Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

What's Next?

The political day to end all days is behind us.(And The Fix is feeling somewhat human again after eight hours of sleep last night.) But the race for the Democratic nomination is far from over. Both Sens. Barack Obama (Ill.) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) remain viable contenders for the party's nod and even before Super Tuesday were planning their post-Feb.5 strategies.

So, what's next?

Let's first look at the macro picture and then go by state by state.

The news that Clinton loaned her campaign $5 million late last month to, in her own words, ensure she was fighting on an even playing field with Obama on Tuesday is a potential game changer. While Clinton won the states she needed to in order to stay relevant -- California, New Jersey, Arizona -- there was no knockout blow delivered to the Illinois senator. He won more states than she did, and the delegate fight came out to a draw.

If the Clinton campaign's financial situation is as dire as the loan suggests, it could complicate her path to the nomination. While Obama has been spending steadily, he continues to show massive fundraising power -- bringing in $32 million in January and, according to the Politico's Jeanne Cummings, on pace to raise another $30 million this month.

Such a fundraising disparity is already having practical consequences. Obama is currently on television in all nine states -- Louisiana, Washington, Nebraska, Maine, Maryland, D.C., Virginia, Wisconsin and Hawaii -- scheduled to vote between Feb. 9 and Feb. 19. As of this morning, Clinton was on television in NONE of those places. In a race with -- still -- so many states voting in such a short period of time, television becomes increasingly important, as it is nearly impossible for the candidates to draw free press by making visits to all the states on the calendar.

Aside from the practical impact, the symbolic importance of a cash-strapped Clinton campaign is massive. Clinton, due to her -- and her husband's -- place within the party has always been the frontrunner in this race, the one candidate virtually assured of running a Rolls Royce campaign with money never being an issue. Now that it appears that money is an issue, the Clinton as frontrunner idea may take a major hit. (The more Machiavellian among us would suggest that is exactly what the Clintons want -- turn Obama into the frontrunner and then score a come-from-behind victory.)

So, on the macro level, at least for the time being, Obama has an edge. Now, let's look state by state for the next five days.

* Nebraska (Feb. 9 caucus): Obama has been dominant in caucus contests so far in the race and that's almost certain to continue in the Cornhusker State. Obama is stopping in Omaha today and his wife, Michelle, will make a stop in Lincoln. Obama has Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), Omaha Mayor Mike Fahey and Lincoln Mayor Chris Beutler on his side. The Clintons have never enjoyed a particularly close relationship with Nebraska, although they do have former senator and governor Bob Kerrey as an endorser.

*Louisiana (Feb. 9 primary): The Bayou State has a significant African-American population (32 percent according to the 2000 census) and given Obama's dominance among that key voting bloc it's hard to see how Clinton can beat him here.

* Washington (Feb. 9 caucus): Another caucus here, which should -- in theory -- play to Obama's strengths. So, too, should strong progressive community in the state and the highly educated, affluent nature of the expected electorate. Clinton will not roll over here, however, as she has senior Sen. Patty Murray (D) on her side. One savvy Democratic operative with long ties also points out that the state loves to vote for women -- Murray and Sen. Maria Cantwell as well as Gov. Christine Gregoire (D) to name a few -- and that could/should help Clinton. Obama starts with an edge here but this is one of the states in which Clinton will fight.

* Maine (Feb. 10 caucus): Although Maine holds a caucus, this is a state where Clinton is putting on a serious effort to win. Former president Bill Clinton will be in Portland tonight and Sen. Clinton will hold a rally in Orono on Saturday. She has the support of Gov. John Baldacci (D) and sees Maine as a chance to break up a potential string of Obama victories on Saturday as well as demonstrate the strength of her support in the Northeast. Women are expected to be a significant portion of the electorate as well, which should work to Clinton's benefit. Obama isn't handing the state over, having sent Rob Hill, who handled the campaign's field efforts in New Hampshire's primary, to Maine just after that state's vote on Jan. 8.

* District of Columbia (Feb. 12 primary): Nearly six in ten District residents are black, according to the 2000 Census. The question is not whether Obama wins but how large his final margin winds up being.

* Maryland (Feb. 12 primary): The electorate is likely to be filled with young people, blacks and people with college degrees and beyond. In other words, Obama is going to win.

* Virginia (Feb. 12 primary): Of the seven states that will vote in the next five days, the Commonwealth is -- without question -- Clinton's best chance for a victory. Clinton's campaign believes they will over-perform expectations in northern Virginia (lots and lots of government workers who fondly remember the Clinton Administration) and do well in areas like Tidewater and southwestern Virginia where the economy is almost certain to be a major issue. The Clinton campaign also has a secret weapon in Virginia in the person of deputy campaign manager Mike Henry who knows the Commonwealth better than almost any other operative. Obama has a very solid campaign organization in the state as well -- led by Gov. Tim Kaine, who endorsed the Illinois Senator very early on in the process and is already being speculated about as a potential vice presidential pick if Obama winds up as the nominee. Obama should also pull massive margins out of the predominantly black city of Richmond, where Mayor Doug Wilder -- a former governor in his own right -- is backing him. This is the battleground of the next five days.

The micro picture over the next week is very good for Obama. Look a little further out to Hawaii and Wisconsin on Feb. 19 and things look equally solid for the Illinois senator. (Wisconsin could be a real race; Hawaii is a walkover for Obama.).

What Clinton's campaign has to do between now and the end of the month is keep the delegate count close and try to win at least one (Virginia?) and maybe two (Virginia and Maine) races to keep the media story line from spiraling out of control.

If Clinton can survive until the end of February, the next major vote on March 4 looks far better for her. Ohio, where Gov. Ted Strickland is supporting her, is the major prize. Texas and its significant Hispanic population is also fertile territory for Clinton. Vermont and Rhode Island could well go her way too.

But, to get to March 4 -- the new Feb. 5 to our mind -- she must run a gauntlet of pro-Obama states. That will be a huge test of Clinton's mettle as a candidate and her campaign's organizational and financial wherewithal.

By Chris Cillizza  |  February 7, 2008; 11:20 AM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Clinton Loaned Campaign $5 Million Last Month
Next: Romney Drops Out of GOP Race

Comments

Obama is raising huge amounts of money, but nobody seems to ask where that money comes from. A lot is from smaller donations and boy, is he stubborn! I wrote an email with a question to the Obama campaign. Never received an answer (which is quite a let-down...), but no less than 3 begging emails in 4 days, one from Ted Kennedy. The one from the day when he announced his $32m record annoyed the hell out of me, greedy b@#tard >:(

There are a number of big spenders on his donators list and I wonder who they are. Obama donated some 150.000 dollars to charity, after he was attacked because over more than a decade, he took dirty money from Rezko. The donations to charity speak for his character, the acceptance of the money in the first place does not speak for his wisdom and judgement...
And there are large donations from nuclear companies from Illinois. By mere coincidence Obama watered down his law proposal on the reporting of nuclear leaks, after he spoke to his donors from these companies. Honi soit qui mal y ponse... Evil be to him who evil thinks...

There is the rumour that a lot of his millions come from the healthcare industry and that his reduced healthcare plan is a direct response to these donations.
I guess that a knight in shining armor looks different. On whose pay-roll is he? Who is going to pull the strings on Obama, once the nomination is over?
Okay, in the end, he is just a politician, open to any donor, ready to do anything to win, just like Clinton. In one respect, he would be worse, because he promises so much, he creates so much hope in people, especially in young people. If he turns out to be a crook like the rest of the gang, this will truely change people's attitude towards politics.

Posted by: flosstoss | February 9, 2008 8:11 PM | Report abuse

If Obama wins and Hillary isn't on the ticket, Clinton suppoters will stay home or vote for McCain.
Good luck winning without 1/2 the Democratic Party.
Posted by: svreader | February 7, 2008 11:58 AM

svreader - - actually it will be the other way. Obama supporters will not vote for Hillary and vote for McCain or not vote at all - - Dems lose.


Posted by: ddraper81 | February 9, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Fool me once, fool me twice.

Are prople still falling for Clinton lines? With the Clintons, instead you have to ask: "How is saying this going to help her?" Answer: people will donate. And it worked. Like all lawyers the Clintons believe anything is true unless it can be proven false. She says this, knowing the downside is some will wonder where SHE, not Bill, got that kind of money. Did the WP check her disclosure forms? Or is it not true and Bill lent the money which he got from foreign governments and Marc Rich types?

Posted by: skylark041 | February 9, 2008 1:55 PM | Report abuse

Some have suggested that the Puerto Rico Democratic delegation might decide this primary. It holds 63 winner-takes-all delegates. Check out the discussion:
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2008/2/6/puerto-rican-poll-power.html

It would be quite an interesting scenario.

Posted by: manuel | February 9, 2008 11:39 AM | Report abuse

First an answer to a question raised earlier in this blog. Senator Obama got the best ethics reform bill ever through the senate. Shows his mettle and a great sign of a guy with actual ethics as opposed to the truckloads of dirts the Republicans will dump on Billary. I come not to criticize her but to praise OBAMA. Our nation can put someone in office who will be a great uniter around the planet not just our country We may someday soon be able to actually coexist and be respected as opposed to hated due to our current my way or the highway Bush days. Barack Obama is an extremely intelligent thinker but not a weak man he will defend us when needed. Vote for judgment and character before the Republicans start trying to put surrender flags in our hands. He will handily beat McCain.

BARACK AND ROLL in 2008

Posted by: pedraza1 | February 9, 2008 10:07 AM | Report abuse

kaskinner, you're arguing that Hillary Clinton is the same person as Bill Clinton. If so, then they're term-limited out of office.

Posted by: davestickler | February 8, 2008 11:25 PM | Report abuse

Hillary has won the Democratic leaning states, she hold a connection with Michigan and Florida. It is time for Obama to quit as he hasn't carried many of the pro Democratic states. The party has to unite and pool the money and effort to Mc Cain and the republicans. Obama for the good of the party seal the VP and your time will come down the raod....your the younger candidate and Hillary has the suppport of the Democrats. NOW IS THE TIME BARRAK..don't hurt the party endorse Hillary and lets get ready to defeat the GOP. You had my supprt but you failed to even win Calfornia so I have concerns about you in the homeland of the Democratic states...It is up to you Barrack

- I agree with this entirely

Posted by: kaskinner42 | February 8, 2008 9:59 PM | Report abuse

You know what gets me about Obama supporters on these boards. During the miserable 8 years of Bush, you were screaming for the Clinton days when life was good. Now that Clinton is running, you're screaming Obama because his face is all over MTV, MSNBC and on the Oprah Winfrey show. A bunch of followers to say the least. He's become a trend, not a candidate - Get a grip! I miss Clinton - life was good in the 90's. Bring back Grunge Rock and Clinton. GO HILLARY!!

Obama is nothing more than hot air.

Posted by: kaskinner42 | February 8, 2008 9:57 PM | Report abuse

Does WaPo encourage this stuff?
"Michelle Obama is correct, we Black people tired of voting for whites

Michelle is homely, but she is correct.
Posted by: ebubuk2004"

ebubuk2004 - hmmm - is that the year you graduated from grammar school? 5th grade was HARD, wasn't it? You're not black, you're a nasty, bitter racist that can't stand the fact that a person of mixed race is going to be out next President.

Now, go away. And SVReader - I have to say - you've gone over the edge. Get some help. Even Hillary is worried about you.

Posted by: sheridan1 | February 8, 2008 9:41 PM | Report abuse

svreader: No, it is Clinton supporters that are snatching defeat from the jaws of victory and here is the very simple reason why.

States to date where Obama has won the majority of Independent voters (only including those with exit poll data):

Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah.

This compares to Clinton prevailing only in Arkansas, Florida, Massachucetts, Oklahoma (by not very big margins I might add).

Now if you still think Clinton is the right choice, then consider this recent poll by the Times: www.time.com/time/politics/article
/0,8599,1711123,00.html

Obama 48%, McCain 41%
Clinton 46%, McCain 46%

"independents tilt toward McCain when he is matched up against Clinton But they tilt toward Obama when he is matched up against the Illinois Senator."

Democratic voters favor Clinton over Obama for the Democratic nomination by a margin of 48% to 42%. However, it is not the in-favorite that matters, it is the favorite of the Independents, as they increasingly make up the majorities in most states. Clinton is not popular with them, as we have VERY clear evidence of. McCain is popular, but not as popular as Obama.

62% of likely voters want Hillary Clinton to name Obama as her running mate. By contrast, only 51% of the same voters want Obama to return the favor. The same voters, by a margin of 55% to 11%, believed that Obama would help rather than hurt Clinton's chances were he to become her running mate. If Obama tapped Clinton as his running mate, that margin shifted, with 38% saying it would help his chances and 31% saying it would hurt.

WAKE UP!

Posted by: JayKay2 | February 8, 2008 3:01 AM | Report abuse

bssimon: maybe those female senators from Maine would one day make a better choice for being the first female President of the United States? I'm sure there are a number of female senators of Governors that would be a better first choice than Hillary. As a woman, I would like to see someone who rises up on their own merit, without a former President as their spouse, and whose sincerity and moral compass can hardly be questioned. What if, in a rush to simply get a woman - any woman - in the big seat - we put up a very poor choice and harm the future chances of women?

Posted by: JayKay2 | February 8, 2008 2:54 AM | Report abuse

If Barack Obama continues to refuse participation in televised debates on Fox and ABC as well as the offers to do local debates these stations should impose a policy of no further one-on-one interviews. In addition, print and broadcast media should inform him that their reporters will no longer cover his events.

It is apparent that Mr. Obama only wants to campaign on his terms: by means of rallies and speeches at which questions cannot be posed and through paid media over which he has total control as to content.

If, as he has claimed, he is so concerned about communicating with all voters, then he should be agreeable to as many debates as are offered. This is the only format whereby voters have a way to compare the candidates side-by-side, without campaign filters and spin, as such it's the most fair and equitable approach.

Posted by: ericr1970 | February 8, 2008 1:01 AM | Report abuse

Universal health care is an important topic, but will the reforms proposed by any of the candidates make health care really more affordable? They want to lower the cost of health plans to make it more affordable for people, but that alone will not lower the cost of medical care. If Health plans lower the cost of their monthly premiums, what's to prevent them from increasing co-payments while decreasing the amount they will cover for hospitalization, lab services and drugs? It's not only the high cost of monthly premiums but also the high cost of lab fees, x-rays, hospitalization, and drugs that makes paying for health care unaffordable. My boyfriend recently got sick and the doctor prescribed several medications. He paid $70.00 for 12 pills, and $45.00 for a bottle of cough medicine and he has a health care plan that covers doctor's visits and prescription drugs. After taking one dose of his medications, he had a bad reaction and the doctor told him to stop taking it. Now he's out of pocket for $45.00, and to top it off had to pay another $45.00 for a new prescription. Universal health care will not work unless we can contain the soaring cost of prescription drugs.

Posted by: Nevadaandy | February 8, 2008 12:00 AM | Report abuse

I have been watching the Cable News Channels most of the day trying to get a feel for how Mitt leaving the race would be spun. "McCain is the Repub nominee and all good Repubs sould do all we can to keep The White House." This didn't seem to work very well at his appearance at CPAC, where instructions were given to those attending as to how to react to his remarks. A bunch of them didn't follow instructions.

Posted by: lylepink | February 7, 2008 11:59 PM | Report abuse

Clinton and Obama and their supporters should just keep bashing each other until August. Then we will see the really ugly side of politics in regard to the seating of the Michigan and Florida delegations or the disenfranchisement of those Democrats. As a Republican with a presumptive nominee I can say that I will enjoy the show thoroughly.

Posted by: edbyronadams | February 7, 2008 11:29 PM | Report abuse

Hillary has won the Democratic leaning states, she hold a connection with Michigan and Florida. It is time for Obama to quit as he hasn't carried many of the pro Democratic states. The party has to unite and pool the money and effort to Mc Cain and the republicans. Obama for the good of the party seal the VP and your time will come down the raod....your the younger candidate and Hillary has the suppport of the Democrats. NOW IS THE TIME BARRAK..don't hurt the party endorse Hillary and lets get ready to defeat the GOP. You had my supprt but you failed to even win Calfornia so I have concerns about you in the homeland of the Democratic states...It is up to you Barrack

Posted by: harry.farr | February 7, 2008 11:12 PM | Report abuse

GSWAGNER.

Yes. Here's just one:

The Coburn-Obama government Transparency Act of 2006.
Signed into law by Bush.

He's done alot more, too, and i encourage to go to www.barackobama.com and read up.

Posted by: julieds | February 7, 2008 10:30 PM | Report abuse

ebubuk2004,

I suspect that you are actually a Hillary supporter, pretending you are an angry black man, trying to antagonize people, and play the race card like the Clintons tried in SC.

Didn't work then, won't work now.

Posted by: julieds | February 7, 2008 10:23 PM | Report abuse

Bottom Line:

Like all of you. I know that health care is the most critical, and important issue facing the American people. Now, and in the coming elections. And like the vast majority of the American people, I want HR 676 (Medicare For All) passed into law NOW! "Single payer, Tax Supported, Not For Profit, True Universal Health Care" free for all as a right. Like every other developed country in the world has. See: http://www.house.gov/conyers/news_hr676.htm

"HR 676:
For church goers: less money to insur. companies and more to the church- lots more.
Srs on Medicare: save way over $100/wk. Because no more medigap, long term care & dental insur. needed. No more drug bills."

But if we the American people fail to bring enough pressure on our current politicians to get HR 676 passed into law before the elections. We will have to identify, and replace all the politicians standing in the way of passage of HR 676. And, I think the best first place to start is with the politicians that blocked the bipartisan SCHIP bills for the kids. Passed by congress four times.

But what about the President. It was Bush after all that blocked the bipartisan SCHIP bill passed by congress to assure more health coverage for Americas kids. So which of the presidential hopefuls do I think will be most supportive of implementing the demand of the majority of the American people to have HR 676 (Medicare For All) passed into law immediately!

We have some very fine presidential candidates who would make good presidents. But none of the top Presidential candidates directly support HR 676, the only true Universal Health Care plan. So I am supporting Hillary Clinton. She is the only top candidate that has ever actually fought for universal health care before.

I have enormous admiration, and respect for Hillary Clinton. She fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds back in 1993. To prevent this disastrous health care crisis that is now devastating the American people, and America. She fought so hard for the American people that she risk almost completely destroying her husbands presidency. I haven't forgotten her heroic effort. If any Presidential hopeful for universal health care deserves my support, it's her.

Also, if we the American people fail to bring enough pressure on our government to give us HR 676 which we all so desperately need NOW! Then we will need the most skilled politician we can get on our side to broker the best health care plan for the American people that we can get. Though it will be less than we need, and less than we deserve. The politician I think to best do this is Hillary Clinton. The Clinton's are probably the most skilled politicians in American history.

The insurance industry, and medical industry that has been ripping you off, and killing you has given Hillary Clinton so much money because they fear her. They have also given Barack Obama so much money because they fear Hillary Clinton. They think they can manipulate Barack Obama against the best interest of the American people better than they can manipulate Hillary Clinton. There is no race issue with Hillary Clinton. The Clinton's are the poster family for how African Americans want white people to be towards African Americans.

As always, African Americans are suffering, and dieing in this health care crisis at a much higher rate than any other group in America. The last time there was any significant drop in the African American death rate was when Bill Clinton was president.

My fellow Americans, you are dieing needlessly at an astounding rate. In higher numbers than any other people in the developed world. Rich, and poor a like. Insured, and uninsured. Young, and old. Men, women, children, and babies. And we the American people must stop it. And fix it NOW! Keep Fighting!!! Never! give up hope. There are millions of lives at stake. Bless you all... You are doing great!

Posted by: JackSmith1 | February 7, 2008 9:46 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, break FOR

Posted by: mutanttoasterfiend | February 7, 2008 8:38 PM | Report abuse

CC, you forgot to mention that Washington state also has a decent number of Asian Americans residing there, who break from Clinton big time.

Posted by: mutanttoasterfiend | February 7, 2008 8:37 PM | Report abuse

Ticket makers here putting together a combination of Obama/Clinton or Clinton/
Obama had better be prepared to answer how Bill Clinton would behave in either such administration.

Posted by: FirstMouse | February 7, 2008 8:36 PM | Report abuse

Hey, does any1 know how much effort Bill's put into fundrasing for Hillary? Or is he just warming up? Cos he should be able to raise her a hell lot of money...

Posted by: iggyboy | February 7, 2008 7:23 PM | Report abuse

hillary will raise 6 million dollars by tomorrow.

she's fine.

Posted by: trisha2 | February 7, 2008 6:45 PM | Report abuse

Here's another answer to the "what has Obama done" question. A fellow poster, p3ng, looked up Congressional records on the Library of Congress website:

"OBAMA RECORDS

What has Obama done in the 3 years he's been in the Senate?

The list is too substantive, so I'll mainly categorize. During the first eight months of his elected service he sponsored over 820 bills. He introduced 233 regarding healthcare reform, 125 on poverty and public assistance, 112 crime fighting bills, 97 economic bills, 60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills, 21 ethics reform bills, 15 gun control, 6 veterans affairs and many others. His first year in the U.S. Senate, he authored 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427. These included **the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 (became law), **The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, (became law), **The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate, **The 2007 Government Ethics Bill, (became law), **The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill, (In committee), and many more.

In all since he entered the U.S. Senate, Senator Obama has written 890 bills and co-sponsored another 1096. An impressive record, for someone who supposedly has no legislative record. . . .

CLINTON RECORDS

Senator Clinton, who has served one full term (6yrs.) has managed to author and pass into law 20 twenty pieces of legislation. These bills can be found on the website of the Library of Congress (www.thomas.loc.gov), but to save you trouble, I'll post them here for you: 1. Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site. 2. Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month. 3. Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Honor. 4. Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall. 5. Name courthouse after James L. Watson. 6. Name post office after Jonn A. O'Shea. 7. Designate Aug. 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day. 8. Support the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition Day. 9. Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicentennial of his death. 10. Congratulate the Syracuse Univ. Orange Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship. 11. Congratulate the Le Moyne College Dolphins Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship. 12. Establish the 225th Anniversary of the American Revolution Commemorative Program. 13. Name post office after Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda. 14. Honor Shirley Chisholm for her service to the nation and express condolences on her death. 15. Honor John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford, firefighters who lost their lives on duty. Only five of Clinton's bills are, more substantive. 16. Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11. 17. Pay for city projects in response to 9/11 18. Assist landmine victims in other countries. 19. Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care. 20. Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as protected in the wilderness preservation system."

Anyhow, judge for yourself which candidate is the candidate of substance, and which candidate's record begs the question.

Posted by: davestickler | February 7, 2008 5:12 PM | Report abuse

This is going to be the biggest mess since the Chicago convention in 1968. What if Obama gets say 15 more real delegates than Clinton? Will all the so called super delegates give the nod to Clinton anyway? What would that do to all the African Americans that have supported Obama? Would they vote for McCain in protest or would they boycot the election and not vote, thus giving it to McCain. How about the white males that have voted for Obama because they don't want another Clinton, would they vote for McCain over Clinton in protest as well? This could make the so called Democratic Party become democratic. What do you think?

Posted by: libre1118 | February 7, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

The Blue Collar Voters donations to Hillary maxed out at $2300 because they all lost their jobs after Bill Clinton signed the China Trade bill and their jobs moved to China. Just another reason we do not need another Clinton in the white house.

Posted by: jerrypayneontherez | February 7, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

Huckabee has life as a power broker at the convention. If he continues he will gain enough strength to have a dramatic impact on the Republican Platform. He has become a national figure.
Ohg
http://thefiresidepost.com/2008/02/08/huckabees-hope-for-future/

Posted by: glclark4750 | February 7, 2008 4:45 PM | Report abuse

This is Black people time and makes Whites pay for your sins.

30 millions innocent SLAVES killed by you white people!!!!

Pay back time


Posted by: ebubuk2004 | February 7, 2008 03:27 PM

Hey Bill is that you????

Posted by: TennGurl | February 7, 2008 3:56 PM | Report abuse

Tell me, what the Clintons did for black people?

We don't need white Votes anymore, Black people got the numbers now.
No more guilty white votes.
Don't need you no more

You played us for long time, Obama said it correctly, and "IT'S OUR TIME", "ITS OUR TIME.
This is Black people time and makes Whites pay for your sins.

30 millions innocent SLAVES killed by you white people!!!!

Pay back time

Posted by: ebubuk2004 | February 7, 2008 3:27 PM | Report abuse

Tell me, what the Clintons did for black people?

We don't need white Votes anymore, Black people got the numbers now.
No more guilty white votes.
Don't need you no more

You played us for long time, Obama said it correctly, and "IT'S OUR TIME", "ITS OUR TIME.
This is Black people time and makes Whites pay for your sins.

30 millions innocent SLAVES killed by you white people!!!!

Pay back time

Posted by: ebubuk2004 | February 7, 2008 3:26 PM | Report abuse

jbentley4 (and others who are curious) --

To answer your question, I've been keeping a running spreadsheet on the pledged delegates. If Obama were to run the tables through the rest of February, I estimate he would net about 55 more pledged delegates in those contests (so, something like 251-196). This assumes large wins in LA, NE, DC, VI and HI, and single-digit wins in WA, VA, MD, WI and ME.

Obama was +15 pledged delegates going into Tuesday, and most accounts point to him netting an additional 15-20 from that day (I found the delegate counts on the RCP website to be the most useful if you want to do your own). This would make him up 85-90 pledged delegates going into March 4 - that might be big enough to give him a marginal lead even when counting superdelegates by that time, too.

Interestingly, Hillary would need to win both OH and TX with well over 60% of the vote to overcome the pledged delegate deficit in that scenario (thereby avoiding having to win the nomination on superdelegates) - she's only gotten that much in AR so far. That's why VA is setting up to be her line in the sand (as well as WA and ME, and maybe MD, too.) If she can hold him to only a +15-20 advantage in the Feb. contests, then winning simple majorities in TX and OH would bring her about even, allowing her to potentially seal the deal in PA after that.

Posted by: faberman.jason | February 7, 2008 3:14 PM | Report abuse

ebubuk2004 is going to a lot of trouble to make it appear that Obama is only appealing to black people. I wonder why?

Posted by: dnfree | February 7, 2008 3:06 PM | Report abuse

Let's face it, a few weeks ago this was a 60-40 race in favor of Clinton. Now it is 50-50 and she is low on money.

The next few weeks definitely favor Obama but I'm not sure how much he can gain in such a short time. If he can go 55-45 in terms of popular vote and delagates over the near term he is in good shape. If he can do even better, it is going to be difficult for HRC to come back in Ohio, Penn, and Texas.

She was planning for this race to be over now. She has been working California hard for over 2 years and New York longer than that. How much has she invested in Washington or Wisconsin? Probably more than Obama to date but close enough for him to over come it.

The key for Obama is to win over undecided voters right now! The seem to break for Hillary if they are still undecided the day before the election. He has to go for it and it looks like he is! If you can, please donate to Barack Obama's campaign today. Let's triple Clinton's money again in February! https://donate.barackobama.com/page/contribute/yeswecan

Posted by: matt_ahrens | February 7, 2008 2:58 PM | Report abuse

Let's face it, a few weeks ago this was a 60-40 race in favor of Clinton. Now it is 50-50 and she is low on money.

The next few weeks definitely favor Obama but I'm not sure how much he can gain in such a short time. If he can go 55-45 in terms of popular vote and delagates over the near term he is in good shape. If he can do even better, it is going to be difficult for HRC to come back in Ohio, Penn, and Texas.

She was planning for this race to be over now. She has been working California hard for over 2 years and New York longer than that. How much has she invested in Washington or Wisconsin? Probably more than Obama to date but close enough for him to over come it.

The key for Obama is to win over undecided voters right now! The seem to break for Hillary if they are still undecided the day before the election. He has to go for it and it looks like he is! If you can, please donate to Barack Obama's campaign today. Let's tripple Clinton's money again in February! https://donate.barackobama.com/page/contribute/yeswecan

Posted by: matt_ahrens | February 7, 2008 2:57 PM | Report abuse

Amazing thing about Romney take away his natural bases and what has his money gotten him?


OOK - take away his father's homestate, his homestate.


Take away all the states in which massive Mormon populations came out for him, - what inroads did he make anywhere??? He spent millions and millions and millions and how far from his based did he get ??


It is truly amazing.

Think about it.


Posted by: Miata7 | February 7, 2008 2:56 PM | Report abuse

McCain is in - Huckabee will not be his VP - he will have to choose Susan COllins or another female Republican who will draw the independents from Obama.

TEXAS - THE PUNDITS ARE ALL WRONG - AGAIN

Texas may very well decide who will be the next president. The Latino vote in Texas will make that decision. If the Democrats do their job they will ask that the Latinos line up behind Obama - yes I know everyone believes Hillary has the Latinos -Texas is not everywhere - it is TExas.

The Democrats will have several Latinos on the ballot for statewide office come November. One will be Rick Noriega (US Senate) Question - why would the blacks turn out for Noriega and the other Latinos in November if the Latinos voted against Obama in March?

This is very obvious to the Latino leadership in Texas. Work is underway to make it clear to the Latino voter - Obama is their only choice if they want to elect Latinos to Statewide office.

The perfect ticket for the Texas Democrats to take back the state of TExas and in fact to put it into play come November is Obama for President and Noriega for US Senate - blacks and Latinos will register in record numbers - and as they say - the Republican Party will become history in Texas.

Bobby Wightman-Cervantes

Posted by: bobbywc | February 7, 2008 2:55 PM | Report abuse

1st of all, i like jbentley's question. if this is about delegates, how many does each state represent?

2nd of all - how many pledged delegates do the candidates actually have? media reports range from obama being up by 10 to clinton being up by 80. where do the numbers come from? and where is the discrepancy?

also, whether you're a clinton or obama supporter, please don't waste my time with the "i'll vote for mccain if it's not my favorite" crap. it's not believable and won't persuade any one reading this site.

Posted by: stpaulsage | February 7, 2008 2:55 PM | Report abuse

As for Hillary's record of accomplishment, her supporters like to cite SCHIP. But she was handed the opportunity to create universal health care when her husband took over the White House. By any accounting, her attempt was the biggest disaster of her husband's presidency, failing to enact universal health care, contributing to landslide losses in 1994, and effectively rendering health insurance for all radioactive for the next fifteen years. SCHIP was essentially the program that was salvaged from the wreckage when Ted Kennedy stepped in.

In the Senate, she finally moved out of Bill's shadow and had the opportunity to prove that she was a force in her own right. But we haven't heard about anything that Sen. Clinton has accomplished, in large part because she has no signature legislation, and little record signifying vision. She's passed earmarks and cast votes -- including the vote for the Iraq war -- and has accrued one of the worst records in Congress of getting her bills and amendments out of committee.

It's one thing to have experience. But anyone can accumulate experience, especially if the opportunities are essentially handed to them. It's another thing to have taken advantage of those experiences to develop a long list of accomplishments. I won't pretend that she's never accomplished anything, because she has, but it's silly to say that her record of accomplishments is somehow exemplary or demonstrates some superior competency.

Posted by: davestickler | February 7, 2008 2:51 PM | Report abuse

Barack's mother went to Mercer Island Middle School and High School, so perhaps voters in the state Washington will vote for Obama as a favorite son candidate, just like Kansas.

Posted by: TomJx | February 7, 2008 2:50 PM | Report abuse

What has Obama done?

In Illinois, he expanded the child care credit and the earned income tax credit, helped reform welfare, expanded health care coverage, passed the most significant ethics and campaign finance reform bill in a generation, and passed major criminal justice reforms with the support of the governor, legislature, and the police after all three had initially opposed the idea.

In the US Senate, he's worked with Dick Lugar to secure loose nuclear and conventional weapons from around the world -- cited by both Kerry and Bush in 2004 as the most important threat to our national security -- and has worked on preparedness for a possible avian flu epidemic after he discovered that government plans were woefully inadequate to deal with a crisis that could cost millions of lives. He's worked to improve benefits for veterans. He helped write and pass the most significant ethics reform since Watergate, and, with Tom Coburn, authored and passed the "Google for government" bill that creates transparency in government spending.

He quit his comfortable corporate job in his first year out of college to work for $10,000 a year as a community organizer on the South Side, where he fought to improve housing on the South Side, helped create access to jobs, and registered thousands of new voters.

He was elected president of the Harvard law review, arguably the most prestigious position any law student in the world can hold, and his professors at Harvard call him one of the most brilliant students to come through in the last few decades. But, instead of cashing that in for an easy job and a hefty paycheck, he went back to Chicago to work as a civil rights attorney and make change.

And yes, he opposed the Iraq war from the start, and chose to do so publicly at a time when opposing the war was not easy. That matters.

He's had to earn everything he's ever had. He was raised by a single mother and went to school on scholarship. He's not where he is because of his family name or because of his connections. And he's succeeded in everything he's ever tried.

So please, don't act like Obama is just some empty-suited fad.

Posted by: davestickler | February 7, 2008 2:39 PM | Report abuse

I wouldn't be so quick to put Maine in Hillary's column. She has Baldacci's endorsement, but he's one of the most impotent governors we've had in a long time (couldn't even crack 40% in 2006 and only lost because the GOP picked the nutjob rightwinger candidate). McCain had the endorsement of our two popular Senators but lost by a lot. I grew up in one of the more liberal-educated towns up there and it's definately trending Obama's way - with most of the women my mom knows in his column (she's 59 and would seem to be a natural for Hillary's column and isn't). Also Obama has the backing of Severin Belliveau, who is one of the most important state lobbyists and has a lot of pull with the Democratic establishment.

Posted by: donjaime37 | February 7, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

Thanx to JC and TennGurl. I will read your cites.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 7, 2008 2:05 PM | Report abuse

That was 2001
Here is 2004
http://www.opensecrets.org/races/summary.asp?id=NYS1&cycle=2006
She raised $70 million her opponent raised $10 million.. At the end of the "race" she only had $10 million left.. That's bad management..

Posted by: TennGurl | February 7, 2008 2:02 PM | Report abuse

Clinton 2004 Campaign finances against a no name Republican and now she has to lend her self money after raising $100 million ..

Here is how much she raised and spent in 2004
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.asp?CID=N00000019&cycle=2004

She is a bad fiscal manager.

Posted by: TennGurl | February 7, 2008 1:59 PM | Report abuse

If the current pledged delegate count is essentially even, then in order for Obama to win outright (no super delegates) he can only lose ~250 of the remaining ~1500 pledged delegates. A candidate needs to win 62.5% of pledged delegates to win outright. With the proportional rules of the Democratic party and over half the pledged delegates already gone, that will not be possible unless Clinton implodes.

That means the super delegates will decide who the nominee is. If things go as expected it will be Obama's argument that I won more pledged delegates vs Clinton's argument of I can take a punch. Just don't use the word "brokered" as a modifier for the word convention or Howard Dean will personally have you led out back and shot.

Posted by: caribis | February 7, 2008 1:49 PM | Report abuse

Clinton has raised over 5 million in less than 24 hours eclipsing Obama and more importantly Obama is refusing to have any further debates! What a coward! Hillary has already accepted five invites for debates while obama hides behind Oprah's skirt! America wants substance not a blowhard coward like Obama who is afraid to debate a woman who is clearly smarter and more experienced, hence more prepared to lead. Obama is a loser and a coward!

Posted by: rayacop | February 7, 2008 1:45 PM | Report abuse

In the NY Times, "one Clinton adviser explained the focus on March 4 this way: "There's a chance we may not win a single primary or caucus in February, so we're banking on Ohio and Texas."

The waiting game sounds like another failed strategy of another New Yorker.

Posted by: halloitsmark | February 7, 2008 1:43 PM | Report abuse

Jackie, I agree with your comment, in general.

Were neither D candidate to campaign in TX, and were Bill White, Kirk Watson, and the like not to work for either:

metro Austin is heavy BHO, metro Dallas and metro Houston are slightly BHO.

The Valley depends on whether the machine is motivated or not. Remember, they supported Tony Sanchez for Gov. and then sat on their hands.

In Austin, chicanos are split, chicanas are for HRC 2 or 3-1. But that may change. Rumor is Gonzalo Barrientos will endorse BHO.

All this will change as they campaign and endorsements come down. Ron Kirk's backing in Dallas is worth a fortune in good will and maybe cash, and BHO has it. But Mario Gallegos in Houston is a good 'un for HRC.

They are gonna have fun on the D side in TX.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 7, 2008 1:40 PM | Report abuse

'Any Black who vote for Clinton should be hang from a tree'

hatred ...shown by illiterate morons like this is despicable and hysterical

Posted by: claudialong | February 7, 2008 01:02 PM


Posted by the world reknowned expert on that topic.

All your best buzz words in a single sentence - hatred, despicable, moron, illiterate, hysterical

you can play the drindl game at home by simply shuffling these words and randomly inserting other words between them.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 7, 2008 01:12 PM

You are a top-notch moron do you know that, kingofzouk? Is this acceptable?:
'Any Black who vote for Clinton should be hang from a tree'
There isn't an adjective that can truly describe people like you and ebubuk2004.

But here's another: repugnant.

I would think such slander is from a Republican. Even an Obama supporter would not say something like this. But since they are silent, I wonder.
'Any Black who vote for Clinton should be hang from a tree'
Wow.

Posted by: tuscany1 | February 7, 2008 1:39 PM | Report abuse

mark_in_austin,

One place to get info on New Mexico's Super Tuesday "activities" is at Joe Monahan's blog for today at http://joemonahansnewmexico.blogspot.com/

Heath Haussamen also has several blog entries covering this story, particularly the entries:
"Colón apologizes, explains Rio Arriba situation" and
"Richardson criticizes state party"
Heath is at:
http://haussamen.blogspot.com/

All the New Mexico newspapers are following the story, of course, the Trib, the Journal, etc.

As for all the Repugnican baiting of Democrats following Super Tuesday, I want to be clear: Of course I (and most Democrats) would vote for Hillary if she wins. McCain's 100-years war idea belongs to another country and a different century, maybe the 1600s or before. John McW? I don't think so!

I just want Hillary to be put on notice that the primaries should be a clean and fair fight, and it sure didn't look that way last Tuesday in New Mexico.

Posted by: JC505 | February 7, 2008 1:32 PM | Report abuse

mentally unbalanced

you got me drindl, I did leave that one out of your drindl at home game. Kids use that one too.

All your best buzz words in a single sentence - hatred, despicable, moron, illiterate, hysterical and mentally unbalanced.

With some work, you can be an out-of-work loony leftist writer too. then you can blog all day every day. you can brush up on your cut and paste skills too. just go to move.on or Kos and then come back. no thinking required.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 7, 2008 1:32 PM | Report abuse

'you can play the drindl game at home by simply shuffling these words and randomly inserting other words between them.'

it's so charming the way you think about me constantly, zouk, but it's really not healthy for you. living your entire fantasy life on this board, all day, every day, proves that you are mentally unbalanced and that nothing you say is credible.

Posted by: drindl | February 7, 2008 1:25 PM | Report abuse

Terry MCAuliffe's front loaded primary schedule has backfired on the Clintons. With the campaign running on fumes, its hard to convince super delegates you are inevitable.
http://jtaplin.wordpress.com/2008/02/07/money-politics/

Posted by: Trumbull | February 7, 2008 1:23 PM | Report abuse

Can any Obama supporter tell me one thing that he has accomplished in the Senate since he went there 4 years ago?

Posted by: GSWAGNER | February 7, 2008 11:44 AM
--------------------------
Obama was responsible for writing and securing passage of at least three significant pieces of legislation:


These include the Lobbying and Ethics Reform Act of 2007, the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006,and the Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act.

HRC has NO similar accomplishments as a Senator that I know of.

According to the Library Congress, Obama has sponsored (not co-sponsored)more legislation in three years than HRC has in seven.

Consider this. Stop parroting HRC talking points (or Obama's) and do your homework.

Posted by: mnjam | February 7, 2008 1:14 PM | Report abuse

hatred ...shown by illiterate morons like this is despicable and hysterical

Posted by: claudialong | February 7, 2008 01:02 PM


Posted by the world reknowned expert on that topic.

All your best buzz words in a single sentence - hatred, despicable, moron, illiterate, hysterical

you can play the drindl game at home by simply shuffling these words and randomly inserting other words between them.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 7, 2008 1:12 PM | Report abuse

Does anybody have a reasoned estimate of how big of a delegate lead Obama can build during the rest of February?

Posted by: jbentley4 | February 7, 2008 1:09 PM | Report abuse

I am a left of center and right of MoveOn.org type of Democratic supporter. I cannot with true conscience support Barack Obama against McCain.

Experience is very important to me given the crises our country is going through. Inspiration is good for sprints not for marathons. Given that McCain is a maverick centrist who is not beholden to right-wingers, it's a no-brainer for me to vote for him. I won't be voting for the Republican party, just him.

And let me tell you, just as you are fervently with Obama, there are a lot of us who fervently stand for solid Experience. We don't dislike Obama - how can we, we hardly know anything about him - but we stand for the sort of toughness and experience Hillary has. Your insisting that she has no experience just won't do. It only shows me your lack of objectivity.

Ever heard of SCHIP? She worked with Ted Kennedy and Orin Hatch to put it in place. SCHIP covered 6.6 million children and 671,0000 adults at some point during Federal fiscal year 2006, and every state has an approved plan. This ALONE makes her better than Obama to me. She chaired the Adoption and Safe Families Act. Of course she has done much more. As for her ability to be a crossover candidate despite the myth of polarization created by RNC and consumed without any independent thinking by star-gazers, this is from Senator Lindsey Graham the same guy who led Bill Clinton's impeachment:

"In the Senate, a small body of big egos, Senator Clinton, 58, is sought out by her colleagues to form legislative partnerships. Her high-profile status, combined with a reputation as a smart, prepared, serious Senator, creates real influence. In a short time, this blue-state Senator with a blue-state perspective has managed to build unusual political alliances on a variety of issues with Republicans Bill Frist, Sam Brownback, Elizabeth Dole, Rick Santorum and other conservatives.

As a red-state conservative, I have found common ground with her on improving health-care benefits for members of the National Guard and Reserve. We also created a bipartisan Manufacturing Caucus to help promote and address the problems facing America's manufacturers."

Nothing has impressed me more than the toughness with which she has withstood the near wall-to-wall opposition unleashed on her by Progressive Media, Mainstream Media, and the Conservative Media. I have seen no even-handedness.

But there are independent-thinkers like us who can still fight off the rabid hatred/propoganda. There are some of us who can fight off the irrationality. And while we might not be overwhelming we are a substantial number (note CA, MA, NJ and even MO, CT where she barely lost). We might not win the day for her but we are principled too. Many of us cannot and won't vote for Obama merely to protest against the injustice of those who have a pen and a microphone. That won't be my reason. I just want good, proven experience and toughness.

Posted by: aamittal | February 7, 2008 1:09 PM | Report abuse

'Any Black who vote for Clinton should be hang from a tree'

whoever you are, you should be shot for that comment. the kind of irrational hatred of the clintons shown by illiterate morons like this is despicable and hysterical

Posted by: drindl | February 7, 2008 1:02 PM | Report abuse

svreader,

You want Obama supporters to argue policy, fine.

The success of Hillary Clinton's healthcare plan depends on too many moving parts.

She wants a mandate on health insurance for every American. That's a noble goal, and I respect it. However, in order to insure that it is affordable for both citizens and the government, she's going to have to cut costs, wouldn't you agree?

So, let's say that Congress is putting a healthcare bill together based on her plan. In this bill is the mandate, as well as sweeping changes in the form of tax breaks to individuals and families. The cost cutting measures are there. It all looks so very nice.

Now, here come the lobbyists, keeping Congresspeople in fat campaign contributions. They don't want the cost cutting provisions in the bill. Out they go.

Without the cost cutting methods, all you can do is increase the tax breaks, which doesn't really help anyone not already paying taxes, huh? So maybe you subsidize them. Now, here come the deficit hawks, going out of their minds with fear over exploding the deficit with these subsidies and tax breaks. So that's out.

Soon after, you'll have labor unions and fair taxation orgs running around with their hair on fire, screaming about how this new mandate of healthcare will reduce working Americans to abject poverty. No more mandate.

Your bill goes nowhere, because the special interests will cut it off at the knees.

Now, Obama's plan:

Start by mandating coverage for every child in America. Meet the system halfway. I dare what would likely be a large Democratic majority (along with at least a few R's) to say no to healthcare for all children.

Get that through Congress, then hammer away at healthcare costs by limiting the power of special interests to dictate the terms. Take more measured steps.

Then, when you've got those pieces in place, go in for the full mandate.

The problem with Clinton's version of how to get things done is that she's trying to beat the opposition over the head with it. Come in with the laundry list and demand it. All you'll get from that is people who want to beat you working even harder to do so. She's trying to perform surgery with an axe, not a scalpel.

Look responsible, take measured steps, and win the bigger argument. Turn the public perception your way, and push Congress into line. That's the Obama way, and it will get things done.

Posted by: cam8 | February 7, 2008 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Actually, I think svreader and ebukbuk2004 should start dating. Then they can get married and take a long honeymoon far, far away from this site.

Posted by: Blarg | February 7, 2008 12:56 PM | Report abuse

We need A BLACK MAN in White House!!!! Pay back time for 30 million innocent souls you killed.

Tell me what the Clintons did for black people?

Any Black who vote for Clinton should be hang from a tree

Posted by: ebubuk2004 | February 7, 2008 12:49 PM | Report abuse

Matalin, rather.

Posted by: bsimon | February 7, 2008 12:45 PM | Report abuse

"This isn't about winning or losing"

I would expect no more from you Libs. you're right, wars aren't about winning or losing??????

Judge - irritated that even you now realize how loony most of the lefties are. how little sense their arguments make. how drindl and spectator and crisis and rufas pollute this blog daily with chanting and other nonsense, no basis in reality.

at least you were brave/honest enough to finally admit it.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 7, 2008 12:44 PM | Report abuse

thecrisis
"svreader and zouk should start dating. I think they would hit it off, though they might not be able to hear each other over their respective rants."

A Madeline-Carville matchup for The Fix! Perhaps the blog title could be changed to 'The Fix-Up'.

Posted by: bsimon | February 7, 2008 12:43 PM | Report abuse

thecrisis --

Americans are waking up and realizing Obama is a hype-filled empty suit.

There's nothing but hot air holding up him, his campaign, and his supporters.

Hillary will win. Obama will lose.

Posted by: svreader | February 7, 2008 12:40 PM | Report abuse

I'll report back Saturday evening what sort of reception the candidates get at the big statewide J-J dinner in Richmond that afternoon. Right now, from my vantage point, it looks like Obama has the institutional support (Kaine, Wilder, a bunch of state and local officials from all over the state), the netroots support (minus Not Larry Sabato), and the grassroots support of volunteers and donors. If VA is Hillary's best hope in February, this is going to be a very bleak month for her.

Posted by: novamatt | February 7, 2008 12:40 PM | Report abuse

The pro-Obama spin is out of control once again.

WA: Toss. He's got both senators against him, he's down 24 in the polls, and Clinton is fighting hard for this state. No more big uncontested caucus wins for Obama.
LA: Toss. Whatever blacks are left in NO vs. Northern La. which borders AR (See: So. MO, East OK)
NE: Toss. This state is nothing but working-class whites. That's Clinton's base.
ME: Clinton favored. Most of the population is part of an urban corridor that extends from southern NH/northern MA. Obama campaign projects this as a loss according to leaked spreadsheet.
VA: Clinton favored. Smallish black pop vs. large white rust-belt population. (See: George Allen.)
MD: Obama favored. Governor and machine against him will keep it very close.
WI: Clinton favored. This state is full of working-class whites, it's a primary, and Clinton will sure as hell pay attention after MN.
HI: Toss. Birth state where Obama hasn't lived in almost 3 decades. Majority asian-american and pacific islander, and Clinton has Inouye's endorsement too.
Dems Abroad: No clue. Obama lost American Samoa, tied in a poll in France, will probably lose Britain. 100 people in Indonesia won't balance that out.
DC, Virgin Islands: Ok, Obama will win these. Clinton can claim moral victories by getting to 40%.

Posted by: Nissl | February 7, 2008 12:38 PM | Report abuse

svreader and zouk should start dating. I think they would hit it off, though they might not be able to hear each other over their respective rants.

Zouk - no Democrat said we are "winning" so cut the trashy spin. Murtha said the surge was working (in decreasing violence) but no one said we were officially winning, and that's beside the point. This isn't about winning or losing. It's about what's the greatest value to the American people, and crippling our military while spending $1 trillion in the process is not exactly valuable to the American people. Wake up.

And when are you going to cut the childish name-calling? "Lefty loonies" if you realized were just normal Americans with jobs and families, you might realize we might actually be RIGHT on a lot of these points. How shocking!!!

svreader - your ridiculous amounts of unrelated posts are starting to bore me. It's like every few minutes you think of a new ridiculous thing to say about Obama and feel compelled to run here and post something about it. Now you're talking about him being polka-dotted. I think you're running out of ideas. Get a life.

Now that you realize how likely it is that Clinton will lose the nomination, you're trying to find a way to make Obama/Clinton more likely. Like we NEED Clinton in the White House in one way or another. Get it straight - Obama doesn't need Clinton any more than he needs Karl Rove's advice. Though I'm sure you like Rove as much as Clinton, eh?

Posted by: thecrisis | February 7, 2008 12:37 PM | Report abuse

"Judge - walk a mile in my shoes.
Posted by: kingofzouk | February 7, 2008 12:30 PM"

With all due respect, don't bait me, KOZ: you profess your unthinking, unyielding hatred of any and all things D whenever your fingers touch your keyboard.

Posted by: judgeccrater | February 7, 2008 12:35 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps Mark in Austin can amplify this? My impression, living outside of Houston, is that our Hispanic pop does not vote at nearly the rate of those in California.Sure HC will win in San Antonio,El Paso and in the valley, but I see big Obama wins in Houston, Dallas, and Austin. I cannot say who I expect to win, but I do not see Texas as an HC walkover...Jackie

Posted by: rfowler2 | February 7, 2008 12:35 PM | Report abuse

I'm starting to wonder if its even worth trying to push a combined ticket.

Obama is a "cult of personality"

Obama supporters are in love with him.

It may be that the best think is just to defeat them at the polls and choose someone else as VP.

Obama supporters don't want win-win.

They want Obama/Obama.

Maybe they can clone him.

Posted by: svreader | February 7, 2008 12:35 PM | Report abuse

"Thanks to a massive effort by the Press and the insurance companies we're in real danger of losing any chance of getting Universal Health Insurance.

That's what's behind Obama's fund raising surge!

No Hillary = No Health Insurance!!!

Maybe Obama's hot air can keep people warm at night!!!

If he gets elected, its Jimmy Carter 2.0!

I'd rather have Hillary!!!"


Posted by: svreader | February 7, 2008 11:49 AM

svreader, I (and others from posts) find you pathetic. If the Hillary's run to the White House implodes on itself, the Clintons have only themselves to blame: not Obama, not the Media, not the "vast right-wing conspiracy", no one but themselves.

HRC/Bill run a campaign filled with smear, sleeze and Rovian wedge tactic that would shame the late Lee Atwater. HRC/Bill and their various surrogates distort Obama's words and records without shame. Yet you think (from your other postings) Obama should consider the veep slot with Hillary? Hillary needs Obama to get elected, but I surmise that once elected, Hillary will have no further use for him and Obama will find himself on the outside of the camp. I think not.

So let Hill/Bill machine (which has been running for decades) propel her to the White House. Let the LBJ descendants help Hillary to the Oval Office. Let the money Bill received in his foundation from the uranium miners for the dirty deal in Kazahkstan prop up Hillary's run. Let all those people who Bill pardoned (including Marc Rich) vote for Hillary. Let's see how far Hillary gets versus McCain. Is Hillary having fun yet?

Posted by: meldupree | February 7, 2008 12:33 PM | Report abuse

I'm tired of voting for fakes and empty suits no matter what color they are.

This election should be about who the best person for the job is.

Instead its another "who would you rather have a beer with"

I hope people wake up before its too late!!!

Posted by: svreader | February 7, 2008 12:33 PM | Report abuse

Obama's money scheme is very simple, he has devised a method where "lobbist" money coming to his campaign as "personal" money to buy pass any scrutiny of his "vote for money" scheme. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03exelon.html?hp
I understand his black supporters, but his idealist white supporters will have a rude awakening when the guy goes back to his old habit.
Obama "does not" take campaign money from "lobbist", but takes "personal" favor from Rezko to pay for his house

Obama "does not" take campaign money from "lobbist", but "appoints" lobbist to run his campaign, and those lobbist are told "not to ask their friends to donate personally"

Obama "talks" against neuclear waste leakage and "takes" "personal" money from high level "Company" bosses http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03exelon.html?hp


"Include" people donating $2 to buy a bumper sticker and include them in your donor list to show a large number of donors

A typical Chicago politician.

Anyone supporting any politician should not be naive to "believe" in existence of a "kosher" candidate. Instead focus on the results.

Clinton don't get the healthcare passed in 1993 for "all", comes back in 1996 and delivers for "children". It is a "strong" pursuit of achieving "good cause" that make them seperate from pretenders.

Posted by: SeedofChange | February 7, 2008 12:32 PM | Report abuse

Romney's out!!

He is suspending his campaign. I don't know what that means but it sounds to me like Mittens is throwing in the towel.

Posted by: AndyR3 | February 7, 2008 12:32 PM | Report abuse

"Hillary Clinton is the best person for the job"

reasonable people can disagree on this assessment. Personally, I think she's not the best candidate in the race; at least two are better alternatives. If we consider former candidates, that list grows.

Posted by: bsimon | February 7, 2008 12:30 PM | Report abuse

CC,

I am not sure I agree with your anaylsis on Maryland being solidly in the Obama camp. Before I moved up to the frigid North East, I was a Maryland native and its mostly middle-manager white collar and blue collar. Those folks, in Massachussetts, went strongly for Clinton. Also, the eastern and western portions of the state are rural and somewhat conservative. While the African-American population is pretty high in Maryland, I don't know that its enough to counter Clinton's strengths. Should be a close contest.

Posted by: seannewengland | February 7, 2008 12:30 PM | Report abuse

Michelle Obama is correct, we Black people tired of voting for whites

Michelle is homely, but she is correct.

Posted by: ebubuk2004 | February 7, 2008 12:30 PM | Report abuse

bsimon - I went to high school in Maine, and think it will be an interesting race there. They have some of the same pro-independent streak that New Hampshire does, which seems like a plus for Obama. At the same time, I could imagine the same type of turnout from women who are unhappy with the way the media reports on HRC that we saw in New Hampshire.

If I were to guess right now, I'd guess that it goes to Senator Clinton, but is close.

Posted by: rpy1 | February 7, 2008 12:30 PM | Report abuse

Judge - walk a mile in my shoes.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 7, 2008 12:30 PM | Report abuse

Also Vermont still has a very high opinion of Howard Dean who was one of the first people to recognize Obama's potential early in 03, and I would bet that his folks up there will come out in force for Barack.

I agree with the folks who have previously mentioned that Obama will make a strong push in Maine and could take it.

Posted by: AndyR3 | February 7, 2008 12:26 PM | Report abuse

I have made an astounding poliscientific discovery. Apparently, there is a D subpopulation that considers other D's to be mindbogglingly stupid. The dataset supporting that, painstakingly collected over years of effort, is found below.

Let me know when I need to go to Stockholm to collect my Nobel.

"Can any Obama supporter tell me one thing that he has accomplished in the Senate since he went there 4 years ago?"

"No Hillary = No Health Insurance!!!"

"Americans can't afford Obama and his supporters."

"How can you unite the country when you can't even unite your own party?"

Posted by: judgeccrater | February 7, 2008 12:26 PM | Report abuse

I don't care if Obama is purple with pink polka dots! he's still not the right man for the job.

How about picking the best candidate this time.

Hillary Clinton is the best person for the job.

Even if she is a girl!!!

Posted by: svreader | February 7, 2008 12:24 PM | Report abuse

We need a BLACK MAN in the White House!!!

Obama said, this is "OUR TIME"... indeed, this is "OUR TIME"

Posted by: ebubuk2004 | February 7, 2008 12:23 PM | Report abuse

Bush / Cheney told us:

1) They WMD.
2) They were behind the 9/11 attacks
3) They will welcome us as liberators
4) the insurgency is in its last throes
5) we are winning

1 - indeed there were at some time. they were used in Iran and on the Kurds. And he wanted more.
2 - nope never said it. show me the link or the quote or stop quoting fiction as fact. they were harboring bad guys though.
3 - it looks like we are liberators now, doesn't it? remember the purple fingers?
4 - they are now getting retarded women and children , sound like recruiting is going well?
5 - well even Murtha and the NYTImes thinks so. Perhaps you loony lefties should pick up a newspaper once a month.

I guess my bigger point is that you continue to look back and try to run against Bush instead of advancing any positive aspects of your own candidates. Is that because there is no there there?

Hey Obama - where's the Beef?

Jimmy Carter 2.0 indeed.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 7, 2008 12:21 PM | Report abuse

The world needs both Clinton and Obama.

If Obama supporters want a shared ticket we can make it happen.

If they want to force this issue to a single winner, that winner will be Hillary.

Obama supporters are snatching defeat from the jaws of victory and if Democrats lose we will never, never, forgive them.

The only force that can defeat Clinton/Obama is a small hard-core of Obama supporters.

If they win, the Democratic party will lose in November.

Clinton supporters want our candidate on the ticket just as much as you want yours.

The only solution that will bring the party together is Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton.

Posted by: svreader | February 7, 2008 12:20 PM | Report abuse

svreader,

1. By posting the same thing 10-20 times, you are not increasing the Clinton support here. You only make it obvious there is only one person who hasn't figured out what Obama is about, yet.

2. You want to talk about the issues?

Health Care -
Hillary wants to FORCE people to buy health care. Not only is this a horrid idea to Independents, it's also not what America is about. People don't need to be forced to buy themselves something. I agree that everyone needs it, but people are not buying it because they don't trust the system. Trying to force them to buy into a system they are disgusted with will backfire HUGE. Obama's plan is aimed at reducing costs and increasing transparency, while still giving people a choice. Children must have it because they don't have a choice, but Obama believes adults can make this decision for themselves.

War in Iraq -
Hillary votes with the tides on this one. She's for it, she's against it, surely she'd be for it again if it ever started going well over there. Obama is against the war (and war in general) by PRINCIPLE. He believes in diplomacy and can not be convinced to go ignorantly barreling into war just because people are angry or frustrated. This shows immeasurable maturity and coolness in times of chaos.

Economy -
Neither Clinton nor Obama have much experience in economic matters. But if running a $100 million campaign is anything like running a business, it seems that Obama is MUCH smarter with his money and isn't spending himself into debt to win. He's motivating and rallying the voters for their support, just like a good president should do. If Clinton borrows money to run her campaign, how could she avoid doing the same to run the country?

Obama is also more intelligent than Clinton and has broader support from fiscal conservatives. This means he will have a stronger cabinet than Clinton that will be more able to put forth sound fiscal legislation.

Clearly, Obama wins on the issues. Any more to talk about?

What it ultimately comes down to is that Obama is better at inspiring people to make a positive difference in our personal lives, which translates to a healthier country in every way. He is uplifting, he is positive and he is progressive. Hillary wants to do nothing but "beat" the Republicans, which isn't going to get anything done for the country. She simply wants to increase the power of her status and her party, which is not what the country needs. We have seen seven years of Bush increasing the power of his party and now it's collapsing in an epic fashion.

Only Obama can bring the country together AND move forward with positive changes that help every American.

Obama '08.

Posted by: thecrisis | February 7, 2008 12:19 PM | Report abuse

svreader:

I agree with the above poster. Your postings are so consistently nonsensical that I long ago concluded that you are either a plant for the hardcore right or on Hillary Clinton's payroll.

Good luck with getting paid, either way.

Posted by: miraclestudies | February 7, 2008 12:15 PM | Report abuse

We need a BLACK MAN in White House!!!!

Pay back time for Slavery, you people killed 30 million of my people!!!!

Posted by: ebubuk2004 | February 7, 2008 12:15 PM | Report abuse

I predict that this will go all the way to the convention, with no clear winner before then. then the sticky situation with the FL and MI delgates and the also unpleasant aspect of all the "superdelgates" will emerge. you can bet that hillary has several chits waiting to be cashed in both of these arenas.

the result will be that hillary wins by pogrom, an old soviet method. Obama's supporters will be furious and all vote R.

What a splendid outcome for all of us.

It illuminates the corruption of the Dems and more particularly the clintons and it delivers an electoral victory to the good guys.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 7, 2008 12:14 PM | Report abuse

says KZO: "The nation as a whole is stronger when it can trust its President..."

Bush / Cheney told us:

1) They WMD.
2) They were behind the 9/11 attacks
3) They will welcome us as liberators
4) the insurgency is in its last throes
5) we are winning

This country, our great nation, NEEDS Barack Obama

So does the world...

Posted by: AdrickHenry | February 7, 2008 12:13 PM | Report abuse

svreader, I think you're a troll.

I am a Clinton supporter who would be delighted to vote for Obama in November if he is the Democratic nominee.

The only way I would vote for "100 years in Iraq" McCain is if there was a gun to my head.

Posted by: bethorr | February 7, 2008 12:13 PM | Report abuse

Clinton supporters offered Obama the VP slot and great chance at 16 years in the whitehouse.

We've said that we prefer Clinton/Obama but will accept Obama/Clinton if he wins.

Michelle Obama was positively rude when asked if she's support Hillary.

What are we supposed to think?

It seems like we're the ones trying for party unity and you're the ones practicing "win-lose" politics as usual.

How can you unite the country when you can't even unite your own party?

So far, it seems like Obama and his supporters say one thing and then do the exact opposite.

Posted by: svreader | February 7, 2008 12:09 PM | Report abuse

Chris, you failed to mention that Barack will himself be in Bangor, ME on Saturday...he's on the TV here...Barack is not giving up the state of Maine.

Posted by: arlee1 | February 7, 2008 12:07 PM | Report abuse

Answering my question from The Nation ( http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?bid=45&pid=281227 ):

"If Clinton had the resources to compete through February, she could have delayed the loan by a few days, and federal rules would not have required its disclosure until March."

Posted by: egc52556 | February 7, 2008 12:05 PM | Report abuse

svreader: And if Clinton wins the nomination, Obama supporters who are sick of being demonized by Clinton supporters (like you) will also stay home. Be a little more friendly to the people who may help elect your candidate.

I hope you understand what I'm saying. If not, I can add some more exclamation points!!!!!!

Posted by: Blarg | February 7, 2008 12:03 PM | Report abuse

The more Obama supporters attack Senator Clinton, the more they lose the support of Clinton supporters and ensure that we will either stay home or vote for McCain.

Obama's strategy is going to backfire, bigtime.

Posted by: svreader | February 7, 2008 12:02 PM | Report abuse

The crisis --

Why don't Obama supporters try posting about the issues for once?

Posted by: svreader | February 7, 2008 12:00 PM | Report abuse

If TennGurl and JC are posting facts and not mere talking points, they are useful facts.

I assume TennGurl's numbers could be verified from public sources. TennGurl, do you have a cite?

JC, do you have a newspaper article or any other source? I tend to accept what you have said, but would want some back up before I added it to my personal store of "believed credible" info.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 7, 2008 12:00 PM | Report abuse

Chris wrote: "The more Machiavellian among us would suggest that is exactly what the Clintons want -- turn Obama into the frontrunner and then score a come-from-behind victory."

Definitely Plan B for the "inevitable" nominee, huh?

What happened to HRC's "cakewalk" through the primaries to her coronation?

Posted by: miraclestudies | February 7, 2008 11:59 AM | Report abuse

svreader,

You sound like a neocon. Stop posting please, go find Rush Limbaugh's forums.

Posted by: thecrisis | February 7, 2008 11:59 AM | Report abuse

If Obama wins and Hillary isn't on the ticket, Clinton suppoters will stay home or vote for McCain.

Good luck winning without 1/2 the Democratic Party.


Posted by: svreader | February 7, 2008 11:58 AM | Report abuse

bsimon: Neither Barack or HRC have done that much since they have been in the senate. The big difference is Obama got to this postion by talent and work, while Hillary was given this position through a sham marriage.

Posted by: vbhoomes | February 7, 2008 11:58 AM | Report abuse

Obama should win Maine. Sure, Bill and Hillary will swoop in, but they have little organization on the ground. The Obama people, on the other hand, have been organizing in the state for a month. And -- you forgot to mention, Chris -- Obama himself will be going to Bangor on Saturday. If there is a Clinton campaign in Maine, there aren't many signs of it yet. And Dem attitudes towards Baldacci are rather lukewarm, so I don't see his endorsement giving her much traction at all.

Posted by: jbaughma | February 7, 2008 11:55 AM | Report abuse

Here in New Mexico - due to Democratic Party bungling - we're still waiting for the official vote tally to be conducted. Hillary is slightly ahead, but 17,000 provisional ballots need to be counted or tossed.

In one notoriously corrupt county, Rio Arriba, the head of the Clinton campaign kept the ballot boxes in his house overnight rather than turning them in as required. And guess what? The voting there went overwhelmingly for Hillary!! Who would have thunk it? Chicago Ward politics, eat your heart out!

However, it is becoming clear that the Hilary faction in the Democratic party has gamed the "causcus" in others ways, too.

Prior to February 5th, the head of the Democratic party was playing down how many Democrats would be voting this time around. "Maybe 30,000 or 40,000," he said and printed out just that many ballots and distributed them.

After big Obama rallies in the state last week, it was very obvious that many more Democrats were going to vote than that and over 140,000 tried to vote. As a result, thousands of motivated voters were turned away or went home in disgust.

The third largest city in New Mexico, Rio Rancho, had only one polling location and many hundreds were disenfranchised!! This was an active voter suppression effort by the Clinton-leaning Dem party leaders and it worked: Obama and Hilary are going to split the vote, and instead of there being an Obama win Billary will likely "win". Of course, the delegate count will be fairly even, so the practical impact is nil.

A tiny victory for Billary, but it sure opened my eyes to how desperate she is to win. If continued elsewhere, this sort of undemocratic behavior is not going to play well. In New Mexico, it's sort of what we've come to expect from our Democratic "leaders."

Posted by: JC505 | February 7, 2008 11:55 AM | Report abuse

Clinton is a poor manager with money.. She did the same thing in NY.. She raised $70 million against a Republican stand in and left with only $10 million..She is doing the same thing now with her presidential campaign..
The past is indicative of the future..

If she can't manage her own campaigns finances what makes anyone think she can handle the nation's financial woes.

Posted by: TennGurl | February 7, 2008 11:55 AM | Report abuse

Americans can't afford Obama and his supporters.

Posted by: svreader | February 7, 2008 11:53 AM | Report abuse

cmss1 : "She's low-balling expectations yet again"

I agree. The money news is so potentially devastating that Clinton's campaign would not have let it be released unless they wanted it to be released. [Was Clinton required to release this information at this time?]

Obama and his supporters cannot afford to be complacent.

Posted by: egc52556 | February 7, 2008 11:52 AM | Report abuse

gswagner asks
"Can any Obama supporter tell me one thing that he has accomplished in the Senate since he went there 4 years ago?"

About as much as Sen Clinton has accomplished in her 8.

Posted by: bsimon | February 7, 2008 11:51 AM | Report abuse

Maine could be interesting. It seems to be a curious state, politically. While on the one hand, the Clinton campaign has the Gov on their side, on the other Mainiacs have elected two Republicans to the Senate. Back to the first hand, those Senators are women. Can Maine be predicted based on such stereotypes?

Posted by: bsimon | February 7, 2008 11:49 AM | Report abuse

Thanks to a massive effort by the Press and the insurance companies we're in real danger of losing any chance of getting Universal Health Insurance.

That's what's behind Obama's fund raising surge!

No Hillary = No Health Insurance!!!

Maybe Obama's hot air can keep people warm at night!!!

If he gets elected, its Jimmy Carter 2.0!

I'd rather have Hillary!!!


Posted by: svreader | February 7, 2008 11:49 AM | Report abuse

While it is wise not to overemphasize the role of money, Obama's 7.1 million plus in the past 36 hours indicates a high level of support and enthusiasm. Clinton may regain her footing, but we also could be witnessing the early stages of an implosion. Obama's resource advantage will help in April. I read that he will open 10 offices in Texas, and the hybrid primary-caucus format should play to Obamas grass roots organizational skills. Vermont could very well go to Obama as well. There are a number of colleges in the state as well as high income people in Chittenden County. Like Bernie Sanders, Obama appeals across party lines and to Republicans as well.

Posted by: welchd | February 7, 2008 11:48 AM | Report abuse

Thanks to a massive effort by the Press and the insurance companies we're in real danger of losing any chance of getting Universal Heal Insurance.

That's what's behind Obama's fund raising surge!

No Hillary = No Health Insurance!!!

Maybe Obama's hot air can keep people warm at night!!!

If he gets elected, its Jimmy Carter 2.0!

I'd rather have Hillary!!!

Posted by: svreader | February 7, 2008 11:48 AM | Report abuse

Unfortunately, all the people I know in Maine are old hippies/socialists/anarchists. (Or their children, who are still significantly left of center.) So I can't say much about how the Maine caucus will go. Especially since Kucinich, their favorite candidate, is out.

Posted by: Blarg | February 7, 2008 11:47 AM | Report abuse

Whether in Arkansas or in Washington, Hillary Clinton has spent decades parlaying her husband's political clout into both money and power. How did that benefit anybody but the Clintons?


For those people whose memories are short, go on the Internet and look up Whitewater, the confidential raw FBI files on hundreds of Republican politicians that somehow -- nobody apparently knows how -- ended up in the Clinton White House illegally.


Look up the sale of technology to China that can enable them to more accurately hit American cities with nuclear missiles. Then look up the money that found its way to the Clintons through devious channels.


Look up Bill Clinton's firing of every single U.S. Attorney in the country, which of course included those who were investigating him for corruption as governor of Arkansas.


It may be old-fashioned to talk about character and integrity but they can have a lot more to do with the fate of this nation than "experience" at playing political games.


More to the point, Presidents of the United States lacking character and integrity have inflicted lasting damage on the office they held and on the nation.


The country has never trusted Presidents as much as they did before Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon betrayed that trust. Trust, like other features and powers of the Presidency, is not simply a benefit to the particular incumbent.


The nation as a whole is stronger when it can trust its President who, after all, has vastly more knowledge available on both domestic and international problems and threats.


It would be hard to find two people less trustworthy than the Clintons or with a longer trail of sleaze and slime.

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell020508.php3

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 7, 2008 11:46 AM | Report abuse

Can any Obama supporter tell me one thing that he has accomplished in the Senate since he went there 4 years ago?

Posted by: GSWAGNER | February 7, 2008 11:44 AM | Report abuse

Louisiana may not be such a sure thing for Obama. Katrina greatly effected the demographics of LA and its black populaiton in particular. Also Bill Clinton's support with GHW Bush might help out Hillary some. Also this is a state where John Edwards is really liked and if he endorsed then it might help solidify LA for Hillary or Obama.

Also If you look at the states that Obama does well in (missouri for example) they are purple to Red states just like Virginia. I think he will do very well there and win the Chesapeake primary in a sweep.

Posted by: AndyR3 | February 7, 2008 11:42 AM | Report abuse

what's next? - bill is scheduled to go off to china and give more speeches, the money to be deposited in their "joint" account. Favors pending after the election.

We are talking about the grifter clintons, aren't we?

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 7, 2008 11:38 AM | Report abuse

Clinton is doing exactly what Giuliani did. Wait through a month of brutal defeats to try and get to the holy grail...but when you get there, you realize that the brutal defeats took it right out of your hands.

Obama supporters need to keep up the good work, keep donating, keep volunteering and see him through to a victory in November.

Any time I need an Obama pick-me-up, I just go and watch the Will.i.am youtube video that he created for Obama, independently of the Obama campaign. It brings tears to peoples' eyes.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=2fZHou18Cdk

Posted by: thecrisis | February 7, 2008 11:38 AM | Report abuse

If she cant run the finances of her campaign what makes anyone think she can handle the nations finances..

Obama raised $7.4 million in one day.. That is amazing..

Hillary is bad with money.. Here is a example. Hillary raised $70 million for the Senate race in NY against a nonexistant challenger.. In the end she only had $10 million dollars left. She blew her money on things like $100k worth of flowers. Hillary just has poor managment skills.

Posted by: TennGurl | February 7, 2008 11:36 AM | Report abuse

She's low-balling expectations yet again, while Obama (again) let's his get out of control. Irritating. Plus, Hillary is now focused on online donors -- I'm quite sure she'll be just fine with money moving forward. She's already raised $5M since Tuesday.

Posted by: cmss1 | February 7, 2008 11:32 AM | Report abuse

Hillary in money trouble...
The 30 odd million that she spent in her NY senate re-election against a nobody should have come back to haunt her, and it did.

Posted by: mgopala | February 7, 2008 11:23 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company