

Posted by: swalker3 | May 7, 2008 11:10 AM | Report abuse

Limbaugh a winner? Using the vote.... that so many Americans fought and died for.... for his ego gratification fun-and-games makes him a winner?

Limbaugh and his slavering ditto-heads who perverted the process are losers, and the losers.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | May 7, 2008 11:04 AM | Report abuse

It is hared to look at North Carolina and see the black community voting as a block and say "hey that makes Obama electable all over the country."

Is that what the democratic party wants? I do not think so.
Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 7, 2008 10:49 AM

Doesn't the democratic party want a candidate who will receive the most votes in the general election? So, no matter who is voting for them, as long as they receive the most votes they would be the best candidate. I personally think all the demographic polling is silly.

In order to win North Carolina, Hillary needed more people to vote for her. It is really that simple. What makes Obama more electable is that he has more people voting for him across the country.

Posted by: JNoel002 | May 7, 2008 11:03 AM | Report abuse

This is the dynamic and I want everything to think about this:


IN order for Hillary to have overcome the black community voting as a block, she would have had to poll over 75% of the white vote.

So essentially the story line is this - UNLESS the white vote is much more racist, Obama should win.

This is the whole imbalance here - the black community is voting with racial motivations and the white community is being challenged to be post-racial.

The democratic party just may have struck upon a structural problem which may have dire consequences - HOW is a white candidate supposed to compete in the democratic primaries now if the black community is going to vote this way ???

In North Carolina, Obama needed only 25% of the white vote to win - and the pundits today are saying that is such an impressive win.

Obama got 37% of the white vote in North Carolina.


Superdelegates should be concerned about the exit polls here.

This

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 7, 2008 11:01 AM | Report abuse

Kokoloco either uses some new math or may have skipped a few key classes in grade school. Here's the calculation of the Operation Chaos effect in Indiana (if it is to be believed):

Total Indiana votes 1,265,000
x 11% Republicans = 139,150
x 53% for Clinton = 73,749
Minus Clinton margin 18,444
Equals Obama margin 55,305

Obama would have won by 55,000 votes if the exit polls are to be believed AND the republican votes for Clinton were not sincere. I'm not conceding that for certain, but let's at least get the math right. Since Limbaugh told his drones to lie to the exit pollsters, I think it is a moot point.

Posted by: Optimyst | May 7, 2008 10:56 AM | Report abuse

AdrickHenry,

Biden doesn't help Obama in a possible swing State. Strickland is a popular Gov. in Ohio, Webb is a Senator from Vriginia with a strong military and Richardson could really give Obama a boost with the large Latino community in West Texas, which his campaign feels will be in play come November.

I like Biden but he is probably on the short list for Secretary of State.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 10:53 AM | Report abuse

Based on the brief excerpts I heard of each candidates victory speeches, I'd say you can put Obama in the winner category & Clinton in the middle, leaning towards Loser. He had the class to congratulate her victory in IN - before it was entirely clear she'd won there. She, on the other hand, tried to spin her slight victory as a come-from-behind surprise & triumph. I will note that she seemed to acknowledge the writing on the wall in saying (I paraphrase) "I will support the eventual nominee and work hard to see a Democrat win the election in November."

Posted by: bsimon | May 7, 2008 10:53 AM | Report abuse

Hillary did fairly well last night - the Wright controversy is mostly a general election issue for the fall, not an issue for the intraparty primary.


Obama did well in his own groups - black voters and people who live within 30 minutes of his house.

Hillary still won Indiana - a few weeks ago everyone was projecting Obama to win.


The black voters are still not voting in a post-racial way - this is a problem for Obama.


If everyone recalls, prior to Iowa and South Carolina, Hillary was still polling over 30% in the black community - Isn't that more of a post-racial kind of split ???

It's true.

It is hared to look at North Carolina and see the black community voting as a block and say "hey that makes Obama electable all over the country."

Take a look at the exit polls, see how Obama did among the white voters - North Carolina is still looking at 61 - 37 split among white voters.


In order to win in North Carolina to overcome the overwhelming 91% of blacks voting for Obama, Hillary would have had to poll way over 70% of the white voters - basically the whites would be voting more as a block.


Is that what the democratic party wants? I do not think so.

The race is essentially in the same position it was over the weekend - Obama may have 1 or 2 more delegates than some pundits may have thought - however the basic dynamics of the race are the same.


Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 7, 2008 10:49 AM | Report abuse

Obama's VP list has three names:

Ted Strickland
Jim Webb
Bill Richardson

Posted by: swalker3 | May 7, 2008 10:43 AM


What about Joe Biden?

Posted by: AdrickHenry | May 7, 2008 10:47 AM | Report abuse

One thing I can not understand, is when the Press and Politicians talk about "White Working Class Voters". What I can see here is that African Americans who vote for Sen. Obama do not work. Are there no working class voters among African Americans? Why is everything based on the white working class? Nobody has ever asked why is Sen. Clinton not getting the votes of African Americans? May be its because, many see their votes as useless because they are blacks... White Supremacy!!! How important really is the so called White Working Class voters?
Some times you hear in the press that Obama wants to transcend race, but then what I will want to ask is that, why should Obama transcend race, have anybody asked a White candidate to transcend race? The fact that Sen. Clinton gets more of the white votes means nothing to anybody, its supposed to be normal but when Sen. Obama gets black votes, the Black voters become winners.
White Supremacy!!!!

Posted by: Chrys1 | May 7, 2008 10:47 AM | Report abuse

This this is even more over than it was last week or last month. Hopefully this will let the media move on to other topics. Also, please drop the "dream ticket" discussion. That is not going to happen. By the time we get to August, Obama's priorities will be completely different that what they are perceived to be now.

Posted by: Ezetimibe | May 7, 2008 10:45 AM | Report abuse

It turns out that my predictions were off by 1% in each state, but what I wrote yesterday still stands:

Obama has solidified his lead and Hillary still won't quit.

But I would like to add to the storyline:

Hillary: "It's just a scratch."

Obama: "Your bloody arms off!"

Hillary: "It's just a flesh wound -- c'mon, keep fighting."

Obama: "Whaddya gonna do? Bleed on me?!"

And that's about it, folks. The Wright diversion didn't hoodwink the American Voter and The Obama Mission continues. The real winners last are -- us -- Americans. Americans are seeing light beginning to dawn at the end of the Cheney-Bush 8 year nightmare.

Posted by: AdrickHenry | May 7, 2008 10:45 AM | Report abuse

Depending on just how broke her camapign is, I say she runs for 2 more week then, concedes after the Oregon/ Kentucky split.

Despite all the sepculation, Hillary will not be the VP. Bill Clinton's shadow would make that an impossibility for any nominee.

Obama's VP list has three names:

Ted Strickland
Jim Webb
Bill Richardson

Posted by: swalker3 | May 7, 2008 10:43 AM | Report abuse

Winners - CBS picked Hill as the winner in IN well ahead of the other nets.

Losers - Everyone who thought Rev. Wright or the gas tax or bitterness or arugala or Michelle Obama's college thesis was going to upend Obama in Indiana.

Also, anyone who lends a shred of credence to the so-called "Operation Chaos." There is always one child who can amaze his friends by snapping his fingers and seeming to make a traffic light change to green on cue. The "trick" is to look at the light going in the other direction, and snap when it turns red. Give credit to Rush only for figuring out what the rest of the world knew long ago - that the "base" is not as loyal as party bosses would have you believe, and were going to jump the rusty barge that is the GOP for one of the two cruise liners the Dems were operating (who cares if one of them was the Titanic?).

Rush should be taking the time to wonder what that might mean for his audience.

Posted by: bondjedi | May 7, 2008 10:42 AM | Report abuse

These Poll Results are quite interesting...

2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll
http://www.votenic.com
Results Just Posted!

Posted by: votenic | May 7, 2008 10:39 AM | Report abuse

the exit polls showed that 17% of voters in the democratic party would vote for McCain in a Hillary-McCain match up; and of those 17% 41% voted for Hillary. The similar numbers for an Obama-MCCain match up were 19% and 12%- in other words 6.97% of her support and 2.28% of Obama's support came from people who wouldn't vote for them. Thus in fact Hillary's victory of 50.7%:49.3% is actually a loss of 43.73%:47.02% amongst voters who will vote democratic in the fall.

Posted by: crazyv | May 7, 2008 10:38 AM | Report abuse

2008 will be remembered as Obama's year, but let no one forget the months of March and April when Hillary Clinton, with her back against the wall, stopped the Obama juggernaut in its tracks, recovered after losing 11 contests in a row, and gave new meaning to the words gritty and determined. Could anyone else have fought so hard, so long and so effectively? Yes, it is now over, but let us take a moment and marvel at a campaigner extraordinaire, Hillary Clinton!

Posted by: Optimyst | May 7, 2008 10:36 AM | Report abuse


Corrected math (I missed a decimal place):

If you only attribute Clinton's Republican votes to Limbaugh, his chaos campaign still didn't make the difference: (50.9% Clinton - .0053 total electorate share of Limbaugh Republicans)/.9947 adjusted total electorate = 50.6% Clinton. Again, Limbaugh effect didn't change the winner or the media characterization of the Indiana primary contest.

Posted by: Kokoloco | May 7, 2008 10:36 AM | Report abuse


Corrected math (I missed a decimal place):

If you only attribute Clinton's Republican votes to Limbaugh, his chaos campaign still didn't make the difference: (50.9% Clinton - .0053 total electorate share of Limbaugh Republicans)/.9947 adjusted total electorate = 50.6% Clinton. Again, Limbaugh effect didn't change the winner or the media characterization of the Indiana primary contest.

Posted by: Kokoloco | May 7, 2008 10:36 AM | Report abuse

The fact also is, they campaigned as hard as they could in NC with almost three events to Obamas one. He was running against the whole family as they criss crossed the state and it didn't matter. Hillary's idea that she is the stronger candidate is false. Her kind of BS politics is over. Times have changed and information is to available. You can't lie yourself out of anything anymore with youtube, cell phone cams and so on. Say something and it is abound the world in an hour. I would say if this kind of technology was around in 1992 Bill Clinton would have never been president in the first place. Politics will never be the same again. This was the first presidential race people fully plugged in and we see what happened.

========
I love facts, and the fact is that was a complete BLOWOUT in NC.

Posted by: Yak | May 7, 2008 10:24 AM

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 10:33 AM | Report abuse

Losers: Gas tax holiday pandering; John Edwards for not getting off the fence and supporting Obama before the NC vote; Evan Bayh who should have stayed on the fence; pollsters who once again got it wrong with their estimate that the vote in NC would be close and that Clinton was pulling away in IND.

Winners: voters for proving that crass pandering and negative campaigning doesn't work; super delegates who now will have a much easier time coming out in support of Obama; and most importantly, the United States of America which will have an intelligent, honest, spirited, optimistic, and vigorous president in Barack Obama.

Posted by: dee | May 7, 2008 10:33 AM | Report abuse

If you only attribute Clinton's Republican votes to Limbaugh, his chaos campaign still didn't make the difference: (50.9% Clinton - .053 total electorate share of Limbaugh Republicans)/.9947 adjusted total electorate = 50.6% Clinton. Again, Limbaugh effect didn't change the winner or the media characterization of the Indiana primary contest.

Posted by: KokoLoco | May 7, 2008 10:31 AM | Report abuse

Black voters were winners? Black candidate runs, 90% of blacks vote for him. Quite obviously, many of these votes are based on nothing more than race. I don't see that that's anything to applaud. Nobody, black or white, should be choosing whom to vote for based on skin color. That is the unreported and disgusting undercurrent of this election.
----------------------------------------

One might argue the same thing about Hillary and the large amount of women voters she received. She has won white women 66-33 in every state. No other candidate running for the White House has such a spread so the same can be said for her.

Oh . . . why didn't Keys get more support when running for President when all you have to do is be Black? And why did Hillary win a good chunk of the black vote in South Carolina???? I would argue the blue collar tour alienated black voters and they picked Obama.

Posted by: Trey | May 7, 2008 10:26 AM | Report abuse

I love facts, and the fact is that was a complete BLOWOUT in NC.

Posted by: Yak | May 7, 2008 10:24 AM | Report abuse

Arugala is delicious and good for you. Stop knocking it folks!

Posted by: Tasty Greens | May 7, 2008 10:22 AM | Report abuse

Arabs building wind farms in the Dakotas!

Elegant!

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 10:20 AM | Report abuse

Think of the possibilities wrote: "Throwing the election to McCain so she can run again in 2012 is only slightly more tempting than accepting the VP slot and then having Obama assassinated."

That's truly tasteless.

Posted by: dg | May 7, 2008 10:14 AM | Report abuse

Koko, what if you only attribute the Rs who voted for HRC to Limbaugh?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 10:14 AM | Report abuse

Did Rush Limbaugh actually impact the Democratic primary?

The loud-mouthed radio talk show host has been encouraging Republicans to vote for Sen. Hillary Clinton to continue the "chaos" in the Democratic race. And a sampling of some key exit poll information suggests he may, to a certain extent, be having an effect.

Thirty-six percent of primary voters said that Clinton does not share their values. And yet, among that total, one out of every five (20 percent) nevertheless voted for her in the Indiana election. Moreover, of the 10 percent of Hoosiers who said "neither candidate" shared their values, 75 percent cast their ballots for Clinton.

These are not small numbers. By comparison, of the 33 percent of voters who said Sen. Barack Obama does not share their values, only seven percent cast their ballots in his favor. Basically, more people who don't relate to Clinton are, for one reason or another, still voting for her. These are not likely to be loyal supporters.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 10:12 AM | Report abuse

I don't know how you call Limbaugh a winner. Even if you attribute every Republican vote to his bidding, Reps only provided an extra 0.6% going to Hillary (5.3% minus 4.7%). Limbaugh's game plan did not change the outcome of, or the media take away, from the Indiana contest. Sorry, Fixie, from this vantage point LIMBAUGH LOSES.

Posted by: KokoLoco | May 7, 2008 10:10 AM | Report abuse

drindl, We know that's you posting news clips anonymously. Come on out of the closet, dear. We won't bite.

About your Gitmo detainee...The U.S. goes to great lengths to respect the religion of detainees, issuing them Qurans, enforcing quiet among guard staff during prayer calls throughout the day. All cells in Guantanamo have an arrow that points toward the holy city of Mecca.

Mr Al-Haj has lost weight because he decided to go on a hunger strike for the last 16 months. He's lucky that they kept him alive to see whatever freedom he has now in Sudan.

Maybe if he hadn't been part of a militant Muslim organization during his free time from Al-Jazeera, he wouldn't have been locked up.

Regardless, once President McCain closes Gitmo, I recommend those couple hundred deadenders get placed up here in North Dakota, the Gulag of the North as I have taken to calling it. It's a nice little barren strip of wasteland along the Canadian border. maybe they could be put to work building a wind farm.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 7, 2008 10:09 AM | Report abuse

The fact that Hillary canceled her morning show appearances today gives credence that she knows what the news media will be asking her today, "Why are you still in the race?" Obama has erased the net amount of delegates and popular votes she got out of Pennslyvania.

And now with news that Hillary has lent her campaign $6.4 million throughout the month of April reinforces the notion that Hillary campaign finances are in dire straits. Why would donors want to put up more money for Hillary to spend to only walk away with primary wins in the states she is already predicted to win, i.e. West Virginia and Kentucky. I don't count Puerto Rico because they can't vote in the general election.

Obama is expected to win in Montana, South Dakota and Oregon. So he has an apparent preception advantage in the remaining state primaries.

Obama in 08!

Posted by: AJ | May 7, 2008 10:08 AM | Report abuse

"It would have the benefit of throwing the election to McCain and clearing the field for her to run again as a Democrat in 2012. Posted by: Think of the possibilities... | May 7, 2008 9:51 AM "

Assuming Obama wins the nomination, if she runs as an independant, causing the Democratic party to lose the presidency which superdelegates will vote for her as a Democrat in 2012? She may be able to sit on the sidelines and hope that he loses but if she actively facilitates a Democratic defeat by running as an independant she will never win another nomination as a Democrat.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 10:07 AM | Report abuse

Instead of your "Obama owes the blacks" frame, I'd suggest that the Clintons have forever lost the support of AA voters. The media keeps obsessing over white working class voters but doesn't seem to notice or care that the Clintons have totally lost the AA vote, a key bloc without which no Dem can be elected.

Dream ticket? No way. It would be impossible for Obama to campaign and to govern the way he intends to, with a diametrically opposite type of leader on his ticket. That said, Clinton's supporters need time and respect as they come to terms with this loss. It's terrible when your candidate comes to the point where they have to drop out. There is plenty of time for us to heal and come together.

Posted by: Ruth | May 7, 2008 10:07 AM | Report abuse

Obama hadn't come out with an idea of his own for a very long time. Why Clinton gave him this gift in the heat of her momentum will be a decision that is dissected for months or years to come.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 7, 2008 9:56 AM

Agreed, Clinton's timing seems terrible in hindsight. The Wright controversy had sprung up again and she seemed to be charging hard. The gas tax holiday gave Obama the opening to draw a rare policy distinction and kick the Reverend off the front page. The Gas Tax Holiday may end up being what finished Hillary's bid.

Posted by: JNoel002 | May 7, 2008 10:03 AM | Report abuse

Putting HRC on the ticket would be a disaster. Obama does not need (and should not want) either Clinton anywhere near the Whitehouse.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 9:59 AM | Report abuse

AMY GOODMAN: Al Jazeera cameraman Sami al-Haj has just been released from Guantanamo Bay. The press freedom group Reporters Without Borders issued a statement Thursday saying Sami al-Haj had been tortured while at Guantanamo and subjected to 200 interrogation sessions. He's lost forty pounds, is suffering from intestinal problems and bouts of paranoia, according to his lawyer Clive Stafford Smith.

Asim al-Haj, who is Sami al-Haj's younger brother, told Al Jazeera he doesn't recognize his thirty-nine-year-old brother, because he now looks like a man in his eighties. We spoke to Asim al-Haj on Thursday night, a few hours before Sami al-Haj landed in Khartoum [...]

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 9:58 AM | Report abuse

Hey Hillary... if your gas tax holiday is so important then why don't you quit campaining and take your a$$ back to Washington where you can write and sponsor the bill? No? That's right it was just a campaign tactic designed to con poor, uneducated people. There's a sucker born every minute and 18 years later they get to vote!

Posted by: Gas Tax Holiday My A$$ | May 7, 2008 9:57 AM | Report abuse

misterg, I agree with you that the gas Tax holiday should be among the list of Losers, but only becuase of the timing with which Clinton employed it. Substantively, I think it could've been a winner for her. But by launching the idea when seh did, it allowed Obama the break he so desperately needed from his own troubles since PA.

Obama hadn't come out with an idea of his own for a very long time. Why Clinton gave him this gift in the heat of her momentum will be a decision that is dissected for months or years to come.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 7, 2008 9:56 AM | Report abuse

Rick in Cincy - get a grip. Blacks have been voted for a white Prez 100% of the time, ever since we've been allowed to vote. Now there's a viable candidate whose black - our vote is "disgusting". Pleazze man, we are 13% of the population, what are you scared of?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 9:51 AM | Report abuse

Please stop the "Dream Ticket" nonsense. Obama will not accept the VP slot if Hillary steals the nomination from him, and he should not offer the VP slot to someone who has made a point of political mudslinging when he wants to run a positive campaign. This should be a dead issue. Besides, I'm sure that Clinton would rather run for President as an independent than accept the VP job in an Obama administration. It would have the benefit of throwing the election to McCain and clearing the field for her to run again as a Democrat in 2012. It's only slightly more tempting than accepting the VP slot and then having Obama assassinated. She has slightly cleaner hands that way. If she must be President, becoming VP isn't a good idea.

Posted by: Think of the possibilities... | May 7, 2008 9:51 AM | Report abuse

I'd add to the losers list two New York Times reporters whose election-eve essays ought to be in contention for this year's "Dewey-Beats-Truman" award for perceptive political analysis: Adam Nagourney for "How Bill Clinton Got His Campaign Groove Back" (re the former President's "intuitive command of his audiences" in North Carolina and Indiana) and John Harwood's "Are Events on the Trail Changing Election Results?" (touting the effectiveness of the Clinton campaign's deployment of the Rev. Wright scandal and the gas tax holiday proposal).

Posted by: rmf | May 7, 2008 9:50 AM | Report abuse

It is all about the money now. Hillary has loaned the campaign 11.4 million and last night one of the first things out of her mouth was a plea for money. Fact is, they are broke and over 20 million in the red. She won't be able to even pay her staff much less contractors who set up the events to campaign. When the money stops the rats will abandon the ship, FAST. No one in their right mind would continue nor give any more money to this sinking ship, it's over. By the way I just gave another donation to Obama.

==============
The dream ticket is a big winner tonight.

Clinton has a path to nomination, but it depends on Obama sputtering between now and September. All she has to do is hang around, point to poll after poll showing that Obama is about to get trounced in the general, and convince the superdelegates to wake up and fix the party's colossal mistake in nominating another Mondale who appeals primarily to the arugula crowd. Assuming history plays out that way.

Obama's not stupid. Unless he is so caught up in his own amazing awesomeness by those that fawn all over him, he should realize that he is behind against John McCain. Having Hillary as a wild card only hurts him---he has something to lose by having her stay in the race.

If time goes on and Obama starts to do well against McCain, then her only remaining argument---and her bargaining power---will fade quickly. She needs to use her negotiating power now to do a deal with Obama. Obama, on the other hand, actually needs to make it worth Clinton's while to exit the race. She isn't going to leave for some MoveOn/Sorkinesque vision of progressive altruism.

So they have to do a deal, and soon. The question, though, is what does she get? The VP seems assured, although would that be enough? Maybe also Bill for State and Clark for Defense? Agrees to nominate Bill to the Supreme Court? Or will she say screw the VP, she leaves if he promises to nominate Bill the cabinet and her to the Supreme Court? Does she even care about Bill or having influence on the cabinet? The possibilities abound.

Posted by: dc | May 7, 2008 8:58 AM

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 9:49 AM | Report abuse

When do campaigns report their financials? That's going to be the key to this thing.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 9:46 AM | Report abuse

"The only "FIX" was in Lake County Indiana. Polls closed at 6:00 p.m. (earlier than nearly all states), yet Lake was done their counting until 1:00 AM...Hmmm, can you say DNC "FIX"? This is 2008 technology! Does the DNC really believe the american public is that stupid to think it took 7-hours to tabulate the votes? No wonder even democrates are getting fed-up!

Posted by: routhless"

OK dumba$$ tell me about the 2008 technology that speeds up counting 11K absentee ballots BY HAND! Wait, I know what happened... they were still using their 1975 hands... they should have broken out the 2008 hands! Must have been a conspiracy! Jacka$$!

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 9:43 AM | Report abuse

To Rick in Cincy,

His victory is very much to be applauded. As a black woman, I was leaning much more toward HRC in the beginning of the race. To even think that I or any other black person would simply vote for someone on race is idiotic and quite frankly, racist.

Are you NOT voting for him because he is black? Probably!!! Or no, was it the stupid Rev. Wright nonsense?

Get a grip!!! She won Indiana with help from republican crossover from Rush Limbaugh's Crew of fools but to her credit she campaigned hard. She is truly a fighter and I like that in her. But she will also do anything and say anything to win.

He kicked her butt in NC. Have any of her wins been that big? NOT!!!! Let me tell you something. She had enough advantages going into this campaign that she could have alway kept the black vote split pretty evenly. When a candidate decides that a group of people are not important, it hurts you.

OBAMA 2008!!!!

Posted by: alisa-atlanta | May 7, 2008 9:41 AM | Report abuse

I have tried to explain before that "judicial restraint" is not a political concept. It is the notion that when a federal or state statute is challenged as unconstitutional the burden of proof is on the challenger, and it is a high burden because of the presumption that statutes are valid, based on the notion of separation of powers. A restrainist judge would still strike a statute unconstitutional on its face - a law restricting the vote to male property owners, for example.

A restrainist judge may be a flaming lib, and an activist judge may be a flaming con.

I say this in response to 9:19A who does not think that McC should restrict himself to nominating justices like Roberts and Alito.
Most lawyers will tell you that Roberts' credentials are superb and that he is a model for the job. No one ever knows how well a nominee will do over a lifetime. But at the point of selection, only one of the current Justices was lacking.

Posted by: MarkInAustin | May 7, 2008 9:39 AM | Report abuse

Does anyone think the supers might try to end the nomination process before the next round of primaries? Because if Obama was to lose two out of three it would seem to further muddle the mess.

It just seems like now is the opportune moment to declare and be done.

Posted by: JNoel002 | May 7, 2008 9:38 AM | Report abuse

About the only election coverage I saw was Harold Ford, Jr.'s interview on MSNBC, and I think Chris may have been a little sleepy when he heard it. When talking about a dream ticket, a follow-up question was asked as to whether he was saying that Obama should ask Clinton to be on the ticket. Ford responded along the lines of No, that is not what he was saying, but that Obama may want to look for someone that has appeal to the same kind of voters that Hillary was drawing to her campaign. Ford was making the point that both Obama and Clinton had driven a lot of new people to the voting booths and that if you combine the numbers, the Democrats should easily beat McCain. But he wasn't saying that it had to be Clinton, just that it had to be someone that appealed to the same demographics as Clinton supporters.

Posted by: Dsmac | May 7, 2008 9:31 AM | Report abuse

Voters who are motivated by race ONLY are not common. That is true among whites and blacks.

Posted by: MarkInAustin | May 7, 2008 9:22 AM

Well said.

Posted by: JNoel002 | May 7, 2008 9:27 AM | Report abuse

Boutan, Harry Reid is implying that he will step aside as SMJ for HRC.

That is how she can maintain the spotlight, and her motivation to campaign for the Ds.

She would be a conciliatory SMJ with McC. Would she be a cooperative one with BHO?

Posted by: MarkInAustin | May 7, 2008 9:27 AM | Report abuse

'Why the hell is Alex Castellanos on CNN? Castellanos is the race-baiting asshat who created Jesse Helms' 1990 "White Hands" ad.'

CNN is trying to out radical rightwing FOX by hiring the worst of the worst rightwing spokesmouths.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 9:26 AM | Report abuse

Losers: JakeD and RAT The
Why? Well, they've always been losers

Posted by: JakeD's shadow | May 7, 2008 9:22 AM | Report abuse

It is obviously true that race is ONE factor for many voters. I do not think it is obvious that it is THE DECIDING factor.

It has taken an extraordinary black candidate to excite so many black Americans. It has taken an extraordinary female candidate to raise such loyalty in so many women.

We have had black and female and black female choices before and they did not excite their racial or gender peers.

Rudy Giuliani, by all accounts, would have done very well among Italian-Americans in NY and NJ, RI, MA, and CN. This was because he was an extraordinary candidate, and his ethnicity was ONE factor for Italian-Americans.

I think I am belaboring the obvious. Voters who are motivated by race ONLY are not common. That is true among whites and blacks.

Posted by: MarkInAustin | May 7, 2008 9:22 AM | Report abuse

Putting Bill on the SCOTUS is an interesting prospect. I don't think that there has ever been a disbarred attorney nominated before.
Posted by: PRinNJ | May 7, 2008 9:07 AM

Maybe she'll demand a pardon for the crimes that got Bill disbarred, and then try to get him reinstated. We'll see how that works for Scooter Libby soon enough.

Posted by: aleks | May 7, 2008 9:21 AM | Report abuse

Another big loser: Hillary's classical gas about cutting the gas tax. Saving mere pennies for today does not guarantee long term savings in the future. The only winners in that game would be the big oil companies, while the little man gets stuck with the bill. But the way Hillary was touting this thing, one would have gotten the impression that she brought this thing down off Mt. Sinai on a tablet of stone. Looks like you've got nothing but sand in your hand, Hillary. Next time, choose a policy that wasn't first chosen by some know-nohing Republican...

Posted by: misterg | May 7, 2008 9:20 AM | Report abuse

"WINSTON-SALEM, N.C. -- Foreshadowing what is certain to emerge as one of the major differences between the two parties this fall, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) this morning decried "the common and systematic abuse of our federal courts by the people we entrust with judicial power" and pledged to nominate only judges to the federal bench who will strictly interpret the Constitution."

That this weasel can get up and say these things --which he knows to be outright lies -- that he can say these things, shows how far he has fallen, how he doesn't have even a shred of dignity or truth or character left in him.

No one has ever pandered to the ignorance of rightwingers in a bigger way than this slimeball.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 9:19 AM | Report abuse

I just do not buy the fact that Hillary would even want to be the V.P.

She will be too old in 8 years to run for President, and she sure isn't going to play second fiddle for no reason at all.

My tip is she still tries to destroy Obama so he loses against McCain, and she runs again in 4 years.

Unfortunately for her, her plan won't work. She will continue to discredit herself and ruin Bill's legacy. What a fall from grace.

Posted by: Boutan | May 7, 2008 9:18 AM | Report abuse

Here, the press hos at The Trail think it's really humorous that Rush Limbaugh has so much influence over morons/sheep that he may well be disrupting an election:


'RALEIGH, N.C. -- The Obama campaign believes in the vast right-wing conspiracy.

The Illinois senator's chief political adviser David Axelrod noted to reporters just now that Republican crossovers accounted for about 10 percent of the Indiana primary electorate, and that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton had performed well with the group.

"There were elements of the Republican Party, including Rush Limbaugh, Sen. Clinton's new ally, who were urging people to cross over and vote for her," said Axelrod, referring to the Limbaugh-led "Operation Chaos," a bid to disrupt Obama's path to the nomination and prolong a divisive primary battle. "She obviously was somewhat a beneficiary of that."

Chimed in Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs, "Apparently he's got more than just a crush on her." Clinton had joked on Sunday that Limbaugh "always had a crush on me."

Earlier, before either North Carolina or Indiana were called, Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton sent out the transcript of Limbaugh's Tuesday radio blast.

"I have ... been receiving field reports ... from people, commandos, operatives, reporting that they have followed orders and fulfilled their duty," Limbaugh crowed. "In fact, some of the people show up and they ask for a Democrat ballot, and the poll worker says, 'Why, what are you going to do?' He says, 'Operation Chaos,' and they just laugh."

So there you have it. It's not on Obama if the race continues, his aides imply -- it's Rush's fault.'

Just more of the press corps' official attempt to destroy Obama, same as they destroy every Dem nominee, every time.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 9:16 AM | Report abuse

Winner: Geraldine Ferraro, who is now guaranteed not to see a female president soon and is therefore free to enjoy her bitterness.

Losers: Jeremiah Wright and Al Sharpton, who may soon see America elect a black president.

Posted by: aleks | May 7, 2008 9:16 AM | Report abuse

Please, no more "gas tax holiday" garbage.

In two weeks, maybe no more Hillary on TV all of the time.

No VP for Hill; no SecState for Bill; no SecDef for Clark. They're all gone as members of the old Washington.

Out with the old, in with the new.

Harry New Politics!

Posted by: Harry, Los Angeles, CA | May 7, 2008 9:14 AM | Report abuse

Black voters were winners? Black candidate runs, 90% of blacks vote for him. Quite obviously, many of these votes are based on nothing more than race. I don't see that that's anything to applaud. Nobody, black or white, should be choosing whom to vote for based on skin color. That is the unreported and disgusting undercurrent of this election.

Posted by: Rick in Cincy | May 7, 2008 9:12 AM | Report abuse

Putting Bill on the SCOTUS is an interesting prospect. I don't think that there has ever been a disbarred attorney nominated before.

Posted by: PRinNJ | May 7, 2008 9:07 AM | Report abuse

Add 'Us' to the Winners list as we will no longer have to listen to that vacuous talking hairdo, Evan Bayh.

Posted by: Chris Brown | May 7, 2008 9:04 AM | Report abuse

The only "FIX" was in Lake County Indiana. Polls closed at 6:00 p.m. (earlier than nearly all states), yet Lake was done their counting until 1:00 AM...Hmmm, can you say DNC "FIX"? This is 2008 technology! Does the DNC really believe the american public is that stupid to think it took 7-hours to tabulate the votes? No wonder even democrates are getting fed-up!

Posted by: routhless | May 7, 2008 9:02 AM | Report abuse

While you say that the Rev. Wright issue was not important it will be very importent this Fall when the Republicans and their outside groups keep showing it. I see 1988 and 2004 all over again!

Posted by: charlie | May 7, 2008 9:00 AM | Report abuse

The dream ticket is a big winner tonight.

Clinton has a path to nomination, but it depends on Obama sputtering between now and September. All she has to do is hang around, point to poll after poll showing that Obama is about to get trounced in the general, and convince the superdelegates to wake up and fix the party's colossal mistake in nominating another Mondale who appeals primarily to the arugula crowd. Assuming history plays out that way.

Obama's not stupid. Unless he is so caught up in his own amazing awesomeness by those that fawn all over him, he should realize that he is behind against John McCain. Having Hillary as a wild card only hurts him---he has something to lose by having her stay in the race.

If time goes on and Obama starts to do well against McCain, then her only remaining argument---and her bargaining power---will fade quickly. She needs to use her negotiating power now to do a deal with Obama. Obama, on the other hand, actually needs to make it worth Clinton's while to exit the race. She isn't going to leave for some MoveOn/Sorkinesque vision of progressive altruism.

So they have to do a deal, and soon. The question, though, is what does she get? The VP seems assured, although would that be enough? Maybe also Bill for State and Clark for Defense? Agrees to nominate Bill to the Supreme Court? Or will she say screw the VP, she leaves if he promises to nominate Bill the cabinet and her to the Supreme Court? Does she even care about Bill or having influence on the cabinet? The possibilities abound.

Posted by: dc | May 7, 2008 8:58 AM | Report abuse

Obama will no sooner tie the dead weight of Clinton to his ticket than McCain will pick Jeb Bush. Political poison.

Posted by: Jayne | May 7, 2008 8:56 AM | Report abuse

The HRC campaign used the theme song from Rocky for a while. Rumor has it that there is a new theme song. It starts with "Ding dong" and comes from The Wizard of Oz.

Posted by: PRinNJ | May 7, 2008 8:55 AM | Report abuse

Are you serious? The "dream ticket" is a winner? For McCain, maybe.

Posted by: TMo | May 7, 2008 8:47 AM | Report abuse

Add one to the losers list: silly cliches that get bandied about endlessy in our national media echo chamber. Here's hoping that the phrases "game changer" and deal closer" have exhausted themselves and can now die a peaceful death in obscurity somewhere.

Posted by: erikpdumont | May 7, 2008 8:46 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company