Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Who Won?

The Fix, up WAY after his bedtime, is turning in for the night.

Here's where things stand.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) has won primaries in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island.

Senator Barack Obama (Ill.) has won the Vermont primary and leads in early tabulations in the Texas caucuses.

So, who won? Sound off in the comments section below. We'll be back tomorrow with our winners and losers from tonight's proceedings.

By Chris Cillizza  |  March 5, 2008; 1:32 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 Wins Ohio; Promises to Continue the Campaign
Next: Ohio-Texas Two-Step: Winners and Losers

Comments

How can you claim Hillary won Texas when in fact she did not??
You seem to do so by totally ignoring the caucus votes, which account for about a third of the delegates.
Even CBS accurately reports that Obama won (or is winning - since the final certification won't come til the end of this month). CBS is one of thew to report the facts accurately.
How are we to trust a media that seems as intimidated by Clinton as the Russian media is by Putin?

Posted by: omegareport | March 9, 2008 7:10 PM | Report abuse

You are kidding, right? Ga the hope of the country and the rebel flag, Saxby Chamlis and Perdue slime machine is now the future of this country and California, New york and Ohio are the past?

In what parallel world is your statement: "Ohio is the past center of Democratic strength, not the future. It hardly represents the present, in terms of jobs. Look at where the jobs and population are moving to: GA.."

Posted by: leichtman | March 9, 2008 4:03 PM | Report abuse

dlove: you understand that Mo was essentially a tie that out of a million and a haf voters Obama prevailed by less than 10,000 vote which is less than a 1/2 of one per cent difference.
Both candidates of course are honorable patriots.

Posted by: leichtman | March 9, 2008 3:56 PM | Report abuse

"First off, you ask where I got my numbers. These were taken directly from the Washington Post today (I think from Ohio and Texas voters). Roughly 45% of Democratic voters were happy with both Clinton and Obama and would support either in a general election. Around 25% would support one or the other. More for Clinton than Obama, belying the claim that Clinton voters would go for Obama but not vice versa. So, that makes around 70%. There were previous polls indicating 80% of Democrats were happy with their choices."

Ok so you admit your number are only from tx and clinton. Ok. Cool. I thought you were talking about over the whole country. Which would have made you a liar.

What were clinton's poll numbers in those two states two months ago? HAHAHHAHA

You show you are a propogandists blade. You got gop texas and union old style ohio. WOW. you got numbers as a whole? I'd love for you to front yourself off.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 6, 2008 1:41 PM | Report abuse

Clinton won the right to stay in the race past PA if she wins there. Then it will go to superdelegates and a possible primary re-election in MI and FL. Hopefully they will choose the will of the people in making their choice. A disaster would enfold in the loser of the primaries were to be selected.

Posted by: jameschirico | March 6, 2008 1:05 PM | Report abuse

WE all lose as we sink back into the good old slash and burn strategy that has led to so much acrimony in politics. If Hillary wins, how the hell will she be able to deal with Congress, it will be just more backbiting and gridlock. Obama's ideal of change just wont happen with such a polarized person as Clinton.

Posted by: nclwtk | March 6, 2008 11:25 AM | Report abuse

I will concede the point, Bongo. Given that, it would indicate that MO is truly a reflection of the electorate, because the end result will be close, however the numbers suggest that Obama will be the one to come out on top.

Our state also has a heavy Independent presence which leans more toward Obama than Clinton and that, Mr. Bong, seems to further support the results we have seen from MO for the General, as well.

By the way, I was a Clinton supporter until I witnessed her willingness to tank the party for her own gain. I was one of her female constituents. And as we used to say in my Clinton circles, bonguser200, A WIN IS A WIN!!!!

SO GOES MISSOURI, SO GOES THE PRESIDENCY! ;o)

Posted by: dlove127 | March 6, 2008 11:10 AM | Report abuse

Yeah you are right about Missouri ... except Obama only won it by 10,000 votes. Additionally, the state went exactly 50/50 among registered DEMOCRATS according to exit polling ...

Sorry Obamacan!

Posted by: bonguser2000 | March 6, 2008 9:15 AM | Report abuse

Yeah you are right about Missouri ... except Obama only won it by 10,000 ... and according to the exit polling data the state went EXACTLY 50% / 50% among registered democrats.

Sorry Obamacan

Posted by: bonguser2000 | March 6, 2008 9:14 AM | Report abuse

It's hard to believe that so many are being taken in by Clinton's spin. Obama made up an enormous amount of ground, he still leads in delegates, he's won states across the US and will win more, and she's "ahead" and a "better leader" because of fear mongering?

Ohio is the past center of Democratic strength, not the future. It hardly represents the present, in terms of jobs. Look at where the jobs and population are moving to: GA, NC (my nephew and his family just moved there), other parts of the South and SW. It's not over yet.

Posted by: parkwells | March 6, 2008 8:58 AM | Report abuse

hmm, real tough question Chris ...

Hillary BLEW OBAMA OUT OF THE WATER.

She won 82 of 87 counties in Ohio - a race where many predicted she either lose or win by a small margin ... she won WHITE MEN by 10% state wide ...

In Texas where Obama was supposed to win - he lost by 100,000 votes or 3.5%.

Rhode Island was an 18% victory.

Who won?

Once PA goes for Hillary, she is the front runner.

Posted by: bonguser2000 | March 6, 2008 8:56 AM | Report abuse

Just a bit of correction on the spin d' jour:

SO GOES MISSOURI, SO GOES THE PRESIDENCY!

Missouri has selected the president for the past 100 years, save once.

Being from the Show Me, I just thought I'd chime in!

Posted by: dlove127 | March 6, 2008 12:42 AM | Report abuse

The media won, of course. CNN, Fox and those other self-proclaimed leaders in objective journalism did a 180 degree flip from their earlier reporting of the Obama wave sweeping the nation and began subtley promoting Hillary during the week before the Ohio/Texas/etc election. With "The Spin Stops Here", one would expect a Bill O'Reilly expose to analyze the sudden change in TV coverage and media influence on the election, but objectivity has its limits. Fox's Sean Hannity even clipped the end of Obama's late hour speech, claiming that "Senator Obama has now received equal time with Senator Clinton...." CNN at least carried the remaining two or three minutes of the speech.

Posted by: jazz1002 | March 6, 2008 12:18 AM | Report abuse

Alan, that makes sense. I understand your point now I think. (Didn't RFK campaign in SD and CA at the same time in 1968?) I would think a rotating regional primary system (I kind of like 8 groups of states voting every 2 weeks instead of 4 groups voting monthly) could go a long way to addressing your legitimate complaint: that a whole region of the nation gets ignored cycle after cycle. Byron Dorgan has certainly championed that aggressively, in 04 holding out his endorsement for someone who'd promise to make a campaign visit to ND. Unfortunately no one took him up on it.

To the person listing VT Gov. Douglas as a loser from last night:
Yesterday's votes in VT have nothing to do with Jim Douglas' reelection chances. Maybe you've missed the years of impeachment resolutions, towns threatening to secede from the state and join New Hampshire, Act 60 controversies, and all kinds of other bizarre, eclectic votes and decisions Vermont towns have made in the years Douglas has been Governor (or any of his predecessors, for that matter). It's the nature of the state and its politics. It bears no relationship to the Governor's race. He won easily in 2006 and will probably do so again. The Dems haven't bothered to field a serious candidate against him since he was first elected in 2002. I grant it seems pretty anomalous that RI and VT of all places have GOP governors. But then again, who thought WY, KS, and OK would elect Democrats?

Posted by: jon.morgan.1999 | March 5, 2008 10:28 PM | Report abuse

As an outsider (Australian) I have noted watching the "democrats" that I have become an "anti-Clinton" bystander.

I liked her over the years but having seen the Michael Moore movie "Sicko" her health care position as "first lady", and now her heavierly funded campaign by the "big pharma" I have seen her as a "pure" opportunist!

Her negative attack on Obama, only had to add "Osama" to go the "whole nine yards" on attempting to destroy not only him but the party! I certainly couldn't vote for her if I were an American, it seems it's all about me (Her). Our former prime nminister here in Australia was very much like your Hilary, he lost his seat and a government of over 11.5 years was lost because it was all about (HIM) mememememe!

I like Barrack, I think as the democratic nominee, he will be the person to get the USA back where "she" belongs, an icon of what is possible in our world!

America don't let us down, please!

Posted by: porpie9254 | March 5, 2008 8:33 PM | Report abuse

Friendlyfire - Your post would be powerful in the absence of the Obama campaign's pust to force superdelegates to follow the popular vote. Hello? If the rules are the rules, then the superdelegates should do what their conscience tells them and MI&Fl don't count.

Both campaigns are going for tactical advantage. Obama is cheating on superdelgaets. Clinton on the queue jumpers. Noone is clean here.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | March 5, 2008 8:29 PM | Report abuse

Did ANYONE see this guy on Hardball tonight? Terry McAuliffe just did a segment where Chris Matthews asked him whether or not the candidate with the most pledged delegates going into the convention should win. McAuliffe basically responded NO, that the Democratic National Party rules provide for the super delegates and "rules are rules." Ironically, however, as he is talking, the screen rolling below him announces Clinton's plan to make a case for seating the Florida and Michigan delegates when these states held primaries against the Democratic National Party rules. Seems that "rules are rules" ONLY if you are not a Clinton trailing in delegates. And, didn't Senator Clinton say that no president has ever won the white house without winning Ohio? Isn't that exactly what John Kennedy DID?

Posted by: friendlyfire | March 5, 2008 8:19 PM | Report abuse

There is really only one trend that matters now and that's how long Hillary decides to undermine the strength of the Democratic ticket to win in November. For Hillary to win the nomination one or both of two things need to happen: a) the delegates from Michigan and Florida are included and b) she somehow convinces enough superdelegates to support her. I believe both of those scenarios do nothing but damage the integrity of the Democratic party as I believe Obama will come out ahead in pledged delegates.

At the same time she's making the campaign more negative and taking the party through the gutter. Which tells you everything you need to know about Hillary. She'd risk the success of the whole party to even have the most miniscule chance of being elected president. All for the Clinton glory. I actually wonder if she'd have any regrets if it all unfolds that way and McCain ends up president because of it.

Posted by: angej | March 5, 2008 8:01 PM | Report abuse

Oh, my. That is a delicious post.

First off, you ask where I got my numbers. These were taken directly from the Washington Post today (I think from Ohio and Texas voters). Roughly 45% of Democratic voters were happy with both Clinton and Obama and would support either in a general election. Around 25% would support one or the other. More for Clinton than Obama, belying the claim that Clinton voters would go for Obama but not vice versa. So, that makes around 70%. There were previous polls indicating 80% of Democrats were happy with their choices.

Now for the fun stuff. You asked me to make a choice. I DID. You pose false choices--Obama or facism.

You know little of policies. Please tell me the critical policy differences between Clinton and Obama that make her a conservative Republican. Preferably without any of the innumerable typos that litter your posts. I know--cheap shot--but at some point one has to care about one presents oneself. It's like walking around with an open fly,

Well, enough troll feeding for the evening. I am heartened by the polls posted tonight indicating a significant lead for either Clinton (6%) or Obama (12%) over McCain.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | March 5, 2008 7:50 PM | Report abuse

"I am someone who voted for Sen. Clinton and will happily support Sen. Obama. That puts me in with about 70% of the Dem. party. So, I guess we're all sell-outs by your definition. "

Time will tell. Where do you get your numbers? Off the top of your head.

It's all good. You sell-out moderates do your worst saboatage. It's not working. Do yoru worst gop. Clinton cannot win. That is a fact. Say what you will. She and her supporters are now sabotuers with the gop. She is going to be on mccai's ticket. I'll expect an appology in a few months. :)

Check the archeives. Rufus 1133.

When you gop propogandists are right and I'm wrong then I'll start giving you credibility. I haven't been wrong yet. Check the archieves. But you don't have time for that. our here to rip people up. Just like your candidate. Do your worst gop.

I just want america to make a choice. The gop and what they represent and what they've done to this country, Or not. That's all.

Clinton is a false choice. She is the most conservative republcain left. Voting for her is supporting the gop but acting like yoru not.

I just listened to a mlk speech. He said he agree's with dante in one aspect. The hotest fires of hell burn for the people who stand idely by and allow horrible atroicties to take place, while never taking sides.

Pick a side clinton supporters. Are you gop or not. If so fine. Make the choice at least have the courage to be honest about it.

I just want a choice from you people. Is that to much to ask when my brothers and sisters are dying daily. Is it to much to ask people which side they are on? I guess so.

do yoru worst clinton/gop propogandists. Let's see who wins.

I said in the past i would be for three parties. The fascist right nazi's, the moderates and the left. Then when the moderates sell us out at least they will not be in party sabotuers. At least they will have to face the conseqeunces of tehir own treason and sabotage without the good liberals giving them moral cover.

choose moderates. Choose a side and stand strong. I don;t care which side. If your with the gop, be proud. But I do not pity you people for stabbing me and my movement in the back.

The hotest circle of hell burns for those who refuse to take sides and allow atrocities to take place in their name. As a chrsitian man I do not think everyone should think like me (as the gop does). But I do expect you to choose.

CHOOSE A SIDE AND VOTE! (without the cross party sabotage please.)

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 5, 2008 7:38 PM | Report abuse

Who said Hillary won? Figure Obama's percentage of the election delegates (126 total to be awarded)and his current percentage of precinct primary delegates (67 to be awarded). Then do the same with Clinton's. Comes out 96.74 Obama and 93.74 Clinton. Granted only 39% of the primary convention returns are in at this time but it could get worse for Clinton. Texas isn't decided. My precinct convention was 2 to 1 Obama.

Posted by: lharris_wax | March 5, 2008 7:15 PM | Report abuse

Krishna...

I have to thank you for an evening's entertainment. That and PatrickNYC (loved your posts, even if it amounted to troll feeding, a weakness of mine).

I am someone who voted for Sen. Clinton and will happily support Sen. Obama. That puts me in with about 70% of the Dem. party. So, I guess we're all sell-outs by your definition.

So, please, keep blogging. I'm sure that Mr. Nader will appreciate your support.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | March 5, 2008 7:07 PM | Report abuse

still it's the principle. :)

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 5, 2008 6:40 PM | Report abuse

"rufus --

Our projections show the most likely outcome of yesterday's elections will be that Hillary Clinton gained 187 delegates, and we gained 183.

That's a net gain of 4 delegates out of more than 370 delegates available from all the states that voted.

For comparison, that's less than half our net gain of 9 delegates from the District of Columbia alone. It's also less than our net gain of 8 from Nebraska, or 12 from Washington State. And it's considerably less than our net gain of 33 delegates from Georgia.

The task for the Clinton campaign yesterday was clear. In order to have a plausible path to the nomination, they needed to score huge delegate victories and cut into our lead.

They failed.
"

David Plouffe, BarackObama.com

Carry on gop. your right your right. Let's just disregard reality or change the rules so you have a chance. Or not. :)

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 5, 2008 6:38 PM | Report abuse

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by: PastorGene | March 5, 2008 6:15 PM | Report abuse

here here right pat and dave. forget e primus unum. We are now "the few the proud the propogandists". Bow to the gop cult and their masters of spin and lies or pay the price. So much for e primus unum.

Way to destroy democracy gop. Let's see how histroy recrds your treason.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 5, 2008 05:50 PM
------------------------------

You can always tell when you cuy and paste, it's the only time there are not spelling errors. So if I get you right, anyone who disagrees with the dribble you type is GOP.

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | March 5, 2008 6:00 PM | Report abuse

Since this site is done for the day.

"ABRAMS: Rush Limbaugh and others on the far right [are] now trying to pervert tomorrow's results, calling on Republicans in Ohio and Texas to vote in the Democratic primary for Hillary Clinton -- not because they like Clinton, but because they want to keep the Democrats in disarray.

RUSH: Perverting the democrat process? What did you guys do to our process? All you Democrats and independents crossing over, not only in 2000, but here in 2008, nominating and voting for Senator McCain. What, you guys are going to vote for McCain in November? You think we don't understand what you were doing here? You're trying to choose our nominee, why can't we try to choose yours? You like people across the aisle so much, you ought to be happy that a lot of Republicans cross the aisle and voted for a Democrat instead of thinking the process has been perverted. You know, I got a note from somebody saying, "William F. Buckley would have never done this! William F. Buckley!" I beg your pardon, William F. Buckley did once -- William F. Buckley and National Review Online -- set up an organization called BuckPac, and you know what the result of BuckPac was? The election of Joe Lieberman! BuckPac was a political action committee to get rid of Lowell Weicker, a liberal Republican. BuckPac most certainly is an example of William F. Buckley standing up for conservative ideals, just as what we did in suggesting Republicans vote for Mrs. Clinton. It's the same thing. Conservative ideals! Yeah, we're trying to cause a little mischief, but how come it's only mischief when we do it and how come it's great democracy when the Democrats cross the aisle and corrupt our nomination process? A little tit-for-tat here, is how I view it. Now let's go to the show after the tease. On DNCTV, Dan Abrams talking with Democrat strategerist Laura Schwartz about my call for more Republicans to vote for Senator Clinton in Ohio and Texas. Abrams said, "Do the Democrats have something to worry about here? I still think there are going to be some Republicans even when they want to engage in this kind of mischief, who are going to have problems actually pulling the lever for Hillary."
"

here here right pat and dave. forget e primus unum. We are now "the few the proud the propogandists". Bow to the gop cult and their masters of spin and lies or pay the price. So much for e primus unum.

Way to destroy democracy gop. Let's see how histroy recrds your treason.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 5, 2008 5:50 PM | Report abuse

Hillary won because she accomplished her goal which was to win TX and OH. March 4 was do or die and she was able to do.

Also, she was able to get people to take a good look at Barack and see what he's really made of. I like Barack, but think in time he will be matured enough to be president. Currently, he's not quite there.

Hillary for prez 2008!

Posted by: butterfly2 | March 5, 2008 5:46 PM | Report abuse

"By Randall Palmer

OTTAWA (Reuters) - The leak of information about Barack Obama's position on the North American Free Trade Agreement was "blatantly unfair" to his campaign, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said on Wednesday.

Harper said the government was mounting an "internal security investigation" to find out who leaked the information, which suggested Obama's campaign had said not to pay too much attention to his protectionist rhetoric on NAFTA.

"This kind of leaking of information is completely unacceptable and in fact ... it may well be illegal," the prime minister told Parliament.

"It is not useful, it is not in the interests of the government of Canada, and the way the leak was executed, Mr. Speaker, was blatantly unfair to Sen. Obama and his campaign."

Obama's rival in the U.S. Democratic primaries, Hillary Clinton, had seized on the Canadian information to try to demonstrate that Obama could not be trusted on foreign affairs and that he said one thing in private and another in public.
"

Is the question who won? Or what people will do to try and win? I think yesterday tells us much more about the clintons AND this country. Very sad day for america. One party government is slavery.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 5, 2008 4:54 PM | Report abuse

I was educated, some could say "schooled", in the ridiculous Texas caucus last night. We were denied entry to our polling place for almost 90 minutes after our polling place closed. The poll workers said "they had to verify all votes cast that day". We called BS on this and they locked the doors in our face! Dozens of people got fed up and left. We were allowed to enter at 8:30 and finished up at 10:00. We ended up with 62 people at the caucus, 34 votes for Hillary and 28 votes for Barrack. Hillary received 7 delegates and Barrack received 5.
I am very proud of all the people who stood in lines last night and hung in there to have their choice recorded (I hope it was recorded)
I was elected a delegate and look forward to going through the process and possibly making it to Denver.

Posted by: NanFan56 | March 5, 2008 3:53 PM | Report abuse

support the troops pat. Or mock them for fun. you show yoru gop face. Use us. Hide behind us. NEver respect us or our opinion. Now you know why yoyr party is done.

What pat. You thought no one would know your one of rush's sabtuers and call you out? Not to bright are ya?

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 5, 2008 03:05 PM
-----------------------------
Not as bright as you sunshine!!!

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | March 5, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

Maybe your parents didn't drop you on your head after all, maybe you've been building model planes and forgot to put the cap back on the glue.

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | March 5, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse

we know your gop tricks. It may be the internet. But we know gop propogandists when we see you. By your fascist tactics.

Go back to drudge and get you rmarching orders. Let yoru masters think for you as you are unable to think for yourself. i don't hate you for that. Dittoheads are so for a reason. You have to be. Without your masters you would be unable to function in the political enviornemnt. No context no understanding of what is going on.

Enjoy your irrelevance old man. With the gop. you people sure have earned it. don't blame the world for your parties downfall. lasck of credibility and accountability destroyed your party. Not the media, not obama, not judges, not schools. YOU people destroyed your own party. Leave the democratic party alone. I know destroyin gboth parties is your only hope. But we are smarter than the average bear.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 5, 2008 3:10 PM | Report abuse

support the troops pat. Or mock them for fun. you show yoru gop face. Use us. Hide behind us. NEver respect us or our opinion. Now you know why yoyr party is done.

What pat. You thought no one would know your one of rush's sabtuers and call you out? Not to bright are ya?

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 5, 2008 3:05 PM | Report abuse

Hey JKrishnut, you say you were in the armed services? You mean they gave you a weapon? I hope it wasn't loaded.

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | March 5, 2008 2:58 PM | Report abuse

wow fish. Nobody goes after obama? Everyone goes after clinton? wow.

"why do I always get asked the first question?"

WOW.

he is fighting gop, the moderate sell-outs and the media. He is fighting the whole gop machine. hillary is harnessing it for her advantage. After what they did to her? WOW.

I have to assume you are a propogandists or don't know what you are talking about. She can't win. not happening. she is just delaying the inevitable. Destroying her party in the process.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 5, 2008 2:58 PM | Report abuse

"it's important that our next president have respect for the system, and be willing to work within it, as hillary has proven"

you mean like rush limbaugh and coulter getting sabotage vots. you mean like counting and trying to recount mi and fl after the fact? you mean like throwing her party/country under the bus for her own personal ambitions.

I disagree wholeheartedly with your post.

clinton is now a republican insurgant. All the things said about bush and his gop, now apply to clitnon. Her choice. Her ambition is destroying her party. Her party was the only hope to save this great nation from teh gop horde. She's throwing it all away and stabbing us all in the back for her own ambition. gop mindset alright.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 5, 2008 2:55 PM | Report abuse

See pat.

that is why the gop (clinton) included is done. propoganda. your not real. your not patriots. this is a game to people like you. When no one is looking you hide.

I'm not laughing. Destroying my country for fun? That's your game?

you show all indepenandt thinkers who come here your face.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 5, 2008 2:52 PM | Report abuse

clinton. and the democratic party. it is becoming increasingly apparent that he cannnot win the big, democratic states. and, the more people get to know him, the more they see that he has nothing to say. this talk of a "movement" is a sure path to a mccain/bush-3 presidency. he needs to put in a little more time to show that he's actually willing to do the work of governing. campaigning and winning is NOT what being president is about. bush/cheney/rove has proved that. once they got there, they knew nothing about governing. it's important that our next president have respect for the system, and be willing to work within it, as hillary has proven. also, fl and mi should definitely count -- millions of people went to the polls and expect and deserve to have their votes counted. no one forced them to remove their names from the ballot. besides, it's the obama campaign that is pressuring the super delegates, behind the scenes, to switch sides, while blaming the clinton campaign. and much of the pressure is racial, as with john lewis. if the clinton campaign did this, their would be an uproar. the double-standard in this race is staggering, but the media can't talk about because they've been too busy slamming the clintons, an easy target. no one goes after him, why? the bottom line, if hillary is not the democratic candidate, those who want an experienced candidate that has paid their dues will probably vote for mccain -- so much for the supposed democratic states. if obama is the candidate, the democrats will lose. if he is truly for the party, he will throw his support to hillary and unite the party for a democratic win, something the country sorely needs after 8 years of bush.

Posted by: ifish22 | March 5, 2008 2:51 PM | Report abuse

"It looks like Rush Limbaugh's call for Texas Republicans to vote for Hillary worked. She got about 116,000 Republican votes in the Texas Primary yesterday.
http://jtaplin.wordpress.com/2008/03/05/republican-mischief-in-texas/

Posted by: Trumbull | March 5, 2008 02:41 PM
"

differant from obama's gop'ers. Clintons are republcain sabotuers. obama's are disallusioned republcains. Big differance. one side is sabotaging the proces, obama's side is engaging in it. you know the saying. you lay with dogs you get fleas.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 5, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

"Wednesday March 5, 2008 08:39 EST
The "Rezko" game
Throughout the 1990s, the word "Whitewater" was the weapon used continuously by the Limbaugh Right and the establishment press to cast innuendo on the Clintons' financial lives. The word was just tossed around as slippery shorthand for corrupt dealings. It never had any substance. No specific allegations of wrongdoing were ever made about the original "Whitewater" transactions by those throwing the term around. And after $73 million was spent on an endless investigation, no wrongdoing on the part of the Clintons was found.

One could read literally thousands of news accounts about the "Whitewater scandal" and never encounter a single, specific charge of impropriety. The word simply stood for a series of confusing, complex, boring financial transactions that were combined with dark and vague innuendo which, repeated enough, led to a "where-there's-smoke- there's-fire" presumption of guilt. Slothful journalists could not get enough of the tactic because tossing "Whitewater" around required no real work, active investigation or critical thought -- the mortal enemies of most establishment reporters -- but instead was just a cheap and easy way to imply that they were pursuing some sort of scandal.

"Rezko" is the Whitewater of the Obama campaign. It's almost impossible now to find an article or news account about Obama that doesn't include some dark reference to the "Rezko" affair, always with the suggestion or even overt claim that it's reflective of some serious vulnerability, some suggestion of wrongdoing and corruption. But what is it? The reporters throwing the word around quite plainly have no idea.

Having paid only casual attention to it in the past, I spent several hours yesterday morning reading every "Rezko" article I could find in an attempt to understand as much as possible about the allegations. The point isn't that there is no credible evidence of any wrongdoing on the part of Obama, although that's unquestionably true. It's far beyond that. There aren't even any theoretical allegations or suggestions as to what he might have done wrong at all. The person who is accused of wrongdoing is Tony Rezko, in matters inarguably having nothing to do with Obama. Nobody claims otherwise (although many try to imply otherwise).

The only substantive connections Obama and Rezko have is that the latter was a contributor to Obama's campaign and was a partner in a standard residential real-estate purchase which nobody suggests, at least in terms of Obama's conduct, was anything but above-board. But Rezko himself has a sinister-sounding, villain-like last name and is of Syrian origin, which, for multiple reasons, helps build the shallow media drama.

But Obama isn't even accused of -- let alone proven to have engaged in -- any wrongdoing at all. I spent many years litigating all sorts of civil cases involving financial transactions like these. Few things are easier than concocting some nefarious angle to innocuous real estate transactions, yet they can't even do that here. Despite that, the "Rezko" innuendo lurks and grows and clearly isn't going anywhere.

Yesterday, Digby -- citing a post she wrote more than a year ago on this specialized GOP template for manufacturing media scandals out of pedestrian though boring financial transactions -- described exactly how this process works:

Over a year ago I took one of my periodic trips down memory lane and roughly outlines the press treatment of the Whitewater story. At the time, the Rezko story was just starting to bubble up out of Chicago, and I explained how these stories are used to degrade the reputations of Democrats . . . .
These are patented Whitewater-style "smell test" stories. They are based on complicated details that make the casual reader's eyes glaze over and about which the subject has to issue long confusing explanations in return. They feature colorful and unsavory political characters in some way. They often happened in the past and they tend to be written in such a way as to say that even if they aren't illegal they "look bad" . . .

No single story will bring down a candidate because they have no substance to them. It's the combined effect they are looking for to build a sense overall sleaziness. "Where there's smoke there's fire" right?

Once the original transaction gets solidified in Media World as representing something dark and bad, then it's no longer necessary to bother with anything specific. Tossing around the innuendo becomes the only thing necessary to continue to fuel it. Here's a classic and quite common example of this genre. As Digby wrote:
These stories are very difficult to control once they get going. The MSM gasbags start "analyzing" the whole thing in terms of whether the subject of the inquiry is being forthcoming or if he's "stonewalling" and it snowballs into armchair psychology and novelistic character studies. From what I gather of the Rezko matter so far, we can probably expect this to have the same trajectory. The press conference yesterday was deja vu all over again.
Early in George Bush's term, it was revealed that one of his closest and most loyal supporters, Enron's Ken Lay, committed one of the most massive frauds in American corporate history. The President's own brother, Neil, has been involved in numerous accusations of serious impropriety and yet continues to be paid by multiple sources for virtually nothing other than being George Bush's brother. The central cog for the GOP fundraising machine, Jack Abramoff, is now imprisoned as a serial felon. Led by his involvement in the Keating Five scandal, John McCain has been linked to some of the sleaziest figures around.

Yet somehow, the standard in those cases is that, in the absence of specific allegations of wrongdoing on the part of the political official, merely being linked -- even intimately -- to thieves and felons won't be held against the political official. By rather stark contrast, the multiple former Clinton associates who were convicted of wrongdoing -- the McDougals and Webster Hubbell -- were constantly used to imply that the Clintons themselves had done something corrupt, and now, Tony Rekzo's conduct is being sloppily and dishonestly cast onto Barack Obama without the slightest attempt to actually make the case that Obama has done anything even arguably wrong at all.

One very simple and self-evidently warranted rule ought to be applied: no reporter should toss around "Rezko" innuendo unless they're able to explain what it means specifically when assessing Obama's conduct, what specific allegations of any substance are being made against Obama when the scary specter of "Rezko" is invoked. If they're incapable of articulating even those basics -- and they are -- then the whole exercise is just deceitful and worthless.

It's precisely the empty nature of the "scandal" that makes it impossible to resolve. The more he addresses it, the more he fuels it; conversely, the more he refuses to address it, the more he will be accused of "stonewalling" and not being forthcoming. It's just illusory innuendo that, by design, can never be satisfactorily addressed because nobody can ever apprehend what the substance of the "scandal" is. Substance-free scandal is the only kind that attracts the intense attention of the media hordes.

-- Glenn Greenwald
"

for mark.

This is why I call clinton supporters republcinas, in a nutshell. How could you fight agaisnt the gop bush and rush all these years, then back clinton. How can clinton supporters resort to these tactics, that have been used so malicously on you?

the answer is simple. Clinton are republcain sabotuers in the democratic party. Would bush have got impeached without clinton being impeached previous? Would bush have gotten away with his crimes without the clinton false crimes to point to.

this is why I assume all clitnon supporters ae really republcains posing as democrats. Either that or they have become what they once fought against. Unless it was all a hoax. Frickin republcains. the internet killed your party. not obama or democrats. Truth killed your party.

To pat. I assume you are against what bush has done to this country. how can you fight bush then back clinton and the same tactics?

Never mind don't answer. I like thinking of you as a rush limbaugh sabotuer. It fits nicely. :)

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 5, 2008 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Keep playing with yourself. you are the master debater or your own world. Call that imaginary land you live in, the land of zouk. :)

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 5, 2008 02:28 PM
-------------------------------
Did your parents drop you on your head when you were a child or was the brain damaged afterwards??

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | March 5, 2008 2:35 PM | Report abuse

pOCK FUN? You have to have credibility. You are playng games with yourself.

Keep playing yourself out. HAHAHHA

I have to care what yo think for your thinking to work. you have to have credibility here (which I do) for your games to work on others.

Keep playing with yourself. you are the master debater or your own world. Call that imaginary land you live in, the land of zouk. :)

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 5, 2008 2:28 PM | Report abuse

"Hope cc bans me again. you can't touch my posts."

Nice point, the one between your ears. If he bans you no one will see your posts you idiot. I for one hopes he does not. It is so fun to poke a stick at you. I wonder if you squeal like a pig when we do??

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | March 5, 2008 2:23 PM | Report abuse

I agree, McCain is the winner. If Clinton is nominated, she will not be able to use the national security or experience cards against him, the only big arguments the Democrats have left are Iraq and age. The first is a non-issue because all three of these candidates want an honorable, negotiated end to hostilities -- they phrase it differently depending on the audience -- and the second just depends on McCain picking a good VP. If Obama gets nominated, the Clinton campaign has cast doubts that the GOP can and will exploit. I'm beginning to be less sure than ever that our next president will be a Democrat.

Posted by: ViejitaDelOeste | March 5, 2008 2:19 PM | Report abuse

While this has all been an interesting social exercise, the inability of either candidate to emerge as the clear choice of the people only adds to the unescapable fact that neither of these candidates will have enough votes for a first ballot victory and then chaos will ensue. The prayer that they can form a joint ticket is beyond hopeful thinking because you can only have one presidentail cadidate per party and neither will take the second seat to the other. And truth be told, neither of these candidates can hope to beat McCain in the general election. Is that because he's the best candidate, no - unfortunately it's because he will be the only white male candidate. Now before you all run to the sexist, racist biggot card, I need only point to history. In the 70's, Tom Bradly the african-american mayor of Los Angeles was ahead of George Dukemajain in every gubernatorial poll that was taken in California right up to and including the day before the election. In the only poll that counts, the voting booth, George Dukemajian won. Why? Simple. No one will admit to being biased or racist in public but everyone will "vote their true heart" in the booth. While it is sad, it is also true that America, in the first decade of the 21st century, is neither intellectually nor socially mature enough to elect a woman or a minority to the office of the President of the United States. What's to do? Can anyone say Al Gore???

Posted by: bob.meyer | March 5, 2008 2:10 PM | Report abuse

clinton now is gop. I agree with your point though.

Why didn't she fight the last 8 years to "keep the gop out" rather than backing them. Then doing their dirty work now.

use both sides of the brain pat. Start there. Then maybe you can compeate here. :)

Where was your candidate when in mattered? the same place she is now. Behind bush and the gop. Leaders lead when they are most needed. Where was clinton during that time? Scared? What "leadership" did she provide when most needed? What leadership is she showing her party now?

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 5, 2008 2:09 PM | Report abuse

I wonder how much of the Republican vote propelled Hillary over the finish line in Texas? (45%) We all know she's never going to get that in the general...

Ultimately, the Dems lost this one. Hillary Clinton's scorched earth sleazy politics have repulsed too many voters. I will never support her- her dishonesty is an insult to American voters and the issues we face are too important to be skewed and spun through her narcisstic drivel.

BTW- I am a WHITE female, over 40. She will lose much more than the black Democratic vote if she guts the party to get the nomination.

Posted by: arielwire | March 5, 2008 01:55 PM
------------------------
I agree with your point, I was very disappointed with the 3AM phone call ad. That said I hope all Democrats will put the primary behind us and keep the GOP out.

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | March 5, 2008 2:03 PM | Report abuse

I just love those who say that primary wins in small western states that have gone with the Republican presidential candidate are unimportant.

Look, the old idea that the Democrats need to just hold on to "Blue" states and concentrate their efforts on Ohio and Florida has been a failed formula in the last two elections. It could have been worse, we owe a big thank you to Ross Perot who was the chief reason we won the presidency in 1992 and 1996.

The inland western states have been trending Democrat. To assume, just because of voting patterns of the past 50 years that those patterns will remain in place forever is to deny history. There was a time when few could imagine Montana going for the Republican. That changed, and history says it will change again.

Campaigning in these states in the primaries gives Clinton and Obama exposure they would not ordinarlily have and that helps them make their case in November.

Howard Dean is right about a 50 state campaign. One of the reasons I like Obama is that he seems to have grasped the importance of not succumbing to assumptions of traditional voting patterns.

Posted by: AlaninMissoula | March 5, 2008 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Whatever you say bsuh/clinton lawyers appolgists.

Someone's got to fight for this country, while you pigs for profit sell us out.

I know this is a moderate/gop site. Why do you think I come here. It's not us liberals/progressvies who are holding up progress. Pat each otehr on the back all day. We are not a nation of dittoheads. your games only work with like minded robots. Not on clear thinking non-partisan americans.

clinton's people are sell-outs. I'm sorry but you are. this is a clinton site, always has been. your taughts and mocking only works amoungst yourselves. Play your games with yourselves. While you do that me and mine will be doing things. Making moves.

while you sell-out people like me do the heavy lifting. Say what you will. Where would america be without my movement? While you while marching to fox's and bush's drumbeat some were fighting the lies and destrouction of this great nation.

I just want you to pick a side. As long as we all knoww hat time it is and clinton is gop, I'm good. I just don't want the coward moderates who have been enabling the gop cult to be able to say they are agaisnt the gop. That's all. I just want it all on the table. Get rid of the sabotuers or at least call them out. that's all.

this is a hillary clinton site. Always has been. your jones effect will not work on me. Hope cc bans me again. you can't touch my posts. Whine cry and complain. That's what you do, right gop (clinton included)? That is your only hope. you no longer can compeate in the marketplace of ideas. All you fascists have is "i know you are but what am I" or "your a dummy."

HAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

who doese elementary shoocl games work on in 2008 political enviornemnt. Grow up children. I'll be waiting when you got something other than fox-like gop propoganda

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

I wonder how much of the Republican vote propelled Hillary over the finish line in Texas? (45%) We all know she's never going to get that in the general...

Ultimately, the Dems lost this one. Hillary Clinton's scorched earth sleazy politics have repulsed too many voters. I will never support her- her dishonesty is an insult to American voters and the issues we face are too important to be skewed and spun through her narcisstic drivel.

BTW- I am a WHITE female, over 40. She will lose much more than the black Democratic vote if she guts the party to get the nomination.

Posted by: arielwire | March 5, 2008 1:55 PM | Report abuse

i really must be untouchable today. So many fascist republicans, so little points of their own. :)

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 5, 2008 01:40 PM

LOOK OUT BEHIND YOU!!!! HE'S GOT A THOUGHT!!!!!

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | March 5, 2008 1:47 PM | Report abuse

the republcains and their moderate sell-out democrats have to do something. They have to find someone to attack and blame for their lack of credibility and accountability. We'll see who buys it.

Beware of your new freinds clinton supporters. the gop cult is not your freinds. Either you are with them or agaisnt them, you heard the saying. Beware of your new buddies. They will turn on you when it suits them.


how many republican lying propogandists does it take to combat and equal one free thinking american? Let's find out shall we. All of you republican cowards!. What do you got on the substance.

thank you mark for the bio. for the right-wing peanut gallery jones effect. Either attack the substance of my posts, or post somethign to counter.
You people are stroking my ego right now.

I'm I that good that you can't touch my posts? i really must be untouchable today. So many fascist republicans, so little points of their own. :)

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 5, 2008 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Who won? The Republicans. They are united and have months to promote their candidate John McCain. The Democrats are split and will not have time to heal primary wounds to be victorious in November. If Clinton wins, she will not have the black support she alienated in the primary (support she needs for November). If Obama wins, he will not have the female support that stands strong behind Clinton (support he needs for November).
Thus, the winner is the Republican Party. It does not matter if it is Clinton or Obama, the Democratic Party will not be able to recover from this primary.

Posted by: NOLAJD | March 5, 2008 1:40 PM | Report abuse

'This is akin to the accidental discovery of an acorn by a blind hog.'

funny, mark. i think my oklahoma grandmother used to say that..

Posted by: drindl | March 5, 2008 1:38 PM | Report abuse

that is true novamatt

it just proves we all have fanatics--if only everyone was able to identify them so easily and ignore them with such humor. :)

Posted by: chadibuins | March 5, 2008 1:37 PM | Report abuse

I sort of like Rufus. His trolling balances out zouk's trolling at least, and it's fun watching people try to reason with either one of them. We all need a laugh every now and then.

Posted by: novamatt | March 5, 2008 1:34 PM | Report abuse

mark_in_austin: "This is akin to the accidental discovery of an acorn by a blind hog"

LMAO :)

Ditto ;)

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | March 5, 2008 1:32 PM | Report abuse

I like that Obama is talking about getting tougher with Clinton.
Posted by: novamatt | March 5, 2008 01:11 PM

I hope he does. She has been skating compared to what the GOP is going to do in the General. She talks about being vetted, I personally don't think she has any idea about how strong the GOP would go after her.
Just take for example the "experience" claim--McCain would have a field day.

Posted by: jnoel002 | March 5, 2008 1:26 PM | Report abuse

mark_in_austin: "This is akin to the accidental discovery of an acorn by a blind hog"

LMAO :)

Posted by: chadibuins | March 5, 2008 1:25 PM | Report abuse

"So what are you going to do if it happens?

Posted by: Spectator2 | March 5, 2008 01:03 PM
"

Move to europe. the gop would be running against itself. a one party govenrment is not freedom or democracy. It will be two sides of the same coin.

If that happens this will no longer be america. I allow with millions of others will flee fascist persecution. the fascist state WILl eat itself, deservadly so.

We risk losing our country this year for good. I am a patriot. you know this spector. You've seen me here. Check the archieves I have been for obama when he was a joke to you people. I was fighitng for obama when doing so got you banned. So you know I am only fighting for my country, in my eyes.

Look at it from someone's perspective who has been fighting the bush's fox's and rush's for years. After all the fighting for the democratic party to sell-out to the gop. for the media to sell-out the country. I mean let the pigs have fox. Why do they need cnn and msnbc also?

It's disheartening for me to see this, after fighting the bad guys all these years. i feel stabbed in the back. Not that i'm whining and crying. I'm not gop. Rather than whining crying or saying "Why does barack get the first question everytime", I'm fighting my enemy. If clinton and her people want to be added to that list, so be it. If the "left-wing" media wants to be added to this list, so be it.

I, and millions of others, are fighting for this great nation. And what it once was. If america is not with that fight, majority rule. But we are no longer america then. And I will leave you people (gop and moderate sell-out dems) to do what you will and face whatever consequences you will face. I will not pity you people. I will live in western europe and pray for your souls. But you don;'t care about that or your souls or your reputation across the world. As long as you got little pieces of paper with old dead guys on it.

Insane to me. But to the insane sanity seems insane. the question is who is insane. Just because crazy people surrond themselves with like minded crazy people does not make them less crazy.

i will not back down until the fight is over. ME PERSONALLY, no one else. I am a soldier and swore to fight our enemies. I said I would not stop blogging until the media was free and open and free of the corporate slavery of money for propoganda. I had said once fox is off the air and rush so will I go.

the fight continues until the end. I and others will not sacrafice my intergrity or this countries ideals. I am not scared of whatever consequence fighting for this country has. I will get jailed or banned or mocked. I am a christian american. I will do that for you people. But I, and my movement, should be alone.

If we are so you are. Pick a side

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 5, 2008 1:25 PM | Report abuse

I just read through this morning's posts over lunch and was amused to see the relative newcomers try to engage Rufus [they know him as JK...].

Rufus has the capacity to bring down any thread with his own hateful anti-Catholic rants; his assumptions that he, a self-proclaimed "democratic-socialist" is somehow within the "liberal" tradition; his rants against FOX news; his rants against Ds, R,s Is, conservatives, liberals, and moderates - all of whom are "facists" [sic] to him.

But what will eventually drive you to wanting to scroll right through will be his cut-and-pastes from "Glen Greenwald", and your recognition that he must actually be ignored.

Every now and then, Rufus writes something that is not lunacy. Do not be fooled. This is akin to the accidental discovery of an acorn by a blind hog.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 5, 2008 1:21 PM | Report abuse

"So I'm a racist now. I tough I was a sexism because I call hillary a republcain. HAHAHAHHAHA"

Man if this is the kind of people we have in our party backing Obama he should be very worried. Oh by the way you idiot, you are both a racist and a sexist. Not a 'sexism'.

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | March 5, 2008 1:17 PM | Report abuse

I'd like to see another FIX take on what experts are saying about fixing the Primary system for next time.

Obviously pushing everything up doesn't work and increases the liklihood of buyers remorse and a not properly vetted candidate (no I am not saying this is Obama--I support Obama) but I do see the potential.

What is a logical way to approach every state getting to participate like this year, but without creating increased confusion and in-fighting.

What do you think CC?

Posted by: chadibuins | March 5, 2008 1:14 PM | Report abuse

I like that Obama is talking about getting tougher with Clinton. For all the guff about how she's been vetted and how all the media hates her, I haven't heard anyone really pressing her on stuff like her tax returns, the Clinton Foundation donors, Norman Hsu, Peter Paul, the relationship between the contributions to her from the financial services industry and her vote on the bankruptcy bill. Or about her weak claims to experience, especially foreign policy experience, all of which seems to revolve around being married to somebody.

Obama's done a great job of staying out of the muck, but making her answer these questions and others like them is a part of the process, and something he should be forcing the media to do, even if it makes Tina Fey mad. The Republicans have a fat file on her filled with lots of stuff that has barely even been mentioned, but absolutely certainly would be before November. Let's get this all out into the sunshine where we can examine it and voters from the remaining states and the superdelegates can weigh it before they make a decision.

Posted by: novamatt | March 5, 2008 1:11 PM | Report abuse

peanut gallery. Nobody cares blade.

Post your posts. if you feel I am wrong or worse, propogating, tell me how.

do you. I'll do me. If I'm wrong tell me how. Peanut gallery no longer works. Republcains cannot bring in their buddies to agree with them and trump other opinions. that was the 90's when elementary school games work. now you must win with credibility and making better points. Not school yard bully games.

So I'm a racist now. I tough I was a sexism because I call hillary a republcain. HAHAHAHHAHA

you republcain sabotuer sell-outs show your faces. While we were fighting bush what were you moderates doing? Where were you? the same place you are now. Hiding behind bush and the gop's skirts.

If I feel clinton is a republcain, based on words and actions, would I be a hypocrite to fight bush all these years then back clinton? Yes I would be. As you clinton supporters are now. not that your bad people. But your republcains now, TO ME. And i will treat you like them. If you don't want that you must pick a side.

Are you fighting the fascists or enabling them? Clinton is enabling them. Rush and coulter are getting republcains to vote for her.

so I'm supposed to take the hits from the moderate sell-outs and gop and the media? Not without a fight. If all are choosing the gop side, fine. But I'm going to call them on it.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 5, 2008 1:11 PM | Report abuse

DanKirkd - "And, btw, there is no way that delegates from MI or FL will be allowed to decide this race. At best they'll be split 50-50, but most likely, they will be left out of the final count as it was always indicated that they would."

Maybe. Maybe not. We'll have to wait and see. Since this is quite the unique situation, I'm not sure any of us knows exactly what will happen. Leaving them out was the intention at the time but that was before anyone thought there would be a race up to the convention. Remember, the whole pushing up of primaries was, in theory, going to allow for an early decision on the nominee. As long as their votes did not make a material impact on the nomination, this theory worked fine. However, if it is close, there will be a lot of pressure on whoever controls the process to allow the peoples voices to be heard and their votes to count. I don't pretend to know how this will happen and you and novamatt might be correct that it won't happen, but I think if the delegate counts are really close, anyone who thinks this is a settled deal and won't become a big issue is in error.

Posted by: dave | March 5, 2008 1:09 PM | Report abuse

hargrove.steven -thanks for the feedback--I agree with everything you said.

Rounds 77-here's one Obama supporter not squirming.

PatrickNYC and FairlingtonBlade--thank you-

JKre . . .give it a rest.

We get nowhere attacking HRC like this. While I think her ads and tone pandered to the petty ignorance of voters--1> she was successful in turning the MO argument and 2>her "attack" ads are NOTHING like what Rove/Bush/Cheney have done--or their counterparts will do--and as Mr. McCain knows--they'll even cut there own party members (McCain SC 2000). Obama needed to be toughened up some--and examined--if he is who we believe he is he'll handle this and come out stronger because of it.

Dems need to STOP whining and being fearful and ENJOY that the country is leaning in our direction, victory is ours for the taking (or losing) and that we have two AMAZING candidates to choose from--Dems are DEF NOT the Losers in this process--the turn out is higher, our approval is higher; and this is messy because we tend to be the party of democracy and we want ALL voices heard--that gets messy the more people participate. Keep focused and keep pressing forward.

Posted by: chadibuins | March 5, 2008 1:09 PM | Report abuse

" HEr carrer with the democrats is over if she loses, based on her tactics and actions."

Tell me what is a carrer? Is that kind of like a 'career'?

If you spent some time reading Chris' articles, instead of just attacking those who you disagree with, then you might learn a thing or two. If Howard Dean seats the FL and MI delagates, as he should and is being pressured to, then if Hillary takes PA she will get the nomination.


If not I'll vote for Obama. I would never vote for anyone in the GOP for any office, let alone the presidency.

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | March 5, 2008 1:06 PM | Report abuse

how long before we start burning witches again?

Posted by: drindl | March 5, 2008 12:59 PM

I understand you have a dread fear of that.

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 5, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

"Let me ask yo something then, hillary appologist. She can't win. It's not possible. "

Of course it's possible, Rufus. May not be the most likely outcome, but it's possible.

So what are you going to do if it happens?

Posted by: Spectator2 | March 5, 2008 1:03 PM | Report abuse

JKrishnamurti - You've gone off the deep end. Not everyone who voted for Clinton is a fascist (and many of us have been Dems for a very long time). You appear to be spending your time attacking other posters rather than making points. The rants about Mexicans are also borderline racist.

BB

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

meanwhile, out in the 'liberal media' america continues to sink to a level of stupidity so profound it's actually hard to imagine:

'While thousands of Americans went to the polls last night, flushed with the civic pride and enthusiasm that comes when careful consideration and a sense of responsibility culminates in the casting of a vote, CNN's Glenn Beck was honoring the day over at his eponymous Headline News show. There, he was brave enough to ask the tough questions - if, by "brave" we mean "obtuse" and by "tough" we mean "inane."

Yea, verily, last night, Glenn Beck hosted anti-Catholic bigot/fervent John McCain supporter John Hagee. And lo, there was a sound that arose from deep in Beck's wordhole. And those sounds formed a question that sounded out across the airwaves unto disbelieving ears. That question: "Is Barack Obama the anti-Christ."

We are not making this up. Glenn Beck, serious newsman, needed to find out if Barack Obama was the Devourer of Worlds, Son of Harlots, Bearer of the Mark of the Beast. John Hagee had to be thrilled by the question: somehow, Beck managed to make Hagee look almost reasonable.

BECK: Let me ask you, I get so much e-mail on this and I think a lot of people do, and I've got a couple of seconds. They say Glenn, you and the media, you got to wake up. Barack Obama's making people faint and cry and everything else. He's drawing people in. There are people -- they said this about Bill Clinton -- that actually believe he might be the anti-Christ. Odds that Barack Obama is the anti-Christ.'

this kind of frightening drivel would not have come out of my TV before the ascendence of the lunatic fringe radical right. how much scarier is it going to get? how long before we start burning witches again?

Posted by: drindl | March 5, 2008 12:59 PM | Report abuse

"I'm on the side of making fun of clowns like you. The fact that you even suggest that Clinton would run on a GOP ticket, or McCain would ask her, shows how stupid you are. No one with any clue would consider such a possibility, except brain dead trolls like you. You are even more fun to poke with a stick than that other idiot kingofzouk.

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | March 5, 2008 12:50 PM
"

so your response is you got nothing and are a divide and conquer republican.

Let me ask yo something then, hillary appologist. She can't win. It's not possible. So why stay in if not for sabotage? HEr carrer with the democrats is over if she loses, based on her tactics and actions. So to keep her carrer alive what will she do? Pull a lieberman? I think so. the gop (clinton included) thinks of no one but themselves. Where as teh democrats think of country above all else, in terms of politics.

Her tactics make her a republcain not my words.

So you blog to make fun of obama supporters, yet you are a "democrat"? Ok. if you say so. I'm calling you a republcain sabotuer. I hope clinton and di fi and biden and their sell-out supporters go with the republcains. Then at least teh democratic party could work without your people's sabotage

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

Whenever you got something old man, I'm ready for you.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 5, 2008 12:45 PM
-----------------------------------
LMAO

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | March 5, 2008 12:55 PM | Report abuse

So dave. more money equals freedom? that is your arguement? ok

Just like money is a form of free speech right. money has destoryed our country, or love of it. Over patriotism or religon or even doing what's right. American ideals it can be summed up as. Doing what's right. Being a patriot. Somewher ealong the line money trumped all. It wasn't always that way. When they founded this country was it for money or freedom red coats?

somewhere along the line love of money (capitalism) replaced american ideals. Hence dave's arguement. the gop believes this. Moeny rules them. Money is nothing but paper with old dead guys on it. it's worth is what it is given.

Once we get american values back the money will take care of itself. IF we get american values back. you fascists somewhere down the line succeded in changing american ideals. Where american freedom equals money. It is a LIE. you can be free without money. you can be a slave with it, as many millions are.

Pelase enlighten me dave (hillary's top appologists and a republcain). Are your ilelgal slaves free or not. Does them making more money here make them free? Double think. Is that why the gop fights for ilelgal immgrants rights to come here illgealy? for their freedom? Waht about mine and our's?

I always thought it was so you could flood the housing and rental markets (hugher rent and housing costs), schools hospitals and social programs (so you can argue the government can accomplish nothing) and the job markets (lower wages).

you show your face dave. hopefully obama or mccain gets on the right side of immagration and enforeces the laws. I don't think mccain wil,, obama may switch. That is the gop's biggest fear. With their slaves what do they got?

how do you hurt people who only care about money and power? Take it from them.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 5, 2008 12:54 PM | Report abuse

I love reading these Obama supporters' posts. They're squirming, and after all the venom they spewed at what they thought was HRC's dead campaigne, some of them are having to eat a bit of Texas crow.

Enjoy the feast.

Posted by: Rounds77 | March 5, 2008 12:51 PM | Report abuse

What side are you on pat? Would that make you happy. A mccain/clinton ticket? Would you vote for that?

If so you belong with lieberman di fi and the rest of teh sell-outs for profit.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 5, 2008 12:43 PM

----------------------
I'm on the side of making fun of clowns like you. The fact that you even suggest that Clinton would run on a GOP ticket, or McCain would ask her, shows how stupid you are. No one with any clue would consider such a possibility, except brain dead trolls like you. You are even more fun to poke with a stick than that other idiot kingofzouk.

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | March 5, 2008 12:50 PM | Report abuse

Hillary won big. She won three out of four states and proved that she had substantial and overwhelming support in some key constituencies of the democratic party. She also stopped most of Obama's momentum. Although she did not increase her count of pledged delegates substantially that is no longer the main game although it is not unimportant. Neither candidate can win enough pledged delegates to win the nomination. If the race stays at is now in terms of count of delegates---essentially a wash---the main game is to persuade the democratic party and specifically the super-delegates/party elders who is the best standard-bearer for the party in November. That is their role in accordance with long-standing rules of the party and when Obama supporters cry foul as though it somehow overturns democratic mandate of the voters, I beg to differ. They are simply trying to cherry pick the rules. Without challenging their complete discretion to support whomever they wish I believe the following are key factors superdelegates should consider: 1) who carried the key states that must be carried for a democratic win in November, 2) in light of the Republican nominee, who stands the best chance of offsetting his obvious strengths as a candidate, 3) which candidate presents the lowest level of voter attrition to the republicans in key states, and 4)party unity.

Posted by: veritabile | March 5, 2008 12:46 PM | Report abuse

Whenever you got something old man, I'm ready for you.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 5, 2008 12:45 PM | Report abuse

RUFUS - "It's called slavery. It's called indenturned servants. It's called corproate SLAVERY."

So people are risking their lives trying to get into this country, sometimes multiple times, just so they can be slaves? And then they try to bring the rest of their family and friends over to also becomes slaves? That seems an odd reason to do that to me. I always thought the reason they were willing to accept the very high risk was because the reward of life in America was so worth it. So to stop the flood of people at the border, is all we need to do is tell them that the American dream is a myth and you will instead wind up slaves? That seems cheaper than a fence or increased border security.

Posted by: dave | March 5, 2008 12:44 PM | Report abuse

"For your information you idiot I am a lifetime Democrat who will be happy with either Hillary or Obama. If I spent the time to correct or address every stupid word you type I'd have to quit my job and spend all day doing so.

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | March 5, 2008 12:32 PM
"

You prove my point for me.

go hillary. go gop!. Down with america and it's ideals

Better pat. Feel confortable now.

clinton is a reulbican. Not because i say so. By by her words actions and tactics. Either you are fighting the fascists or enabling them.

While clinton biden di fi and biden were allowing bush and the gop to destroy this country (zero backbone), millions of americans were fighting them. While yo moderates were setting there allowing our country to be gutted. forgive me, if i feel betrayed by you republcains in sheeps clothing, stabbing us and our movement in the back.

clinton can't win. If she steals the nomination she will lose against mccain. If she loses the nomination she will be his running mate. What side are you on pat? Would that make you happy. A mccain/clinton ticket? Would you vote for that?

If so you belong with lieberman di fi and the rest of teh sell-outs for profit.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 5, 2008 12:43 PM | Report abuse

If Mr.Obama can´t win any of the bigger states he won´t be able to get the electoral votes needed to become President

Posted by: santmann2002 | March 5, 2008 11:36 AM

You and others saying this are totally missing context. Obama has lost "big" states in the Democratic primary. Those results have nothing to do with the General election.
Unless, of course, you are saying that Hillary Clinton and John McCain are nearly identical candidates. But I think we can all agree they are not.

Posted by: jnoel002 | March 5, 2008 12:38 PM | Report abuse

Why, Hillary Clinton's accountant, of course, is the big winner. Now that she has time to make that 30 second phone call to him, he can release her income taxes to the public and charge her $50 for the service.

Posted by: Stonecreek | March 5, 2008 12:36 PM | Report abuse

"I must be speaking turhts"
-----------------------
What is a turhts? Is that like a turd coming out of your brain onto the computer?

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | March 5, 2008 12:35 PM | Report abuse

HRC says she is in the SOLUTIONS business. Her SOLUTION to the Obama MOVEMENT is to go NEGATIVE. She has dropped her change message and gone back to old politics. She has accused Obama of using Rove tactics.It would appear that she has decided to bring Rove tactics to her campaign. SHAME ON YOU HILLARY CLINTON, SHAME ON YOU!!


i

Posted by: vikingfanmarty | March 5, 2008 12:34 PM | Report abuse

Actually, DanKirkd, Howard Dean controls about a third of the seats on the credentials committee, and then the remaining 2/3 are spread out among the states. So there's absolutely no chance of the MI and FL delegations being seated as they are presently constituted.

Posted by: novamatt | March 5, 2008 12:33 PM | Report abuse

I got to give you republicans propogandist patriotic act internet police something don't I. What will you say if I don't misspell? You can't tough my posts. If I don't sacrafice my ego the gop'ers here will run and hide in fear. Just trying to make the fascist cult feel comfortalbe. Authoritarians have to attack something. You can't touch me, so I help.

your welcome. :)

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 5, 2008 12:23 PM

------------------------------
For your information you idiot I am a lifetime Democrat who will be happy with either Hillary or Obama. If I spent the time to correct or address every stupid word you type I'd have to quit my job and spend all day doing so.

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | March 5, 2008 12:32 PM | Report abuse

It makes me feel good, gop, when you go after my spelling. It means I must be doing something right. Authoritarism is dead.

I must be above critque. :)

I must be speaking turhts, along with others. independant thinekrs respect that. Republcains clones propgoandists are threatened by me. always have been. Fear? After the last 30 years of fascist gop rule. I like that.

Your fear will not allow yoru fascism to destroy this country anymore. You have succeded in the short term of destroying your county. you fooled us over the short term. No more.

The gop is irrelevnat for a generation, after obama wins. Enjoy it gop

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 5, 2008 12:32 PM | Report abuse

It is an unwritten rule that rival campaigns will not interrupt or participate in conference calls that another campaign is doing for reporters, donors, or supporters. It is also been Senator Obama who says he will run a campaign that is different and better, one that respects other people and their points of view, one that takes the high road, and does not "challenge the system". Last night, however, we saw something very different and it will be interesting to see if the media discusses it.

First, we have Senator Obama's team filing lawsuits in Ohio and Texas over various issues but have consistently complained when Hillary's team has done the same. While I agree that all voters should have the right to vote let us not think that Hillary's campaign is the only one filing lawsuits to ensure fairness. Let us also remember the Obama campaign filing lawsuits to get voters votes to count if lawsuits are filed in regard to Florida and Michigan.

Moreover, during a CLINTON conference call last night with reporters and others not only did an Obama campaign lawyer listen into the call he actually CHALLENGED and DEBATED the Clinton campaign during the call. This is truly not taking the high road, running a different type of campaign, or being above politics as usual and it will be interesting to see if Senator Obama takes the appropriate action and removes this person from his campaign team. This was an obvious breaking of campaign tradition and the Obama campaign and Senator Obama himself should be asked if this is proper.

Posted by: ericr1970 | March 5, 2008 12:31 PM | Report abuse

For the Clinton supporters who are arguing that FL and MI should be seated, you might be interested in the following quote:

*************************
"We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process," Clinton's campaign said in a statement. "And we believe the DNC's rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role."
**************************

See the following story from W-Post, Sept 2, 2007:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/01/AR2007090101011.html

(in case the link doesn't work, the title is "Democrats to avoid Fla., Mich.")


Posted by: rpy1 | March 5, 2008 12:31 PM | Report abuse

dave - The popular vote totals at http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html show that Obama leads without the thrown out results in MI and FL.

Add FL and he still leads.

Add MI and he barely trails, however "Uncommitted" got 237,762 votes, and surely many of those would have gone to Obama were he on the ballot.

So in reality, with or without the contested votes Obama still leads.

And, btw, there is no way that delegates from MI or FL will be allowed to decide this race. At best they'll be split 50-50, but most likely, they will be left out of the final count as it was always indicated that they would. Keep in mind that that decision will be made at the convention, and the candidate with the most delegates going into the decision making process will control the decision making process. Therefore, if Clinton is relying on those MI and FL delegates to put her over the top of Obama, it just won't happen any way you slice it.

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

dingbat doomsday drindl got her name back.

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

'American citizens, which '

should be' american citizens, who'

another republican presidency will mean more of the same republican party politics. more illegal, improper, big brother/big government spying, peeping and probing, more shredding of the constitution. one of mccain's ideas is to set up a 1950s mccarthy style bureau to spy on americans who might be guilty of 'disloyalty.' mccain has more in common with mccarthy than you think.

'FBI Director Robert Mueller says an upcoming Justice Department report will show the bureau improperly used national security letters to obtain personal data on Americans during investigations.

Mueller's comments Wednesday morning in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee came just days before the Justice Department's inspector general is scheduled to release the follow-up to a similar audit in 2007.

Last year's report found that over a three-year period, the FBI had demanded personal data on people from banks, telephone and Internet providers and credit bureaus without official authorization and in non-emergency circumstances.'

Posted by: drindl | March 5, 2008 12:24 PM | Report abuse

"And JKrishnamurti, learn to use spell check. The only thing worse than your stupid rants is your spelling.

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | March 5, 2008 12:21 PM
'

I got to give you republicans propogandist patriotic act internet police something don't I. What will you say if I don't misspell? You can't tough my posts. If I don't sacrafice my ego the gop'ers here will run and hide in fear. Just trying to make the fascist cult feel comfortalbe. Authoritarians have to attack something. You can't touch me, so I help.

your welcome. :)

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 5, 2008 12:23 PM | Report abuse

Can we add Bill Richardson to the list of losers? He starts off saying that he'll support the candidate with the higher delegate total after today, and then backs off to say that Clinton winning Ohio and Texas would make a big statement.

Is there some way we can get the message through to the press that folks don't care what he thinks at this point?

Posted by: rpy1 | March 5, 2008 12:23 PM | Report abuse

Posted elsewhere by me:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/11/144234/675

Ladies & Gentlemen, this whole mess surrounding the state delegations from Florida and Michigan is a result of the Rules & Bylaws Committee of the Democratic National Committee not strictly adhering to the 2008 Delegate Selection Rules for the Democratic National Convention by applying the rules equally and fairly to all states.

Rule 11.A. of the Delegate Selection Rules for the 2008 Democratic National Convention states the following:

11. TIMING OF THE DELEGATE SELECTION PROCESS

A. No meetings, caucuses, conventions or primaries which constitute the first determining stage in the presidential nomination process (the date of the primary in primary states, and the date of the first tier caucus in caucus states) may be held prior to the first Tuesday in February or after the second Tuesday in June in the calendar year of the national convention. Provided, however, that the Iowa precinct caucuses may be held no earlier than 22 days before the first Tuesday in February; that the Nevada first-tier caucuses may be held no earlier than 17 days before the first Tuesday in February; that the New Hampshire primary may be held no earlier than 14 days before the first Tuesday in February; and that the South Carolina primary may be held no earlier than 7 days before the first Tuesday in February. In no instance may a state which scheduled delegate selection procedures on or between the first Tuesday in February and the second Tuesday in June 1984 move out of compliance with the provisions of this rule.

We already know that Florida and Michigan violated Rule 11.A. by moving their primaries to a date before the first Tuesday in February. There is no argument there, but what about Iowa, New Hampshire, and yes, South Carolina too.

Under Rule 11.A., five states were in violation of the Democratic National Committee's Delegate Selection Rules, and as such, all five states should have been punished under Rule 20.C.1.a.

Violation of timing: In the event the Delegate Selection Plan of a state party provides or permits a meeting, caucus, convention or primary which constitutes the first determining stage in the presidential nominating process to be held prior to or after the dates for the state as provided in Rule 11 of these rules, or in the event a state holds such a meeting, caucus, convention or primary prior to or after such dates, the number of pledged delegates elected in each category allocated to the state pursuant to the Call for the National Convention shall be reduced by fifty (50%) percent, and the number of alternates shall also be reduced by fifty (50%) percent. In addition, none of the members of the Democratic National Committee and no other unpledged delegate allocated pursuant to Rule 8.A. from that state shall be permitted to vote as members of the state's delegation. In determining the actual number of delegates or alternates by which the state's delegation is to be reduced, any fraction below .5 shall be rounded down to the nearest whole number, and any fraction of .5 or greater shall be rounded up to the next nearest whole number.

Yes, you read that right; under Rule 20.C.1.a., Florida, Iowa, Michigan, New Hampshire, and South Carolina would have all lost their super delegates and had their pledged delegates reduced by half since they all violated Rule 11.A.

However, Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina weren't punished fairly. In fact, they weren't punished at all.

And what about Florida & Michigan?

Well, we all know what happened to them.

Instead of strictly adhering to Rule 20.C.1.a. and reducing their pledged delegates by 50%, the DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee decided to take it a step further. The DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee exercised the authority granted to them by Rules 20.C.5. and 20.C.6. which allowed them to "impose sanctions the Committee deems appropriate." And what were those sanctions the Committee deemed appropriate? Stripping two of the largest states in the union of their votes at the 2008 Democratic National Convention.

Ladies & Gentlemen, this is what happens when the rules aren't applied equally and fairly. And as I said before, this mess is a result of the DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee not applying the rules equally and fairly.

So, the next time someone starts talking about the rules, might I suggest two courses of action:

1.) Read the damn rules first!

-and-

2.) Let them know that the rules were bent to allow for Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina to keep their preferred first-in-the-nation status.

Also:

http://www.democrats.org/page/-/pdf/DelegateSelectionRules.pdf


Posted by: PhilTR | March 5, 2008 12:22 PM | Report abuse

yOU KNOW WHAT i MEAN DAVE. iF YOU CAN STOW YOUR divide and conquer partisanship for a second.

you illustrate the gop mindset and what is breaking this country. If americans won't work for peanuts you people will find someone that will. Screw the laws. Screw america. As long as the business owners and house owners are making money. Screw the country. Screw your countrymen.

you better hope you fascists win dave. if not he tables will have turned. you don't respect or give a crap about this country or us. that street can run both ways. Who will heed your people's whining and crying?

the time for pitying and fearing the gop fascists is done. either you are fighting the fascists destroying this country to line their pokcets (TREASON), or you are fighting them. You gop red coat confederates better hope you win. otherwise you are irrelevant for a generation.

As far as clintons illegal mexicans coming here to work. It's not about freedom .It's about econmics. i know you fascsits think money equals freedom. That is the problem. It's called slavery. It's called indenturned servants. It's called corproate SLAVERY. Not freedom. you show your face dave.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 5, 2008 12:22 PM | Report abuse

Florida is a critical state in the general election and it would be political suicide for Obama and the Democratic party, with a nominating contest this close, to disenfranchise its voters. If I were advising Hillary, I would tell her to gracefully "surrender" any claim she may have on the delegates elected in the faulty elections already held in Florida and Michigan, but to demand instead that the party schedules them again for June 3, the date of the last primary in the continental U.S.

Posted by: TommyBarban | March 5, 2008 12:21 PM | Report abuse

If he can't win this election, for the first time in my 58 years I don't want to live here. I don't want to be a part of the political process, because it means that only bull-headedness, crooked innuendo and conniving determine who leads this country. Once you dare to dream, you can't ever go back.

Posted by: justme49 | March 5, 2008 11:44 AM
-----------------------------------
Too funny. If I don't get my way I'm taking my toys and going home. Oh no, you can't go home again. ToTo I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore.

And JKrishnamurti, learn to use spell check. The only thing worse than your stupid rants is your spelling.

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | March 5, 2008 12:21 PM | Report abuse

RUFUS - "Remeber when people fled TO this great nation?"

Obviously you have missed the news about the millions of illegal immigrants that have risked life and limb to sneek into this country. To answer your question, yes I remember when, it was this morning.

Posted by: dave | March 5, 2008 12:16 PM | Report abuse

Winners:

Clinton--broke Obama's winning streak and justified staying in the race for at least two more months, won the two states that she needed to win and comes out of the day with a much-needed boost in the media coverage.

Obama--managed to win won state to avoid a tough sweep and also avoided big losses that would have significantly cut his delegate lead, has several friendly contests on the schedule before the next big contest in Pennsylvania

McCain--sealed the nomination and, because of Huckabee's continued presence and final concession, managed to get more media attention during the night than he would have otherwise, can profit from the continuing fight among Democrats and already has done so significantly with Clinton's "red phone" ad

Huckabee--many questioned why he stayed in the race, but he kept his presence respectable and even did a service to McCain, hard to say if he will turn this into a VP bid or cabinet slot, but he hasn't made big enemies in the McCain camp

Pennsylvania and other late-voting states--kudos for not moving their primaries and caucuses up to Feb. 5, by staying late in the schedule, they are actually having more influence than if they'd opted to throw in with the rush and confusion of the "national primary," which ultimately decided very little in the end

Losers:

Clinton--failed to score big enough to close the margin in the pledged delegate count or to rally a large number of superdelegates to her side, saw leads dwindle considerably heading into these contests, has several unfriendly states on the schedule before Pennsylvania

Obama--for the first time since New Hampshire, he faces a negative media cycle, and this comes at a time when media people are bowing to complaints about pandering to Obama and are starting to scrutinize and criticize more

McCain--has the nomination sealed, but faces continuing questions about his campaign's finances between now and the convention as well as the hint of scandal in ties to lobbyists, faces two months of uncertainty about who his opponent will be and will have to fight to get as much media attention as the Democrats

Posted by: blert | March 5, 2008 12:11 PM | Report abuse

"the popular vote is very close...if you include FL and MI, Clinton actually is ahead."


HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA

Fantasy world. just because russert and the rest of the right wing media is making their own political ruels doesn't mean they apply. But please, count whatever delgates you choose. The rest of us will be in REALITY.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 5, 2008 12:08 PM | Report abuse

"Why do posters with the least to say contribute the longest, most boring narratives? My scroll hand is exhausted.

Posted by: edwcorey | March 5, 2008 11:59 AM
"

Why do posters with nothing to say use peanut gallery insults rather than posting what they got? Cuase all the gop has is lie spin and discredit. Continue. it's all you got.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 5, 2008 12:06 PM | Report abuse

On February 14, I blogged Obama's run for the White House had ended. I reasoned that the decision of his campaign to snub South Texas would be viewed as fatal. The one trip the Brownsville, the largest city in South Texas, was to meet religious leaders, the hated local leaders, but not the people.

His only chance now is a floor fight. A floor fight means McCain wins. Howard Dean must allow for a new vote in Florida and Michigan as the only way to avoid a floor fight. Obama will lose because people are beginning to understand his campaign as a repeat of Reagan "Smile and Be Happy."

Everyone but Obama knew, including his advisors in South Texas who mislead him (namely Lucio III, whose father Lucio JR was supportering Hillary) that you cannot win Texas as a Democrat without South TExas.

Everyone now knows just how powerful South Texas is to the Democratic Party in Texas.

The caucuses were all fraud very few rules. My guy started earlier - allowed people to enter even after the doors were suppose to be closed - we were short ballots. There was no head count before people were told they could leave.

No one checked ID's - everyone was allowed to vote even if they did not vote in the primary. One man was bragging how he was voting with a voter ID which said he was 80 eventhough he was 50.

There was so so much fraud.

Bobby Wightman-Cervantes

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

Obama sought to position himself as more than a left-wing motivational speaker, the charge leveled by Clinton for months. Last night, Obama clarified his vagaries with platitudes, illuminated by bromides and anecdotes. He succeeded only in that he certainly failed to motivate.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=60D472FF-C303-428D-BD7D-3424EE2758BE

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 5, 2008 12:01 PM | Report abuse

the popular vote is very close...if you include FL and MI, Clinton actually is ahead.

yes, Obama was not on the MI ballot and yes, it's about delegate counts and not popular votes, but the fact here is that more primary participants have cast a vote FOR Clinton than FOR Obama.

Posted by: heatmiser | March 5, 2008 12:01 PM | Report abuse

Obama needs to take on Clinton, Inc. Some thoughts on the way forward.
http://jtaplin.wordpress.com/2008/03/05/my-heads-in-mississippi/

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

Why do posters with the least to say contribute the longest, most boring narratives? My scroll hand is exhausted.

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

"If he can't win this election, for the first time in my 58 years I don't want to live here. I don't want to be a part of the political process, because it means that only bull-headedness, crooked innuendo and conniving determine who leads this country. Once you dare to dream, you can't ever go back.

Posted by: justme49 | March 5, 2008 11:44 AM
"

Well said. Sad day for america.

If the democratic big wigs will sel out their party this movement and their country, what's left. A one party fascist police state?

Sad day. Money talks, bullsh*t runs the marathon, I guess. Money Is the root of all evil. If obama is railroaded, not only am I not voting, I'm moving to europe. Where I can be free.

Remeber when people fled TO this great nation? the shining city on the hill. Peace justice the american way. All that.

The gop and their moderate sell-out dem's (along with their bought and paid for media), have destroyed this great nation.

Winners? the media. They control this country now. The media is compleatly republcain, we saw that last night. Fox is bad. Cnn is bad. But now msnbc? Who do independant thinking americans have as news they can trust? who is lookin gout for us and reporting what we need to know rather than trying to make huge profits from the drugs oil and defense contrators?

The media is destroyed. our political system is dessroyed. The economy is destoryed. The housing market is destroyed. our rep across the world is destroyed. the justice department is destroyed. the media is one-sdied for the gop.

Who is to blame for all this? So what are we going to do as americans? Put teh same people who destroyed our country , in charge again. to continue. Why? Because we are accustomed and to scared to do what our american ancestros always have done. Look to the future, not the past. Embrace freedom not fear.Our ancestors did it. Why can we not?

If we are no longer america, with american values and ideals, what and who are we? Nazi's? Fascists? Money loving greedy pigs?

If obama loses, I'm gone. i've said this before. Last night was to much. Stabbed in the back.


Obama is fighting with us and for us. If we don't stand with him now this coutnry will eat itself. And it deserves it. "those who would sacrafice liberty for securoty deserve neither.

Sad day. I love america and served it as an army infantry 11b soldier. I would give my life for america. We no longer live in america though. i don't know what his place is. The territory is not the map.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?,

do not fear the fascists. If americans don't fight for this country who will? If not now when?

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 5, 2008 11:58 AM | Report abuse

I find it interesting that many feel true democrats are for Obama. Look at the exit polls...the percentage is much higher for HRC. In the case of Texas, it certainly was and Independents and Republicans were moot. Same in Ohio.

Also, look at past elections....you cannot deny what states are important in a general elections...CA, NY, PA, OH, FL, IL, TX, MI. Some of the states OB won, ND, ID, NE, AS, are dominately Republican and mostly vote this way. Same with WY and MT. The super delegates have to look at this.
I haven't made up my mind yet, but both candidates are very formidable. Regardless of who wins the nomination, I think either one will win the election. I know my vote won't count because I live in Nebraska and it always goes Republican.

Posted by: ca67klein | March 5, 2008 11:55 AM | Report abuse

This election has produced three winners for nomination. We can only have two. The signs are not encouraging for either Obama or Clinton. The delegate math doesn't work for either of them the way it is. If Obama can not win big states, it is a real problem. The Florida and Michigan votes have to be counted for the delegate math to work. Unless Obama can win a big state like Pennsylvania in the remaining states, he can't claim the nomination. There should also be official primary votes in Florida and Michigan. If there is a problem in Florida because of a Republican governor, the previous votes should be used in delegate allocation. Certainly a new primary is in order for Michigan because Obama's name was not in the ballot (unless the uncommitted can be assigned to Obama by mutual agreement). No one should short change the voters's rights. After all the delegates are seated, the nominee can be decided.

Posted by: vaidyatk | March 5, 2008 11:54 AM | Report abuse

I feel you hargrove.steven. but why are the republicans coming out in full force? in the above posts all the republicans like dave and others can do is build up hillary. Why? for what cause? What is their stake in the democratic race? Why is rush limbaugh and ann coulter, and their ilk, sabotaging the democratic party?

The moderates like clinton di fi reid and their supporters, need to ask themselves a question. WHAT SIDE AM I ON? Am I enabling teh republcains or fighting them.

To see my enemies like rush coulter, the republcains on msnbc like joe and bucannan. cann wolf blitzer. all republcains propogandists pushing obama.

Obama can't do this on his own hargrove.steven. he is fighting against all sides. All americans need to ask themselves what side they are on. A vote for clinton is a vote for the republcains. Pick a side. If people pick republcains after the last 30 years, fine. But clinton is a flase choice. A differant side to the same fascist republcain coin.

Pick a side america. Know that keeping clinton is is the republicans wet dream. They can't win on their own. They need us to give to to them. Who is to stupid to do that? There's millions of em out there.

I still think obama can't lose the nomination. fight on dave and the rest of the republcain sabotuers. Divide and conquer and sabotage is all you have left. After that is irrelevnat. Enjoy what you have left.

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

Well, the press won and we all lose.

It's easy to love the media when they are saying what you believe to be true, but having them turn on Obama for a week (seemingly to stretch this out and respond to her wails of discrimination) really stings. What gives them the right to manipulate the outcome of the presidential nomination process? I feel like the piling on was a shocking betrayal of our trust.

Beyond that, I have to admit that to all Obama's newly converted, he needs to clarify that he is not one-dimensional. Because he won't play dirty like the Clintons, he has a harder task because it is all about him--his dreams, his plans and his leadership.

If he can't win this election, for the first time in my 58 years I don't want to live here. I don't want to be a part of the political process, because it means that only bull-headedness, crooked innuendo and conniving determine who leads this country. Once you dare to dream, you can't ever go back.

Posted by: justme49 | March 5, 2008 11:44 AM | Report abuse

Last night Hillary won. She won the popular vote and won 3 out of 4 states. Overall Barack is winning. The winning streak was brought to a halt and now we move on to Wyoming and Missisippi. The we watch what transpires over the 6 weeks between then and Pennsylvania. Lots to anticipate going forward.

Posted by: Gharza | March 5, 2008 11:43 AM | Report abuse

"Would you Obama people like a little cheese with your whine?"

Now THAT'S funny! I've never heard that one before!

Here are some other good ones:

Would you Hillary people like a little shrillness to go with your chicanery?

Would you Hillary people like some slander to go with your religious intolerance?

Would you Hillary people like some narcissism to go with that race-baiting?

I know what you want: a 64 ounce can of whoop-ass opened on you all the way out! Seat Florida! Puerto Rico is my firewall! Caw caw! Michigan is disenfranchised! Caw! You hate me because I'm a woman! You hate me because my husband is a closet Obama-lover who is half-heartedly on the campaign trail because he nutted on an intern's dress! Caw caw! Let's order $90,000 of Dunkin Donuts and not pay the bill! Caw caw!

Posted by: bondjedi | March 5, 2008 11:42 AM | Report abuse

In response to chadibuins... I literally saw this on "Morning Joe" I believe MSNBC website had an article as well. Hillary was asked the question about the two being on the same ticket, and she was very open to the possibility, obviously hoping that she would be at the top of the ticket, which realistically would only happen with the help of Superdelegates. I honestly dont mind Clinton staying in the race even as an Obama supporter. As a black male I feel his campaign is historic, and would disappointed to see him bow out even with slim hopes of winning. Hillary's still in the game so as long as she has the money to fight on she can fight on, but I hope that all democrats share my sentiment when I say that whoever the candidate is that we all put our differences in the primary aside to back that candidate. We all may get our wish in the end and have them both on the ticket, and get a full 16 years of prosperity, when that VP wins the presidency in 2016.

Posted by: hargrove.steven | March 5, 2008 11:40 AM | Report abuse

Blarg - "DNC ordered all candidates to remove their names"

I think a more accurate phrasing would be "DNC requested all...". If no DNC rules were broken (and I don't believe there were), then taking your name off was optional.

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

While Hillary & Obama are fighting for this nomination, in many places where neither have no shot at winning: Miss, Wyoming, South Dakota, Montana, Ky., Indiana & North Carolina. McCain will also be competitive in West Virginia & Pa. Obama had better not skip campaigning in Pa., as McCain could win it in November if he begins campaigning hard now, especially with Spector & Corbett (who is up for re-election in 08' as Atty. General) stumping for him. McCain also intends to campaign hard in California (with Arnold), Oregon (with US Senator Gordon Smith), Maine (with Snowe & Collins), New Jersey (with Kean & Estabrooks) & Conn. (with Lieberman). Smith in Ore., Collins in Maine are both up for re-election this year. Oregon & Maine are definately in play, as is Conn. for McCain. California & New Jersey would be icing on the cake, and definately win it all for McCain. McCain is in great shape for the general election, he's just waiting now to see who he will be competing with.

Posted by: bryant_flier2006 | March 5, 2008 11:38 AM | Report abuse

"I'm just glad Hillary has to face the punishment of being the winner for the next month and a half. Obama is again the underdog, although huge wins in 3/4 of the remaining states should take care of that."

I wish it worked like that crisis. In a democracy it would. But we don't live in a free coutnry anymore do we? :)

there is no longer an opposition party to the republcains. Obama is fighting for it. Against everyone. Not only the gop, not only the sell-outs in his party but the media.

Teh media will not change. they only switched after iowa because they had to. they had beaten up on obama for so long they were in dnager of being out of step big time ( I would argue they still are).

I wish it worked like that. It doesn't sadly. The whole kitchen sink is going to be thrown at obama. By the gop their propogandists and their sell-out moderate dems' .We must keep up the good fight, knowing it is against all odds.

The fight now becomes a fight for the right of americans to have an opposition party. I hope we win. If not the results will be disasterous. clitnon can't win. But she cna bloody up obama for 7 months for her real party.

What did the gi joe's used to say? "Knowing is half the battle".

We need to step up our efforts. Also we need to urge obama to get on the right side of the immagration issue with the other 80% of us. If he does that it doesn't matter what the gop (clinton included )does. He wipes the floor with all of them if he does that. That's how he can build a bridge and unity with the good gop'ers.:)

the latinos and northern mexican mofia is agaisnt him anyway. nothing to lose much to gain. Let's hope he has the wisdom to do this. if so the gop two-sided one party system is done. We cannot pity them now. To not have a consequence to their actions is to set future presedence. think about the future.

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

Who wins: Rush Limbaugh and the radical right--who will use this to 'prove' their strength in numbers -- push McCain ever further right, as they are already doing. He is virtually indistiguishable from Bush as it is.

Who loses? American citizens, which gets another four years of watching our country get flushed down the toilet.

Unless the big embrace McCain will obviously get from bush today is a poor strategy...

What effect will President Bush's endorsement have on John McCain's campaign?
Helpful 24% 23151
Hurtful 76% 73609

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

PhilTR, your lack of understanding of DNC rules is staggering. Maybe before you make another page-long post, you should do some research.

First, the DNC rules didn't punish IA and NH because the rules specifically allowed those states to have early primaries. IA and NH didn't break the rules, so they weren't punished. It's actually very simple.

Second, you say that Obama and Edwards chose to take their names off the MI ballot, even though they should have known better. But you ignore the fact that the DNC ordered all candidates to remove their names. Clinton just didn't comply. (She claims she forgot.) So you're arguing that Clinton should be rewarded for breaking the rules, while Obama should be punished for following them.

I don't remember their being much concern about fairness in Michigan or Florida back in December. But once Hillary won those primaries, and it became clear that she can't win without the delegates, her supporters have started raising a big stink about the DNC rules. It's almost as if they had some sort of ulterior motive.

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

I read on and on that superdelegates should and will follow the popular vote.
I think that is a wrong idea.
As I see it those superdelegates are there to find out(???) who is the candidate most fitted to get the needed electoral votes
which not always are in agreement with the popular vote.
If Mr.Obama can´t win any of the bigger states he won´t be able to get the electoral votes needed to become President


Posted by: santmann2002 | March 5, 2008 11:36 AM | Report abuse

Well, McCain obviously won the Republican side, and it's just as obvious that McCain also won the Democratic side, because Clinton's going to stay in and slander Obama day and night until the eve of the election.

Posted by: light_bearer | March 5, 2008 11:33 AM | Report abuse

One thing that might come out as a plus for Obama with this drawn out fight is that now he will have a Perfect reason to opt out of campaign finacing after the convention. He can now argue that he had to pay for an extended primary fight AND fight off Republican attacks for two months while McCain just got to campaign with no opponent.

And if Obama can opt out then he would theoretically have 100 million+ more to spend between September 1 and Novemeber 4th. That is bad news for the GOP.

Posted by: AndyR3 | March 5, 2008 11:30 AM | Report abuse

Would you Obama people like a little cheese with your whine? Why is it when Hillary brings up issues that are important to this country, like experience, and competency, it's called negative campaigning? When the Obama campaign says Bill Clinton called his campaign a "fairy tale", when they knew he was talking only about Obama's position on Iraq, that's fair. Get over yourselves, your bubble is bursting. Like the whole campaign - it's just filled with hot air.

Posted by: sonriseranch | March 5, 2008 11:29 AM | Report abuse

PhilTR - the rules stated that no primaries or caucuses other than IA, NH, SC, NV could be held before Super Tuesday. There was no such rule prohibiting these states from adjusting their timing to stay ahead. Also, DNC rules stated the nuclear option. 0 delegates. The Republican party also sanctioned MI, FL and WY by cutting their delegate count in half.

At the time, MI and FL figured they'd go for the publicity, even if their delegates didn't count. Their mistake. At this point, the only option is a new vote. Probably a caucus.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | March 5, 2008 11:29 AM | Report abuse

Look slike the only one's fihgting for clinton on this tread are known republcains. I wonder why that is. Please stop the sabotage gop. You have your candidate. Let the process on the other side play out.

You republcians are fascists. Take glee in stacking the deck and creating a one party government. you are not americans. you people are fascists living here.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 5, 2008 11:28 AM | Report abuse

Blarg,
I counted 683 delegates left (I think my numbers came from the DNC), not including any from MI or FL. People seem to be focused on the pledged numbers. I am not as supers count just like pledged. Now it is true that supers are not guarenteed, but they are what they are. And right now the number is 95 for Clinton to overcome (still a sizable lead at this point). I don't particularly think that SDs are a great idea. It seems undemocratic and as if the DNC does not trust the will of the people. But they are a reality and don't have to vote any which way by design. And that means people cannot just assume that they will flock to the pledged delegate winner, especially if that margin is small. If the process was designed to only reflect the will of the voters, there would be no such things as superdelegates.

Posted by: dave | March 5, 2008 11:27 AM | Report abuse

BHO made a tactical error by focusing heavily on making detailed policy statements. Although the path to the nomination appears to be relatively well assured, he needs to go back to infusing his campaign/ads with the rhetoric that got him here in the first place. This will be especially significant in the GE where voter concern about issues takes a pronounced back seat to how they 'feel' about a candidate. Many voters will adopt an attitude of deliberate ignorance about the issues ("I just don't know what he/she stands for...") that is indefensible yet all-too-common in the Internet age. BHO can get around that using a rhetorical 'gear' that HRC does not have.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

When the pundits are ridiculed two weeks in a row on Saturday Night Live for being in the tank for Obama, the American people react. Comedy is a mirror that reflects reality.

When African American "community leaders" publicly bully any African American member of Congress who has the temerity to support someone other than their "chosen one", the American people react. Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones put it succinctly and well last night at the Columbus, OH victory rally - I TOLD YOU SO !

Get over it - we have witnessed a sea change in this election. Someday Barack Obama will be ready for national office - but not today.

We have witnessed the beginning of the end of the Obama Campaign.

Winners: the American Political System.

Losers: Reality deniers.

You don't stop the Indianapolis 500 at 400 miles and declare a winner because someone is ahead. What matters is what happens in the whole race - and that includes Superdelegates and Michigan and Florida. Let it run, folks. Make your case. Get ready for Madam President.

Maybe it is time for Obama to realize what is about to happen and to gracefully bow out so that he'll have a better chance next time. . . maybe it is time for him to act like he speaks and put the party and the country above personal ambition.

Think about that.

Posted by: edwardlbartlett | March 5, 2008 11:18 AM | Report abuse

Dave, Obama still does have a significant lead, though "insurmountable" is an exaggeration. Obama has a lead of 134 pledged delegates, though that will change as the complete Texas and Ohio results come in. There are 611 delegates left. Hillary needs to win 134 more delegates than Obama to get a lead in pledged delegates, so she needs 373 delegates, or 61% of the remaining delegates. That's practically impossible.

So in pledged delegates, Obama has what could be considered an insurmountable lead. This assumes that most superdelegates will vote for whichever candidate leads in pledged delegates, but that's a reasonable assumption.

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

bondjedi--I think Ohio is just what people have been declaring it to be a bellweather and microcosm.

I don't blame Bush '04 solely on Ohio--they were indicative of the "least common denominator" that affected the rest of the country overall--they just happen to have it all nice and concentrated in one state.

Florida is the other state that has this unique mix of "America"--although both have Rep governors--but then we have a Rep Pres--so I guess my argument still stands. :)

Posted by: chadibuins | March 5, 2008 11:12 AM | Report abuse

Clinton won the night, but not by enough to win the nomination.
Her campaign spoke of momentum, and they certainly put a spike in Obama's momentum. Between NH and last night, Obama increased his lead in delegates, cumulative votes, and states. Last night, his lead in cumulative votes and states decreased.
But decreasing his lead slightl;y this late in the campaign is faint success. Clinton needs to win Puerto Rico and get 60% of the vote in the other primaries to go into the convention with about as many elected delegates as Obama has.
The polls don't give her nearly 60% in PA, let alone NC and IN.

Posted by: F_L_Palmer | March 5, 2008 11:10 AM | Report abuse

It's an 80 delegate edge out of about 2600 pledged. That's about 3%, hardly some overwhelming mandate. Incidentally, if Obama has won 12 in a row, that means that Clinton has won 3 in a row.

We need to see if Obama can take a punch. This is nothing compared to the general election. I think the blow that landed was that the Obama campaign was caught dissembling about the meeting with a Canadian diplomat. He oversold his NAFTA opposition and got burned in Ohio. Not a problem in Texas.

Funny thing, I thought it was the go-it-alone cowboy approach of the Bush administration that has caused so many problems with our allies. Pulling out of Kyoto. Pulling out of the ABM treaty. Now we're going to start abrogating trade deals? That's the stuff. Anger our neighbors.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | March 5, 2008 11:10 AM | Report abuse

DanKirkd,
Does your popular vote count include FL and MI? Like everything about this Dem Primary, it all depends on how you look at things as to what the numbers are.

Posted by: dave | March 5, 2008 11:10 AM | Report abuse

hargrove.steven

I'm interested in hearing what you saw that made you think she was at least angling for VP.

I agree with your logic--but didn't get the same reading from HRC this morning.

Posted by: chadibuins | March 5, 2008 11:08 AM | Report abuse

In the 2004 general election the citizens of Ohio were war-weary and unemployed, but were duped into voting for Dubya on the basis of moral values.

In 2008 dem race they are even wearier and more desperate, but were duped by bogus Islamophobia and race-baiting.

What is it about Ohio that instinctively reacts to the lowest common denominator? How is it the rest of the country takes its electoral marching orders from such an ill-informed and uncritical electorate? The next time I hear someone from Ohio whining about unemployment and sub-prime mortgage crises, I'll laugh and tell them to deal with it. You get what you pay for.

Posted by: bondjedi | March 5, 2008 11:08 AM | Report abuse

hargrove.steven

I'm interested in hearing what you saw that made you think she was at least angling for VP.

I agree with your logic--but didn't get the same reading from HRC this morning.

Posted by: chadibuins | March 5, 2008 11:08 AM | Report abuse

Contests/delegates (Pledged/Super) remaining:

March 8 Wyoming (12/6)
March 11 Mississippi (33/7)
April 22 Pennsylvania (158/29)
May 3 Guam (4/5)
May 6 Indiana (72/12)
May 6 North Carolina (115/19)
May 13 West Virginia (28/11)
May 20 Kentucky (51/9)
May 20 Oregon (52/13)
June 3 Montana (16/8)
June 3 South Dakota (15/8)
-------------------------
Total of (556/127) 683

??? Florida (?)
??? Michigan (?)

Current standings (RealClearPolitics, although other estimates vary a bit):

Candidate Pledged Superdels Total
Obama 1340 202 1542
Clinton 1206 241 1447
-------------------------------------
Difference 134 (O) 39(C) 95(O)

Florida and Michigan are HUGE WILDCARDS. In 2004, those two states accounted for 8.2% of the total Democratic delegate count. That is upwards of 330 delegates if the percentages are applied to 2008 total delegates. SuperDels are becoming more important by the minute. And the idiotic quote of the day, this one courtesy of Obama - "We still have an insurmountable lead," Obama said."

Posted by: dave | March 5, 2008 11:06 AM | Report abuse

If anyone saw the news this morning, it's quite apparent that Clinton would like to position herself for at least a VP spot. She is definitely winning the big states, but those are democratic states in most cases that will be carried by Obama or Hillary. I will support either candidate in the general, and would love to have both of them on one ticket.

Posted by: hargrove.steven | March 5, 2008 11:04 AM | Report abuse

BobbyW.C. writes "Howard Dean must allow for a new vote in Florida and Michigan as the only way to avoid a floor fight."

Ya'll better hope that Howeird Dean is working his butt off at this very moment to fix this ultimate of Dem SNAFUs that he put in place with his poor planning and complete lack of leadership at the DNC. The D party is ultimately the loser thanks to it's loser chairman.

The voters of MI and FL deserve to be heard!

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

John McCain won.... BIG TIME!

With Hillary's scorched-earth methods, the Democratic party loses so long as the "stupordelegates" hedge their bets and sit on their ballots.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth_Hunter | March 5, 2008 11:00 AM | Report abuse

No one.
Last night everyone lost.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 5, 2008 10:53 AM | Report abuse

I'm just glad Hillary has to face the punishment of being the winner for the next month and a half. Obama is again the underdog, although huge wins in 3/4 of the remaining states should take care of that.

Do the math. Barring Obama turning into a serial killer, he's got this in the bag. We just have to keep fighting for him, keep donating (donate now!!), keep volunteering and keep turning out for him in record numbers.

Posted by: thecrisis | March 5, 2008 10:48 AM | Report abuse

terry_austin - Based on totals so far, http://www.kirkdorffer.com/ontheroadto2008/2008/02/obama-leads-popular-vote-turnout-hugely.shtml, Clinton still trails Obama in the popular vote by 396,108.

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

Dear Chris: Love The Fix. On other WaPo forums, there is a "recommend" option on the comment pages that readers can select. Please consider this option for your blog, also love to see it on Revkin's DotEarth blog.

It helps readers find the more thoughtful and insightful comments. Thank you.

Posted by: rcripe | March 5, 2008 10:34 AM | Report abuse

President McCain...get used to the sound of that, fellow Dems.

Posted by: cjspellane | March 5, 2008 10:28 AM | Report abuse

As a life long Dem, my advice to the Obama campaign, ignore the PA race! It's going to cost 10-15M over the next seven weeks and its mathematcially impossible for Hillary to catch up.

Obama needs to ignore Hillary, much like McCain did with Huckabee and get ready for the general. He needs to start opening offices and hiring staff for the general.

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

Hooray for Hillary. All that money, all the mud-slinging, all the lying, all the shrillness, all the Clinton business as usual ... you netted 20 delegates. At this pace, all the US need do is add 30 more states and she will catch up to Obama.

Clinton supporters - claims of victory last night are based on the gross vote. It's delegates that matter. No one would take seriously a baseball team that lost 9-0, but claims victories because it had more hits. Why should we take you seriously? Let it continue, though - it will make for a great convention to see Hill get the comeuppance she requires.

The Truth's sources inside the Clinton camp reveal that Guam is her next firewall. A win there will lock up the nomination for Hillary once and for all.

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

McCain won. Every step towards the Dem nomination for Billary is a step closer to a McCain presidency.

Posted by: jnoel002 | March 5, 2008 10:10 AM | Report abuse

The night was good, existing & bad for certain people. Here is my list:

Grand Winner: The grand winner tonight was John McCain. McCain is now the Republican nominee and is heading toward November. He can now really begin fundraising, as the Republican nominee for the general election & start thinking about his VP pick. Definately the big winner of the night!

Winners:

Hillary Clinton: Winning 3 of 4 is winning in my book. Clinton captured Ohio, Texas & Rhode Island which she needed to do. Obama won Vermont, but winning "the big 2" of Texas & Ohio is most important for Clinton & Rhode Island is a plus. This thing is going to at least June now, and perhaps all the way to the convention. What a brawl that will be!

Ted Strickland: Strickland is the big winner in Ohio last night. He stood by Clinton defending her on talk shows while some had written her off. Strickland continued campaigning for Clinton hard & it paid off in Ohio last night. Huge night for Strickland.

Existing night:

Barack Obama: Obama certainly lost 3 of 4, and that's a loss no matter how you spin it. However, he surged in Texas and lost close & he won in Vermont. So he wasn't shut out. Obama is still in the lead in delegates, and has several good looks in the near future: North Carolina, Wyoming & Mississippi. Clinton will very likely win Pa., especially with Ed Rendell's help which she has. But still leading in the delegate count by almost 100 delegates on a night where he lost the elections is still existing & coming out pretty decent.

Mike Huckabee: Huckabee dropped the Presidential race as McCain won & became the R nominee. Now he has 2 options: go back to Arkansas & run for the US Senate vs. Mark Pryor or hope McCain wins the Presidency and gives him a cabnit post: perhaps Health & Human Services Secretary. Not bad options, so he is still existing even though his Presidential campaign is over.

Losers

Jim Douglas: Several towns in Vermont voted to indict President Bush, VP Cheney & Sec. of State Condi Rice. Douglas served as campaign director for Bush in 04', and that can't be good for Douglas. He is up for re-election in November and he actually seems to be a popular governor even as a Republican in a very blue state. Is it possible that in a state with a communist US Senator in Bernie Sanders, that Douglas could win again in November & help propel McCain to victory as a moderate? Anyone from Vermont care to weigh in on this? But certainly, it had to be a loss for Jim Douglas.

Posted by: bryant_flier2006 | March 5, 2008 10:08 AM | Report abuse

Who won? Obviously it wasn't Clinton according to the Post. If she gets the nom in August, I wonder if the Post will go for McCain.

Posted by: caesarganz | March 5, 2008 10:05 AM | Report abuse

Jon Morgan.

Those states you mentioned have indeed held their caucuses and primaries. But they were ignored by the major candidates. Their issues weren't heard. The candidates did not visit in any forum where they would field local questions. The inland west is much bigger than just Denver.

Obama had some success in some of those states by having people in those smaller caucus states while Clinton's effort was half-hearted. No debate on issues. No questions on issues. An airport appearance or two by Obama. Nothing from Clinton.

Does moving up the primary help? The Republicans did that in Montana. They abandoned the presidential primary, which coincides with the state primary June 3. They caucused February 5 as one of the Super Tuesday states. Who came to Montana to campaign for Super Tuesday? Mitt Romney's son that's who, and no one from any of the other campaigns, not even Ron Paul who actually was a very strong second in the GOP caucus.

In other words for moving up an early caucus and abandoning it's rank and file voters in favor of a closed caucus, the Republicans got the same old attention from minor surrogates that Montana has always had.

The Montana Republicans were ignored because, mixed in with the large states on Super Tuesday, they were ignorable.

I realize the fact that Montana and South Dakota may still be in play June 3, is a fluke of the system this year. This year two strong candidates are battling to the end. The proportional delegate system of the Democrats has avoided any knockout blow. If it was winner take all, like the Republican primaries, Clinton would have clinched the nomination as has McCain.

The fact is that Ombama doesn't have a huge lead in delegates. In percentage points his lead is about 1 percent. Both Clinton and Obama are nearly one thousand delegates short of a nomination and there is zero chance that there are still any one thousand pledged delegates for either of them to get.

This nomination is going to the convention because, as Obama broke Clinton's sense of inevitability early in the season, Clinton just broke what the press had all but conceded as Obamma's unstopable momentum.

We may -- and I still say may -- get the candidates in Montana and South Dakota for some real talk on our issues just because we are last, and it will be important to appear to be the last winner when courting super delegates.

Posted by: AlaninMissoula | March 5, 2008 10:03 AM | Report abuse

Despite Obama spending 4 to 1 he lost! This by it's self is HUGE

Posted by: cowboy66 | March 5, 2008 9:58 AM | Report abuse

Look slike clinton is going the lieberman route.

Screw her party. Screw the country. As long as she gets her's. She's a republican alright.

She set HERSELF up nicely. She not going to win the nomination. At least she can bloody up obama for her real party. Then WHEN she loses she thinks she can take her old ladies and illegal alieans and bring them to the gop. As maccain's vp.

Who needs a two party system right gop. Who needs an opposition party in a fascist police state? Right gop?

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 5, 2008 9:58 AM | Report abuse

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

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

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


Posted by: PhilTR | March 5, 2008 9:55 AM | Report abuse

I tend to agree that McCain benefits a bit from a prolonged Dem primary. Clearly, Sen Clinton's campaign received a boost, their next task is to explain how this boost will propel her to the nomination. As others have pointed out, the pledged delegate count still favors Obama. As the remaining number of available delegates diminishes, is there a plausible scenario in which Sen Clinton can regain the lead in the popular vote & pledged delegate count, or is she relying on the superdelegates overturning the peoples' vote?

Posted by: bsimon | March 5, 2008 9:49 AM | Report abuse

"In the end regardless of who wins top spot, it will be a Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket."

Sorry, but there is essentially zero chance that Hillary would consent to play second fiddle to Obama as his VP candidate. If she manages to pull out a brokered convention, there is a decent chance it will be with Obama as her running mate, but there is no way her ego will allow her to bend the other way. If Obama wins the nomination, Hilary will go back to the Senate and bide her time to run again in 2012 or 2016, depending on whether McCain or Obama wins the general election.

Posted by: clearbeard | March 5, 2008 9:40 AM | Report abuse

Clinton won because she didn't lose. Hopefully Obama's got something up his sleeve to take back some headlines heading into his WY & MS wins. More superdelegates? Big name endorsements?

Posted by: schencks84 | March 5, 2008 9:38 AM | Report abuse

Blarg - HRC won the State Senatorial Primary delegates by a score of 65-61. She will lose the caucus delegates, when they are known in June, by a larger margin. We can know this now from the TX D Party's web site:


http://precinctconventionresults.txdemocrats.org/election08district

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 5, 2008 9:14 AM | Report abuse

Until the Texas delegate counts come in, it's hard to say who won. Hillary won the popular vote in 3/4 states, with an impressive margin in Ohio. So it looks like she won the night. But Obama will likely get more Texas delegates than she does. It's possible that Obama won more overall delegates last night than Clinton. In that case, it's hard to say that either of them really won or lost.

Posted by: Blarg | March 5, 2008 8:55 AM | Report abuse

dsbtog said: "I would call it a draw.

.... which leaves it to the campaigns to spin and the media to analyze the real winner of last night of the next few days."

Ultimately I agree with you--a draw is the logistical conclusion. Perception is HUGE, as you pointed out in your "spin" comments, an dI think for right now, she is winning that argument regarding last night.


Posted by: chadibuins | March 5, 2008 8:53 AM | Report abuse

Who won? I think that depends on who - over the next few days - can win the spin game (as has clearly begun above in previous comments).

Hillary won the popular vote in 3 of 4 states yesterday, which would make her the clear winner, if TX, OH, and RI were winner-takes-all states. They are not so Obama gets a fair chunk of delegates from each of these states.

Were these the only primaries, Hillary would be the winner. But since she is was expected to win in these states (in TX with even larger margins only a few weeks ago), has lost the last 11 contests, is significantly behind in the delegate count, and wouldn't gain more than 15ish delegates total after last night, I would call it a draw.

.... which leaves it to the campaigns to spin and the media to analyze the real winner of last night of the next few days.

Posted by: dsbtog | March 5, 2008 8:49 AM | Report abuse

Increasingly, I think the larger question becomes this -- With Iraq, a recession, and 8 years of W motivating voters, do Democrats understand this is our final stand? If we can't win this one, then maybe it's time to admit the Democratic party we've known has no future and has to reinvent itself.

I think Hillary is going to win the nomination, and I think that is going to accomplish the impossible -- making Hillary more deeply unpopular than she already is.

Damn. Another general election that comes down to, "Who makes me hold my nose the least?"

Posted by: starthom | March 5, 2008 8:42 AM | Report abuse

Clinton won --I am an Obama supporter, and can talk all the math talk and the fact that we reduced a 20 pt lead to minimal in 2 weeks-but Clinton won.
In the perception war-she won and I think she won considerably. She won both of the big states--which does not go against WJC's original goalpost; and while not by the same margins as he did in Potomac and Wisconsin--she still took the night and the news.

Obama can and ought to recover nicely, he is a smart guy who has run a very smart campaign. But he now is faced with the knowledge that he needs to hunker down and not just parry blows from HRC and JMcC; but he needs to be IN THE FIGHT--if he has learned that lesson, then ultimately he will be the winner.

Oh, and Huckabee was a winner, he is def in as a VP nom or at the least the leading contender for 2012--he stayed in the game all the way through and receives accolcades from the presumptive nominee.

Posted by: chadibuins | March 5, 2008 8:37 AM | Report abuse

What about John Edwards' delegates? I believe I read about four supers switching to Obama in the days following the Edwards drop out, but what about the pledged delegates and remaining superdelegates? In the unlikely event that Edwards endorsed a candidate (seems like he's laying low pining for a Cabinet post), I wonder what percentage would go to the candidate he endorsed. We're obviously not talking a massive number, but at this point each and every delegate (both pledged and super) is crucial. Anyone have insight?

Can't wait for the next three months!

Posted by: melissa.k.jacobs | March 5, 2008 8:37 AM | Report abuse

Ditto! Once would think Chris could do a little better than his intro,, who won? It couldn't be more dissmissive of the REALITY, not the hope, that the Come Back Kid is IN. Huge Wins for Hillary. NOW her MO will increase and he will receive more press scrutiny, iit's a perfect scenario for her...up until SHE wins the nomination..

Posted by: vammap | March 5, 2008 8:29 AM | Report abuse

On February 14, I blogged Obama's run for the White House had ended. I reasoned that the decision of his campaign to snub South Texas would be viewed as fatal. The one trip the Brownsville, the largest city in South Texas, was to meet religious leaders, the hated local leaders, but not the people.

His only chance now is a floor fight. A floor fight means McCain wins. Howard Dean must allow for a new vote in Florida and Michigan as the only way to avoid a floor fight. Obama will lose because people are beginning to understand his campaign as a repeat of Reagan "Smile and Be Happy."

Everyone but Obama knew, including his advisors in South Texas who mislead him (namely Lucio III, whose father Lucio JR was supportering Hillary) that you cannot win Texas as a Democrat without South TExas.

Everyone now knows just how powerful South Texas is to the Democratic Party in Texas.

The caucuses were all fraud very few rules. My guy started earlier - allowed people to enter even after the doors were suppose to be closed - we were short ballots. There was no head count before people were told they could leave.

No one checked ID's - everyone was allowed to vote even if they did not vote in the primary. One man was bragging how he was voting with a voter ID which said he was 80 eventhough he was 50.

There was so so much fraud.

Bobby Wightman-Cervantes

Posted by: bobbywc | March 5, 2008 8:29 AM | Report abuse

amazing that the "obama cult" are trying to dismiss just how huge that vote was last night. IF he had WON...they would be calling for her head this morning.
America is finally looking hard at him and see there's nothing there, he never answers a question directly and personally I think his wife is a racist. JUST my opinion.

Posted by: blevins20061 | March 5, 2008 8:02 AM | Report abuse

The Texas Two Step

From deep in the heart of Texas, I see a lot of positives for November. Last night I went out to caucus for Obama and at 7PM when the polls were supposed to close there were three hundred people standing in the parking lot outside the apartment club house that was our polling place. There was no way we were going to fit into that place but it did not matter because by the time the last voter voted and the votes were counted it was 8PM. We went and found the precinct captains for the Hillary folks and organized our sign in procedure. We let the 10 Republicans have their convention in the club house and we organized our sign in for the caucus in the adjoining Laundromat. Some of the Hillary folks were apprehensive about us because we out numbered them 2 to 1 but I assured them we would count all the votes because after all we are not Republicans. By nine we ran all the folks through the line we and we had 146 for Obama and 72 for Clinton. My counter part at the sign in table and I agreed in September we would get back together and knock on every door in the precinct no matter who wins. We know if we can get all the increase the Democratic turnout by the same percentage in November we can turn a Red Texas Blue.

Posted by: bradcpa | March 5, 2008 7:58 AM | Report abuse

Will the momentum carry Hillary Clinton through the nomination?


http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1833

.

Posted by: PollM | March 5, 2008 7:45 AM | Report abuse

At least these victories were more or less, in political terms, honestly won. Clinton and Obama were both lying to voters about re-negotiating NAFTA; Obama got caught. (Thanks for nothing, Canada). The 3 AM call was fear-mongering(and based on a sketchy premise to begin with), but it was basically a re-tread of a Walter Mondale ad. The entire SNL set-up was farce, and amazing to see the media so easily manipulated. Still, none of the above is like the Vegas lawsuit after the Union endorsement for Obama, or trying to seat the Michigan and Florida delegates--these are attacks that Obama needs to be able to parry.

Posted by: Seytom1 | March 5, 2008 7:42 AM | Report abuse

The press. You guys get to play this crap up for 7 more weeks. I love politics but even I am getting sick of this. And to all you Obama heads, I plan on voting for who ever wins the nomination, turn down your hatred of Hillary, it's going to cost you if Obama gets the nod.

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | March 5, 2008 7:40 AM | Report abuse

My mom always says in Horseshoes....

Clinton won 3 to 1.

Now, I'm not a Hillary supporter, or an Obama supporter, I'm a democrat. Unfortunately, I see way too much venom and not enough pragmatism.

I am glad there are superdelegates who should look at things more politically than emotionally and weigh in on the Democratic side...

I'm astounded by the level of venom democrats are spewing at each other because they are passionate about their candidate.

Emotionally, I love hearing Barak Obama talk...as a die-hard very liberal he sounds great (except for that health care plan that is more pandering to insurance companies, drug companies, etc... than universal health care...which isn't as liberal as Hillary's) there is no doubt that Obama plays better to the "base" of the democratic party...I hated the war (even the Afghanistan one...) thought we had an opportunity to be they type of Christian so rarely seen in the Republican party, by turning the other cheek we had the sympathy / empathy of the world for a few months where great things should have come to pass in promoting world humanity and unity against atrocity...but then the Republican crusade began...and the United States is more detested today that prior to 9 / 11.

The PRAGMATIC question to ask is, "when we need an additional 10,000 votes in a state to carry the democrat over the top in the following states: Florida, Arizona, Tennessee, New Mexico, Nevada, Missouri, Ohio, West Virginia (THE BATTLEGROUNDS) to put a democrat into the White House, who has a better chance to pick them up?

As Democrats, shouldn't we try to make sure that person gets the nomination? THANK GOD FOR DEMOCRATIC SUPERDELEGATES TO CONSIDER THIS....

Thank God they will be there to weigh in on the landscape as it exists in August instead of some different landscape from over 8 months earlier that no longer is pertinent to a democrats chance in November.

Whoever it appears from past (1980-2004) general election presidential voting and 2008 democratic primary voting reality on a state by state basis in makes the best case for winning in November between Barak and Hillary why don't we start presenting that case...instead of bashing each other. Its not who WON and who LOST, it should be about how we, as democrats, must WIN....

SO, void of an attack here's my rationale for believing that Clinton runs better in November. Just looking at those battleground states from above, Clinton won primaries in all but Missouri...(and I bet is she wins West Virginia in May since I grew up there....)

Even better, look at Missouri, (or look at Ohio even look at Texas) if a pragmatist looks at any major battleground state and Clinton hammering Obama once you get outside the democratic strongholds (densely populated metropolitan areas). Those metropolitan strongholds will go, as they have gone since Carter to the democrat, regardless of who is on the ticket...

Two, we don't caucus in the general election, so I would not place much emphasis on who could perform in a caucus. It is comparing apples to oranges. Lets stick with what happens behind the curtain, or punching your little card in privacy instead of standing up in a gymnasium among your friends and neighbors and publically declaring whether you would more prefer to be considered a sexist or a racist....

So, between Obama and Hillary, in the battlegrounds that held primaries, not that were able to "stir sentiment" in the most democrats of democrats who could waste a whole evening caucusing for a candidate, what happens? Hillary performs exceptionally well...

Anyone want to make a pragmatic argument for Obama, I'm all ears....

Once again, thank God for superdelegates and I hope they will be pragmatic instead of rubber stamping the public sentiments, or as democrats in desperate need of a presidency before we become a county of the have's in power and the have nots we may Kerry, Dukakis or Mondale by ourselves once again

Posted by: philip_cline | March 5, 2008 7:28 AM | Report abuse

McCain won, obviously, as Mark in Austin pointed out above.

Hillary won enough to stay alive, although I think when the dust settles her net pledged delegate gain from yesterday will be a single digit, so Obama didn't lose badly enough that the underlying math is altered. (And I wouldn't be surprised if Obama rolls out his 50 back-pocket superdelegates in the next day or two in an effort to direct the narrative.)

Politics junkies won. The cable newsers won. The ad sales departments at local TV stations in PA and NC and IN won.

The Madges and Walters (and Antonios and Marias) won, as Obama clearly needs to figure out a way to win the votes of downscale white and Hispanic Democrats. That really needs to be his focus in the coming weeks if he hopes to lead a unified party in November.

Posted by: novamatt | March 5, 2008 7:28 AM | Report abuse

When the dust settles, it will be interesting to see how the press analyzes their hand in the Clinton wins. Without their help (i.e., falling for her complaint about unfair treatment), I doubt her campaign would have had the traction it needed to win. Sadly, I thought you were smarter than that.

Posted by: meredith.fisher | March 5, 2008 7:20 AM | Report abuse

Who won? John McCain and the Republicans. Senator Clinton could not win with her message, so she turned to half-truths, lies and just plain nastiness. It worked, but is it worth it to win the battle when you can't possibly win the war?

This is what I see happening. The race continues to the convention, where Senator Clinton demands that the Superdelegates who switched sides come back to her. Then she demands that Michigan and Florida be counted, even though both states broke the party rules and were told in advance they wouldn't count.

The Split that develops between Obama supporters and Clinton supporters turns into a nasty fight (it already has on this and every other blog). Democrats are demoralized and stay home in November. And we have to get used to saying President McCain.

Posted by: corridorg4 | March 5, 2008 7:05 AM | Report abuse

Michigan & Florida WILL both hold second primaries, so all of those "math experts" need to re-calculate both how many total delegates are needed AND the percentages needed. Even Dean (huge Obama supporter) indicated if Fl & Mi hold primaries now, those delegates will count & be seated. Hillary will win big in both. The superdelegate "defections" will go both ways for a long time. In the end regardless of who wins top spot, it will be a Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket. BOTH are drawing record people to the polls; BOTH are needed to beat the Republicans (including those pretending to be Democrats who insist if their candidate doesn't win, they'll vote for McCain--Mr "I was against torture before I was for it" "1000 years in Iraq" "Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran" "Bush's economic policies are helping the country"--as though McCain is better than either Hillary or Obama when their positions are inches apart and his is W's 3rd term). Esp. when both H&O will mend all rifts, as rivals always do (usually much later than March--look at past history).

The pundits are wrong that this is good for McCain--both H&C will continue to make the case they're better than "W3" and that's exactly what he'll become (except without the religious right base). Meanwhile, as both candidates already know, they need each other on the ticket to bring together the divergent groups supporting each one. The public & punditry will finally begin to realize & admit that truth as the convention draws nearer and they are virtually tied down to the wire.

Republicans are definitely going to get deluged by the "dream team" who will continue to get the overwhelming numbers in the general election they have in the primaries, even in red states. The "26%ers" won't even all vote for McCain. And the pundits who didn't see Democratic wins coming in '06 will continue to underestimate the whirlwind until it becomes obvious that the tired, Conservative-In-Name-Only, GOP is RIP.

Finally the US can begin the healing process that is needed, around the world and to our shredded constitution. Hopefully this will include revealing everything possible about the actions to protect themselves politically that the current administration is convering up in the name of "security" which is even more blatant than Nixon's similar claims and the chips will fall where they may (which would make the Keating scandal look tame).

W & his enablers (both Republican AND a few spineless Democrats) have mucked things up so badly it will take BOTH a Clinton and an Obama (with Edwards as Attorney General, Webb, Nunn, or Clark as Sec Defense, Gore as head of EPA & many more excellent cabinet choices, including Republicans such as Snowe & Hagel) to clean up the mess. Bipartisanship will be back and Rovian tactics will be gone for at least a while. And no, H&O aren't using those tactics now; their attacks on each other are kid-gloves tame compared with what McCain's people have already begun. Fortunately all that will do is reinforce that W's "heir" is "more of the same" which the people are rejecting in record numbers.

It's time for another "Morning in America" this time courtesy of Hillary, Obama, & the majority of Americans who support them.

Posted by: jtc.indiscretion | March 5, 2008 6:46 AM | Report abuse

The "Fix" won't likely comment on the importance of the Hispanic/Latino vote in Texas but super delegates need to keep it in mind.

This is the basic text of a letter I had faxed back on Jan 17 to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid ,Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer,and House Minority Leader John Boehner

NOTICE & ONGOING COMPLAINT
January 17, 2008
It can be verified that all of you Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid ,Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer,and House Minority Leader John Boehner as well as others were placed on written notice in November 2006 of my particular situation that involves(for instance but not limited to) IL. U.S. Senator /Presidential Candidate Barack Obama , IL. U.S. Senator Dick Durbin/ co-chair Obama 2008 being complicit in allowing the Illinois Department of Human Rights and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to treat me an American U.S. Hispanic citizen who reported incidents of race discrimination in the state of Illinois in an unequal, biased, & discriminatory manner and then covering up their conduct. Despite there being ample time for each of you to respond, redress, and stop the above mentioned serious form of discrimination nothing ,to date, has been done in a timely manner to fairly & fully address, redress,and stop this still ongoing serious form of discrimination which is continuing to allow Hormel Foods Corporation, UFCW, and Target Corporation to not be held accountable for race discrimination against me. Inaction ,complicity, & deliberate silence on the part of (for instance but not limited to) Obama and Durbin are responsible for my civil rights continuing to be violated as it relates to this serious form of discrimination in the state of Illinois and for nothing being done to fully & fairly redress and stop this still ongoing form of discrimination. Reid ,McConnell, Pelosi, Hoyer,and Boehner you all are also responsible for not stopping this serious form of discrimination, for no ethics charges being brought against Obama and Durbin as it relates to their involvement in this serious matter ,and for no federal investigations of Obama and Durbin being conducted as it relates to their involvement in this serious matter, for U.S. Senator John Kerry who was placed on prior notice of my particular situation without consequence condoning this without dispute form of racism against Hispanics/Latinos by endorsing early in January 2008 Obama , and most recently for 2 more senators also without consequence condoning this without dispute form of racism against Hispanics/Latinos by endorsing Obama those senators being Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson and Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill.

Given the known verifiable facts & circumstances in my particular case IL. U.S. Senator /Presidential Candidate Barack Obama is lying to all American voters especially American Hispanic/Latino voters by Obama telling Fox in a statement that he decries racism in every form , by him saying in Nevada on January 11, 2008 in an effort to appeal to the Hispanic/Latino vote that "...people who are working together across racial lines black , white, Hispanic, Asian ,they can do anything ,there is nothing that we can not do ,Si Se Puede " , by him saying on January 15, 2008 in Nevada that " ...we share the same goals ,we are all democrats, we all believe in civil rights, we all believe in equal rights , we all believe that regardless of race or gender that people should have equal opportunity.", by him saying at the January 15, 2008 Democratic Presidential Debate (note:You Reid were there at the actual debate)that when Hispanic/Latino voters know of "his commitment" , when Hispanic/Latino voters read or hear about his leadership then Hispanics/Latinos will ..."know that they are going to have an advocate even if it is politically tough..." when in reality & actuality Obama from the Democratic party is unwilling to uphold the full & equal rights & protections of all American U.S. citizens including American U.S. Hispanic /Latino citizens(such as myself) since in his state of Illinois Hispanics/Latinos can't , are discouraged, and are being prevented from voicing and memorializing on formal & official charging documents reported incidents of race discrimination unimpeded when nonhispanics are allowed and Hispanics/Latinos are being harmed.

It was reported that on January 16, 2008 Obama said to middle class voters in Van Nuys, California that "I want to get more people elected to congress who are listening to their constituents...." ,but in my particular situation Obama continues only to discriminate against me & deny me one his constituents full,fair, & equal protection and as an example of this Obama called for a federal investigation into the handling of the Duke Lacrosse case in Durham, North Carolina to ensure that the civil rights of affluent white constituents of another state were protected while in my particular case because I am Hispanic Obama in a biased, unequal, and discriminatory manner is still unwilling , to this date, to call for any investigation federal or otherwise into the intentional mishandling and the cover up of reported incidents of race discrimination involving Hormel Foods Corporation, UFCW, and Target Corporation to ensure that the civil rights of one of his own constituents (a Hispanic) from his own state of Illinois are ultimately too fully & equally protected.

The media has given Obama the opportunity to claim that he decries racism in every form when his pastor's magazine honored Farrakhan ,but the media refuses to cover the fact Obama discriminates against American U.S. Hispanic/Latino constituents in his own state of Illinois because that is an absolute fact that can't be debunked. On January 15, 2008 NBC's Mr. Brian Williams, a respected news anchorman, while giving Obama an opportunity to address charges that he is muslim in his question to Obama NBC's Mr. Brian Williams suggested that there is a lot of false information about Obama circulating on the internet ,however NBC's Mr. Brian Williams failed to acknowledge in an objective ,fair, and neutral manner that there is also true information about Obama circulating on the internet as is the case with the verifiable & correct information about my particular situation that I have posted on the internet even before Obama announced he was running to be president. At the January 15, 2008 Presidential Democratic Debate Obama boasted in the state of Illinois Hispanics/Latinos voted for him and in response to NBC's Mr. Brian Williams above mentioned question Obama was given the opportunity to voice ..."In the internet age there are going to be lies that are spread all over the place I have been victimized by these lies....... 'my job is to tell the truth to be straight with the American people..' " when in reality and actuality given what are the known facts and circumstances of my particular situation Obama is not telling the truth and not being straight with the American people especially American U.S. Hispanic/Latino citizens and I know there is correct information about Obama circulating on the internet because after I was victimized by race discrimination as I have said I have been posting verifiable & true information about my particular situation on the internet even before Obama announced he was running to be president.

I do not want any further reprisals for trying to protect my civil rights , but since this ongoing situation has been going on for an inordinate amount of time and because it is still important that a written record be created that reflects without dispute what you all are doing about my particular situation in this January 17, 2008 notice I demand that each of you Reid ,McConnell, Pelosi, Hoyer,and Boehner with all due diligence immediately without further hesitation and delay send me written confirmation that reflects each of you are taking heed of my particular situation not concealing this information from your colleagues and the American public, that reflects each of you will stop this serious form of discrimination happening in the state of Illinois against American U.S. Hispanic/Latino citizens, and that also reflects each of you in fact do not condone anyone from the House or Senate formally & publicly endorsing Obama for the most important office in the U.S. since an endorsement for Obama condones this without dispute form of Racism against American U.S. citizens who happen to be Hispanic/Latino or each of you will be responsible for ushering into the White House a racist against Hispanics/Latinos Obama whose unwillingness to treat all American U.S. citizens including American U.S. Hispanic/Latino citizens fairly & equally makes him an ineffective U.S. Senator and an individual who would turn back the clock on equal rights and lead this country in the wrong direction as President of the United States of America which seems to be the goal.

c: Ms. Maria Elena Durazo, Head of the LA County Federation of Labor

---------------


Hispanics just showed they will not be willing victims of his "Good Judgment". This form of discrimination is ongoing in Illinois as we speak but Barack Obama told Hispanic/Latinos nothing about it! I repeat this is verifiable, ongoing and Barack Obama should still address it but will not and you can guess why. Included is a link to just one example (If you happen to be a Hispanic in Illinois you are not allowed race discrimination charges and therefore cannot be a victim of race discrimination as I can atest) this is on IDHR's own website in the public domain.

http://www.state.il.us/dhr/Orders/2006/Oct_06/Zuniga,%20M.htm


Posted by: Chaos45i | March 5, 2008 6:04 AM | Report abuse

Indefinition won.

Latinos won big time. Latinos will not decide the candidate but will make their voice be heard loud and clear. Latino power is here to stay.

Clinton won big time in Ohio, just so in Texas.

Total popular vote Obama ahead.

Total delegate count Obama ahead.

Obama has a problem with Latinos, Latinos have a problem with Obama. Will not be solved in this primaries cycle.

Clinton has a problem with numbers. Does not look likely she will solve the numbers problem.

Prediction: long struggle into June with Obama numbers beating out the Clinton Machine.

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

Nice try Tommy Barban....but what about your predictions on the republican side?
:-)

Posted by: jimoneill50 | March 5, 2008 5:18 AM | Report abuse

Let's see...Clinton, who had 20 point leads in Texas and Ohio two weeks ago, beat Obama by about 3 points in Texas and about 12 in Ohio, and ends the day really no closer to securing a lead in the delegate count than she was before.

Obama, in the meantime, came from 20 points back in Texas to potentially take more delegates in the combined primary and caucus, with the win in Vermont helping to neutralize her advantage in Ohio. On top of that, he'll be able to announce in the morning an ASTOUNDING amount of money raised during February, the type of money that Clinton can only dream about (well, Hillary; Bill can pull in $50 million just by helping a few more of his business contacts secure contracts overseas.)

And now Clinton gets to be pummeled again in a series of smaller states where she'll lose by 15-20 points (maybe 30+ points in MS), when Obama will continue to build on his delegate lead going into PA. So if she's down 160 delegates going into PA, and that's essentialy the last stop on the line - how does her team POSSIBLY spin it as a good thing for them?

Posted by: Marcus3 | March 5, 2008 4:46 AM | Report abuse

Mini Tuesday's big winner: John McCain.
Why? Clinton merely saved her hide. McCain wrapped up his nomination with the added bonus that the Democratic candidates will go on for at least two more months badgering and weakening eachother. Whoever wins the Democratic nomination will be weaker than if it had been settled on mini tuesday.

As to Clinton-Obama. Clinton clearly carried the day but she won't get much traction delegate wise. In fact, it's very possible the difference between both in terms of pledged delegates may be exactly the same as before the March 4 contests... and the math isn't on Clinton's side without having to resort to shenanigans like FL and MI.

Posted by: fdewaele | March 5, 2008 4:41 AM | Report abuse

Clinton and McCain won (although Huckabee still did well enough against a 'foregone conclusion' to raise some questions about McCain's ability to motivate the base.)

Whether Clinton has enough delegates to overcome Obama will be irrelevant over the next few days, since the perception will be that she's grabbed the momentum. She's starting to damage Obama in the national polls which show McCain opening up a slightly larger lead against Obama (and show her and McCain fairly close.) Obama will need to retool quickly.

Posted by: rickjginter | March 5, 2008 4:37 AM | Report abuse

Clinton nets about 330K in popular vote tonight, much larger than expected. I haven't seen these totals in a while. Does anyone know were this leaves the popular vote?

Posted by: terry_austin | March 5, 2008 4:26 AM | Report abuse

Hillary is well on her way to being our next Prez despite the efforts of The Media and a whole bunch of Repubs to stop her. I have been saying for many months Hillary is going to be our next POTUS, and I still have a sneaking suspicion Obama will be the VP choice unless something is found that a lot of us think is out there, but can't put our finger on.

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

coverage of indicted political fixer REZCO's trial and his protége obama will expose to voters that obama is not as lily-white as he claims to be.

the issues of readiness, experience, the economy & foreign affairs works against obama. those are the issues important to the american people.

hillary clinton will be nominated and win the presidency.


end of story.

Posted by: mikel1 | March 5, 2008 3:35 AM | Report abuse

Obama did not lose. He has more delegates and delegates are what you need to win the nomination. HRC did however get to make a negative "victory" speech. When will people get tired of the negative way in which HRC runs her campaign??

I really appreciate the positive manner of the Obama campaign.

I really wish he would get a new stump speech however. I am a political junkie and have heard every version of that speech on CNN, MSNBC, FOX, NBC, CBS and ABC.

The speech he gave tonight after HRC gave her speech was different - Thanks Barack!

Where is John Edwards?? When is he going to endorse Obama?? I can see it now -- an Obama/Edwards ticket!!

Posted by: maybe.sew | March 5, 2008 3:33 AM | Report abuse

Unfortunately, Senator Clinton won. She has won the "big" states. But the real losers are those of us in the "unimportant" states who voted/caucused for Obama. The next election year, the DNC should have primaries in only those "big" states, because our wins don't matter anyway and we won't have to waste our time and energy being involved.

Once again, the true Midwest and West exist only to geographically connect California to the East. To the Hillary Clinton and the DNC, we are not important. Florida has nothing to complain about in being disenfranchised; try being a Kansas Democrat!

Posted by: quaney | March 5, 2008 3:30 AM | Report abuse

Hey all you Repbs. and obama supporters chill--she won 3 out of 4 that's a win and she lives another day to define WHO THE REAL OBAMA IS AND WHAT HE STANDS FOR!!!So--GET OVER IT-- SHE WON PERIOD--A WIN IS A WIN ANYWAY YOU CUT IT. Then she will whip him in PA.

Posted by: vergens2 | March 5, 2008 3:27 AM | Report abuse

Let's get specific:

Going into March 4th Obama had about a 150 pledged delegate lead on Clinton (http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/02/ultimate-delegate-tracker.html).

She needed to win 58% of the pledged delegates remaining to get level with Obama.

With 203 of those delegates allotted according to USA Today, as a type this, she picked up only 27. That leaves 778 delegates, of which she will still need to get 58%.

After all the delegates are allotted from the March 4th contests there will be just 611 to divvy up. If she is still down 100 delegates, she'll still need more than 58% of the remaining delegates to catch Obama. Given she is likely to lose most of the remaining states, that percentage will just keep getting larger and larger.

I just don't see it.

Posted by: DanKirkd | March 5, 2008 3:12 AM | Report abuse

WINNERS

(1) Traditional 'old school' liberals.
(2) Those adept at surfing the status quo's machine generated swell.
(3) CNN and their respective stock holders.
(4) The otherwise privileged (if not brain dead) 'left'.

LOSERS

(1) Everyone else.

Call me sentimental, but I believe the American people deserve courageous leadership . . . not veteran players.

Posted by: gospelnous | March 5, 2008 3:02 AM | Report abuse

The best development for Obama would be if Hillary turns up her demands for counting Michigan and Florida delegates chosen in their outlaw primaries. Democrats like the close contest between two attractive candidates, but they will reject Hillary if she doesn't play by the rules. Of course, it's up to Obama to raise a stink.

Posted by: pundito | March 5, 2008 2:56 AM | Report abuse

Please.

The notion that Clinton "can claim big states" is hogwash. These are primary races. Voters are being asked to pick one of two Democrats. Come the general election, more Clinton primary voters are likely to vote for Obama if he is the nominee, than the reverse, and nationally, Obama is far and away the surer bet against McCain:

Poll Analysis: Obama v. McCain: http://hominidviews.com/?p=1359

Poll Analysis: Clinton v. McCain: http://hominidviews.com/?p=1360

As for momentum - keep following the polls folks and you'll see that Clinton barely hung on in Texas, and Obama closed the gap considerably in Ohio from just a couple of weeks ago.

The only disappointment for Obama supporters is that we have to go through another 6 weeks of this mindless exercise, and Clinton's unpleasantness.

Posted by: DanKirkd | March 5, 2008 2:55 AM | Report abuse

Clearly, Clinton wins. She can claim big states.

Democrats lose. They have to go on fighting it out while McCain has time to retool.

America loses. They seem to like negative campaigning contrary to what they tell pollsters. They also are gullible enough to believe the Clinton spin that she is the best choice because she has been vetted. If she can get some place with these relatively minor negative tags against Obama, wait till she gets a load of the Republicans...again. You really think the Republicans will say, "We have vetted Bill and Hillary before, so there is no need to hit that again"? Think again!

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

Clinton needed to win Ohio and Texas by 60-40 margins to make up her deficit in pledged delegates. She did well in Ohio, but not well enough given the hole she is in, and Texas will be a wash, and now she has few opportunities left now to pick up delegates.

Meanwhile, Wyoming and Mississippi are next and Obama will likely regain some of what he lost today.

So, Obama comes out if this the winner because Clinton didn't do enough damage to his lead.

Meanwhile, the Democratic party comes out of this the big loser, because Clinton did enough to argue staying in this race despite the fact she has no chance of making up her pledged delegate deficit (and frankly she probably would have regardless of the outcome), while the Republicans already can start their general election campaign.

Maybe it will come down to super-delegates after all, but I see them going with the candidate with the most pledged delegates - Obama - and instead playing the role of putting an end to Clinton's fantasy that somehow she can reverse the math.

Posted by: DanKirkd | March 5, 2008 2:29 AM | Report abuse

dlove127, do you have a link for that Ohio exit poll? I'd be very interested to see it.

It does seem that some Republicans there crossed over to vote for the weaker Clinton: http://blog.cleveland.com/openers/2008/03/gop_voters_crossing_over_in_la.html

Posted by: jon.morgan.1999 | March 5, 2008 2:25 AM | Report abuse

Let's be honest, Clinton won.

With that said, Texas was said to be in her hip-pocket just a few weeks ago;

Texas Primary- Hillary vs. Barack:

http://newsusa.myfeedportal.com/viewarticle.php?articleid=50

So, the bigger question going forward:
How did she lose such a big lead, in a big state she was predicted win handily?

Posted by: davidmwe | March 5, 2008 2:25 AM | Report abuse

Clinton won tonight, but not by enough to make a difference.... exactly as I predicted, (* ahem *).

* Wednesday, there will be cheers all around for Clinton's seemingly unsinkable campaign.

* Thursday, people will wake up to the inconvenient truth that Clinton is even LESS likely (mathematically) to overtake Obama's delegate lead than she was on Tuesday morning.

* Friday, a small torrent of superdelegates will start to declare for Obama.

* Saturday, Obama will win Wyoming.

* Tuesday 3/11, Obama will win Mississippi hugely.

*** At some point Clinton will numerically need 100% of the Pennsylvania delegates to tie Obama. Around that point she will concede.

Clinton cannot win by delegates. Period. The math is all against her now. So the remaining problem now is how/when to bow out with her reputation and dignity intact. Sorry if that pisses people off. But the numbers do not lie. Clinton cannot win by delegates. Clinton cannot win by delegates. Clinton cannot win.

Peace
.
.
.

Posted by: egc52556 | March 5, 2008 1:57 AM | Report abuse

State-wise, Obama lost. Perception-wise Obama lost. Delegate count today Obama lost. He will be somewhere around 100 pledged delegates ahead. But it is not only about pledged delegates. It's about all delegates and there are around 1200 total delegates to go. Not including MI and FL which are the big wildcards. This is far from over. And they are both about the same distance from the 2025 needed to secure the nomination.

Posted by: dave | March 5, 2008 1:55 AM | Report abuse

McCain wins - not only the nomination, but he gets to begin his campaign for the general election while Clinton and Obama slog on.

Clinton slows the Obama momentum, but can't reverse the trend in delegates - they're still tied. My guess is Obama wins caucuses in MS and WY, but Clinton's victory in OH gives her something to build on for the PA primary where she's ahead in the polls.

On second thought, maybe this is a win for SNL and The Daily Show.

Posted by: -pamela | March 5, 2008 1:46 AM | Report abuse

McCain won his nomination, Clinton won a poisoned chalice.

Democrats will campaign hard for Senators, Reps, state and local candidates - but not for Clinton. If she continues on her chosen path of win at any cost, she's going to find herself very alone in her campaign.

Posted by: TomJx | March 5, 2008 1:45 AM | Report abuse

i am not sure that i get why this county says that change is important, but still embraces the old, divisive, spiteful politics of old.

the exit polls make us seem like a bi-polar country to me.

Speaking of exit polls, did anyone pay attention to the fact that in OH, 8 in 10 said that Race played a part in their selection? Hmmm...

Posted by: dlove127 | March 5, 2008 1:44 AM | Report abuse

Alan, normally you're pretty reasoned and seasoned in these comments. But you know full well this campaign has already been through the inland West. Idaho, Utah, Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, North Dakota, Kansas, and Nebraska have all voted already. SD is about the only inland West state that hasn't. If you want more presidential primary attention there, move your primary up. When you leave it in June, you should consider it miraculous that you might get some of that attention at all.

WY and MS vote in the next week, PA April 22, NC and OR in May--but OR is a smaller state (5 House seats). Indiana also has yet to weigh in, and it's a more average sized state (9 House seats, like WA and MO). PA probably favors Clinton I'm thinking, OR and NC favor Obama. IN I really don't know.

Posted by: jon.morgan.1999 | March 5, 2008 1:44 AM | Report abuse

Real news people need to investigate how much HRC's win in TX is thanks to Rush Limbaugh. My Dem sister lives in a deeply GOP precinct in San Antonio. She reported that GOP voters were en masse voting for HRC. Obama easily won the caucus.

In the short term, the media needs to demand before 4/15:

(1) immediate release of the Clintons' 2006 tax return;

(2) a complete list of donors to the Clinton Library and Foundation; and

(3) complete release of her White House papers. As she did not have security clearance, this should not be a problem.

Until this happens, strongly demand them.

Posted by: GordonsGirl | March 5, 2008 1:44 AM | Report abuse

wow, Clinton wins Ohio and Texas! This is excatly why we have a sub prime mess. We do not know how to count! Clinton has not won Ohio or Texas. She has probably netted 5 to 7 delegates in Ohio which is wiped out by the net delegates won by Obama in Vermont! She has probably lost the fight for delegates in texas, in spite of her "win."

Winning a State makes sense only in the electoral college winner take-all USA general election.

The choice of a nominee is the party's method of canvassing the views of citizens everywhere in the Country. Thus a whisper from Idaho is as important as a shout from California. It is not important who won Idaho or california but how many delegates one harvests based on the proportion of votes won in congressional districts!!!

This is not the general election where you can win CA, MA, NY, OH and a few other States and be declared a winner! Thus, it is equally senseless to claim that "Clinton wins the big states or the blue states or any number of the extravagant claims being made by the media and Clinton campaign."

There is a reason why pledged delegate is teh criteria for success in this race. It does not say one has to win any number of States, let alone big versus small state.

Wake up from the sub-delegate crisis, media! It is the same miscalculation that has sunk the Clinton campaign! She cannot figure out this simple electoral math but she wants to run the country.

To her winning the nomination is about winning NY, CA, MA, OH, TX and PA. if you can win this big states, which loom large in the electoral college, then somehow you are also the best candidate because democrats in small states do not matter. Even worse it can be assumed that your democratic opponent cannot win NY!

Jokers!

Posted by: kwakuazar | March 5, 2008 1:42 AM | Report abuse

Definitely a good night for Sen. Clinton, probably better than anyone would have guessed... Question is, will it matter? Obama did well enough (pending that pesky TX caucus results coming in) to keep a big delegate lead, and his camp has claimed they're about to roll out a big superdelegate endorsement batch. Obama should go on to win Montana and Mississippi this week, and these factors combined should erase any amount of catching up Clinton has done. I call it a draw - no long term help or momentum for Clinton, but certainly no benefit for Obama.

Posted by: C.Prachniak | March 5, 2008 1:37 AM | Report abuse

So Clinton ekes out a 3 point or so win in Texas' primary, then goes on to lose its caucus. My guess is that between those two, Obama ends up winning more delegates from TX than Clinton (something like Nevada). That seems like a bit of a mixed result to me. How Texas gets spun seems like the critical factor to me. RI and VT presumably cancel each other out in delegates, and Clinton nets a few out of Ohio. (I have to admit being stunned at her 83 county win--in the end she pulled out Lucas County!) I guess Clinton will make a momentum claim, but Obama still has a clear delegate lead. Do the superdelegates start breaking for Clinton again? To me this is muddy, and with a loss in TX delegates, there's an argument that Clinton should withdraw. But she'll never do that until she absolutely has to. I think we're stuck with at least another 7 weeks of this...I was really hoping it'd effectively be over tonight. At first blush, I think PA may favor Clinton. NC clearly is Obama country.

Narrow Clinton wins in big states, big Obama wins in small states. We really may be stuck with this all the way to the convention.

Posted by: jon.morgan.1999 | March 5, 2008 1:34 AM | Report abuse

I disagree dave. Hillary dropping out tonight would have been the best-case scenario for Obama. The fact that he didn't achieve the best-case scenario doesn't make it an Obama loss and a Clinton victory.

Since he is so far ahead in pledged delegates, Clinton needed to make HUGE gains in delegates to hope to have a realistic chance of overcoming his lead. She failed to make these huge gains, so she also didn't get her "best-case" scenario.

Her campaign can spin all they want (with the assistance of the media's ill-informed headlines), but this is a win for Obama because tonight was her only realistic opportunity to gain enough delegates to have a real chance to beat him. After tonight, there's no chance she'll get more elected delegates than him.

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

I have a gut feeling that Obama will lose, I know the math works against Hillary but if they are close enough in delegates I have a feeling the democratic voters will get screwed with a brokered convention.

Hillary and John McCain are the winners tonight

http://theghostofedmuskie.blogspot.com/

Posted by: srg5007 | March 5, 2008 1:27 AM | Report abuse

BlusterMonkey - "when he rallies to come closer than the 20 points by which he, ten days ago, was expected to get his clock cleaned--- by not overtaking her expected win--- he loses the spin war?"

Yes. Because 3 days ago he was winning or tied and the polls were trending up for Obama. He had won 11 straight, many of those in the "down by double digits, win by double digits" manner. The thought was that this would work out the same way for Obama this time. If Obama had won 3 of 4, Hillary probably would have dropped out. This result is a loss for him.

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

I am sitting here trying to figure out whether, if Clinton wins the nomination, I will volunteer for McCain to try to keep her from the presidency. And I've always voted for Democrats for president until now. I really feel like I cannot tolerate seeing her lying, disingenuous, incompetent persona for another day. I may need to tune out all remaining primary and election coverage altogether to keep my sanity.

Posted by: agreen1 | March 5, 2008 1:20 AM | Report abuse

Wolf Blitzer's comments epitomize what is wrong with the media today: "Texas - How Hillary Clinton managed to do what the experts didn't think she could do - score this win."

First, WHAT experts didn't think she could win Texas?? She had a HUGE lead until the last week or so.

The media networks need to do their own smart and independent analysis. Instead, all they seem to do is: 1) build up an unjustified expectation. 2)talk about how amazing it is when that unjustified expectation isn't fulfilled.

God it is so frustrating watching the news. Cronkite HAD to be better than today's crop.

Posted by: NoCal | March 5, 2008 1:16 AM | Report abuse

Clinton wins. All Obama supporters (including me) have to admit this. And Obama loses the spin war as well. Even if he gets the delegates we won't know for close to a week or more. After he wins the Texas caucus this becomes Clinton's ultimate vindication on her anit-caucus line. (I had thought Washington would have gotten us beyond that but no one covered the Washington primary.) Now we all have to work hard. Very hard. Or else, and I sincerely believe this, hello President McCain.

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

So, in essence, by going extremely negative, and filling the Republicans' trough of dirt on Obama, Senator Clinton has found the recipe for success. Yay. Now that's some victory to celebrate on the blue side of the aisle.

Obama--- "who just can't seem to close the deal"? Let me get this straight: when he rallies to come closer than the 20 points by which he, ten days ago, was expected to get his clock cleaned--- by not overtaking her expected win--- he loses the spin war?


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

Hillary won. Anyone who says different is fooling themselves. Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.

Does it get her the nomination? Of course not. But it stops Barack's run. It will be his turn to defensively fend off questions about why he lost three of four states tonight.

And it means It will be very likely that the contenst will still be on when my state votes with South Dakota June 3. It's about time we had national candidates come in the inland west and be put to the test with questions about our regional issues.

I still don't know which one I'll vote for. Despite what they say about each other, they are both good candidates and we will be well served with either one as president.

I picked the outcomes right, in each state, but not so close on percentages.

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

Winners included:
- Clinton (3 for 4)
- McCain with the big win
- Republicans since the Dems continue their close catfight
- The people that stayed with and delivered Ohio for HRC.

Losers:
- Obama who just can't seem to close the deal
- People that wanted to go to bed early
- Democratic voters in Michigan and Florida knowing that their votes are critical yet are not being counted.

Posted by: dave | March 5, 2008 1:08 AM | Report abuse

Is Clinton becoming a Reality Denier like Bush? She lost a dozen in a row, she's behind in delegates, she didn't win knockout victories and take back the lead. The math says she can win enough delegates to over take Obama so....what is she doing? She played the part of a slash and slime Republican for a week and that did nothing but alienate the very voters she would need if she could wrestle the nomination from Obama. Give it up already!

What's important is that the Democrats have a team together to drive the Republicans out of the WH, out of the Senate and out of the House. They need to pull Americans together to start cleaning up the god-awful mess that Bush and his Republican sycophants have gotten into.

Obama and his supporters represent the future of the Democratic party, Hilary represents the past. The future always wins.

End the Drama, get behind Obama!

Posted by: thebobbob | March 5, 2008 1:06 AM | Report abuse

Clinton gains a couple of tactical victories, but Obama retains the strategic advantage in delegates, states, money and enthusiasm. Probable strong wins for Obama in WY and MS are up soon, and more super-delegates will declare for Obama. Biggest danger for him is the spin war - press is dying to ply out the "comeback" story, and Obama has to fight it.

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

Great work, Chris. Who won? Hillary did. And so did I (one of your t-shirts please; by my count I'm within 1% of having called the results exactly in Texas and Ohio; tip: DHL has very reliable package delivery to Buenos Aires).

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

That said.. As I stated in one of The Fix's other threads, It's hard to argue against the fact that Clinton's two-pronged strategy has worked to a certain extent - it will allow her to claim she has a chance to win (despite the fact that she doesn't - again, barring a politically disastrous superdelegate override of the will of the voters).

1) Her attack ads against Obama seem to have worked (temporarily). However, they seem completely short-sighted and astoundingly horrible politically. FIRST - Any voters who vote because of the thrust of this ad seem to me much more likely to vote for McCain than Clinton since his national security credentials are much better than hers. SECOND - my first objection reinforces my second, that Clinton is amazingly short-sighted. Obama will be the nominee, and her ads only give credence and video clips for Republicans to use in the general election. (This reinforces, in my mind, the fact that the Clintons are willing to do ANYTHING for short-term political gain and their own personal power).

2)The second prong of Clinton's strategy has also worked (and I believe even to a larger extent) -- i.e. convincing the press that they are biased for Obama and against her.

However, this is belied by the fact that the media has focused on Clinton to the detriment of Obama and all the other candidates because of her huge initial advantage in name recognition and celebrity status as a first lady. The fact that nearly 75% of the campaign stories on news websites over the past week featured the name CLINTON in the headline (and a corresponding picture of her) instead of Obama reinforces the Media's focus on Clinton.
(i.e. the story is almost always framed: "Clinton loses", "Clinton wins", "Clinton attacks", etc. instead of "Obama wins", etc.)

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

Sen. John McCain, of course.

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

Clinton wins Ohio and has a nice lead in Texas at my bedtime. She may win that too. Whether she does or not, she has checked his momentum and no matter how hard the boys at MSNBC scream for her to withdraw, this race will go on. As for those who blame her for "going negative", I have seen more negative campaigns for Sheriff here in Arizona. If they think this is negative, wait until the Rove gang gets started.

Posted by: Opa2 | March 5, 2008 12:57 AM | Report abuse

I am so tired of this primary campaign. I am sick of Clinton's slimy anything-to-win approach, and her continual moving of the goalposts is giving me a headache. Make her go away, please.

(a feminist for Obama)

Posted by: agreen1 | March 5, 2008 12:56 AM | Report abuse

Obama won. Clinton, despite her claims, will not be able to overtake his lead in "pledged" delegates. And, unless the democrats allow the politically disastrous invalidation of the popularly elected delegates by the "super delegates", she has no chance of winning. (especially since Mississippi, North Carolina, and Oregon are still to vote).

The media will focus on "momentum" during the next week, unfortunately. But momentum has no further role to play when the race is already over for all intents and purposes.

Therefore, since Clinton cannot realistically beat Obama in pledged delegates, and since allowing superdelegates to overturn the will of the electors selected by the public would be political suicide, Obama will be the nominee.

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

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company