Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

February 12, 2008
By: Kevin Drum

VIRGINIA....So did Hillary lose in Virginia? Or did she get smoked like a Virginia ham? Answer: things are looking pretty hamlike tonight. Obama seems set to carry at least 60% of the vote, and maybe as much as two-thirds. Rough night for Hillaryland.

Kevin Drum 7:25 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (145)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Doesn't count. Only Texas matters. (Although there is a good case to be made for OH mattering, but VA could swing...)

Posted by: Gore/Edwards 08 on February 12, 2008 at 7:29 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, I'd just like to point out that your only basis for claiming Obama seems like he'll get 60% is those evil exit polls.

Posted by: Jason on February 12, 2008 at 7:31 PM | PERMALINK

The fact is that none of the Potomac primaries count because Democrats were disenfranchised by the fact that the majority of voting Democrats chose someone other than Hillary.

Posted by: Jacek on February 12, 2008 at 7:35 PM | PERMALINK

Jason, while that's true, you have to look at them. It really is amazing. They show Obama winning among women 58%-42%....that's HUGE. He's also splitting the white vote with Hillary basically 50%-50%.

BTW, the current vote count, with 6% in, shows Obama winning 62%-37%. The exit polls seem to be right on the money.

Posted by: Joe on February 12, 2008 at 7:36 PM | PERMALINK

Top Ten reasons Virginia doesn't count:

1. It was snowing, and Clinton supporters were too polite to go out and clog up the roads.

2. Virginia is for lovers; America needs a fighter.

3. George Allen was almost elected Senator there, and he once said the word 'macaca'.

4. A Virginia state trooper once gave Chelsea Clinton a speeding ticket.

5. Too close to South Carolina, where Jesse Jackson won in '80 and '84.

6. State where Camp David is located. WTF sort of name for a camp is that?

10. Virginia believes in Santa Claus.

(And as you can see, I can't count either.)

Posted by: lampwick on February 12, 2008 at 7:36 PM | PERMALINK

Stick a fork in her, she's done. The nominee will be Obama. Her supporters have got to be dispirited and with no victories in sight, they won't come out to vote for her. Why waste your time? I doubt she can win Texas. Its an open primary state with a whole lot of Republicans who will cross over just to do her in. Sorry, Hillary, it just wasn't your time. The Dems really need to rethink whether open primaries and caucuses are a good idea for their party though.

Posted by: aline on February 12, 2008 at 7:36 PM | PERMALINK

There should be a contest to predict the spin out of Hillaryland for why the Virginia results don't matter.

My prediction is: the Giuliani strategy, i.e., she didn't campaign much there, so it's not surprising that Obama won.

Posted by: bobb on February 12, 2008 at 7:37 PM | PERMALINK

Open Caucuses are great for the party. How else are we going to get people to become democrats? Once you vote in the primary, you start to take ownership of your candidate. I doubt Republicans are voting for Obama just to fuck with us.

Posted by: john on February 12, 2008 at 7:42 PM | PERMALINK

Camp David is in Maryland, but Hillary's national campaign headquarters is in Virginia.

Posted by: mike on February 12, 2008 at 7:45 PM | PERMALINK

Time for her to gracefully exit, stage left.

Posted by: brian on February 12, 2008 at 7:45 PM | PERMALINK

lampwick - Camp David is in Maryland, not Virginia.

Posted by: Another problematic white woman for Hillary on February 12, 2008 at 7:46 PM | PERMALINK

"I doubt Republicans are voting for Obama just to fuck with us."

Didn't I hear rumors that the evil ones were urging GOP'ers to vote for Hillary, as the easiest to beat?

Posted by: David in NY on February 12, 2008 at 7:47 PM | PERMALINK

Re: Camp David.

I sit corrected.

And no offense to the beautiful Old Line State.

Posted by: lampwick on February 12, 2008 at 7:48 PM | PERMALINK

Bill really hurt Hillary with his rants back in what seems prehistory now. He shot her in the foot, both barrels, and made the Clintons look ugly ...

Posted by: SteinL on February 12, 2008 at 7:51 PM | PERMALINK

The exit polls indicate a narrow Huckabee win, and the Huckster's winning 48-44 right now. If he wins, McCain will be majorly embarrassed. Just hilarious....

Posted by: Joe on February 12, 2008 at 7:51 PM | PERMALINK

Or did she get smoked like a Virginia ham?

I think you meant:

Or did she get smoked and snubbed out like a Virginia Slim?

Posted by: unfrankly[zero] on February 12, 2008 at 7:57 PM | PERMALINK

Hillary Clinton's campaign HQ was in VA?

..that bears repeating.

Posted by: Boorring on February 12, 2008 at 8:01 PM | PERMALINK

Aline at 7:36: open primaries are the best way to choose a nominee. Not closed primaries and not caucuses.

Independents and moderate opposition party members should have a say in the nominee, since that person may well be president.

And yes, there may have been some GOP crossover, but banning the mischiefmakers does not outweigh giving a voice to those registered independent.

Sour grapes.

Posted by: Grace, Northern Virginia on February 12, 2008 at 8:09 PM | PERMALINK

Hillary's campaign HQ is in Ballston, VA which is about 5 miles from her Washington, D.C. residence, Whitehaven.

Posted by: dcnative on February 12, 2008 at 8:11 PM | PERMALINK

It appears that the Clinton campaign is imploding. Virginia was not particularly good ground for Obama, but he is trouncing Clinton anyway. This may end on March 4 with two big Obama victories.

Posted by: Yancey Ward on February 12, 2008 at 8:11 PM | PERMALINK

lampwick is hilarious, as usual.

And man, this is an absolute landslide. White men with 55%, Hispanics with 55%, the young with 80%, blacks with 90%... and with 45% reporting, he's winning 64 to 35. There's really no way to spin this loss.

That being said, I'm *really* looking forward to the Hillary camp's spin.

Posted by: jbryan on February 12, 2008 at 8:11 PM | PERMALINK

As for McCain, he should do nothing particularly different. Huckabee can be safely ignored.

Posted by: Yancey Ward on February 12, 2008 at 8:13 PM | PERMALINK

Lampwick, you are a genius. Can I buy you a beer?

Posted by: swarty on February 12, 2008 at 8:16 PM | PERMALINK

Hamlike? I remember Hamlike:

"Be not a borrower, nor a lender be"..."and this above all else, to thine own self be true"

I get it.

Posted by: Greg in FL on February 12, 2008 at 8:22 PM | PERMALINK

C'mon swarty, I'm obviously an Obama guy, ergo I drink wine, not beer.

Posted by: lampwick on February 12, 2008 at 8:23 PM | PERMALINK

Where is Cal to tell us that Obama can't get the White vote?

See, there are all these secret Black people who only look White on the outside. That's it.

I told you. Everyone I know in VA (all White) voted for Obama. But of course we are over-educated latte sipping rich liberals. Damn.

Posted by: Manfred on February 12, 2008 at 8:23 PM | PERMALINK

open primaries are the best way to choose a nominee. Not closed primaries and not caucuses.

Independents and moderate opposition party members should have a say in the nominee, since that person may well be president.

And yes, there may have been some GOP crossover, but banning the mischiefmakers does not outweigh giving a voice to those registered independent.

Those independents and GOP members who cross pary lines have a voice in choosing the President when they vote in the November election. They also have an option of becoming registered party members. Under the current system they are having their cake and eating it too. A mischief making partisan can vote against the stronger candidate of the opposita party, elevate a weaker one and then vote against that person in the general election. The Democratic and Republican nominees should be chosen by their members of their party period. I'm not saying this is happening in Virginia, but I'd love to see the tracking information as to how many of those votes tonight came from people out of the party.

Posted by: aline on February 12, 2008 at 8:29 PM | PERMALINK

Not sure how the final numbers will look but right now Obama is beating McCain and Hillary combined....

Posted by: Joe on February 12, 2008 at 8:41 PM | PERMALINK

frankly0, take 1: Of course Obama's win in Virginia is a travesty because caucuses are profoundly anti-democratic.

Er...

frankly0, take 2: Of course Obama's win in Viriginia proves he is a marginal candidate because he can't win the white vote.

Er...

frankly0, take 3: And what about Obama's fake holy roller accent!

frankly0, take 4: You're all cultists!

Posted by: Lucy on February 12, 2008 at 8:41 PM | PERMALINK

Nope, cannot agree with you there, Aline. Much better to put up nominees with broad support than partisan extremists, as sometimes results with closed primaries.

The biggest choice most of us get IS in the primaries.

And it's too hard to keep switching party registration -- I worked Election Day in Delaware and talked with many disappointed voters who did not realize they'd registered as independents (as most in Delaware do).

Think your strategy is all about party-building and party identification, while emphasis should be putting up the best candidate who can win in the general.

LAST EVIDENCE: Virginia GOP is going with a party convention to choose its Senate nominee -- bets are on the not that popular Jim Gilmore. Moderate GOP Rep. Tom Davis dropped any plans of competing for the nomination when he learned GOP would not go with a primary.

Great news for Mark Warner!!

Posted by: Grace, Northern Virginia on February 12, 2008 at 8:45 PM | PERMALINK

I await Hillary's spin...

...and frankly0's

Posted by: Boorring on February 12, 2008 at 8:55 PM | PERMALINK

Take the hint Hillary. You lost. Now get out of the race before Obama kicks your but again on March 4.

Posted by: Al on February 12, 2008 at 8:59 PM | PERMALINK

I doubt she can win Texas. Its an open primary state with a whole lot of Republicans who will cross over just to do her in.

If there is mischief-making crossover, I suspect it will be to vote for Hillary, since she's the more dangerous candidate (as far as the Republicans are concerned). They're pretty sure they can beat Obama. I think they're wrong, but we'll find out.

Posted by: Mnemosyne on February 12, 2008 at 9:03 PM | PERMALINK

Its great to see Obama win big in the home of the old confederacy on Lincoln's birthday. I'd like to see Obama talk about it, but he probably will not. The result speaks well for the SLOW process that Lincoln, Grant and even Lee started in April 1865. We were lucky to have those three people in charge at that moment in history.

But I still don't get why, if Hillary wins Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania (which she still has a good shot at doing), she doesn't get the nomination?

Posted by: brian on February 12, 2008 at 9:07 PM | PERMALINK

if Hillary wins Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania (which she still has a good shot at doing), she doesn't get the nomination?

No way. Hillary has been shown to be unpopular and disliked in these elections. If Hillary is nominated, Obama supporters like myself will riot on the streets and vote for McCain so that she never becomes President.

Posted by: Al on February 12, 2008 at 9:15 PM | PERMALINK

It will be interesting to see how the Clinton campaign reacts going forward (the spin for these losses is irrelevant).

The Clinton campaign had been following the usual primary playbook of "narrowcasting" (trying to keep it local and word of mouth) their negative attacks on Obama.

That worked a lot better in the 90's and started to become more dangerous in the 2000 election when the internet was able to bring far more information about local races to the national spotlight (cf. Bob Jones, and other Bush attacks on McCain).

This election, even circuitous references to race caused a backlash against the Clinton campaign. The gender gap that has been favoring Hillary also appears to be fading (though that remains to be seen).

The most recent angle has been a continuation of the original theme that Obama is a fad, source of false hope, weak on specifics, a cult of personality, that his followers are fanatics or crazies, etc.

However, it will be interesting to see whether Hillary tries to go for the throat and tries to 'scandalize' Obama, e.g. bringing up Rezco or other allegations of impropriety to tarnish his image. However, given the Clinton past, it risks appearing like a 'glass houses' approach.

Otherwise, what's left? Trying to eek out a tiny majority come convention time?

Posted by: Augustus on February 12, 2008 at 9:16 PM | PERMALINK

Brian:

The way Texas divides it delegates means that it'll essentially be a tie because it is a hybrid primary / caucus (today I looked up the procedure cuz I live in TX). The delegates are allocated based on previous turnout in state senatorial districts and who shows up for the caucus a couple hours after you vote in the primary. As far as pledged delegates go, an analysis I read basically showed that the margin of victory will be less than 5 delegates either way.

I guess she could make up the deficit in OH and PA, but with Obama probably winning the vast majority of the other states (MS, NC, VT, OR, WI), I do not think it'll be enough. Of course, something can always happen - scandal, mis-speak, terrorist attack, bad debate... That's the problem - the day before NH, I thought the O was about to put her away.

Posted by: Blue Moon on February 12, 2008 at 9:17 PM | PERMALINK

Yay!!! Mark Warner!!! YES WE CAN!!

Obama > (McCain + Clinton)

Yay!!! Tim Kaine!!! YES HE DID!!

Posted by: Manfred on February 12, 2008 at 9:24 PM | PERMALINK

Going through CNN's exit poll data... Obama:
- won white voters by 1 point (50 to 49)
- won Hispanic voters by 6 points (53 to 47)
- won whites 17-29 by 40 points (70 to 30)
- won whites 30-44 by 12 points (55 to 43)
- won overall voters 17-29 by 50 points (75 to 25)
- won overall voters 30-44 by 35 points (67 to 32)
- won union members by 20 points (59 to 39)
- won white men by 14 points (56 to 42)
- won white independents by 28 points (63 to 35)
- won overall independents by 34 points (66 to 32)

Also:
- 69% to 29%, voters thought Obama was more likely to unite the country

The most reassuring win for Clinton in this data is that she took 83% of those who thought Hillary Clinton is most qualified to be Commander in Chief. Obama only took 17% of them.

Posted by: jbryan on February 12, 2008 at 9:26 PM | PERMALINK

They're pretty sure they can beat Obama.

You wish.

Posted by: bobb on February 12, 2008 at 9:32 PM | PERMALINK

Regardless of the complexities of Texas delegate allocation, isn't the principal result going to be who "wins" the popular vote in the state? Three weeks is a long time, but as of today, the polls incidate a pretty significant win by Clinton in Texas and Ohio.

I think she could make a pretty good argument, and certainly continue the campaign, based on her status as the winner in the big states -- New York, New Jersey, California, Florida, Michigan, Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. What would be Obama's big state wins? I don't know if the big state argument really makes sense, but it sounds good. The reality is that a large number of democrats like both candidates, the race is a tie with Obama moving ahead, but Hillary may make a late move to get back to even with momentum. Hindsight is 20/20, but she should have offered him the VP slot a year or so ago and preempted his candidacy. Now, it is hard to see that he would take the VP slot.

Posted by: brian on February 12, 2008 at 9:33 PM | PERMALINK

brian makes a very nice observation (above).

Posted by: lampwick on February 12, 2008 at 9:33 PM | PERMALINK

jbryan,

I'm looking at those CNN exit polls, and it says Obama was thought to be most qualified to be Commander in Chief 55%-43%.

I'm reading those polls to mean that 83% of the people who voted for Hillary also think she is most qualified to be Commander in Chief, and that 98% of the people who voted for Obama also think he is most qualified to be Commander in Chief.

Posted by: Lucy on February 12, 2008 at 9:35 PM | PERMALINK

I await Hillary's spin...

...and frankly0's

frankly0? Fuhgedabouddit! I want Chrissy! I want some good old-fashioned venomous spew!!!!

Honey, where are you? Yooooo-hooooooo!

Posted by: calling all toasters on February 12, 2008 at 9:36 PM | PERMALINK

Brian:

The big state argument isn't a bad one. I guess Obama's best argument would be "I can, at the very least, make the GOP waste money chasing me around the South and Mountain states - even if I don't win them, that's less $$$ for them to spend in OH, FL, and PA. Look, a corpse with a 'D' next to his name will win all of Hillary's states."

You're right that in the news, all that would be reported is "Hillary shines in The Lone Star State." But if this really turns into a delegate fight, winning Texas 55-45 is not the devasting victory that it appears at first glance. If Obama keeps PA and OH close, then he can use blowouts elsewhere (especially NC, MS, and Oregon) to offset the damage. Hillary has to play offense now because in both pledged delegates and "momentum" she is losing.

Posted by: Blue Moon on February 12, 2008 at 9:39 PM | PERMALINK

I know that Texas and Ohio are important, but both states are three weeks away. Wisconsin is one week away. Obama is in Wisconsin tonight. Clinton is in Texas. I'm sure she will be in Wisconsin later this week, but the impression is that she is conceding next week to Obama as well. Then Obama will have two weeks to make up ground in Texas and/or Ohio.

Posted by: PE on February 12, 2008 at 9:46 PM | PERMALINK

I must be becoming more and more like Kevin. This is exactly the result I was hoping for, yet I strangely feel sadness. KD perhaps foolish minds think alike.

Posted by: bigTom on February 12, 2008 at 9:59 PM | PERMALINK

blue moon,

You suggest that Hillary will come out swinging in some fashion. I doubt it. Everyone likes Obama and she will not look good going after him, especially after a string of losses. Instead, I think she just has to do the blocking and tackling in Texas and Ohio and hope it, along with some unforeseen events or unforced errors by him, breaks her way.

If she got a couple wins in Texas and Ohio, she could try to take a high road with a call for revotes in Michigan and Florida, a pledge to offer Obama the VP, a promise that she will accept the verdict of the delgates and work her heart out for Obama if he wins, or make some other high minded moves to try to capitalize on her wins.

By the way, if Obama and Hillary are very close after all the pledged delegates are selected, what is the big sin about just letting the "super" delegates vote? They are respected party leaders. The system was designed for them to play this role. It is no better or worse than allowing Obama's "win" in Alaska or Idaho decide the nomination, and arguably better/more fair.

Posted by: brian on February 12, 2008 at 10:03 PM | PERMALINK

Texas and Ohio are 3 weeks away. In this race that is a lifetime. I wouldn't bet against Obama pull a lot closer in both. He might even win one or both of them.

Virginia is huge. As recently as today some on this board were arguing that Hillary would do well in Virginia. The numbers are stunning. Obama won damn near every group including Hispanics. He won more than 1/2 of the white vote. He won white men by 14 points. That is in Virginia, folks, Virginia.

I politics the old "what have you done lately" line is very, very important.

Clinton is going to have to pull three giant rabbits out of her hat. Close wins won't be good enough. She is going to have to really, really crush Obama in Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Posted by: Corpus Juris on February 12, 2008 at 10:07 PM | PERMALINK

No doubt it would be risky to go after Obama, but I think if she just keeps doing what she is doing she will lose.

The superdelegate issue I am conflicted on -- one the one hand, everyone knew what the rules were and that it could always come to that. On the other hand, if "the people" as expressed by the number of delegates won are effectively overuled by the SD's, it just doesn't feel right. Perhaps I am overcome with Obamamania, but I think the SD's if called upon will go with him because they would be afraid of the whirlwind if they didn't and I think the red state pols who support Obama have a pretty compelling story to tell ("We can win in places like Virginia with Obama.").

Posted by: Blue Moon on February 12, 2008 at 10:11 PM | PERMALINK

may I also note the conspicuous absence of frankly0 and DonaldFromHawaii? i'm to await their collective "oh these don't matter cuz..."

the most telling stat to me is that in VA Barack Obama by himself, secured more votes than ALL the Republican candidates. I have a feeling it will be similar in MD (and DC). I believe this bodes well for the general election.

but what do I know, i'm just a latte sipping, overeducated, underpaid white chick, who clearly has been caught up in the clut of personality? /snark

Posted by: e1 on February 12, 2008 at 10:17 PM | PERMALINK

MSNBC just said that Clinton needs to take 56% of the remaining delegates to win. Isn't that going to be hard to do?

Posted by: nepeta on February 12, 2008 at 10:22 PM | PERMALINK

I want Chrissy! I want some good old-fashioned venomous spew!!!!
Honey, where are you? Yooooo-hooooooo!

Probably overcome with hotflashes.

I also note the conspicuous absence of frankly0 and DonaldFromHawaii?

Probably bunkered down over at hillaryis44.com writing stuff like this:

Eh, I hope she never congradulates the empty suit again. I can’t stand him.

Posted by: franklyprissy on February 12, 2008 at 10:29 PM | PERMALINK

MSNBC just said that Clinton needs to take 56% of the remaining delegates to win. Isn't that going to be hard to do?

Yes... unless there is a significant 'there' to Rezko. In which case the information comes out in time for the superdelegates to make the difference and push the nomination to Hillary.

I think it's the best of both worlds... the candidate I judge best is almost assured the nomination but the second runner is close enough that if a real reason emerges why Mr. Obama should lose, he will lose.

Posted by: snicker-snack on February 12, 2008 at 10:30 PM | PERMALINK

Folks -- calm down.

I supported Edwards. I now support Obama. I will be canvassing for him in Ohio next weekend.

Look carefully at the exit polls. Clinton often ran very well among those who self-identify as democrats. Obama (like McCain) does very well among self-identified independents.

The massive number of those independents show that we are seeing an across the board rejection of both parties politics. This is an outsider election.

Don't make it hard for the democrats that insist on voting for HC. They are not the enemy.

Posted by: Adam on February 12, 2008 at 10:31 PM | PERMALINK

"MSNBC just said that Clinton needs to take 56% of the remaining delegates to win. Isn't that going to be hard to do?"

Hard to do but not impossible. She's going to pour every dollar she has into Texas and Ohio to bolster her support.

Posted by: Quinn on February 12, 2008 at 10:32 PM | PERMALINK

Superdelegates play the part of the old 'party bosses,' i.e., the incumbents, the political elite. Here's a reminder of horrible that system was:

"Rewind to the 1968 Democratic National Convention, which showcased the undue influence of the party's old guard. Big-city bosses like Chicago Mayor Richard Daley handed the nomination to Hubert Humphrey, despite Humphrey's support for a deeply unpopular war and the fact that he hadn't won a single primary. As Rick Perlstein recounts in his forthcoming book, "Nixonland," Eugene McCarthy won 79 percent of the vote in the Pennsylvania primary but got less than 20 percent of the state's delegates at the convention. The rest were picked by the party machine. The will of the voters was ignored at the convention, and protesters on the streets outside it were met with clubs and tear gas."

The voters must be the ones to decide. To allow party insiders to decide the nominee is absolutely undemocratic.

Posted by: nepeta on February 12, 2008 at 10:32 PM | PERMALINK

'Aint nothing wrong with a Virginia Ham. Smoking is what makes it great. I'm not a Hillary supporter (while Obama's around), I'm just sayin'.

Posted by: J. Myers on February 12, 2008 at 10:32 PM | PERMALINK

I don't understand why Rezko is a problem for Obama if Hsu isn't a problem for Clinton. Both have returned contributions made by Rezko and Hsu to their campaigns. I doubt that more will come out re Rezko. A lot of time has passed since Rezko appeared on the political radar.

Posted by: nepeta on February 12, 2008 at 10:37 PM | PERMALINK

Aline,

Virginia believes strongly in voting conscious, not party. It's a long tradition. I'm a raging liberal by most definitions, but I have voted for Sen. John Warner time and again because the man has a conscious and clearly prizes his country above party. One of the things I hate most about Bush is that he started making it impossible for me to vote for a good man.

If Republicans want to vote for a Democrat this time, well, to me that only seems natural. I'm encouraged. That's a big step for them to take. I say: welcome, neighbor.

Posted by: J. Myers on February 12, 2008 at 10:42 PM | PERMALINK

Although brian is convincing, I have a feeling we will be hearing a lot more about Rezko and Exelon from Hillary snipers.

What else has she got but to try to undermine Obama's credibility.

I see that nepeta is skeptical about Rezko. That story hasn't really gotten a big media push yet, it seems to me.

Posted by: Lucy on February 12, 2008 at 10:42 PM | PERMALINK

True nepeta, but the current system doesn't allow for anything as undemocratic as the 1968 Pennsylvania results... Most superdelegates will feel compelled to vote for the winner of the local popular vote unless some compelling reason emerges for them not too. ie. there's a real 'there' to Rezko. It's not a bad thing to have some special 'brakes' built into the system that only come into play under special circumstances. That said, I'm happy with today's results.

Posted by: snicker-snack on February 12, 2008 at 10:44 PM | PERMALINK

But if she does manage a solid win on March 4th, Hillary's still in decent shape, and she could yet finish up with more popular votes than Obama, and with only a very narrow deficit in pledged delegates (I think coming out ahead of Obama in total pledged delegates is an impossibility for Hillary absent some sort of major scandal erupting for her opponent).

Agree with everything Jasper said, though I want to underscore the need for Clinton to score SOLID wins in Texas and Ohio. By the time they roll around, if she wins by slim margins, say around 5% or so, that really won't be enough. She'll probably continue but her argument is going to be "I won the biggest states", which I don't think will get her very far.

Posted by: Quinn on February 12, 2008 at 10:47 PM | PERMALINK

snicker-snack, I hope you're right about the superdelegates. Our friend Tim Russert just said that unless Clinton is close in delegates to Obama, i.e., no more than 30 delegates behind, then the superdelegates would be very wary of giving the nomination to her.

Posted by: nepeta on February 12, 2008 at 10:58 PM | PERMALINK

Every Clinton scandal has been played to death in the media already. Rezko hasn't yet hit the big time. I don't expect it will put much of a damper on popular enthusiasm for Obama, but who knows.

Posted by: Lucy on February 12, 2008 at 11:01 PM | PERMALINK

Excuse my ignorance, I should know this, but are MI and FL counted in most Democrat delegate totals? I notice all the MSM maps paint those states for Hillary, but there are no delegates awarded for those states at this point, correct? Their inclusion/non-inclusion would make a considerable difference in the counts.

Posted by: J. Myers on February 12, 2008 at 11:05 PM | PERMALINK

snicker-snack, one more thing. The superdelegate system was not designed to put the brakes on as a response to a last-minute emergency. If you have time, take a look at this Nation article by Ari Berman:

Not So Superdelegates

"According to political scientist Rhodes Cook, superdelegates were created as a "firewall to blunt any party outsider that built up a head of steam in the primaries."

Posted by: nepeta on February 12, 2008 at 11:08 PM | PERMALINK

Every Clinton scandal has been played to death in the media already. Rezko hasn't yet hit the big time. I don't expect it will put much of a damper on popular enthusiasm for Obama, but who knows.

agreed but be good to get it all out in the primary season and not wait for the general.

Posted by: snicker-snack on February 12, 2008 at 11:09 PM | PERMALINK

Lucy,

You're making me nervous re Rezko. Guess I've got a lot of googling to do.

Posted by: nepeta on February 12, 2008 at 11:12 PM | PERMALINK

nepeta, no contesting Rhodes Cook's contentions about the original purpose of superdelegates... still, things can end up having functions other than all that was originally envisioned.

Posted by: snicker-snack on February 12, 2008 at 11:14 PM | PERMALINK

Brian: I think [Clinton] could make a pretty good argument, and certainly continue the campaign, based on her status as the winner in the big states -- New York, New Jersey, California, Florida, Michigan, Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

New York, New Jersey, California, Florida, Michigan, Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania?

Hm. Michigan and Florida weren't contested, so it's unfair to include them...

New York, New Jersey, California, Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

And... I wouldn't count Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania yet:

I think [Clinton] could make a pretty good argument [...] based on her status as the winner in the big states -- New York, New Jersey, California

...aaaaand that's all she wrote. She's got three states, as someone just said, "a corpse with (D) next to their name would win."

Posted by: anonymous on February 12, 2008 at 11:14 PM | PERMALINK

As an admitted Hillary enthusiast

btw, I want to say thanks, Jasper. Have enjoyed your comments this thread and that it's really very nice to have a thread at WM in which accusations are not being flung around as to who is or is not an unthinking cult follower or misogynist or whatever...

Still, if this Rezko thing is the only black mark on his resume, I want it looked into quickly. Better March than October.

totally agree.

Posted by: snicker-snack on February 12, 2008 at 11:23 PM | PERMALINK

Rezko? Christ almighty, whisper campaigning on the Washington Monthly? Hillary is at least as embroiled. And you forgot Khazikstan in the coalition of the corrupt. Don in Hawaii was decrying the size of Obama's wine cellar in another thread. Well, I call bullshit. Hillary wrote herself a $5,000,000 check as a public servant. It is time a black man can be authentically successful and inspiring without having to defend himself for living too well, or in a way not so common as you might think he should project. Concern trolls can go screw themselves. Jeez! From Abramoff to Enron, to torture, to a war for Exxon mobile interests, and you SOBs come on here bitching about some peripheral dirtbag that would not even be part of Bush's "base." Look, let's get back to real issues. Obama is winning. He is inspiring. And he will help effect an epic Democratic victory.

Posted by: Sparko on February 12, 2008 at 11:24 PM | PERMALINK

All of this has been coming down the pike since Iowa. The Landslide victory in Maine was the final chapter in this sad tale of Hillary’s Campaign incompetence. The campaign manager swap, the campaign coffers being empty, and these stories of infighting in Hillaryville are just the “Background” on the real story.

Hillary loses Maine in 20 point landslide. That’s the rub. Let me explain.

It’s now abundantly clear that Hillary never considered the campaign going past Super Tuesday, even though in Iowa Mark Penn was saying stuff like, “Its all about the delegates”. Was this just bluster? Didn’t he know it was all about delegates? They where banking on Super Tuesday win, and as facts rolled in, they never changed their strategy.

Team Obama obviously planned a national campaign from day one. After South Carolina Obama’s people fanned out across the country, while Hillary assumed she could blast out of Iowa and march her ass into the white house. In fact, she though she wouldn’t even need to campaign in Iowa (remember that?). This turns to have been a fantasy. Or to say it more plainly, total incompetence.

If you care to look closely, incompetence is a bi line all over Hillary’s campaign. It has been slipshod and messy since the beginning. It has no message, and no message control. Just look at Bill Clinton to understand what I mean.

I keep asking myself, “What is Hillary campaigning for?” and “What are her core beliefs?” There are no answers forth coming from the Clinton campaign. I can say with confidence that Hillary cares about woman’s rights, and Health Care. Beyond that I have no idea. This is another mark of her campaign’s incompetence. Look at the clarity of John Edward’s stump. Even though he never caught fire, he ran a very good campaign. Is there any doubt what he stands for? Hillary’s stump is a laundry list of micro pandering.

To effectively control the message, you need to have one message and say it again and again. But from Iowa on Hillary’s message has been a garbled reactionary stew devoid of Vision, Leadership or Character. She’s simply been playing catch up with Obama.

In Iowa, “I am the Future Democratic Nominee”. Oops, “Now I’ve found my voice”. In Nevada “Culinary Union shouldn’t vote! They backed Obama!” Shortly thereafter, “Florida and Michigan should count because they voted for ME!” In South Carolina “He only won because there are so many black people there.” On Super Tuesday, she declared that, “Obama is now the Establishment Candidate”. And somewhere along the line Hillary became the candidate for “Change”. Finally her campaign crowed, “We stopped Obama in California”.

~ And then came Maine

I’m not pointing this out because I want to pile onto Hillary’s unfortunate situation. Her campaign is going down in flames. The next month is going to be painful to watch. I just hope we don’t have to drag her kicking and screaming off the stage at the Democratic Convention, thrashing about trying to rip down Obama Victory banners.

On the other hand, Obama has run a pitch perfect campaign, probably the best I’ve ever seen. Tight message control, no negative campaigning, cash flowing in by the truck load, astounding volunteerism, and a highly organized ground team. He took on the Clintons machine and won. He’s simply running a better campaign. That team Obama was able to go national with such ease and sophistication during a primary fight is just unbelievable. This isn’t even the general election for Christ’s sakes!

Hillary on the other hand has been the skipper on a sinking ship. Pretty strange considering that she claims to be the candidate with better “Experience”. If that where true, this never would have happened.

Posted by: troll_bait on February 12, 2008 at 11:26 PM | PERMALINK

Well, as far as I can tell from my first Google search, Obama's land deal with Rezko is really small potatoes. It was not a deal for his house or the land that his house was on, but simply the purchase from Rezko of a small strip of property to enlarge his yard, who owned the adjacent property. Obama paid more than the appraised value for the strip of land. Is this all there is too it? Anyway, enough of this. I'm going back to feeling elated about Obama's three wins tonight.

Chicago Sun Times

Posted by: nepeta on February 12, 2008 at 11:35 PM | PERMALINK

TB: that was my analysis as well last week. Hillary does have a nice whisper and trash campaign going on right here though. I am deeply disappointed with some of the regulars here. Hillary was tone deaf, has run a silly campaign (and I am certain all she has left is the wine cellar anecdotes). I am convinced she would be a disaster as president. Lay down with Rove, and get up with incurable rot.

Posted by: Sparko on February 12, 2008 at 11:36 PM | PERMALINK

A lot of folks here seem to think that the SDs will be concerned about backlash if they should vote contrary to the actual pledged delegate count or popular vote (leaving aside the arguments wrt caucuses, open/closed primaries, etc.).

Y'all seem to be taking a rather naive view of these SDs, most of whom are seasoned politicians with their own necks to take care of. They are going to be much, much more concerned (if the count is close) about who has the greater coattail effect in November, in order to save their own skins.

Posted by: CB on February 12, 2008 at 11:36 PM | PERMALINK

Ugh. Whenever I edit my comments they get totally screwed up! Better to leave them alone with only slight problems.

Posted by: nepeta on February 12, 2008 at 11:42 PM | PERMALINK

CB - They risk fragmenting the party and causing Democrats to stay home if they adopt that attitude.

Posted by: Quinn on February 12, 2008 at 11:46 PM | PERMALINK

CB, But since Obama is winning more state primaries/caucuses, wouldn't that automatically make Obama the coattail winner too?

Posted by: nepeta on February 12, 2008 at 11:53 PM | PERMALINK

Jasper, you've been a great sport tonight on wha tmust be arough night, and I hate to correct you but, Hsu was indicted on Grand Theft, in fact he was running from the law at the time he contributed/had access to Hillary, the more recent trouble he is in is over a complex Ponzi Scheme-- yet another case of theft/fraud.

Posted by: Socraticsilence on February 13, 2008 at 12:18 AM | PERMALINK

TB: That was a great analysis, beat for beat.

Wouldn't you rather see if there are any damaging revelations before Obama secures the nomination?

I'm not sure. On the one hand, it would be good to have a dress rehearsal for the general, observe Obama under media stress, gauge public reaction, and so on.

On the other hand, if the story gets legs then we'll be stuck with it all year long. Rezko's not bad as these things go, but look at Whitewater--totally ginned up and cost the taxpayers $60 million and the Clintons a lot of grief.

The problem with Rezko is that it's got all the right elements for a soundbite scandal: "slumlord", "mansion", "fundraiser", "trial". At least Obama had the good sense to say:

"I consider this a mistake on my part and I regret it."

Posted by: Lucy on February 13, 2008 at 12:34 AM | PERMALINK

Lucy: "Every Clinton scandal has been played to death in the media already. Rezko hasn't yet hit the big time. I don't expect it will put much of a damper on popular enthusiasm for Obama, but who knows."

Let me state upfront that the Rezko scandal doesn't implicate Obama in any of its legal shenanigans. There were purportedly some funds ($10,000) from Rezko's alleged shakedown of the Illinois teachers retirement fund that were laundered through some poor schmuck in Glenview into the Obama campaign's coffers, but odds are better than even that Sen. Obama knew nothing about it. Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich probably has far much more to worry about with regards to Tony Rezko's pay to play schemes.

However, Sen. Obama's potential difficulties stem from the fact that he has heretofore chosen to publicly distance himself from Tony Rezko -- going so far as to refer to him in the South Carolina debate as "this individual" -- when in fact the senator had a 17-year relationship with the man, from which he and his family further derived a direct and substantial material benefit, in that Rezko money facilitated the Obama family's purchase of their so-called "dream house" in the Kenwood / Hyde Park area of Chicago.

Some questions have also been raised by others (though not by me) as to whether Michelle Obama used her position as a board member on the Commission of Chicago Landmarks to facilitate the subdivision of the Kenwood property (which required the Commission's approval), which enabled the owner to sell it as two distinct parcels, with Rezko purchasing the vacant half while the Obamas purchased the house itself. such speculation is fueled by the fact that there is no public record of any public hearing having been held on the proposed subdivision of that lot (though Chicgo city ordinance most certainly required one), and Michelle resigned her seat on the commission in September 2005, almost simultaneously to the commission's approval of that subdivision. There may be a perfectly valid reason for this coincidence, and it would also probably be a good idea for the Obamas to clarify the process that occurred here.

But as far as I can tell -- and I can't emphasize this enough -- there was apparently nothing remiss in anything either the Obamas or the Rezkos did during the actual course of purchasing that property in question.

However, for a candidate like Barack Obama, who portrays himself as a disciple of "the new politics", the Rezko deal holds rich potential to undermine that characterization, precisely because it is the type of complicated transaction that requires a good deal of explanation for people to understand exactly what occurred, and thus can so easily be misconstrued.

The candidate therefore does himself no favors by minimizing his family's relationship with Tony and Rita Rezko, even though it seems easier to do that than to explain a rather complicated real estate scheme.

Because when you get down to it, how many of our own "casual acquaintances" would agree to spend over $650,000 of their own money to help any one of us facilitate a house purchase? That's probably not going to pass the public's smell test, once they get wind of it and try to grasp what happened in Kenwood.

And that's why I keep saying that it's important for the candidate himself to get out in front on this issue, and not let the GOP malevolently define it for the public's consumption, a la Whitewater.

As is so often the case, the mere appearance of potential impropriety, even if ultimately baseless, can often be far more damaging than any actual committed impropriety. Sen. Obama's problem is not a legal issue per se, but primarily one of public relations that would be of his own making, should it blow up on him between now and November.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on February 13, 2008 at 12:37 AM | PERMALINK

Jasper, I think you do have the details straight, and yes, you are a sport and your civility is much appreciated.

Posted by: Lucy on February 13, 2008 at 12:41 AM | PERMALINK

Hillary has a valid point about the voters of Florida and Michigan being disenfranchised. But she can't try to manipulate the system by getting the delegates from her "victories." She needs to immediately demand that there be new primaries in those states - one on one - her versus Obama. She should even offer to jointly contribute to the expense with Obama -- use money to give people the right to vote and not plaster them with annoying commercials. She needs to change the subject from Obama adulation and to stand for something in a way that is not cynical. Otherwise, the story for the next two weeks will be super Obama versus sinking Hillary. Of course, she might lose re-votes in Michigan and Florida, but so what if she is not going to get the nomination anyway. Also, I have no idea how Obama would respond, but if he refused, he would look bad and she would look good.

Posted by: brian on February 13, 2008 at 12:54 AM | PERMALINK

Jasper,

Yes, I understand that the seller wanted to sell both properties together and that Rezko's wife bought one of the properties on the same day as Obama bought the adjacent property. This was in 2005, before Rezko had been indicted. Obama only apologizes for having bought the strip of land in January 2007 from Rezko after it was well-known that Rezko was being investigated. Obama does admit, though, to bringing the two properties to Rezko's attention in 2005 and says that Rezko was immediately interested. Since Rezko is a developer, it doesn't seem so strange to me that Obama might have thought of him when thinking of a buyer for the other property. Still...

Posted by: nepeta on February 13, 2008 at 12:56 AM | PERMALINK

I think that after tonight it's pretty much over. Hillary isn't just losing....she's getting absolutely killed. Not only hasn't she won a thing since Super Tuesday, but she hasn't even broken 40 percent!!!

She's being utterly and completely repudiated!

Posted by: mfw13 on February 13, 2008 at 12:58 AM | PERMALINK

Donald, thank you for that excellent summary.

However, for a candidate like Barack Obama, who portrays himself as a disciple of "the new politics", the Rezko deal holds rich potential to undermine that characterization, precisely because it is the type of complicated transaction that requires a good deal of explanation for people to understand exactly what occurred, and thus can so easily be misconstrued.

I completely agree with you about this. I've been following Obama's fundraising connections off and on in the magazines, so I'm a little skeptical of Obama's rhetoric in the department. But, exactly, it's a complicated and confusing situation, Obama did talk that nonsense, and I hope the campaign has its ducks in a row.

Posted by: Lucy on February 13, 2008 at 1:00 AM | PERMALINK

um, rhetoric in that department

Posted by: Lucy on February 13, 2008 at 1:11 AM | PERMALINK

Moi: "Such speculation is fueled by the fact that there is no public record of any public hearing having been held on the proposed subdivision of that lot (though Chicago city ordinance most certainly required one), and Michelle resigned her seat on the commission in September 2005, almost simultaneously to the commission's approval of that subdivision. There may be a perfectly valid reason for this coincidence, and it would also probably be a good idea for the Obamas to clarify the process that occurred here."

I made two misstatements of fact in my previous post.

The subdivision of the Kenwood property ultimately purchased by the Rezkos and Obamas was approved by the Chicago Commission on Landmarks in March 2005, not September, which enabled the two parcels to be listed for sale. Michelle Obama also resigned her seat on the commission in March of that year.

Further, it was also brought to my attention that the proposed subdivision of the property in question would have required the approval of both Chicago's Department of Planning and its Zoning Board. Therefore, there could well have been public hearings held by either of those agencies, which might have mitigated the need for one at the Commission on Landmarks.

While I couldn't find any public record of that, that certainly shouldn't be construed to mean that such a hearing never occurred. Somebody in the Chicago area would probably have to go down to the city's archives to find that information, because it's not available online, as far as I can tell from 4,300 miles away.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on February 13, 2008 at 1:14 AM | PERMALINK

What do you get when you line up several Obamazooids ear to ear and blow?

A wind tunnel.

Posted by: elmo on February 13, 2008 at 1:46 AM | PERMALINK

Elmo:

What's an anagram for Anagram Maker?

"Karma Manager"!

About as relevant

Posted by: anonymous on February 13, 2008 at 2:04 AM | PERMALINK

What do you call 144 Obamazooids?

Gross Ignorance!

Posted by: elmo on February 13, 2008 at 2:09 AM | PERMALINK

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on February 13, 2008 at 12:37 AM

A very good summation of why Rezco needs to be vetted before Obama is the nominee, it is that house purchase, the fact he had a 17 year relationship with him that is clearly closer than the average contributor/fundraiser, and the fact he has gone out of his way to downplay all of this even trying to pass that lengthy relationship off as a few hours of legal work that makes this so dangerous politically to him and the Democratic Party even if he did nothing against the law, especially given how important perception is over reality in politics. The room for using that and showing by his own words that Obama is not the shining knight/paragon of virtue of the new politics is great, especially given the way the GOP operates. What is worse, this is one of many examples where Obama's rhetoric about such things ands his actions have a massive contradiction, as I have noted before to the derision of some as you know from watching it and having it happen to you as well. It is because of things like this that I have become increasingly worried that Obama is someone too easily beaten in the GE, especially by McCain, and that instead of examining and dealing with these concerns the Obama campaign and too many of his supporters spin these things as false malicious attacks without merit (by either Clinton partisans or people duped by Clinton spin/propaganda being the main approaches used regardless of actual evidence to support such contentions), which will work while the media ignores these things for the most part as they have in this primary, but what happens when that changes?

I really am worried about all of this, as I have said time and again I want the GOP out of the Executive branch ASAP. I am also very troubled by the fact that I, living up here in NS can see so many of these pitfalls and contradictions between words and deeds yet so many people in America fail to, including some people who I know are quite intelligent and smart people. I don't just mean here either, I am also talking about some of the larger/more prominent bloggers in the progressive blogosphere. I am also shocked at the amount of divisiveness I see coming from too many Obama supporters in terms of how they discuss not just HRC but anyone that either supports her or is raising critical questions of Obama. I keep hearing about this new kind of politics that so inspires his supporters yet I cannot see it in Obama and his campaign's actions nor that of his supporters which I would have expected to see if he truly was inspiring them to this new way as a movement would be seen in their own actions, which again is part of why I believe I see a cult of personality and not a true movement with him, an argument I do not make lightly despite the clear belief by some to the contrary.

Which is why I have been a bit of a broken record around here for it, and the response I have gotten from some has left me more convinced that this is a cult of personality than a political movement, especially when my concerns are met with personal smears/attacks on my character, my motives are somehow telepathically known to these folks and they can tell everyone to ignore me because I am some sort of Clinton partisan, etc. Then some get upset at how I am worried there is a cult of personality at the core of the Obama campaign despite the campaign's actions show it has played that to its advantage, like training their captains to focus on the emotional conversion moments when recruiting new supporters instead of what it is about Obama's policies and record that recommend him for the top job in the US political system.

Rezco really bothers me because of that house purchase in 2005 since by then Rezco was already under suspicion of some serious ethical and criminal wrongdoings. Worse, Obama runs as someone that was a community organizer, yet he didn't know that there were many questions about whether Rezco was what he now looks like, a slumlord (how connected to that community could he have been then is why that one bothers me) from what I've seen. How that can be used to show at best seriously questionable judgment to counter the argument about how his 2002 opposition to the war shows good judgment and that he would be "right on day one" as his slogan puts it is no small consideration to overlook.

Combine that with what are nonexistent credentials on foreign policy, especially with his chairmanship of that foreign relations subcommittee and never once holding any meetings despite being given that rare honour for a first term Senator and you have some really major weaknesses in this candidacy, especially against McCain. On economics he also has a very weak resume, but on that front McCain is no better so on the substance of it it is a wash although McCain's lengthy history in the Senate and things like campaign finance reform can be used to create the perception that he has something there despite his lets face it very stupid statements about economics over the last several months. So while he is winning the Dem primary season as well as he has despite these weaknesses leaves me wondering why.

Why aren't these matters noticeable and considered seriously by those who want the win in the GE first for the Dem Party and not solely for their preferred choice for that Dem nominee? Why are so many people willing to take on faith that he can deliver the core democratic base despite a fairly poor showing in the major Dem States in that regard combined with what has been a fairly arrogant attitude about being able to hold her supporters while claiming she can't hold his? Why is he able to claim he is postpartisan and beyond the old ways of negative politics and the fights of the past yet willing to run extensively on negative attacks on the Clinton Presidency as well as the claims by the GOP about how divisive HRC is despite her actual record as a Senator showing otherwise? Why hasn't he shown how this new politics of his works in action in this primary campaign to date if it is as powerful as he says and his abiilty with it as potent a tool needed to make the GOP work with him when he can't do it against people closer to his own political views within the Dem Party?

While he has had a very good night tonight, and one he worked hard for and earned, it is also the last major night for him to do well with until March 4, and now he has the frontrunner label being attached to him because of these wins. The momentum question though is another matter, twice we have heard/seen this case made and twice it failed to materialize, first between Iowa and NH, the second after SC to super Tuesday, and this race has not shown that the normally expected momentum actually is happening. I also think Obama made a critical mistake when instead of calling out some of the more obvious misogyny within the media coverage of HRC instead ignored it (or fed into it as I have seen, although I am sure there are those that do not accept this interpretation) while being so on guard against racism.

Given how important the woman's vote is to the Democratic party in both primary and general elections this is something that could really come back to haunt him as the nominee. Also, as I have noted before, if he had called it out it would have shown women that he cared about this sort of thing as much as racism, would have shown his new way of politics is more than rhetoric, and would have made him appear statesmanlike which would also have reinforced the rhetoric he uses to describe himself. Not to mention the fact that if he wins with this level of misogyny leveled throughout at HRC there is a very real possibility many women could see his victory as being illegitimate and therefore someone they cannot support in the GE even if it means a President McCain for the next four years, which given how large that demographic group is cannot be dismissed lightly.

Despite what some people here have said about me I really do not care which one of these two wins so long as I see them able to win in the GE. When I first started raising these questions a few weeks ago I was less definitive about thinking Obama was a major chance for failure in the GE. However, his actions in the past few weeks, the actions of too many of his supporters and their unwillingness to have him and his campaign face the same intense scrutiny the Clinton side has, the appearance from Obama when he loses a race of a shall we say less than positive message/attitude all have combined to show me someone that is dangerously flawed for the general against McCain. Against a Huckabee or maybe Romney I wouldn't be quite so worried because those two do not strike me as having much appeal outside of the GOP voting segment of the electorate, whereas McCain looks like he can pull not only independents but a not inconsequential percentage of Dems, especially if those Dems are disillusioned by the way these primaries have been run and believe the result was tainted beyond their ability to stomach (which works for both sides I might add, although the AA percentage of the electorate is far smaller than the female one in demographic terms making it less dangerous yet even so AA's make up enough of the Dem core reliable voting base to not dismiss it as an inconsequential hit which is why I see Clinton doing reach out to the AA community but I don't see the same from Obama to women).

All in all it is far better to make sure the candidate is given as rough a vetting as possible during the primaries because no matter how harsh a fellow Democrat will go it pales in comparison to what the GOP will do, as history shows us. Kerry taught me not to take such things for granted, I would never have believed his military record could be turned into the key to defeating him, especially when it was considered a major reason/element that made him appear more electable than anyone else in the first post 9/11/01 Presidential election against a sitting CinC up for re-election. I am also worried by the fact that he barely does any better than HRC in the head to head matchups with McCain, this despite HRC being massively negatively defined by the GOP for a decade and a half through many negative ad campaigns among other things, while as far as I can find out Obama has never faced any significant negative ad campaign in his national political career and is far less defined in the minds of millions of American voters leaving the GOP far more room to work with to drive his negatives up.

We know how resilient HRC is to that approach, her two victories in the Senate races shows that as do the victories she has had to date in these primaries along with the massive voter support for someone so supposedly so incapable of winning/unelectable at all let alone by any real margin in the GE, Obama though is completely unknown here and could well be far more easily negatively defined and driven up negatives than his supporters can/will believe right now. Taken together this is why I have been so strongly critical here despite the less than civil responses I have had from certain of the Obama supporters here (while others have been far better and actually tried to address my concerns instead of smearing my character/honesty instead) and why I don't stop despite that treatment.

If I am wrong about all of this events will prove that and I will be properly apologetic and contrite, but until then I must do what I can to make sure that the many real dangers I see now with Obama as the GE Dem candidate are raised even when most would rather I shut up. So I am very grateful to those like you Donald from Hawaii and Mike in particular for their own good work in this regard. I also think franklyO raises some good arguments but I also have to admit he can get a bit too intense as well about it. Elmo though is irritating me almost as much as I suspect he is the Obama supporters with his comments as of late, while I have serious reservations about Obama's fitness for the Presidency at this time that does not mean I think he is inherently bad/evil or anything, just another politician who talks a good game and better than most but at heart is like all other politicians interested first in gaining/holding power however they can find ways to get the votes needed to do so. Obama's biggest flaw to me is that he is trying to eat his cake and have it with a variation on the classic "morals" campaign and it is that new way of his that so many of his supporters especially the new voters he brings in are attracted to and what happens when they see him with not just feet but legs of clay in this regard?

Well, that is all I have to say for this evening on this topic, I won't be back until midafternoon at the earliest so that should give people plenty of time to take my arguments apart (my arguments, not me personally, I have reached my limit in responding to any such attacks/comments, indeed if I respond to them at all anymore it will not be in a very civil manner as my patience there has evaporated) if people want or to concur if they do as well. Have a good day all.

Posted by: Scotian on February 13, 2008 at 5:09 AM | PERMALINK

In fact, Obama's large margin came from a large black population voting on the basis of skin color. The race was even otherwise.

This is not Hillary's fault or her campaign's.

Posted by: bob h on February 13, 2008 at 7:17 AM | PERMALINK

I am an Obama supporter that does take the Rezco matter seriously. That said, as best I can tell, it is a story that is similar to Whitewater in that there is no clear wrongdoing on the part of Obama. I have gone to pro-Hillary sites that explore this matter and it appears to be mostly guilt by association.

Not good, but not necessarily damning as far as I can tell.

I also do challenge the notion that Hillary Clinton herself has been fully "vetted", using her words. I think there are a number of matters: whether she was in fact (or not) involved in the pardons, how Bill Clinton has made his money since the Presidency.. all of which will be brought up in the general election. The fact that the public has heard some of these before doesn't mean that they won't hear them again.

As far as the nastiness of the Obama supporters, well they are younger and sometimes I think that some of the supporters do rub the long time Democrats the wrong way. That said, I have heard threats to vote for McCain coming from both camps.

I understand that many HRC supporters are deeply disappointed right now. I know women who have knocked on doors in every election starting in 1972. These Democrats have been looking forward to the year where a woman would finally win the White House.

That said, I think that Barack Obama is a very good candidate. I also believe that we have an increasing number of outstanding women, african-american, and hispanic candidates.

I believe that when barriers are broken down .. it helps all who suffer from barriers. So if a woman wins, that helps African-Americans. Or if an African-American wins, that helps women candidates across the country.

Barack Obama is a very good candidate. Yes, he has been involved with Rezco. However, the work of his life has been mostly good work. Considering the rise he has made, I really think that the compromises he has made have been relatively small. There may be information out there that I don't know. I have looked, however, and mostly I find a good man whom I would proud to call my President.

Posted by: PE on February 13, 2008 at 7:49 AM | PERMALINK

I will never, if he wins call a Muslim my President.

Posted by: JIM on February 13, 2008 at 7:58 AM | PERMALINK

That's nice, Jim. There are, however, no Muslims in the race this year for President.

Posted by: PE on February 13, 2008 at 8:01 AM | PERMALINK

Scotian - I can only understand that post as a long way of saying you are worried that female Dems might abandon Obama and his mob of independents and newbies in the GE. Far fetched at best.

If Obama wins the nomination, here is who will be voting for him in Novemeber:

1. the Obama-led independents and first-timers swelling the Dem primary ranks to these historically high levels

PLUS

2. those Dems who stayed home for the primary because they were indifferent between Obama and Clinton

PLUS

3. the majority of those independents (again, many young people here) who aren't allowed to vote in their states' (closed) primaries

PLUS

4. all of the Dems who voted for Hillary in the primary...

That is one HELL of a lot of people. In fact, I would bet heavily on the Dem turnout in the Nov election breaking all numbers records for an Obama ticket. It would absolutely guarantee Dem victory in the GE.

On the other hand, if the Dems nominate Hillary, you lose a large portion of the first three categories above.

Posted by: T.K. on February 13, 2008 at 8:14 AM | PERMALINK

Random comments:

Kevin: Smoked like Virginia ham. She wasn't even *close* in *Virginia*, which is the state where she was trying for an upset. Ouch.

Brian: The Clintons don't "exit gracefully;" they fight to the last. In this case, that's really unfortunate.

Jasper makes a good point about declaring someone "dead" in *this* race.

Hillary 1: When a campaign runs out of money, has two top people quit, and gets torched 5 states in a row, it's in deep trouble. Hillary's call for "more debates" was an early signal of this.

Hillary 2: She said that "El Paso is the best place to start my sweep across Texas." Living in Texas, I can think of quite a few better places. She's lucky she wasn't in El Paso during "cow dung" season.

Posted by: Douglas Moran on February 13, 2008 at 8:30 AM | PERMALINK

Rezko will not be an issue in the general election. I can hear Obama now: " I made a mistake with Rezko, a dumb mistake. I think I have learned from this mistake just as Senator McCain learned from his mistake with the Keating affair. He has said that that political mistake led to his interests in reforming money in politics. That was and is a worthy goal. I hope to learn as well from my mistake. Hence I am proposing ..."

By calling McCain's much larger blunder an object lesson that the country has profited from, Obama both keeps to the high road and defuses Rezko.

Posted by: Bob Collins on February 13, 2008 at 8:55 AM | PERMALINK

Hillary and Bill have one option right now. That is to go after Obama and ask the questions the media won't. Of course the media will accuse them of every possible fault but the Clintons can just say "there they go again" and people will get that they have been unfairly attacked over and over for years by the media and the right wing. Attacking the media is always good.

They need to take the show horse off the stage and finally tell him to stop boasting about a vote he wasn't there for. To stop boasting about work he's never accomplished. To be honest about his dealings with Rezko and the lobbyists in Illinois. If timmie et al won't ask about his no-show chairmanship then Hillary and Bill should. They need to take him down on his unity horse manure and show how he divided in SC and has divided the electorate. They need to talk about character and how Obama's record shows him to be no better than any other mediocre pol and his experience is limited and concern for others nonexistent. Show how Obama is afraid to answer tough questions. Get into it. Eff the media.

Posted by: Chrissy on February 13, 2008 at 9:04 AM | PERMALINK

All of you folk wringing your hands about Obama and Rezko obviously have not been paying too much attention. The Chicago press has covered it EXHAUSTIVELY and AD NAUSEAM, and they have basically found nothing. The real story proves to be Rezko's very close ties with our crooked and power-crazed governor, Rod Blagojevich, a man with whom Obama refuses to be seen in public and has never associated with in private. The Rezko trial will in all likelihood finish Blago's career (he's already behind two potential 2010 primary challengers in fundraising and that's before you count all the money he's shelled out for legal fees); Obama's non-role will be lost in the midst of the massive corruption of our state government.

Posted by: DB on February 13, 2008 at 9:05 AM | PERMALINK
By calling McCain's much larger blunder an object lesson that the country has profited from, Obama both keeps to the high road and defuses Rezko.
It also opens the opportunity to address the current crisis in our financial system as a predictable and predicted result of deregulation and poorly designed(or improperly targeted) tax cuts.

Throw the "birth tax"(aka national debt) into the same speeches, and you will have cut the legs out from under the "fiscal conservative" aspect of Sen. McCain's platform.
Then there's that whole half a billion dollars a day in Iraq thing ...

Posted by: kenga on February 13, 2008 at 9:11 AM | PERMALINK

Problem is Bob Collins, Rezko was a 17 year long mistake.

Btw, Hillary needs to address Obama's boasting about his nonexistent vote by talking more about how hard she worked and helped the victims when the towers fell, what it meant to see the aftermath, and Obama how cannot know the responsibility that she felt in protecting the country although he so easily judges her.

Posted by: Chrissy on February 13, 2008 at 9:11 AM | PERMALINK

The Rezko issue has been out there for almost a year now, and it's been brought up time and again, and there's just not much there to pin on Obama. Certainly between Obama and McCain, the Keating Five scandal can be used to offset, contrast and compare, making it a virtual non-issue.

Oh...and I see Chrissy is still pissy.

Posted by: Quinn on February 13, 2008 at 9:12 AM | PERMALINK

Chrissy, if more Democrats like you would translate Reagan's golden rule into the Democratic Party -- "Thou shalt never speak ill of another Democrat" -- we might have better, more progressive politics. Rather than throwing out a remark completely devoid of any discussion of policy and goals for our country but full of personal attacks without supporting evidence, deriding Obama as "mediocre", as someone with "concern for others nonexistent", and as someone who spouts "unity horse manure."

By the way, go back and look at Hillary and Obama's legislative records. In detail. I think you'll be unpleasantly surprised by Hillary and pleasantly surprised by Obama. Hillary simply hasn't initiated very much, and her voting record is to Obama's right.

Posted by: DB on February 13, 2008 at 9:15 AM | PERMALINK

I doubt she can win Texas. Its an open primary state with a whole lot of Republicans who will cross over just to do her in.

I don't know if she will lose in Texas, but it won't be because Republicans cross over to vote for Obama. I live in Texas and I've never heard a word about anything like this.

I know she's popular with Latinos, but really, Hillary Clinton is despised in Texas. Most of it is because of irrational right-wing propaganda, but it is still a fact. It's ironic she is making her last stand here.

Hillary's hope now is really Michigan, Florida and the super delegates. If she snatches the nomination and it wreaks havoc in the Democratic Party, I really don't think she, or Bill, would care at all. They care about winning and power, nothing else. Cynical, I know, but until they prove otherwise it's hard to believe anything different.

Posted by: Pug on February 13, 2008 at 9:18 AM | PERMALINK

I ask this seriously, I don't intend it as a snark.

Could somebody tell me why Hillary Clinton wants to be President? Does she want to be the first woman President? Does she want to move back into the White House? Neither of those reasons is good enough for anyone's vote.

Could somebody give me a compelling reason to vote for Hillary Clinton?

Posted by: corpus juris on February 13, 2008 at 9:21 AM | PERMALINK

Ronald Reagan's advice is not something I value. Like Obama he was a corporate shill masquerading around as a man of the people, hiding his corporate agenda with mindless happy talk for ninnies. Every party and our dumbass fourth estate needs to question the character and record and vet each and every candidate. If not you are just a lemming charging over the cliff.

Posted by: Chrissy on February 13, 2008 at 9:25 AM | PERMALINK

While I'm obviously delighted with Obama's sweep this past week, I'm not enjoying much schadenfreude at Hillary's implosion (except to stick it to frankly0). Reportage on "Hillaryland" started appearing a while back, and given the culture's hostility toward Hillary the loyalty and "discipline" of her staff seemed a necessity (although burning through $30 million on a Senate campaign isn't exactly an exemplary display of discipline). I'm ambivalent about Hillary regardless, but there's no question misogyny and media bias compromised her candidacy from the start. The outrage over the injustice of it all is completely justified. However, the dynamics of Hillary-hatred are formidable to overcome. That's why I found the Hillary juggernaut so alarming and cast about for a more talented and less beleaguered candidate early in the game.

Anyway, Hillary is tough and won't go down without a fight. May the best one win.

Posted by: Lucy on February 13, 2008 at 9:31 AM | PERMALINK

WRT to the discussion of open vs. closed primaries far upthread: difficult to implement in Virginia, as there is no registration by party. Not sure why it was dropped, but it may have had something to do with finessing the situation of lifelong Dems as the national party embraced civil rights.

The VA GOP occasionally makes noises about requiring a "loyalty oath" to vote in their primary committing the person to vote for whoever the GOP nominee is in the general, but both the fact it was unenforceable and the optics stunk and it's always been dropped.

Posted by: stuck in 200 on February 13, 2008 at 9:32 AM | PERMALINK

Like Obama he was a corporate shill masquerading around as a man of the people

Oh right, like Hillary isn't a corporate shill--her so-called health care plan is a sellout to the insurance industry.

Hillary needs to address Obama's boasting about his nonexistent vote by talking more about how hard she worked and helped the victims when the towers fell, what it meant to see the aftermath, and Obama how cannot know the responsibility that she felt in protecting the country

So now she's going to take Rudy's place as the 9/11 candidate? Good luck with that.

Posted by: Ringo on February 13, 2008 at 9:40 AM | PERMALINK

Could somebody give me a compelling reason to vote for Hillary Clinton?

http://blindintexas.blogspot.com/2008/02/why-am-i-voting-for-hillary.html

Posted by: elmo on February 13, 2008 at 9:48 AM | PERMALINK

No way. Hillary has been shown to be unpopular and disliked in these elections. If Hillary is nominated, Obama supporters like myself will riot on the streets and vote for McCain so that she never becomes President.

Posted by: Al on February 12, 2008 at 9:15 PM

This had better be from a different "Al"; otherwise, I fear I woke up this morning to find myself in a bizarre alternate universe. (Then again, a beagle won best in show at Westminster for the first time, so maybe things have changed.)

Posted by: Vincent on February 13, 2008 at 9:56 AM | PERMALINK

Any mention of Rezco can be countered with Norman Hsu, Marc Rich, Aaron Tonken, Peter F. Paul, Sant S. Chatwal, Yah Lin "Charlie" Trie, John Huang, James Riady, Johnny Chung, Roger Tamraz, Ron Burkle, Ng Lap Seng, Abdul Rehman Jinnah and the secret donor list for the Presidential Library and Clinton Foundation.

Posted by: DAVE on February 13, 2008 at 10:00 AM | PERMALINK

DAVE, Obama also had dealings with Hsu. The rest of your list just reminds people of how lopsided the press has been in investigating the Clintons if the jaywalked across the street while giving Obama a free pass.

Posted by: Chrissy on February 13, 2008 at 10:04 AM | PERMALINK

"Like Obama, he was a corporate shill.." Chrissy

Yesterday, the telecom bill passed. It was a very important bill that expanded the executive and provided retroactive immunity for telecom companies after they gave the feds private info regarding customers.

McCain was for it.
Obama voted against it.
Hillary abstained (she was in the same state too).

Posted by: Boorring on February 13, 2008 at 10:06 AM | PERMALINK

So, Chrissy, I take it you think the best approach is to go on launching personal attacks on other Democrats while the Republicans kiss and make up?

How about refocusing your energy on asking real policy questions on healthcare, on Iraq, on the environment, on jobs, on the finance crisis? And how about pitching a few of those questions at the Republicans while you're at it?

Oh, wait, that was John Edwards, wasn't it. Not your leader Hillary. You only want to beat up on people who might block your hero's path to the Democratic nomination, as if that were the ultimate prize.

Posted by: DB on February 13, 2008 at 10:10 AM | PERMALINK

What do you call an Obamazooid skeleton in the closet?

The winner of a "Hide and Seek" game.

Posted by: elmo on February 13, 2008 at 10:13 AM | PERMALINK

Chrissy, you can't believe that. Sure, all pols have shady characters in their past, but the Clintons' record has been long documented and long in, well, length. She won't even release her tax returns! She takes money from lobbyist! She has been trading favors for decades. Bill fondled a dictator in eastern Europe so his buddy could mine for precious metals in his country!

Posted by: DAVE on February 13, 2008 at 10:21 AM | PERMALINK

Wow.

What a wonderful outpouring of gloating and personal vindictiveness in this thread. Nice little mob mentality you got there. I forget, did Obama win or lose last night?

Real princely of you, people. Class acts, everyone. (It's especially nice to see Lucy own up to her own spitefulness -- she uses the nice word shadenfreude -- you know, like the schandenfreude of drunken fans after a soccer game. Kinda revealing that she thinks most people might admire this.)

In any case, it doesn't exactly put me in a mood to congratulate Obama and his supporters on his victory, so I will skip that pleasantry.

Look, I personally never particularly thought that Virginia would be good territory for Hillary, by any means -- certainly the polls in Virginia showed a major lead for Obama, and the voters basically delivered that. I certainly don't see that Virginia has a large population of the core of Hillary's support: lunch bucket Democrats who work, or whose families have worked, in manufacturing, mining, or similar jobs. But if one looks to Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, West Virginia, such voters likely dominate the Democratic primaries.

For all those happy to engage now in Obama triumphalism, do you really predict that the sort of numbers Obama showed in Virginia will show up in these other states? Are you predicting huge Obama blowouts in these states, except in the case that Obama actually has the nomination essentially sown up? The latest poll in Ohio showed Clinton up by 17%, basically on the same day that another poll showed Obama up by roughly 20% in Virginia -- do you expect that suddenly Obama will win in Ohio instead by double digits?

My guess is that a very good portion of the success of Obama in Virginia is due to the professional/office population of Northern Virginia, spilling over from DC and the governmental and governmentally related institutions and corporations, combined with the disproportionately large African-American population throughout the state. The professionals, and those in the related office culture in Northern Virginia will certainly be Obama demographic, particularly as one considers independents, who would be very prevalent in the area.

I think that the culture of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, West Virginia, Florida, and Michigan are very different from that of Virginia. There is no large segment of white professional population rich with independents. Most of those are classic, blue collar Democrats -- and Texas, additionally, has many Hispanics. (Apparently in VA there's only a 5% Hispanic population, which may have gone slightly obama's way -- or not, given the small numbers in the exit poll. It's pretty unlikely that such a small population has anything like the same cultural and political cohesiveness as in Texas).

Now, the numbers for Obama certainly look very good for his nomination -- though I do wonder how the situation in FL and MI may have an impact on that. Certainly, as before, a very good deal of Obama's lead hangs on his performance in caucus states as opposed to elections. This will not enhance his sense of legitimacy if he becomes nominee.

No matter what else, Obama will, as a nominee, have the least broad support of any Democratic nominee in living memory, and will have reached that goal with the greatest amount of rancor. Many of us will certainly remember the accusations of racism gleefully thrown at us, as fellow Democrats, as well as at Bill and Hillary Clinton, for criticizing Obama. I don't think those memories will easily subside, most especially because it will hardly be the end of those sort of accusations. Soon they will be directed at the Republicans even in the cases where there is zero substantive cause for such accusations. Why might those of us who have themselves endured vicious and unfair attacks like that feel obliged to come to Obama's defense, and press his case?

To me, it's kind of amusing to see how the Kevin Drums of the world reach for the vapors when the race card gets played, yet gladly plunk down for someone like Obama, who will absolutely ensure that it never ends, because it suits his purposes so well. Does anyone think that accusations of racism based "fairy tale" and LBJ/MLK types of remarks won't be repeated ad nauseum for the remainder of the period that Obama is in the public eye? If Kevin grew faint from stress when we encountered a couple weeks of that (oddly, right before the SC primary -- wonder whom that favored?), what's four years of it going to do to him?

And I can easily envision how the Republicans can start a dynamic that will backfire on Obama. People talk about the potential problem Obama has with Rezko. I think the far more effective case for the Republicans to press on is Obama's extremely close relations to the Pastor of his church, who has chosen to honor the virulently racist Farakhan. Now in the Democratic nomination process, this was essentially untouchable. Going after Obama for this would antagonize not only every African-American, it would put off large numbers of other Democrats who don't want to see African-Americans offended for any reason. But I don't see that same obstacle for the Republicans. They know that they will never win African-Americans, or others who are very concerned that they not in any way be offended for any reason. But what is the upside of bringing up that case? Well, it basically appeals to the view most Americans have that racism, even if it's African-Americans towards whites and Jews, is an abomination. Even from the purest moral point of view, seeing the racism of Farakahn as despicable is entirely correct. Then the question becomes, why does Obama choose to attend a church where his own pastor heaps praise on such a man? Republicans need only note that if, for example, Bush were to attend a church in which the pastor roundly praised David Duke because of some of the fine works that the KKK has done for poor whites, the outrage would be immediate, vehement, and utterly justified. What will Obama say? It will hardly do simply to say that he disagrees with his pastor on this point, anymore than it would do Bush any good to say that he disagreed with the hypothetical pastor of his church who praised David Duke.

But what would happen if this point gets raised? Obama and his supporters will turn it into some kind of accusation of racism in the Republicans. But the Republicans, in the eyes of the people, will have entirely clean hands -- it is the Republicans who will be coming out foursquare against racism; they will have the clear moral upper hand.

In general, that's how I'd expect the Republicans to play Obama, given his already demonstrated tendencies to exploit unfounded racial accusations to his benefit. They need only sit back and make criticisms that they know the public will see as being against racism, or as simply neutral, and wait for the Obama camp to turn them into supposed racial slurs. It will be an easy and effective game plan for them.

Now, it may be that this game won't prevent Obama from winning the general election. This cycle is probably the most favorable for Democrats as it has been for many, many decades. Any Democrat who would lose under these circumstances would disgrace both himself and the Democratic Party. But the campaign against Obama will certainly not end with his ascension to office -- it will have only begun. While the American people might tolerate a few months of the Obama camp claiming racial slurs where there are none, it will never tolerate four long years of it.

This is just one of many reasons that I think Obama is going to go down in flames like Jimmy Carter if he becomes President. I think that his being the least experienced President in modern history -- with the possible and ominous exception of George W Bush -- is not going to work well for him either. It's hard to look forward to another albatross being hung around the neck of the Democratic Party.

Posted by: frankly0 on February 13, 2008 at 10:25 AM | PERMALINK

Why did the Obamazooid get so excited after it finished its jigsaw puzzle in only 6 months?

Because on the box it said From 2-4 years.

Posted by: elmo on February 13, 2008 at 10:27 AM | PERMALINK

DB a lot of points are better made without referencing the personal.

Maybe Hillary could take the approach that as a society we need to move away from rewarding style instead of substance and that it's important for hard work to be valued instead of part-time efforts and flash. That as a society we need to look into how the media devalues women's hard work and elevates celebrities. People would get the point she's talking about Mr. Obama. On the media she could talk about the importance in a democracy of substance and the destructiveness of personality driven narratives and lies and bias.

Posted by: Chrissy on February 13, 2008 at 10:28 AM | PERMALINK

frankly0: Look, I personally never particularly thought that Virginia would be good territory for Hillary...

Honestly, I stopped right there, too consumed by mirth to read further.

Posted by: Lucy on February 13, 2008 at 10:29 AM | PERMALINK

Oh Oh FranklyOh,

You have such a BAD attitude.

Look, turnout in the Virginia primary on the Dem side was nearly 150% higher than in 2004.

Understand that this comes from new voters that Obama is bringing into the party. Get that into your stultified head, and let it simmer there. It is my clear sense, though not necessarily my wish, that these new voters aren't going to be there for Hillary. Obama really has his own movement circumscribed within the Democratic fold, and this movement has no enthusiasm for Hillary.

Be glad that this movement is within the party. So, you can either choose to grow the party hugely with Obama on the ticket or stew in the squalor of Hillary's high negatives. I'm in Virginia, she will not win this state. Obama will.

Look at the numbers from yesterday, compare them with 2004, dwell on the fact that Obama received more votes than McCain and Hillary combined, and face the new world of Obama Dems with a smile and please, a change of attitude.

Posted by: Manfred on February 13, 2008 at 10:43 AM | PERMALINK

brian: "I think she could make a pretty good argument, and certainly continue the campaign, based on her status as the winner in the big states -- New York, New Jersey, California, Florida, Michigan, Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. "

I wonder how I will respond if Clinton gets the Democratic nomination because of her success in the big states. If every election comes down to NY, CA, FL, TX and OH, what does that mean for the citizens of the rest of the US? Why should we even bother to vote?

Posted by: PTate in MN on February 13, 2008 at 10:43 AM | PERMALINK

What is the Obanazooid doing when he holds his hands tightly over his ears?

Trying to hold on to a thought.

Posted by: elmo on February 13, 2008 at 10:56 AM | PERMALINK

Was FranklyO around in 1968? 1972? 1980? Least broad support "in living memory?"

Posted by: Tom S on February 13, 2008 at 10:56 AM | PERMALINK

The winner of the popular vote must be the nominee. Anything different is plain wrong. If Obama wins the final popular vote and Hillary is the nominee, you are going to see an effing RIOT.

And I'll certainly be part of that riot.

Posted by: Manfred on February 13, 2008 at 10:59 AM | PERMALINK

brian, so far she has only won three of those states one of which is her home state. I think it is totally unfair to count either Michigan or Florida and Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania haven't held their votes yet. If you want to redo Michigan and Florida, I am right behind you.

Posted by: corpus juris on February 13, 2008 at 11:01 AM | PERMALINK

Elmo you sound like a clown that has just been waterboarded.

Going with your latest attempt at humor, let's see, in VA, the voters with graduate degrees broke for Obama 80-20.

Haha. Hold tight to your thoughts you under-educated clown.

Posted by: Manfred on February 13, 2008 at 11:04 AM | PERMALINK

frankly0, setting aside for a moment the Farrakhan business, which has been simmering for the past few weeks and is indeed likely to start bubbling over at some point, please consider:

1) Last night Obama and McCain shot their opening salvos in the general election, and the rhetoric between them will only intensify. To the extent that Hillary tries to undermine Obama's credibility, she also risks undermining the Democrats' case against McCain. You can't accuse Obama of not being a savvy politician.

2) No matter how much money Hillary is able to raise, Obama can raise more.

3) The more exposure voters have to Obama, the more they are inclined to vote for him.

4) Obama has a good chance of winning Wisconsin. If he also manages an upset in Hawaii, the pressure will intensify for Democrats to rally around the presumptive nominee.

5) Time is on Obama's side.

Face it, Hillary is in a jam.

Posted by: Lucy on February 13, 2008 at 11:06 AM | PERMALINK

If Obama wins the final popular vote and Hillary is the nominee, you are going to see an effing RIOT.

Ombamazooids rioting? That would cost Starbucks billions!

Posted by: elmo on February 13, 2008 at 11:06 AM | PERMALINK

Manfred, they teach Obamics in graduate school?

Posted by: elmo on February 13, 2008 at 11:14 AM | PERMALINK

What a wonderful outpouring of gloating and personal vindictiveness in this thread. Nice little mob mentality you got there. I forget, did Obama win or lose last night? - frankly0

You reap what you sow.

BTW, Obama won.

Posted by: Quinn on February 13, 2008 at 11:23 AM | PERMALINK

franklyoh..

After reading your post, I went back and read Lucy's post. I believe that you misread what she said. She said that she was NOT feeling "shadenfreude", that she understood that the Clinton campaign has had to endure sexism.

I don't want to paraphrase her statement anymore because it is there to read. I just want to say that I believe you are mistaken over the point she was making.

Posted by: PE on February 13, 2008 at 11:25 AM | PERMALINK

"If he also manages an upset in Hawaii"

Hawaii wouldn't be an upset, as far as I know; he's heavily favored there, since it's considered a home state for him.

Posted by: PaulB on February 13, 2008 at 11:39 AM | PERMALINK

Elmo, you really are juvenile. I'll leave you alone to work on improving your stand up routine. Who knows, you might even audition for the post of Hillary's court jester when she goes into exile.

Posted by: Manfred on February 13, 2008 at 11:40 AM | PERMALINK

"Real princely of you, people. Class acts, everyone."

ROFL... Oh, the irony, coming as it does from frankly0. Do I really need to post selected samples of the posts of this "princely" fellow and the "class act" he's been with respect to Obama and Obama's supporters over the past month or two?

Oh, well, at least he's good for a laugh.

Posted by: PaulB on February 13, 2008 at 11:42 AM | PERMALINK

"No matter what else, Obama will, as a nominee, have the least broad support of any Democratic nominee in living memory, and will have reached that goal with the greatest amount of rancor."

Project much? Free clue, dear heart, few Democratic voters are like you, which is why you can't support this silly assertion any more than you can your other silly assertions.

We get it, frankly0; you hate Obama. Now move on and give it a rest, since you've come completely unhinged.

Posted by: PaulB on February 13, 2008 at 11:44 AM | PERMALINK

PaulB,

It was my understanding that the Democratic machine in Hawaii strongly favors Hillary, but maybe I'm wrong.

I would be interested to hear what Donald from Hawaii has to say on that front.

Posted by: Lucy on February 13, 2008 at 11:45 AM | PERMALINK

Why did the Obamazooid have a hysterectomy?

He wanted to stop having grandchildren.

Posted by: elmo on February 13, 2008 at 11:46 AM | PERMALINK

do you expect that suddenly Obama will win in Ohio instead by double digits?

I expect that it will be a lot closer than a double-digit loss for Obama--and Hillary needs to do better than that. Not going to happen. Get over it, you bitter loser.

Posted by: Ringo on February 13, 2008 at 11:59 AM | PERMALINK

To chrissy et al: Hillary Clinton's problem isn't that she's a woman -- it's that she's a Clinton. Been there, done that. We have no desire to return to '90s style polarization.

Posted by: Vincent on February 13, 2008 at 4:40 PM | PERMALINK
Post a comment









Remember personal info?










 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly