Obama takes The Lead

Last night, after I claimed Obama was the big winner for the Democrats, many of you dismissed me:

Boy, John when you drink the Koolaid you really drink the KoolAid!

No. Obama was the big winner:

In a surprise twist after a chaotic Super Tuesday, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) passed Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) in network tallies of the number of delegates the candidates racked up last night.

The Obama camp projects topping Clinton by nine delegates, 845 to 836.

NBC News, which is projecting delegates based on the Democratic Party’s complex formula, figures Obama will wind up with 840 to 849 delegates, versus 829 to 838 for Clinton.

Clinton was portrayed in many news accounts as the night’s big winner, but Obama’s campaign says he wound up with a higher total where it really counts — the delegates who will choose the party’s nominee at this summer’s Democratic convention.

Obama won more states, won more delegates, improved his numbers with key groups, widened his lead among minority voters, and over-all, outperformed Hillary. Period. The fact that the Clinton established machine has not been able to pull ahead should be a real clear sign of how much trouble they are in right now. This race was Hillary’s to lose, and last night she may have started doing just that. You will hear the Clinton camp talking repeatedly about winning the big prize- California. Winning California is irrelevant, as a Democrat is going to win Cali in the general regardless who it is.

Obama now has a clear financial lead, momentum, and the delegate lead, and we are heading in to a number of states where he can compete. I am not drinking the kool-aid, folks, I think I have a pretty clear grasp of where we are right now. Obama is surging and the Hillary camp is worried. You will be able to see it in their faces over the next few days.






246 replies
  1. 1
    zzyzx says:

    Both the girl and I will be sacrificing some time on Saturday to caucus for Obama. I’m pretty excited about actually voting FOR someone instead of just lesser of two eviling.

  2. 2
    pharniel says:

    my prediction is obama/someone ticket after a brokered convention, with HIllery being senate majority leader (the price for her not causing a stirl)
    esepcially if macain takes the nod from the GOP (senate majority leader in the hand is worth more than possible prezident)

  3. 3
    p.lukasiak says:

    Obama’s “win” in based solely on caucus states where Hillary made virtually no effort — when it came to the states where people actually voted, Hillary whipped Obama’s butt, both in terms of delegates, and in terms of total votes.

    And THAT is the real story, although hillary-haters like Cole will continue to spin it otherwise…

  4. 4
    Con Mhac says:

    I was pondering this over the weekend, but this morning I decided to kick $50 over to Obama.

    Who knows, one of these days I might even register as a Democrat.

  5. 5
    Jen says:

    My primary is in May, and I sure hope the Big O has it wrapped up by then. Since I can’t do anything on that front, I am working more contributions into the budget (when you contribute, you can voluntarily exchange email addresses with a donor of a similar amount. Isn’t that neat?), talking him up whenever possible, and of course, commenting liberally.

    I think you’re right. And I think Hillary has hit her ceiling. Wherever she is now in a general head to head matchup, this is roughly the maximum number of voters who could be expected to go for her in November. I do not think that is true for Obama. And what is so very cool about that is that, just as Reagan Democrats didn’t pull Reagan to the left, Obama Republicans won’t pull him to the right. It’s all about the pony.

  6. 6

    But, but, but The Pundits really, really want McCoolKid to run against Shrillary. McCoolKid will get fluffed, Shrillary will get flogged and all will be right with the world.

  7. 7
    John Cole says:

    Obama’s “win” in based solely on caucus states where Hillary made virtually no effort—when it came to the states where people actually voted, Hillary whipped Obama’s butt, both in terms of delegates, and in terms of total votes.

    And THAT is the real story, although hillary-haters like Cole will continue to spin it otherwise…

    I am more than a little sick of this bullshit. Where do you think you are, Sullivan’s? I have spent this entire election defending Clinton, trying to be fair to her- more than anywhere else, I bet, and douchebags like you come in here and claim I am just a hater.

    Blow it out your ass, Lukasiak.

  8. 8
    Con Mhac says:

    Obama’s “win” in based solely on caucus states where Hillary made virtually no effort—when it came to the states where people actually voted, Hillary whipped Obama’s butt, both in terms of delegates, and in terms of total votes.

    And THAT is the real story, although hillary-haters like Cole will continue to spin it otherwise…

    So the new spin is that caucases shouldn’t count. Alright then, I suppose that’s fair enough. Though my friends over in Idaho said that theirs was an absolute blast.

  9. 9
    Jim says:

    It all depends on how the candidates do, and the media spins, the next few weeks. If Obama, as is entirely possible, wins in Louisiana, Nebraska and Washington this weekend, and in Virginia, Maryland and DC next Tuesday, his money advantages, and momentum could be decisive. Then it comes down to Texas, Ohio and Wisconsin, and with the small number of states to focus on, and with his money advantages, he should do very well there. OTOH, if the media dismisses any of the upcoming wins, or Clinton wins in any of those states, she gets the momentum back.

  10. 10
    Jen says:

    The Hillary defenders are really, really bad at it, aren’t they? I mean, I don’t like her all that much and I like her more than I like her netroots fan base. They just leave me really depressed, which I imagine is not the effect they’re going for. Not like the Paultards, who are batshit, but they’re so adorable about it.

  11. 11
    zzyzx says:

    Obama’s “win” in based solely on caucus states where Hillary made virtually no effort—when it came to the states where people actually voted

    And it’s not a problem that Clinton’s resources were strained to the point where she had to throw away a bunch of states?

    Caucus delegates are just as good as primary ones. Here’s hoping Obama takes the lead for good on Saturday and extends it on Tuesday.

  12. 12
    chopper says:

    Obama’s “win” in based solely on caucus states where Hillary made virtually no effort—when it came to the states where people actually voted, Hillary whipped Obama’s butt, both in terms of delegates, and in terms of total votes.

    three weeks ago clinton was a super-lock for CA. now she has a single-digit lead. she didn’t even break 60% in NY. and the next wave of primaries looks really good for obama.

    seriously, clinton needed to come out of super tuesday on top in a big way and she didn’t.
    that’s not to say i’m counting her out (never count out a clinton), but she’s got an uphill climb ahead of her and obama’s outfundraising her 3-to-1.

  13. 13
    janine says:

    To a certain degree, the mere fact that Hillary doesn’t have this in the bag already is a huge problem for her. If she and her husband are such amazing campaigners, then why is the upstart giving them so many problems?

  14. 14
    libarbarian says:

    And THAT is the real story, although hillary-haters like Cole will continue to spin it otherwise…

    Just Prof. Cole? What about the rest of us?

    Why just the other day I was sitting around bored and I thought “Hey, why don’t I pass the time by hating on Hillary”, so I whipped up a little Voodoo-Hillary doll and stuck it full of pins. Everyday I play a video of Hillary while I shout abuse at the screen – my own little 5 minutes hate.

    When I go vote in the MD primary I’m going to take it with me and invite all the Obama supporters to drive needles into it’s eyes & groin and ritually burn it when the polls close.

    Man, hating on Hillary is fun.

  15. 15
    jcricket says:

    I think your interpretation is reasonable, but just one way to spin results so close. Personally, I think Josh Marshall’s summary is best. Obama’s a winner in the sense he did better than he would have a month ago, but he’s also a “loser” in the sense that his momentum didn’t get him anywhere near wins in MA and CA like everyone was claiming he would. In fact, he got kind of blown away compared to the last polls in those states. This only means that it might be “overplayed” in terms of how much he is surging.

    I’d agree with Josh at this point that both candidates can pull it off, and that it’s possible neither might until the convention. I don’t think either has a clear lead, and the spin and activity will be furious in the coming month.

    What’s more important is that Dem turnout shatters records. If people can just understand that having two really good candidates tie each other for a long time is a reason to get excited about voting for whomever wins in the nomination, we’ll be ok. If all the Obama fans get dejected and go home because they eventually lose (i.e. “waah, hope lost out”), I’d be really disappointed.

    At this point I really don’t think either is inherently more electable, or inherently likely to do a better job of getting their agenda through Congress. Republicans may be more united in their hatred of Hillary, but they have the WH now and have found a way to stymie nearly all activity in the Senate anyway. So vote for whomever you like now (Cole for Obama, jcricket for Hillary) and then vote for whomever is the nominee. Just Vote!

    For literally thousands of reasons beyond the presidential pulpit (e.g. judicial nominations, appointments at FDA/NSA/NASA/FEMA/HHS, veto power, VP as deciding tie vote in the Senate) having a Dem in the WH is one of the most important things to achieve in 2008.

  16. 16
    jcricket says:

    Sorry about the 2nd link, here’s the right one: Dem turnout shatters records.

  17. 17
    Wilfred says:

    Anybody know where I can find the nationwide vote totals (not broken down by state) for each candidate?

  18. 18
    Z says:

    40% of the delegates haven’t been decided, and while it looks good for us up here on the MUP, its going continue to be an interesting primary season. It is entirely possible that John’s vote may get to make a difference. Mine sure did. It was soooo close in my state (Missouri), but the big O pulled it out. I am psyched!

  19. 19
    zzyzx says:

    Yeah if Hilary wins, I fully expect to go to the polls and waste 5 minutes voting for her. I live in Washington after all; if WA is competitive, the race is over.

  20. 20
    wvng says:

    I agree with John. I just don’t see any way that, once the “inevitable” candidate loses the aura of inevitability that she can get it back (unless, of course, Obama makes a big mistake). Graphs of polls in the last few weeks are clear – Obama has made a huge forward move, and Hillary has remained pretty stable.

    More important than polls however, is the anecdotal evidence that politically engaged people are just moving toward Obama in the last week or so. I did, after being firmly in the Hillary camp for quite a long time. My moment came when she started playing the Florida delegate game, instead of honoring a public agreement with her own party that they would not count. And yesterday’s agreement to debate on Faux didn’t help a bit. In each case, these were public agreements on how the game would be played that she went back on. In each case, she failed a test of character.

    Not to say I won’t vote for Hillary, or work myself to distraction for Hillary, should she be the nominee. I will. But I’ll work with a touch more pride and excitement and, yes, hope for Obama.

  21. 21
    ThymeZone says:

    I am more than a little sick of this bullshit.

    Amen. I hope myiq is listening too.

    These guys fling the HillaryHater poo exactly the way our righty friends used to throw the BDS poo around here. Having no actual argument to make, they just keep beating this tiresome drum.

    I don’t particularly “hate” Hillary. I hate her voice when it gets into that “you gotta listen to me” register. I hate her preference for the unitary executive which is where I think she gets the chutzpah to defend her Iraq AUMF vote. I hate her coziness with the machinery of Washington power. But she could actually make a fine president and she comes with a spare president who, even from the living quarters bathroom, makes a better president than the fuckhead we have now. And she is a moderate Dem, which gives us a chance to slay the GOP beast at least for a little while after she kicks McCain’s lying ass in November.

    But anyway, I digress. If Hillary supporters can’t come up with something better than CDS or HDS, then fuck them. Let them go where they belong …. to the Republican party, where that kind of rhetoric is appreciated.

  22. 22
    jcricket says:

    I am more than a little sick of this bullshit. Where do you think you are, Sullivan’s? I have spent this entire election defending Clinton, trying to be fair to her- more than anywhere else, I bet, and douchebags like you come in here and claim I am just a hater.

    BTW – I don’t think you’re a hater. You’re just rationalizing/cherry-picking the stats that make your chosen candidate look favorable. I’m doing the same, of course.

    That’s Josh Marshall’s point in the post I linked to. That at this point you can’t clearly call the race for either candidate. I think they each scored a lot of “points”.

    OTOH, what do you think about a McCain/Huckabee ticket. I have read that’s an increasing possibility.

  23. 23
    ThymeZone says:

    Blow it out your ass, Lukasiak.

    Loved it so much, just wanted to repost it.

  24. 24
    jcricket says:

    For example, your spin that Obama widened his lead among minority voters is false, at least in California.

    By securing California, Clinton took the biggest prize of all – a state with 370 delegates at stake. Ethnic support proved decisive for her in the state – she won support from seven in 10 Hispanics and three-quarters of Asian voters.

    That is, unless only blacks count as minority voters. He does have a decisive and widening lead there.

  25. 25

    Jen Says:

    The Hillary defenders are really, really bad at it, aren’t they? I mean, I don’t like her all that much and I like her more than I like her netroots fan base. They just leave me really depressed, which I imagine is not the effect they’re going for. Not like the Paultards, who are batshit, but they’re so adorable about it.

    February 6th, 2008 at 10:40 am

    I listen to Bill Press, Stephanie Miller, Ed Schultz and Randi Rhodes (WCPT) throughout the workday and the Hillary supporters who call-in to the shows to complain about support for Obama are an abrasive bunch. And boy do they hit their talking points.

    I’ve spent far too much time defending Hillary to be berated by her fembots for preferring Obama and an end to the “bush-bush-Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton” run of the White House.

    Off topic, is it just me or is Hillary a “Weeble” with legs?

  26. 26
    taodon says:

    I find it interesting that when Hillary begins to lose, her supporters rip a page right out of the Rove play book – by claiming if you aren’t supportive, you’re an irrational hater. If you aren’t accepting her word as fact, you’re delusional and misguided. And if you have the audacity to say anything the slightest bit negative about her, you’re a misogynist.

    All said, that’s telling me that Cole and me are on the right track. We had enough of the Bush Machine – there’s no reason to go through a rebranding.

  27. 27
    John S. says:

    This only means that it might be “overplayed” in terms of how much he is surging.

    I don’t think his ‘surge’ is overplayed at all.

    In just under a month, Obama ate up double digit deficits, outpaced Clinton in fundraising by a wide margin and managed to split the Super Tuesday vote. That’s real momentum. Hillary hasn’t gained any new ground on Obama – she is either holding fast or losing ground. That is not momentum, that is battening down the hatches.

    I am convinced Obama is going to win this thing, and I couldn’t be happier. He will trounce McCain easily.

  28. 28
    ThymeZone says:

    what do you think about a McCain/Huckabee ticket

    { makes L sign on forehead with hand }

    L.O.S.E.R.

    The War Guy, and the religious nut? It’s a tribute to how gar gone the GOP is that a lot of people over there are hoping this happens. They just don’t appreciate how tired this country is of them.

    John McCain is already road-testing his general election campaign. Dems are waving the white flag, Dems want a withdrawal date, Al Qaeda will win if Dems win.

    McCain is the Peace with Honor candidate, but he is in for a rude shock: It’s not 1968 any more. And he isn’t Richard Nixon, either.

    I continue to predict a 60-40 ass whipping of the GOP in the presidential race this fall. No matter who the Dem nominee is. Goldwater got 38 percent, maybe McCain can shoot for 37. That would keep my Arizona homeboys on track for being the worst presidential candidates in history.

  29. 29

    […] Update: John Cole says, Obama won more states, won more delegates, improved his numbers with key groups, widened his lead among minority voters, and over-all, outperformed Hillary. Period. The fact that the Clinton established machine has not been able to pull ahead should be a real clear sign of how much trouble they are in right now. This race was Hillary’s to lose, and last night she may have started doing just that. You will hear the Clinton camp talking repeatedly about winning the big prize- California. Winning California is irrelevant, as a Democrat is going to win Cali in the general regardless who it is. Spotlight […]

  30. 30
    zzyzx says:

    My fear about Obama/McCain is maybe the Hispanic vote puts CA into play.

    My joy about Obama/McCain is that Obama will make McCain appear to be like 200 years old.

  31. 31
    Jen says:

    Hillary supporters

    When I hear them on the ‘nets, on the radio…I just picture Marge Simpson’s sisters, Patty and Selma Bouvier. That’s just their vibe.

  32. 32
    John S. says:

    You’re just rationalizing/cherry-picking the stats that make your chosen candidate look favorable.

    How do you cherry-pick the fact that in order for Clinton to keep wearing the mantle of ‘front-runner’ she needed to close the door on Obama yesterday in the way that McCain did to Romney?

  33. 33

    OTOH, what do you think about a McCain/Huckabee ticket. I have read that’s an increasing possibility.

    Huckabee doesn’t address one of McCain’s big problems, which is that the conservative base doesn’t like him. Huckabee gets back the evangelicals to an extent, but not all of them, and the moneycons loathe that unwashed piece of trash Huckabee even more than they hate McCain.

    Sam Brownback, on the other hand, carries all of Huck’s pluses with none of his minuses (from a Republican standpoint) – he’s for Jesus and lower taxes! As a bonus, he is completely, frothing-at-the-mouth insane. Which is why I think he gets the veep slot.

  34. 34
    John S. says:

    That’s just their vibe.

    I bet they are all big fans of MacGyver, too.

  35. 35
    ThymeZone says:

    Which is why I think he gets the veep slot.

    Heh. McCain-Brownback is the Dems’ dream ticket.

    Unless we can get McCain-Rice, or McCain-Rumsfeld.

    Or best of all, McCain-Petraeus.

    These combos can go forth and preach it about Al Qaeda and how Dems Mean Death and Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran and The Serge and just completely destroy the GOP once and for all.

  36. 36
    Cassidy says:

    but the big O

    You just feminized him…you’re racist…

  37. 37
    ThymeZone says:

    When I hear them on the ‘nets, on the radio…I just picture Marge Simpson’s sisters, Patty and Selma Bouvier. That’s just their vibe.

    Funny.

    Hey, how’s that glass ceiling thing affecting you?

  38. 38

    […] Update John Cole brings us some reporting from the murky world of Democratic delegate counting. The Obama camp projects topping Clinton by nine delegates, 845 to 836. […]

  39. 39
    Jen says:

    Hey, how’s that glass ceiling thing affecting you?

    Say what now? You tryin’ to call me a guy again? Is this just what happens when the trolls are thin, I get picked on?

  40. 40
    les says:

    How does this Luk person come up with the notion that caucuses don’t involve voting? Stupid doesn’t help your candidate.

  41. 41
    p.lukasiak says:

    I have spent this entire election defending Clinton, trying to be fair to her- more than anywhere else, I bet, and douchebags like you come in here and claim I am just a hater.

    gee, and here is John’s reasons for not voting for Clinton (see full list below**)
    1) I’m tired of the Clintons
    2) I (irrationally) think she won’t end the war in Iraq
    3) I (irrationally) thinks she’s as megalomaniacal as Bush
    4) I don’t trust her.
    5) I don’t like some of the company she keeps

    Notice that not one of these things has ANYTHING to do with her actual record, or what she says she’ll do. Its all about John reverting to his roots — its the John Cole we knew before he realized that Bush and the GOP were destroying this country.

    This is the essence of “Hillary-hating” — “I don’t like her, I don’t trust her, I’m tired of the Clintons”. For 16 years, the media has been going after Bill and Hillary, and John bought into it hook, line and sinker.

    I’m NOT a Hillary fan, by any stretch of the imagination. A year ago, I was “anyone but Hillary” because it was clear that from the day she entered the Senate, she was moving to the center to run for president, rather than being a strong voice for progressive causes.

    But my antipathy toward Hillary was based on that record — not on “clinton fatigue” and “i don’t trust her”. And despite the fact that I’m not thrilled with her, when I look at Obama, what I see is someone whose actual voting record is little different from Hillary’s — but who is naive enough to believe that the way to fight the special interests is to broadcast everything on C-Span.

    So, I gotta go with Hillary. In eight years, I’d be happy to support Obama…but right now he doesn’t have the political chops, his record is filled with the same kinds of compromises that Hillary has made (when he’s not avoiding votes), his health care proposal is absurd, and his stated approach to foreign policy is unrealistic.

    Plus, as a straight guy, you wouldn’t get this, but as a gay man I’m sickened by Obama’s pandering to homophobes — you can bitch and moan all you want to about the company Hillary keeps, but no one associated with Hillary is as hateful as Donnie McClurkin.

    **

    1.) Over the past few weeks I have grown weary of the Clintons, and weary really is the right term. They are tiring to the bone. Everything is calculated, nothing is what it seems to be, and they are just too cynical for even me (despite my cardinal sin the past few years being a resounding lack of cynicism and skepticism). Every time I hear her name, every time I hear her voice, I think to myself- “God, I am so sick of the fucking Clintons.” It may be unfair to vote against Hillary because of the din created by her opposition, but I would be lying if I did not admit the role that has played in my decision making. I am just tired of the fuss, the noise, the animosity- I have no doubt the right wing will manage to make Obama public enemy #1 if he wins the nomination, but at least it will be something new. Everything with the Clintons is so recycled, so old, so tawdry. Yes, Hillary, I do need a change.

    2.) There is nothing in the Clinton past that makes me believe they will end the war in Iraq, and additionally, I can see her engaging in military adventurism just to prove she is strong on defense.

    3.) I don’t see her rolling back (at least willingly) the executive over-reaches of the past 8 years.

    4.) I don’t trust her. I just don’t. Flame me all you want, but I think she has the capacity and willingness to be just as secretive as the Bush administration.

    5.) I don’t like the company she keeps. Mark Penn, anyone?

  42. 42
    Jen says:

    I’m on the top floor. A glass ceiling would actually be pretty cool, although maybe a little hot in the summer. Better than the yucky tiles and fluorescent lighting I currently have.

  43. 43

    Wow – told you Hillary supporters are abasive.

  44. 44
    les says:

    If it’s McCain/Huckabee, we might as well put a giant sign in the sky saying “Yeah, world, we are fucking crazy!!!”

  45. 45
    John Cole says:

    gee, and here is John’s reasons for not voting for Clinton (see full list below**)
    1) I’m tired of the Clintons
    2) I (irrationally) think she won’t end the war in Iraq
    3) I (irrationally) thinks she’s as megalomaniacal as Bush
    4) I don’t trust her.
    5) I don’t like some of the company she keeps

    Notice that not one of these things has ANYTHING to do with her actual record, or what she says she’ll do. Its all about John reverting to his roots—its the John Cole we knew before he realized that Bush and the GOP were destroying this country.

    That IS her record. And even with all of that, I said I will support her if she wins the nomination. But that isn’t good enough- I have to support her NOW, or I am a hater.

  46. 46
    jcricket says:

    How do you cherry-pick the fact that in order for Clinton to keep wearing the mantle of ‘front-runner’ she needed to close the door on Obama yesterday in the way that McCain did to Romney?

    I can’t disagree that she’s not the presumptive nominee anymore. But I think Obama supporters are (and this doesn’t bother me) seeing things with their rose colored glasses – as if all signs point to Obama’s inevitable victory.

    Let me say I will be fine if he pulls away with a big victory over Clinton. Nothing would make me more happy than for all Dems to line up behind one nominee, especially new voters, cause turnout is always key to winning in the general.

    But there are clear signs, if you look, that Obama does not have as much momentum as you’d like outside of the echo chamber we each live in.

    I don’t think this is some kind of problem for him longer-term, I just think it means he’s not going to run away with the nomination.

    I could be wrong, of course :-)

  47. 47
    John S. says:

    p. lukasiak-

    You have a little cognitive dissonance going on here between this:

    2) I (irrationally) think she won’t end the war in Iraq

    And this:

    Notice that not one of these things has ANYTHING to do with her actual record, or what she says she’ll do.

    There is plenty in Hillary’s record that indicates she is in favor of warmongering (her votes for AUMF and Kyl/Lieberman) as well as what she says she’ll do about the situation in Iraq.

    Therefore, John’s #2 dovetails rather nicely with both the record and the rhetoric.

  48. 48
    p.lukasiak says:

    How does this Luk person come up with the notion that caucuses don’t involve voting? Stupid doesn’t help your candidate.

    How is it that this Jes person doesn’t understand the difference between spending 3 minutes in private in a voting booth at a primary election, and spending a couple of hours participating in public in a caucus where you get a chance to change your mind if your candidate isn’t “viable”?

  49. 49
    John S. says:

    But there are clear signs, if you look, that Obama does not have as much momentum as you’d like outside of the echo chamber we each live in.

    I think the clearest sign of Obama’s momentum (regardless of how much that actually amounts to) is the fact that he split the delegates yesterday.

    In a political world where Obama didn’t have any momentum, that would not have happened. Period.

  50. 50
    Wilfred says:

    There is plenty in Hillary’s record that indicates she is in favor of warmongering (her votes for AUMF and Kyl/Lieberman)

    She has said repeatedly that she didn’t think Bush would use the AUMF to, you know, use force. Then she votes for Kyl/Lieb.

    and his stated approach to foreign policy is unrealistic.

    How so? Specifics, please.

  51. 51
    p.lukasiak says:

    There is plenty in Hillary’s record that indicates she is in favor of warmongering (her votes for AUMF and Kyl/Lieberman) as well as what she says she’ll do about the situation in Iraq.

    anyone who actually looks at the record behind the AUMF vote understands that this was not a vote for Bush’s unilateral invasion of Iraq — and knows that when things were looking a lot better in Iraq, Obama changed his tune.

    As for Kyl-Lieberman, THAT was the kind of pure political pandering that I discussed about her record. I don’t see any reason to suspect that Clinton would attack Iran, especially since she has consistently advocated negotiations with Iran. (and lets not forget that this was ANOTHER vote that Obama skipped out on… )

  52. 52
    Davebo says:

    2) I (irrationally) think she won’t end the war in Iraq

    Why on earth would that be irrational? If any voter questions whether or not Hillary will end the Iraq war it’s the direct result of listening to Hillary talk about what she’ll do in Iraq.

    She says she wants to replace military forces with diplomacy on the ground. Who will protect the diplomats and our 3/4 billion dollar embassy? Private contractors?

  53. 53
    Jen says:

    their rose colored glasses

    We look through pony feathers, actually.

    jcricket, you’re doing a great job and I appreciate it.

  54. 54

    I have spent this entire election defending Clinton, trying to be fair to her- more than anywhere else,…

    Yes. And much to the chagrin of this Obama fanboi, but I do have to give your props for really taking an unbiased look at the Dem race.

    What I find absolutely fascinating about the Tuesday results is that Clinton only won one state (CA) that was not clustered in or around Arkansas and NY. These are all states where the Clinton machine would still be plugged in. Has anyone taken a look at this to take a few measurements? This result could be coincidental, but I would not be surprised if indeed my little theory is true.

    Anyone else got an opinion?

  55. 55
    p.lukasiak says:

    How so? Specifics, please.

    Obama talking about meeting with the leadership of Iran and Syria without preconditions in his first year in office represents a radical departure from how the rest of the world pursues diplomacy — and the advocacy of this kind of complete 180 degree turn is the kind of thing that leads the rest of the world to wonder how stable US policy toward their own nations is.

    Overall, I agree with Obama in terms of the US needing a different approach to foreign policy — but both he and Hillary still use rhetoric that displays a sense of entitlement for America to “lead” the world (and both also talk about ‘re-earning the world’s trust… which is a good thing.) The question is how do you achieve this new approach to foreign policy…. and Obama’s rhetoric suggests that he doesn’t understand that any significant change has to be implemented gradually.

  56. 56
    Pelikan says:

    You know what I’m hearing? Obama supporters saying that they’ll be glad to vote for Clinton in the general.

    You know what I’m not hearing? Clinton supporters saying the converse.

    You don’t have to hop on the MUP, but please don’t pull a Nader on us in the general, now is the time for all good people to pull together.

  57. 57
    Stephen says:

    John Cole has more than bent over backwards to defend Hillary Clinton and express his skepticism about Obama.

  58. 58
    TR says:

    Please stow the paranoia and the personal bile, Luk.

    Some people like Obama more than Clinton, some people like Clinton more than Obama. Each side is entitled to their opinions, even if they happen to differ from your own. It’s not an evil conspiracy.

    And frankly, you’re not doing your candidate or your party any favors by throwing a tantrum like a three-year-old. If *I* were as paranoid as you seem to be, I’d assume you were a plant from the Obama campaign sent here to make all Clinton supporters seem like royal assholes.

  59. 59
    Desmond says:

    [quote]Obama’s “win” in based solely on caucus states where Hillary made virtually no effort—when it came to the states where people actually voted, Hillary whipped Obama’s butt, both in terms of delegates, and in terms of total votes.
    [/quote]

    Leaving aside the question of caucuses, you are completely, 100% wrong. Obama won a number of primaries. Alabama, Conneticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Missouri, New Mexico (if he holds on), and Utah were all primaries, not caucuses. In some of them, he whipped Hillary’s butt, both in terms of delegates and in terms of total votes.

    I guess for you, the only primaries that matter are New York and California, right?

  60. 60

    Where do we go from here? This post by Elrod at The Moderate Voice has an interesting analysis. I have seen a couple of posts elsewhere making a similar, and more convincing argument, but I can’t remember where.

    In other words the schedule favors Obama from now until March 4. Then, on March 4, Texas and Ohio loom large, and could be the place where Obama finally breaks out and becomes the obvious frontrunner (although still not decisively so). Of course, for the same reason they played last Sunday’s Super Bowl, we have to actually go out and vote to decide who wins.

  61. 61
    zzyzx says:

    What I find absolutely fascinating about the Tuesday results is that Clinton only won one state (CA) that was not clustered in or around Arkansas and NY.

    Two actually. Arizona.

  62. 62
    quickdraw says:

    Obama whooped Hillary’s butt in the Bible Thumper states like Kansas, Utah and North Dakota. If he can snag the moderate Christian/liberal Evangelical vote, that would be a HUGE blow to what’s left of the GOP base. (Especially given the Christian Right’s apparent hate-on for McCain.)Obama is less socially liberal than I would like, and I find his speeches about faith and government to be pretty, but trying to play to both sides. However, I think he’ll be able to win in red states in a way that Hillary Clinton can’t, especially if the wingers help him out by continuing to paint McCain as the anti-BushChrist.

  63. 63
    Z says:

    p.luk,

    As a lesbian, I hear what you are saying about the gay issue, but I have different perspective.

    When it comes to Hillary, I vividly remember being thrown under the bus in the 90’s by the Clinton’s. They gave us ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’, and it has not escaped my notice that Hillary tends to only say pro-gay things in front of gay audiences.

    On-the-other-hand, Obama did have a homophobe campaign for him. I don’t have a problem working with homophobes on issues I have in common with them (ie healthcare, getting out of Iraq, etc). I am a LOT less interested in a purity test, than I am in working with people I might not agree with to actually get things done. That seems to be his philosophy, too. I should also note that I have noticed that Obama has said pro-gay things in front of ALL audiences, even ones that are clearly not friendly. That is far more telling to me.

  64. 64
    Wilfred says:

    Obama talking about meeting with the leadership of Iran and Syria without preconditions in his first year in office represents a radical departure from how the rest of the world pursues diplomacy—and the advocacy of this kind of complete 180 degree turn is the kind of thing that leads the rest of the world to wonder how stable US policy toward their own nations is.

    This is what I mean by essential Conservatism. By pre-conditions do you mean insisting that Iran cease its nuclear program as a prelude to…what? It’s Bushco’s insistence on pre-conditions that has made its own diplomatic efforts a joke. Besides, Arabs and Iranians don’t do business like that.
    Clinton was famous for a stability that entailed maintenance of an unjust status quo that has completely destroyed American credibility in places where it’s needed the most. And let’s not forget Clinton’s deep connections with Aipac – hardly a recipe for significant changes in Mid-East policy.

    Obama’s comments about meeting with certain foreign leaders indicate a lack of arrogance on his part, maybe even an internal rejection of the American exceptionalism that has brought us to this ruinous state.

  65. 65
    ThymeZone says:

    Say what now? You tryin’ to call me a guy again? Is this just what happens when the trolls are thin, I get picked on?

    You made a sort of lefthanded (and funny) remark WRT to women and Clinton. I followed that up with a related question. I figured that you, as, you know, a woman, would have a personal view on the topic, one which Clinton herself has introduced into the campaign in those exact words: Glass ceiling.

  66. 66
    actor212 says:

    No he didn’t.

    He was leading in delegate count going in. Clinton now has a 70 delegate lead.

    Obama STILL hasn’t shown he can pull in the red state voters in the reddest of districts in red states OR blue states, for that matter. In fact, he won precisely one county in NY and that was the county with Cornell in it. He loses the Latino vote and couldn’t even carry a state where everybody by the crew from This Old House endorsed him!

    You’re flat out wrong.

  67. 67
    p.lukasiak says:

    What I find absolutely fascinating about the Tuesday results is that Clinton only won one state (CA) that was not clustered in or around Arkansas and NY.

    last time i checked, Arizona wasn’t near either Arkansas or NY.

    That being said, I also have to say that its more coincidence than anything else — Obama’s superior geographic distribution is related more to his efforts (actually, Clinton’s lack of effort) in yesterday’s caucus states. I think that Clinton realized that the intensity of Obama’s supporters put her at a disadvantage in the caucus states — i.e. her supporters aren’t “on a mission” like Obama’s are. So she concentrated on showing that she could do what had to be done in November — win elections.

  68. 68
    Sasha says:

    Plus, as a straight guy, you wouldn’t get this, but as a gay man I’m sickened by Obama’s pandering to homophobes—you can bitch and moan all you want to about the company Hillary keeps, but no one associated with Hillary is as hateful as Donnie McClurkin.

    Considering Obama’s willingness to denounce homophobia before audiences not already predisposed to agree (the congregation at Ebenezer Baptist Church at his MLK speech), I really don’t see a “pandering to homophobes” here.

  69. 69
    ThymeZone says:

    I have been an advocate and activist for equal rights for women and as well as for minorities for more than 40 years. However, at this juncture of time and politics, I believe the vote should go to the female candidate first.

    First, let’s get the qualifications out of the way. Both candidates are highly intelligent but Hillary Clinton is much more experienced than Barack Obama. They are both ambitious and they take whatever positions they need to attain their goal of the presidency.

    So that brings us down to the gender vs. the race issue. Except in the few matriarchal societies that have existed, for tens of thousands of years, women have been second-class — oppressed and discriminated against — ever since Eve was created second, out of Adam’s rib, or since the beginning of human existence — whichever origin of the species you believe in. Though African-Americans have been oppressed and discriminated against in this country, it’s been only a very short time by comparison. Even in Africa today, women continue to be discriminated against.

    We must first correct the gender inequality here and then around the world. What better way than for the most powerful nation of the world to elect a woman leader and, once and for all, shatter that glass ceiling that perpetuates women’s second-class status.

    Jean Alberti

    Lombard

    From a letter to the editor of the Chicago Daily Herald from last weekend.

    Isn’t HRC the Glass Ceiling candidate?

  70. 70
    Desmond says:

    He was leading in delegate count going in. Clinton now has a 70 delegate lead.

    No, he was losing before because of the superdelegates, and he’s losing now because of the superdelegates. Check your facts.

  71. 71
    Jen says:

    Here’s the thing, TZ, being from a different generation as Clinton, we have somewhat different axes to grind. On the one hand, I really appreciate everything the second wave feminists have done for us. It couldn’t have been easy being a name-keeping Librul Fascist Feminazi in Arkansas in the 1970s, and I acknowledge that my more strident forebearers made it possible for me to be the less-strident lil smartass that I am today. A big part of the reason I think it is so important to vote, barring a really compelling reason, is that women have beaten and imprisoned for trying, and failing, to get the right to vote for losers far less compelling than the losers we have on offer today.

    On the other hand, they make me cra-hazy.

    So for young mamas like me, the ax is not so much the glass ceiling anymore. It’s more that you can’t get part-time benefits for part-time work, you can’t find flex time, you can’t find affordable child care, whether you work or don’t work you’ll be demonized by someone, and no one has succeeded in putting 30 hours in the day and/or inventing a pill so you can get by on 5 hours of sleep.

    It’s a highly conflicted relationship.

  72. 72

    TR Says:

    Please stow the paranoia and the personal bile, Luk.

    Some people like Obama more than Clinton, some people like Clinton more than Obama. Each side is entitled to their opinions, even if they happen to differ from your own. It’s not an evil conspiracy.

    And frankly, you’re not doing your candidate or your party any favors by throwing a tantrum like a three-year-old. If I were as paranoid as you seem to be, I’d assume you were a plant from the Obama campaign sent here to make all Clinton supporters seem like royal assholes.

    February 6th, 2008 at 11:39 am

    Seriously. Anybody that pays attention to the left blogosphere or lefty radio has been pelted by your talking points constantly for weeks now.

    I don’t dislike Hillary as much as I’m starting to dislike Hillary’s supporters.

    If worse comes to worst I will pinch my nose and vote for Clinton. I really don’t want to but I will.

    Btw, what’s bigger, Hillary’s butt or Hillary’s gut? Someone get that women an industrial strength girdle.

  73. 73
    Jen says:

    Though African-Americans have been oppressed and discriminated against in this country, it’s been only a very short time by comparison. Even in Africa today, women continue to be discriminated against.

    And in Seneca Falls in 1848, a fight broke out over who should get the right to vote next, blacks or women.

    It’s not a game I play.

  74. 74
    Dreggas says:

    How soon people forget DOMA and DADT when they refer to McClurkin being a guest at an Obama rally. Last I saw it was Obama in the black churches chastizing them for their neglect of their gay brothers and sisters and last I looked he didn’t sign any legislation against gays ol’ billy boy did and the Human Rights Campaign can suck on that for a while. For the record I ain’t straight either.

    It is absolutely amazing to watch the Clintonistas (if there ever was an apt name for the Clinton party this is it) continue to try and swiftboat Obama, denigrate the same people they worked hard for not long ago and basically stab the Dem party in the back all to elect her royal highness. They accuse anyone who doesn’t support Hillary of being part of the “He-man women haters club”, anytime someone points out her dishonesty it’s a right wing talking point and we all suffer from CDS.

    It sounds exactly like the wingers and while it is sad it’s absolutely hysterical. Her defenders at the great orange satan behave just like red staters defending Bush.

    As for last night. Obama has the momentum and his wave hasn’t crested, in fact it picked up steam last night. I have a feeling it’s going to continue to grow even more in the coming weeks and by March 5th Hillary will drop out. Don’t forget Hillary has maxed out her money pool and is running on empty, Obama is still collecting money from all of us, you know, the people.

    His speech last night will be sound byte heaven for the news media and everyone loves a david and goliath story.

  75. 75
    p.lukasiak says:

    When it comes to Hillary, I vividly remember being thrown under the bus in the 90’s by the Clinton’s. They gave us ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’, and it has not escaped my notice that Hillary tends to only say pro-gay things in front of gay audiences.

    Z, with all due respect, that was 16 years ago — and it wasn’t Hillary that did it. In fact, Bill Clinton was sandbagged by many in his own party on that issue — Clinton didn’t “throw us under the bus”, he just decided not to get run over by the same bus that was already running us over.

    As for “working with homophobes”… of course, we have to work with homophobes. But to me, there is a huge difference between holding rallies featuring a prominent homophobe, and working with homophobes to achieve things unrelated to sexual identity issues.

    Homophobia is still a HUGE problem, and the McClurkin affair was pure “dog whistle” politics aimed at “conservative” african americans.

  76. 76
    The Other Steve says:

    Obama did very well last night. I wasn’t expecting him to win Minnesota at all, and he carried it 67% to 32%. Total blow out.

    If the final results come down, it looks like he won delegates.

    But the final nail in the coffin for Hillary is cash. Clinton has tapped out her big bucks supporters, whereas Obama’s support is mostly small donations. $25 here and there adds up to real money. I just sent $100 last night, which is only the second time I’ve contribute. The first being the $100 I spent to see him back in July.

    Meanwhile, the latest speculation is that the Clinton family is self-funding and might have contributed $3-4 million in the past couple of weeks to keep her campaign going. Of course we won’t know for certain until after first quarter, but if so that’s pathetic.

    I just don’t see how Clinton wins under these conditions.

    On a positive note… McCain is fucked. Apparently he took public financing, and is now trying to get out of it so he doesn’t hit the caps. But without a FEC board to vote, that’s impossible.

    In the end if McCain is capped by public financing, he’s going to be going silent in March and won’t have anything until after the Republican convention in September.

  77. 77
    John S. says:

    He was leading in delegate count going in. Clinton now has a 70 delegate lead.

    Fascinating. You would be the first person to declare that Hillary was the underdog going into Super Tuesday. Way to take those talking points from Mark Penn and run with them.

    Obama STILL hasn’t shown he can pull in the red state voters in the reddest of districts in red states

    Other than the fact that Obama won Georgia, Alabama, Utah, Kansas, North Dakota, Idaho, Alaska and Missouri. Nope, no red state voters in any of those contests. But don’t let that get in the way of your narrative.

  78. 78
    Z says:

    Well, I’ll jump in on this one TZ. I don’t feel the glass ceiling, but then again I work in an fairly liberal research environment with really smart people.

    That being said, the letter you posted illustrates something that irritates me about some Hillary supporters. My decision and the decision of most of the non-boomers I know about who to vote for had nothing to do with Obama being black or Hillary being a woman. Identity politics sucks.

  79. 79
    p.lukasiak says:

    How soon people forget DOMA and DADT when they refer to McClurkin being a guest at an Obama rally.

    Wow. The level of sexism implicit in this is pretty incredible. Hillary Clinton was not President at the time. She wasn’t in the Senate at the time. Yet you hold her responsible for the compromises her husband made….

  80. 80

    How is it that this Jes person doesn’t understand the difference between spending 3 minutes in private in a voting booth at a primary election, and spending a couple of hours participating in public in a caucus where you get a chance to change your mind if your candidate isn’t “viable”?

    You are uninformed. Each state and/or state party holds its elections, and what form they take. A regular primary is always a secret ballot. A caucus can be done in many different ways. Here in NM, the Democratic Presidential preference was no different than any other election. You got a ballot, you put your mark on the ballot. That simple. Five seconds. NOt all caucuses are the political machinations you seem to suggest. Besides, an Iowa-style caucus requires a lot more organizing at the grassroots in order to get people to the polls. I say advantage Obama, on that score.

    I too will vote for HRC if she is the nominee, but I voted for Obama yesterday. I do not understand the “more experienc” meme coming from HRC. What? I didn’t realize we had an OJT program for the Presidency. Intellectual curiosity, a good understanding of the issues, and an ability to work with the Congress, are some of the more important skills required of a President. But you have to get elected, and I believe Obama has a great ability to bring disparate groups together to get things done. HRC claims she will work hard to get things done. Great. If thats all it took she would be a prohibitive favorite. Hard work is hard work. I want Smart Work. Anyone can grab a shovel and dig six foot deep hole. It takes hard work. But is it Smart Work when you’re planting tulip bulbs?

    I choose Obama now, because I believe he will be the most effective President. Period.

  81. 81
    TheFountainHead says:

    Plus, as a straight guy, you wouldn’t get this, but as a gay man I’m sickened by Obama’s pandering to homophobes—you can bitch and moan all you want to about the company Hillary keeps, but no one associated with Hillary is as hateful as Donnie McClurkin.

    I’m straight, so take this with a grain of salt, or whatever, but I’m also pretty well acquainted with sections of the gay community, and this is one stand I see over and over again that I simply cannot understand, and one of the few rants that Sully goes on time and again that I actually agree with him on. Clinton has abused her support from the GLBT community again and again. Do I think Obama should have let Donnie McClurkin anywhere near him? No. Do I think if asked off the record he or anyone from his campaign would say it was a stupid mistake in pandering to his crowd? Yes. Has Obama gone out of his way since then to make it clear that the issues of the GLBT community are his issues as well. Absolutely. Nearly every one of his speeches has brought them in, most importantly, in places like the South where doing so could hurt him. Be upset about the Donnie McClurkin incident if you want to, but don’t let it color the whole debate, because I think if you give a fair assessment of the two candidates, the GLBT community is much more likely to see their issues addressed/defended under an Obama administration than a Clinton one.

  82. 82
    The Other Steve says:

    As for “working with homophobes”… of course, we have to work with homophobes. But to me, there is a huge difference between holding rallies featuring a prominent homophobe, and working with homophobes to achieve things unrelated to sexual identity issues.

    Homophobia is still a HUGE problem, and the McClurkin affair was pure “dog whistle” politics aimed at “conservative” african americans.

    It’s not clear to me how you can argue Hillary is better on this issue. If I recall correctly back in 2000 when she campaigned for Senate in New York she was opposed to civil unions.

    It seems what you are really saying here is Hillary is a finger in the wind politician, rather than honestly changing her mind.

  83. 83
    LiberalTarian says:

    aHEM!

    I call bullshit on the Clinton-supporter-hating. It’s not apostasy to support Clinton.

    One of the things I always hated about the Republican party was their holier-than-thou bullshit. Don’t start making Obama some kind of holy water kinda guy. For one, it’s fucking annoying. Pragmatically, it won’t work when the dude has to actually govern. Make the expectations about governance, not personality, cuz it’s the governance that matters and wins the second term. Stop flinging feces already. The primary isn’t over.

    [troll prophylactic … “she talked about flinging feces … she’s a racist.” sometimes flung feces are just flung feces]

    But, way up top someone said something about Clinton becoming Senate majority leader. That actually appeals to me. Wonder if she would consider it?

  84. 84
    John S. says:

    Z, with all due respect, that was 16 years ago—and it wasn’t Hillary that did it.

    I love it.

    When Clinton supporters want you to remember the good times of the 1990s, Hillary was co-captain of the team and deserves credit for her experience in the oval office.

    But when something bad happened in the 1990s, why, that wasn’t Hillary — that was Bill Clinton! Hillary is running for office, not Bill. The two have nothing to do with each other.

    You can’t have it both ways, lukasiak.

  85. 85
    John S. says:

    But, way up top someone said something about Clinton becoming Senate majority leader.

    Fuck that.

    If anyone deserves the job, it is Chris Dodd.

  86. 86
    Z says:

    And p.luk, I agree with Dreggas.

  87. 87
    p.lukasiak says:

    By pre-conditions do you mean insisting that Iran cease its nuclear program as a prelude to…what? It’s Bushco’s insistence on pre-conditions that has made its own diplomatic efforts a joke.

    no… when I say “pre-conditions”, I’m talking about the fact that for a summit make sense between the leaders of nations who are currently “hostile” to each other, a lot of diplomacy aimed at reducing tensions has to take place first.

  88. 88
    The Other Steve says:

    How is it that this Jes person doesn’t understand the difference between spending 3 minutes in private in a voting booth at a primary election, and spending a couple of hours participating in public in a caucus where you get a chance to change your mind if your candidate isn’t “viable”?

    Iowa and Nevada are the only state that has that type of caucus. The rest of them are like 6th grade class president elections. You write the name on a slip of paper and stick it in the box.

  89. 89
    Fausto Carmona says:

    Wow. The level of sexism implicit in this is pretty incredible. Hillary Clinton was not President at the time. She wasn’t in the Senate at the time. Yet you hold her responsible for the compromises her husband made….

    Right, its not as if Bill and his old pals won’t be anywhere near the levers of power in a Hillary Clinton administration, not giving her suggestions on how to throw gays under the bus again to further her ‘triangulation’. Obama had the sense to Sister Soulja McClurkin on MLK Day. When has Clinton done the same to Bill?

  90. 90
    LiberalTarian says:

    I wish Chris Dodd had the support. The dude can’t even get his own party to support him re FISA. Sorry, I can’t see it happening.

  91. 91
    Sasha says:

    Homophobia is still a HUGE problem, and the McClurkin affair was pure “dog whistle” politics aimed at “conservative” african americans.

    And his condemnation of homophobia in a black church where those conservative African-Americans essentially live is what, reverse psychology dog whistling?

    A rally featuring a singer who is a homophobe is not the same as a rally featuring a homophobe. I never attended those rallies, but I’m assuming Mr. McClurkin never opened his mouth to utter anything except song.

  92. 92
    Fausto Carmona says:

    You can’t have it both ways, lukasiak.

    Obama Derangement Syndrome says “Yes, we can!”

  93. 93
    The Other Steve says:

    But, way up top someone said something about Clinton becoming Senate majority leader. That actually appeals to me. Wonder if she would consider it?

    I thought that was what she was aiming at. I was very disappointed to hear she was going to run for President.

  94. 94
    TheFountainHead says:

    Wow. The level of sexism implicit in this is pretty incredible. Hillary Clinton was not President at the time. She wasn’t in the Senate at the time. Yet you hold her responsible for the compromises her husband made….

    I’ll stop holding her responsible when she stops claiming 35 years of experience. Fair?

  95. 95
    p.lukasiak says:

    You can’t have it both ways, lukasiak.

    care to show me where I credited Hillary with the accomplishments of her husband?

  96. 96
    LiberalTarian says:

    A rally featuring a singer who is a homophobe is not the same as a rally featuring a homophobe. I never attended those rallies, but I’m assuming Mr. McClurkin never opened his mouth to utter anything except song.

    Actually, he did. Kinda embarrassed Obama. I don’t hold Obama accountable for that though. He did his Sista Soulja thing re homophobia later. If I were gay though I would still resent him for it. Obama is doing and saying what he needs to to get elected. I don’t begrudge him that. Let’s see the man for what he is, eh?

  97. 97
    ThymeZone says:

    Well, I’ll jump in on this one TZ. I don’t feel the glass ceiling, but then again I work in an fairly liberal research environment with really smart people.

    That being said, the letter you posted illustrates something that irritates me about some Hillary supporters. My decision and the decision of most of the non-boomers I know about who to vote for had nothing to do with Obama being black or Hillary being a woman. Identity politics sucks.

    I have to agree with that as a bottom line. While id politics is understandable, it doesn’t seem to me that it goes well with the American Experiment. If people don’t learn to vote for their true interests, then …. government becomes irrational (I give you the Bush Administration as a classic example).

    But let’s argue for the sake or arguing for just a second. If Obama and Clinton are both capable of doing the job, and pretty close in terms of policy, is choosing HRC because she is a woman really a bad thing? It’s sort of a rhetorical question, the thing is arguable either way. But if one says “no” then …. isn’t it also okay to vote against her because she is a woman?

    Also, I offer this bottomless can of worms for discussion:

    I hope we can all agree that men and women approach power differently. That being said, isn’t it rational to choose a candidate by gender for that reason alone? To decide, you know, I just like having a man (or woman) in the that job because of gender, because of the way the power issues are going to play out. Is that id politics, or is it just smart voting?

  98. 98
    John S. says:

    care to show me where I credited Hillary with the accomplishments of her husband?

    Oooh, I like playing this game!

    Well, I reckon when you say:

    So, I gotta go with Hillary. In eight years, I’d be happy to support Obama…but right now he doesn’t have the political chops

    You are referring to Hillary’s experience, which is the central thrust of her campaign. You seem to think Hillary has the political ‘chops’ that Obama doesn’t, despite the fact that he has spent far more time as an elected public servant than she has.

    So where does your impression come from if you aren’t including her co-experiences with Bill?

  99. 99
    p.lukasiak says:

    And his condemnation of homophobia in a black church where those conservative African-Americans essentially live is what, reverse psychology dog whistling?

    do you even understand what “dog whistle politics” is?

    Its what the Clinton campaign has been accused of when it comes to supposedly pointing out that Obama is black. Hillary has consistently decried racism, but the Obamaniacs (and the Obama campaign) accused her of a “racist” campaign regardless. They were accusing her of carrying on a “dog whistle” campaign; i.e. regardless of her rhetoric, she was sending a message to people who would “hear” it.

  100. 100
    jcricket says:

    You know what I’m hearing? Obama supporters saying that they’ll be glad to vote for Clinton in the general.

    You know what I’m not hearing? Clinton supporters saying the converse.

    Horse-pocky! Each side is posturing about how their candidate is better than the other, but what else do you expect? I said quite clearly that I’d be more than happy to vote for Obama, especially if he “runs the table” on the rest of the primaries and captures tons of new voters all excited to GOTV on general election day.

    I think most Clinton supporters are the opposite of the Naderites. Not once would I consider voting for a third party candidate, no matter who the Dems nominate.

    To throw an anecdote your way, I hear a lot of “I’ll hold my nose and vote for Clinton” from liberal Obama supporters (including my mom) who get all “woe is me” b/c “change/hope”
    might not win out. That’s their framing of the situation, not mine. Without knowing the stats, I worry far more about the new/young/energized Obama supporters getting dejected if Hillary wins and staying home than I do about the “pragmatic” Hillary supporters shunning Obama for Nader or Bloomberg (shudder!).

    I think the reality is much as Matthew Yglesias put it today:

    Who wins that is anyone’s guess at this point. One thing I can predict is that you’ll see a lot of handwringing about how this fight is dooming the Democratic Party. It’s all, as best I can tell, total nonsense. Disagreeing about which of two strong leaders should go try to implement a pretty widely agreed upon vision of national policy is a healthy thing to do. Meanwhile, the stuff that really matters for general election purposes won’t for many months.

    Right now I’m nothing but excited for the Democratic party. There are lots of states where Obama won that no Dem will win in the general, but there also lots of states where both Clinton and Obama’s vote totals would beat the combined total of the Republicans. What’s not to love about this situation?

    It’s the Democrats race to lose if we spend all our time in-fighting and/or fail to get behind the eventual nominee.

  101. 101
    jcricket says:

    I thought [Senate Majority Leader] was what she was aiming at. I was very disappointed to hear she was going to run for President.

    Whatever happens, we need better parlimentarians in the Senate on the “D” side. We’re doing OK in the house, both with voting and introducing legislation. With a bigger majority there I expect that to continue.

    But we’re getting creamed in the Senate. There’s no way we get 60 seats this next election, but with 55-58 there’s also no reason we can’t get a lot of stuff done with the right tactics. If nothing else, put forward a united (WH/House/Senate) Democratic front and make it clear the Republicans are “all filibuster no substance” if that’s what happens. Make their failure to support popular/needed legislation an “anvil” so to speak. Gotta look at things like a “long war”, not just individual battles.

  102. 102
    Jen says:

    And his condemnation of homophobia in a black church where those conservative African-Americans essentially live is what, reverse psychology dog whistling?

    I think that phrasing illustrated an excellent understanding of dog whistling, making your explanation tedious, superfluous, and annoying, i.e. par for the course.

    Do you know what i.e. means? If not, I can tell you!

  103. 103
    Justin says:

    p.lukasiak said:

    as a gay man I’m sickened by Obama’s pandering to homophobes

    Obama stood in front of a black baptist church congregation (not the friendliest demographic to homosexuals) and said “We have scorned our gay brothers and sisters instead of embracing them”.

    Hillary continues to count on the support of the HRC, who still won’t support gay marriage. Still. The group promoting itself as the premier gay advocacy organization won’t support gay marriage, while random state judges will.

  104. 104
    Shinobi says:

    John, I hope you’re right about Obama.

    I’m a feminist, but not a Hillary supporter. As much as I want to be, I don’t think the best way to “shatter the glass ceiling” is with a woman whose leadership I don’t trust. I really WANT there to be a female president, but I also want her to be a good president. And Unfortunately I disagree with Hillary about too many things.

    However Misogynist comments made about Hillary and her Supporters, really piss me off. For instance:

    Rusty:

    Btw, what’s bigger, Hillary’s butt or Hillary’s gut? Someone get that women an industrial strength girdle.

    Jen, yes you can still say misogynist things if you have a vagina (anne coulter anyone?)

    When I hear them on the ‘nets, on the radio…I just picture Marge Simpson’s sisters, Patty and Selma Bouvier. That’s just their vibe

    Look, I don’t care if you don’t like Hillary for reasons based on issues, if you don’t like her supporters because you find their arguments flawed. Those are in fact the very same reasons I don’t like her.

    However if you are compelled to make comments about her physical appearance, her voice, or the voices and appearances of her supporters, well then that
    SHOULD indicate to you that you may POSSIBLY have some SUBTLE issues with women in power.

    And I’m not saying you should vote for Hillary to make up for it, I don’t care. I’m just saying, you should acknowledge your own misogyny for what it is and not pretend that you’re some open minded intellectual who just doesn’t like it when women talk.

  105. 105
    p.lukasiak says:

    So where does your impression come from if you aren’t including her co-experiences with Bill?

    I’m talking about dealing with 16 years of personal and political attacks — THAT kind of experience you can’t buy.

    (btw, the Colbert Report dealt with this last night in one of the funniest things I’ve seen in a long time. It was in the first segment, so if you missed it, check it out.)

  106. 106
    ThymeZone says:

    but the Obamaniacs

    Yeah, um, does Hillary have Hillafreaks? Are you a Hillafreak?

    Or does only the side you aren’t for have a funny, dismissive name under which to lump them all together?

    Just asking.

  107. 107
    LiberalTarian says:

    Yeah, everybody I know says they’ll vote for the Democratic nominee whoever it is. Sometimes people just want to fight, so when I see that “Clinton voters will refuse to vote for Obama” canard I get annoyed. But, I don’t promise to withhold my vote. I was feeling kinda pissy a while back, and thought about whether I would or not, but there are upsides to both nominees.

  108. 108
    Wilfred says:

    Yeah, um, does Hillary have Hillafreaks? Are you a Hillafreak?

    After reading this thread I suggest Hillashills.

  109. 109
    4jkb4ia says:

    Arizona isn’t clustered around Arkansas and NY.

  110. 110
    LiberalTarian says:

    Shinobi Says:

    However if you are compelled to make comments about her physical appearance, her voice, or the voices and appearances of her supporters, well then that
    SHOULD indicate to you that you may POSSIBLY have some SUBTLE issues with women in power.

    And I’m not saying you should vote for Hillary to make up for it, I don’t care. I’m just saying, you should acknowledge your own misogyny for what it is and not pretend that you’re some open minded intellectual who just doesn’t like it when women talk.

    *swoon*

    Gawd I love a well-formed argument.

  111. 111
    Jen says:

    There are lots of states where Obama won that no Dem will win in the general,

    The thing is, though, the verdict is out on this. Obviously, it is a weird sort of transitive thinking where transitive thinking doesn’t apply to say that Obama, considered the more liberal candidate, won in the more conservative states over Hillary, ergo he can beat Republicans there. That doesn’t compute. But, it is interesting, and it may indicate a trend that more conservative/independent/oddball Democrats like Obama better despite his being more liberal, and maybe Republicans would vote for him too. I think we can take as a given that not too many are going to cross over to vote for Hillary, even with McCain.

    Combine that speculation with the turnout he helps engender. Dems in SC turnout handily beat Republican turnout. If that were transitive, Obama would turn the state blue.

    I’m not saying he will; I’m just saying he’s running a 50-state strategy and Hillary is not, and he has some very interesting factors playing in his favor. If you are interested in those states being in play, he’s your guy.

    And I am *very* interested, because for once I would like a president who actually has a mandate, rather than just claiming one.

  112. 112
    jcricket says:

    Here’s another viewpoint from Kevin Drum on the “mixed message” Super Tuesday sends for the Dems, and where we are headed from here:

    I really think either candidate could pull it out at this point. It might go down to Pennsylvania in April (the 22nd, I believe). I can’t remember a time I was so excited to see what happens with the Democratic primary, and liking the two front-runners this much.

    If Karl Rove could (supposedly) mobilize 4 million “extra” evangelicals to defeat Kerry in 2004 I hope the Dems can find 10 million “patriots” who love this country enough to get the GOP the heck out of office. From getting a Democratic president, to kicking GOP water-carriers like Dave Reichert out in swing districts, this is the time to make it happen for the Dems.

  113. 113
    ThymeZone says:

    you should acknowledge your own misogyny for what it is and not pretend that you’re some open minded intellectual who just doesn’t like it when women talk.

    Oh lord, all that post only to end up with that?

    Against Israel? Antisemite.

    Against Bush? Bush Derangement Syndrome.

    Against Hillary? Hillaryhater.

    Misogyny? The woman’s voice actually hurts my ears, the way a fingernail on a chalkboard would, or a leaf blower, or a car with bad brakes. My ears actually hurt. They also hurt when I listen to Father Mulcahey on M*A*S*H. It isn’t misogyny. It’s not misogyny to pick up on the idea that Bill Clinton treats this thing as if he were running for a third term. It’s not misogyny to think that “35 years of experience” is a load of horse manure. I have 35 years of experience too. Maybe you should elect me?

    The enemy in here is not identity politics, it’s the politics of characterization and adolescent taunts that are nothing but cheap shots.

    At least Lukasiak is trying to make a substantive argument. I think.

  114. 114
    Jen says:

    Uh, yeah, I don’t think there’s anything misogynist about saying I picture Patty and Selma Bouvier. I do. They sound bitter, and tired, and like they’ve been smoking for 400 years. That is what I hear from Clinton supporters. They talk about how she knows how to fight, she knows how to hit back, she’s tough and experienced and yadda yadda. As I said, it depresses me. I want to vote for someone who makes me feel good about voting for them. Her supporters make me feel like I have to pick a pit bull in a dog fight, and if you want to feel inspired you should go elsewhere. I like Hillary more than that.

    If you don’t think that way, fine, but piss off with the misogyny crap. I’ve already defended the Pony against accusations of racism and I don’t feel like another trip down Absurdly Politically Correct lane.

  115. 115
    Doubting Thomas says:

    You know what I’m hearing? Obama supporters saying that they’ll be glad to vote for Clinton in the general.

    You know what I’m not hearing? Clinton supporters saying the converse.

    Luckily for me, I am hearing Obama supporters say they’ll support Clinton and Clinton supporters say they’ll support Obama. I haven’t experienced what you have, in fact I find most people (who don’t look at blogs all day, anyway) are very happy and excited with both candidates. Most people I know think we’re in a win-win situation, as do I. I don’t worry about who could beat McCain–they both can. He sounds like Bush II and we know the country is sick to death of Bushies.

    Btw, what’s bigger, Hillary’s butt or Hillary’s gut? Someone get that women an industrial strength girdle.

    With remarks like that it’s no wonder Hillary supporters get testy.

    Hey guys, we’ve got viable candidates and the Republicans got shit. In the immortal words of Rdoney King, “Can’t we all get along?” Let’s start celebrating instead of fighting.

  116. 116
    4jkb4ia says:

    As far as Missouri the person who said Obama has not won the red districts in red states is right. The counties that put Obama over were the same ones that put McCaskill over.

    As far as electability this is a talking point. Because these places are so red they will go for any R in the general.
    As far as the Magical Unity Pony this could have some weight. Not only in MO, but also in CA and in CT, we see Obama support coming from hardcore liberals more than anything else. These people are rejecting Clinton because they are afraid of compromise.

  117. 117
    jcricket says:

    But, it is interesting, and it may indicate a trend that more conservative/independent/oddball Democrats like Obama better despite his being more liberal, and maybe Republicans would vote for him too.

    I’ve heard this speculation before, and I think the operative word is “maybe”. It seems like Democrats are willing to “cross over” (remember the Reagan Democrats), but Republicans have not, as of yet, demonstrated the same propensity.

    Maybe, like the “Bradley effect”, they are willing to talk a big game about how they’ll vote Democrat if a “true conservative” isn’t the GOP nominee, but then they can’t bring themselves to vote for the black “tax and spend” guy. I know Obama supporters like to tout as his big strength his rhetorical appeal to the GOP, but as I said upthread, I predict GOP wagon-circling and obstruction no matter which Democrat wins. Don’t kid yourself about anyone’s ability to bridge the gap with the tools of the modern-day GOP.

    Of course, then there’s the theory that Hillary being the nominee will cause the GOP to rise up in rebellion and vote in large numbers to keep her out. But that’s speculation too, and quite possibly depends on who her running mate is, her GOTV operation, and who the GOP nominee is.

    To me it’s all speculation at this point, with no one hypothesis having a majority of the facts lined up behind it enough to claim that it’s the “right theory”. But that’s not a problem – as Mark Steyn said at the NRO/The Corner:

    Forget the gaseous platitudes: in Dem terms, their choice on Super Duper Tuesday was deciding which candidate was Super Duper and which was merely Super. Over on the GOP side, it was a choice between Weak & Divisive or Weaker & Unacceptable. Doesn’t bode well for November.”

    If you’re an Obama or Hillary supporter, keep debating the positives they supposedly bring – it can’t do anything but force each candidate to more sharply articulate who they are. And in both cases, I think the American public ends up liking the Democrats more the more they see/hear.

  118. 118
    Billy K says:

    If all the Obama fans get dejected and go home because they eventually lose (i.e. “waah, hope lost out”), I’d be really disappointed.

    Bank on it. I will probably stay home if it’s a Clinton/McCain matchup.

    Sorry to wahhhh, but I just don’t see any difference there. Neither will stop the war. Both will be more fiscally conscious. And frankly, I doubt Hillary’s picks for SCOTUC would be much differnt than John’s.

    So who cares?

  119. 119
    ThymeZone says:

    I want to vote for someone who makes me feel good about voting for them.

    You just explained, in detail, the Reagan Revolution.

    And I think, to some degree, the Bill Clinton effect.

    Not to rain on your well formed parade, but we used to say of Clinton, he would throw a drowning man both ends of the same rope. In other words, he has that “Ah feel yer pain” comforting way of elocutin’ but underneath he is a ruthless sonofabitch.

    Is there a candidate out there who can make us feel good about voting for him/her who isn’t really a ruthless bitch/sonofabitch?

    It’s kind of like a poll. Please vote, you will feel better if you do.

  120. 120
    4jkb4ia says:

    Please try to weigh in with your Senators on the horrible surveillance bill today. They are having debate on amendments.

  121. 121
    John S. says:

    I’m talking about dealing with 16 years of personal and political attacks—THAT kind of experience you can’t buy.

    Uh-oh, you just broke your own argument.

    To recap, you were trying to claim that you don’t include Bill’s expreience as part of Hillary’s. Remember?

    care to show me where I credited Hillary with the accomplishments of her husband?

    Except that by touting Hillary as having 16 years of dealing with “personal and political attacks” (experience that money can’t buy!), you just credited her with 11 years of Bill’s accomplishments (she was only elected to public office in January of 2001, which would only give her 7 years of experience).

    Thanks for proving my point.

  122. 122
    Phoebe says:

    To anyone who thinks John Cole’s endorsement was too light on “substance” or whatever, I give you this:
    http://obsidianwings.blogs.com.....ually.html

    And I forgot how to embed links, plus I’m lazy.

    About money: I read somewhere today that H outspent O insanely in CA and MA, in the days just after the Kennedy endorsement, on tv. So, to anyone who thinks Kennedy didn’t matter, well, he cost her a boatload of money she might not be able to replace.

  123. 123
    Jen says:

    jcricket, you’re right that it’s conjecture. There’s a lot of anecdotal net evidence out there, that is worth virtually nothing, but that is +.00001 more evidence than Hillary has that her nomination will do anything other than mobilize an anti-Hillary movement. As Bill said, it’s a roll of the dice with Obama. I just think a roll of the dice on some new states is better than conceding them.

  124. 124
    LiberalTarian says:

    And I am very interested, because for once I would like a president who actually has a mandate, rather than just claiming one.

    Catchy, but can you dance to it?

    Obama is running on people’s hope. Like it not, people are voting Democratic in droves (for both Clinton and Obama)–the question of a mandate is not whether there is one, but what the mandate *is*.

    When hopes and dreams are loose in the streets, it is well for the timid to lock doors, shutter windows and lie low until the wrath has passed. For there is often a monstrous incongruity between the hopes, however noble and tender, and the action which follows them. It is as if ivied maidens and garlanded youths were to herald the four horsemen of the apocalypse.

    The True Believer, Eric Hoffer, 1951

    But, I don’t *wanna* ride the four MUPs of the apocalypse.

    Hope is not a plan.

    Somewhere, Somebody, Sometime

    Give me a better plan.

  125. 125
    Jen says:

    the question of a mandate is not whether there is one

    We simply cannot bank on that. I banked on that in ’04 because I could not fathom that the country would not throw GWB out on his ass. I will not be making that mistake again. Look at head to head polls. Hillary loses to McCain. It is far too early to assume we are going to sweep the nation. Look at the electoral map. Is Hillary going to get any red states? Any pink states? If she only flips enough states to eke out a win, it isn’t a mandate. Tell me the states you think she’ll flip that will make a mandate.

  126. 126
    Jen says:

    Phoebe, I want to thank you for that link, I didn’t have time to read all of it but what I’ve read was good.

    The videotaping of police custody stuff is top-notch. I had no idea it was unanimous. If anyone doubts that Obama can be bipartisan without compromising on being a progressive, you need to read that story.

  127. 127
    jcricket says:

    Sorry to wahhhh, but I just don’t see any difference there. Neither will stop the war. Both will be more fiscally conscious. And frankly, I doubt Hillary’s picks for SCOTUS would be much differnt than John’s.

    Really? There’s a ton of federal/appellate judges to appoint, government agencies that need un-fucking (NASA, FEMA, FDA, FCC and HHS to name a few). There’s the VP’s tie-breaking vote in the Senate (should that ever matter). There’s repealing the global “gag rule” on abortion. There’s getting the government out of the “faith based” charity business. There’s the bully pulpit in support of Democratic legislation. And there’s the SCOTUS, where Clinton will definitely nominate pro-choice moderates where the best you can hope for from McCain is pro-life moderates.

    I don’t think Hillary’s some uber-liberal, and I agree that her hawkish stance is an issue. But in all the things I mentioned she will do substantially more good than any Republican from this current crop. Don’t kid yourself, the president isn’t the be-all/end-all (House/Senate matter a lot), but there are countless things having a Democratic president of any stripe will improve.

    So if you stay home and that results in a GOP presidential candidate winning, it’s at least 4 more years of “thanks a lot” to you.

  128. 128
    jcricket says:

    In case anyone wonders how well the Dems are doing, this little stat amazed me:

    Clinton managed to get more votes in Minnesota than all that were cast in the 2004 Democratic caucuses in that state, despite her running a distant second to Obama.

    Wow. If Dems can keep up this momentum TZ is right. We could potentially have another watershed year, because that energy could carry a whole bunch of new Dems into the House and Senate (equally important as winning the WH, imho)

  129. 129
    Alan says:

    McCain/Huckabee ticket

    That would indicate the future of the GOP will continue to be controlled by religious fanatics. It will also maintain the bastardization of the definition of conservatism as an extension of religion. Or in other words, the GOP won’t have much of a future.

  130. 130
    John S. says:

    So if you stay home and that results in a GOP presidential candidate winning, it’s at least 4 more years of “thanks a lot” to you.

    Actually, I thought about this the other night.

    A McCain win would be good for two reasons:

    1) It would force the GOP to literally own the damn war and its consequences. Bush planned on punting to fuck up the next president, but he didn’t count on it being someone from his team.

    2) It would flush Clinton out of executive branch politics forever, clearing the way for new blood in 2012. And by that time, after 4 years of McCain, the nation will be eager for it and the Republicans will be banished to the hinterlands for good.

    Obviously, I would rather see a Democrat in office, but if McCain wins, I try to look on the bright side.

  131. 131
    jcricket says:

    Obviously, I would rather see a Democrat in office, but if McCain wins, I try to look on the bright side.

    The two points you make are indeed the “bright side”. But the other way to look at it is that although it might be a sandwich, it’s still made out of shit.

  132. 132
    LiberalTarian says:

    Wow. If Dems can keep up this momentum TZ is right. We could potentially have another watershed year, because that energy could carry a whole bunch of new Dems into the House and Senate

    And state houses and senates, and governorships, and city councils. The trick is to make sure they are not just Democrats, but better Democrats.

    I’m getting tired of being dinged for supporting Clinton, and being called a Simpson sister, but I will never get tired of seeing all those people vote Democrat.

    But, by gawd, once we get in we need to get some shit done, cuz as sure as dusk follows dawn, cynicism will follow hope. If we get in and fail, we’re fucked.

  133. 133
    Jen says:

    jcricket, I share your enthusiasm about momentum. There is no doubt the Dem momentum is strong, and I think our turnout will be good. I think it will be better with Obama, because we really really like him, but whatever.

    Where I am most cautious is in this: for the R primaries, they had to show up to vote on some guys none of them really like. They do not have a Reagan. And, they did not have a “Not Hillary” hole to punch. When they have a “Not Hillary” message to send, I believe that we will be a little taken aback by their turnout.

  134. 134
    Z says:

    Hey, I live in Missouri. It is more pinkish-purple than bloodly red. The true blue regions of KC and St. Louis have more influence than you realize.

  135. 135
    Z says:

    Hey, I live in Missouri. It is more pinkish-purple than bloody red. The true blue regions of KC and St. Louis have more influence than you realize.

  136. 136
    Desmond says:

    Pretty good analysis from the New York Observer:

    http://www.observer.com/2008/advantage-obama

  137. 137
    Jen says:

    being called a Simpson sister

    If it helps, 1) I never pictured you as a Simpson sister, and 2) I am almost certainly the only person alive with a screwed-up enough imagination to do that. I also have a picture of the Pony, as I discussed yesterday.

    It really just is in the vibe, the attitude, the dreariness. Pride and cheerfulness in your candidate really vanquishes the Bouvierosity.

  138. 138
    Jamey says:

    You know what I’m hearing? Obama supporters saying that they’ll be glad to vote for Clinton in the general.

    You know what I’m not hearing? Clinton supporters saying the converse.

    Shit. True.

  139. 139
    capelza says:

    Btw, what’s bigger, Hillary’s butt or Hillary’s gut? Someone get that women an industrial strength girdle.

    Charming….

    And I’ll have you know that I in no way resemble one of the sisters from the Simpsons…more like Jessica Lange (at least my husband has the good sense to tell me so..). Not a big fan of Clinton, but crap like this, from “progressives” makes me want to punch a wall.

  140. 140

    […] Also, at the end of the night, if the spin is anything I agree with John Cole… Obama won more states, won more delegates, improved his numbers with key groups, widened his lead among minority voters, and over-all, outperformed Hillary. Period. The fact that the Clinton established machine has not been able to pull ahead should be a real clear sign of how much trouble they are in right now. This race was Hillary’s to lose, and last night she may have started doing just that. You will hear the Clinton camp talking repeatedly about winning the big prize- California. Winning California is irrelevant, as a Democrat is going to win Cali in the general regardless who it is. […]

  141. 141
    Jen says:

    Capelza, for you too! It’s not about looks, really, it’s about vibe. It’s such a depressing tone that they’re my reference for that.

    If it helps, 1) I never pictured you as a Simpson sister, and 2) I am almost certainly the only person alive with a screwed-up enough imagination to do that. I also have a picture of the Pony, as I discussed yesterday.

    It really just is in the vibe, the attitude, the dreariness. Pride and cheerfulness in your candidate really vanquishes the Bouvierosity.

  142. 142
    The Other Steve says:

    While we are throwing out stats… In North Dakota, Obama got more votes than the entire Republican field combined.

    I’m a midwesterner. 8 years in Illinois, 12 years in Iowa, 20 years in Minnesota. I understand the midwest mindset. IMHO, Obama wins Iowa and Minnesota handidly and puts Kansas, North Dakota, South Dakota, Colorado in play. I suspect he also puts Nebraska, Montana and possibly Wyoming in play.

    Clinton can put Arizona and New Mexico in play, and she’ll win in Iowa, Minnesota, Arkansas, Missouri. But i don’t see her putting into play the great plains or mountain states.

    And the reason is all about perception. These states are bastions of self-sufficiency and a bit of libertarianism. Now, I’ve always had the opinion that Hillary is a fan of self-sufficiency. But all of her talk about mandate this and mandate that feeds into the overall theme that she wants to take away stuff from you.

    Obama seems to be able to play that rhetorical game a lot better, I think because of his experience in Springfield. That’s why you’re seeing him doing better in these states.

    The Arizona and New Mexico results are a bit odd. There is obviously an aspect of this type of thinking there, but it seems that the latino vote heavily favored Clinton which threw the result her way. That’s something to be better understood.

  143. 143
    Dreggas says:

    Wow. The level of sexism implicit in this is pretty incredible. Hillary Clinton was not President at the time. She wasn’t in the Senate at the time. Yet you hold her responsible for the compromises her husband made….

    As John S. said, she’s running on those 8 years “they” were in the whitehouse. She gets the good and the bad, all part of that 35 years of experience along with working on the board of Wal-Mart. There’s no fucking sexism in saying this, they even bragged in the 90’s that it was a 2 for 1. They threw LGBT people under the bus with DOMA and DADT, they threw working people under the bus with NAFTA all the two constituencies are doing at this point is saying “please sir may I have some more”. Fuck that and fuck their triangulating bullshit cowardice.

  144. 144
    crw says:

    And frankly, I doubt Hillary’s picks for SCOTUC would be much differnt than John’s.

    WTF? McCain has already indicated he’ll nominate more justices in the mold of Roberts (and frankly, the conservative base wont let him get away with more moderate appointments. They wont stand for another David Souter). Compare Roberts to Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen Bryer (both Bill ‘triangulator’ Clinton appointees) and tell me with a straight face there isn’t much difference.

    I call shenanigans on this line of reasoning. If you want a more liberal Supreme Court that will uphold things like abortion rights and federal antitrust enforcement, Hillary Clinton will be lightyears better than McCain.

  145. 145
    Sasha says:

    And his condemnation of homophobia in a black church where those conservative African-Americans essentially live is what, reverse psychology dog whistling?

    . . . . . . . .
    do you even understand what “dog whistle politics” is?

    . . . . . . . .

    I think that phrasing illustrated an excellent understanding of dog whistling, making your explanation tedious, superfluous, and annoying, i.e. par for the course.

    Do you know what i.e. means? If not, I can tell you!

    I know what “dog whistle politics” is, but I’ve not ever heard someone use it, then dramatically denounce the unspoken position. It would be like W. stating in his debate with Kerry that he would oppose appointing judges who’d approve of Dredd Scott (which he did, a quiet high-five to the pro-life crowd), then afterwards going on record to explicitly say he’d appoint pro-choice justices in a speech before Operation Rescue.

    I just don’t see how Obama’s explicit condemnation of homophobia in the black community in his speech at Ebeneezer Church is actually an appeal to homophobes in the black community.

  146. 146
    LiberalTarian says:

    Well, WordPress ate my comment. Eh, whatever.

    The point was that 18 million people voted yesterday, and 11 million voted Democratic. That’s the good news.

    Jen–while I appreciate what you meant (after much explaining), your short hand for it is not likely to endear you to women over 30. We get more vain as we age, not less. Kittens are cute, but a cougar’ll kill ya. ;)

  147. 147
    John S. says:

    As John S. said, she’s running on those 8 years “they” were in the whitehouse.

    Exactly.

    Clinton supporters really do want it both ways, and they can’t have it without contradicting themselves.

    I called lukasiak on it, but it hasn’t shown up since to respond.

  148. 148
    John S. says:

    The two points you make are indeed the “bright side”. But the other way to look at it is that although it might be a sandwich, it’s still made out of shit.

    Life’s a piece of shit,
    When you look at it.
    Life’s a laugh and death’s a joke it’s true.
    You’ll see it’s all a show.
    Keep ’em laughing as you go.
    Just remember that the last laugh is on you.
    And…

    Always look on the bright side of life.

  149. 149
    Jen says:

    I just don’t see how Obama’s explicit condemnation of homophobia in the black community in his speech at Ebeneezer Church is actually an appeal to homophobes in the black community.

    Right, that’s why it was called “reverse psychology dog whistling”. If it’s dog whistling, that’s the only way it’s dog whistling.

    And I’m over 30.

    Trust me, you do not even want to know the mental image of myiq I have now.

  150. 150
    myiq2xu says:

    I find the spinning in this thread amusing.

    A few days ago people talked about putting me on a suicide watch because Obama was going to win big. While this made no sense because I’ve said repeatedly that HRC was not my first choice (or 2nd, 3rd, or 4th) and I will support Obama if he wins the nomination, today I see a bunch of people saying Obama was the underdog and won by surviving.

    On Monday California was too close to call and trending to Obama, but today the meme is that California was never in doubt and Obama won by cutting into Hillary’s lead.

    You know what I’m hearing? Obama supporters saying that they’ll be glad to vote for Clinton in the general.

    You know what I’m not hearing? Clinton supporters saying the converse.

    I said the converse several times recently. Can you show me an example of a Hillary supporter saying they would not vote for Obama? I went through several recent threads and couldn’t find any. I saw several Obama supporters saying they wouldn’t support Hillary though, including at least one in this thread.

    Yesterday I voted for Hillary. In November I am voting for the Democrat, and I won’t have to hold my nose when I do.

  151. 151
    myiq2xu says:

    Trust me, you do not even want to know the mental image of myiq I have now.

    WTF? You have some issues girl.

  152. 152
    John S. says:

    On Monday California was too close to call and trending to Obama, but today the meme is that California was never in doubt and Obama won by cutting into Hillary’s lead.

    Despite the fact that you have ZERO credibility on this issue on account of your intense ODS, I will treat this comment as a reasonable observation. And in light of that, it is still ridiculous and utterly without merit.

    Going into Super Tuesday, Obama was behind in both delegates and the polls, despite having gained a lot of ground. The fact that Hillary was the front-runner cannot reasonably be disputed. You yourself were trumpeting the boost she would get from carrying Florida, and now you want to pretend that she was really the underdog going into yesterday? Puhlease.

    It’s cool that you are an ardent Clinton supporter and will vote for any Democrat come November, but please, enough with these bullshit diatribes.

  153. 153

    […] John Cole of Balloon Juice drives the major points home: Obama won more states, won more delegates, improved his numbers with key groups, widened his lead among minority voters, and over-all, outperformed Hillary. Period. The fact that the Clinton established machine has not been able to pull ahead should be a real clear sign of how much trouble they are in right now. This race was Hillary’s to lose, and last night she may have started doing just that. You will hear the Clinton camp talking repeatedly about winning the big prize- California. Winning California is irrelevant, as a Democrat is going to win Cali in the general regardless who it is. […]

  154. 154
    SmilingPolitely says:

    She has said repeatedly that she didn’t think Bush would use the AUMF to, you know, use force.

    Well, she’s either too naive, too stupid, or she’s a fucking liar( I’m going with liar). In any case, she shouldn’t be President.

    If Bush’s use of force was so unexpected by Hillary, why didn’t she make a public stink about it at the time, denouncing Bush and company as madmen?

    She knew goddamn well what her vote would entail!

  155. 155
    capelza says:

    ODS? Have I mistakenly clicked on Kos?

    As for Clinton supporters saying they wouldn’t vote for Obama? Actually the reverse is more likely true, jusdging from the “if Hillary gets the nod I’ll sit out the general” comments I see on same said Kos. Don’t you just love the “protest”…because we all know that even if Clinton is not as “progressive” as we would like, her choice in judges, etc would be a hundred times better than any GOP president. So, yeah, sit it out, it is your right, but don’t bitch when yet another wingnut judge is elected to the SCOTUS.

    Puhleez…… I still don’t know who I am voting for. Miss Dodd a lot.

    One posivitve about this primary season is that when Oregon finally gets our primary, my vote mught actually count for something. May.

    I hate the whole fucking thing. Was talking to a friend about how early primaries are anymore and I remembered the first one I can recall. Was living in Eureka, Ca…1968. Was woken up by the news that the winner had been assassinated. June 5, 1968. R.I.P RFK.

  156. 156
    Hypatia says:

    I think it will be better with Obama, because we really really like him, but whatever.

    Some of us think he’s cocky and untried (and distubingly snotty at times). I think he’s been great in every possible way as a challenger – good for the party and good for the country. He’d make a truly splendid candidate in five to ten years. I have serious reservations about him as the winner, should he prove to be that.

    And the misogyny hasn’t gone away just because everyone’s sick of hearing about it.

    Anyway, I voted for Hillary yesterday and sent her a little dough. Onward and upward.

    Delighted to see Teddy, Caroline, and Maria with egg all over their faces this morning. Ah, dynastic politics……

  157. 157
    Dreggas says:

    Now Hillary fans over at the great orange satan are saying proportional delegate representation is bad and if it had been winner take all Hillary would have won and it would be over. Of course they are also saying caucuses are bs.

  158. 158
    empty says:

    I said the converse several times recently. Can you show me an example of a Hillary supporter saying they would not vote for Obama? I went through several recent threads and couldn’t find any. I saw several Obama supporters saying they wouldn’t support Hillary though, including at least one in this thread.

    Second that.

  159. 159
    crw says:

    It occurs to me we’re unlikely to get much new information between now and the end of primary season, so what we’re left with is emotional arguments and identity politics.

    I have a modest proposal to inject some new information into the campaign. Host 6 1 on 1 debates pitting Obama and Clinton vs McCain, Romney and Huckabee (assuming no one drops out soon). I think the only way we’re going to get more illumination both on who’s more electable and who has the better ideas is if we start seeing these match ups. Plus it’d give everyone new things to talk about instead of continuing to rehash the quickly going stale arguments.

  160. 160
    Jen says:

    You have some issues girl.

    Indisputably, and right back atcha, Mr. I’m gonna go 48 rounds with TZ at four in the a.m. :)

    Ah, dynastic politics

    Do you like this, or not like it, I’m confused…. About that egg, though, check out the orange line

    And my final opinion, for now anyway, can we puh-leeze stop going back and forth about whose backers on this particular thread are more conciliatory regarding toeing the party line come November? 1)the BJ commenters on this particular thread are not representative of anything whatsoever maybe people bored at work and so it means less than diddlysquat, 2) it’s ever so boring and no one wins, and 3) we have nine months to go. In, say, October, we can all start hounding one another to queue up, ok?

  161. 161
    myiq2xu says:

    Going into Super Tuesday, Obama was behind in both delegates and the polls, despite having gained a lot of ground. The fact that Hillary was the front-runner cannot reasonably be disputed. You yourself were trumpeting the boost she would get from carrying Florida, and now you want to pretend that she was really the underdog going into yesterday? Puhlease.

    I never said she was the underdog, or that she wasn’t. I wasn’t talking about the reality at all, I was talking about the spin.

    The spin on Monday was that Obama was about to win big, including winning California and Massachusetts and possibly New Jersey. Now the spin is that Obama won big because he survived.

    Show me where I said Clinton would get a boost from Florida. I said it was significant and should firewall Obama’s win in South Carolina. But what I heard then is the same thing I hear today – When Obama wins it’s a big deal, when Hillary wins it doesn’t matter.

    BTW – Last week the Kennedy clan endorsements were “huge” but they couldn’t even deliver Massachusetts.

    Despite the fact that you have ZERO credibility on this issue on account of your intense ODS, I will treat this comment as a reasonable observation. And in light of that, it is still ridiculous and utterly without merit.

    It’s cool that you are an ardent Clinton supporter and will vote for any Democrat come November, but please, enough with these bullshit diatribes.

    Intense ODS? I’m going to support Obama if he’s the nominee. Will you promise to do the same for Hillary?

    Lastly, can you engage in a discussion without making personal attacks? This isn’t Wingnuttia.

  162. 162
    Hypatia says:

    I said the converse several times recently. Can you show me an example of a Hillary supporter saying they would not vote for Obama? I went through several recent threads and couldn’t find any. I saw several Obama supporters saying they wouldn’t support Hillary though, including at least one in this thread.

    Second that.

    Seconded and thirded. Most of the talk I’m reading and hearing along such lines in various quarters is coming from sulky Obamabots, including the candidate and his wife.

  163. 163
    LiberalTarian says:

    I just don’t see how Obama’s explicit condemnation of homophobia in the black community in his speech at Ebeneezer Church is actually an appeal to homophobes in the black community.

    8/26/2004 McClurkin entertains at GOP convention, does a pretty good job of hatin’ on gays

    10/20/2007 Obama announces rally with McClurkin

    10/20/2007 Gay community says, “WTF? We protest!

    10/25/2007 Obama releases letter with rationale for including McClurkin at the rally.

    10/29/2007 McClurkin performs.

    1/20/2008 Obama gives speech about bigotry (homophobia, anti-Semitism, xeno phobia) at Ebeneezer church

    2/8/2008 California gay communities break for Clinton (Jane Hamsher)

    Sasha, you don’t get to decide how other people see things. If your community/lifestyle was used as the public scapegoat by the GOP for years, then you might get how this whole deal played with them. The appearance is that somebody somewhere was supposed to think, “Obama doesn’t really think that, he’s just campaigning.” But which group?

    But, if you refuse to see it, well, there are none so blind as those who will not see.

  164. 164
    Jen says:

    BTW – Last week the Kennedy clan endorsements were “huge” but they couldn’t even deliver Massachusetts.

    Couldn’t “even”? Mass. was always a long shot. I’m disappointed Obama didn’t do better all over the map, really, but do look at the orange line. I think time is on his side., but I dunno. Ezra Klein is also right that the results are just kind of weird; some folks are bonkers about him — Idaho and Kansas, anyone? — while others seem immune to his charms.

  165. 165
    Johnny Pez says:

    jcricket, you need to stop being so bloody reasonable.

    I came here for an argument!

    (Was going to link to the Monty Python video, but am too damn lazy.)

  166. 166
    empty says:

    Lastly, can you engage in a discussion without making personal attacks? This isn’t Wingnuttia.

    Wordpad ate this.

    TR Says:

    Please stow the paranoia and the personal bile, Luk.

    Let’s see

    John Cole Says:

    Blow it out your ass, Lukasiak.

    ThymeZone Says:

    Blow it out your ass, Lukasiak.

    Loved it so much, just wanted to repost it.

    Seems like the personal bile is coming towards not from Luk.

  167. 167
    Jen says:

    Seconded and thirded. Most of the talk I’m reading and hearing along such lines in various quarters is coming from sulky Obamabots, including the candidate and his wife.

    Sigh.
    I’m not sulky, I think Obama gets better over time and the odds are in his favor. But since no one is taking my advice about dropping this:
    I’ll vote for her, okay? Can we stop, now? Until October? September?

  168. 168
    myiq2xu says:

    Indisputably, and right back atcha, Mr. I’m gonna go 48 rounds with TZ at four in the a.m.

    What are you talking about? And where did your original comment about me come from? Were you tring to draw me into a flame war or something?

    How did a discussion of black homophobes and dog whistling give you mental images of me? I hadn’t even commented yet in this thread.

    Last night TZ wanted to pie fight but I refused. I live in California so it was much earlier than 4 a.m. As I recall it was 11 or 12 p.m. local. How does that concern you anyway?

  169. 169
    LiberalTarian says:

    And I’m over 30.

    Then I am fresh out of excuses for why you would call women supporting Clinton Simpsons sisters. We can’t all be on a constant manic.

  170. 170
    Cassidy says:

    Lastly, can you engage in a discussion without making personal attacks? This isn’t Wingnuttia.

    This was funny.

  171. 171
    Jen says:

    Then I am fresh out of excuses for why you would call women supporting Clinton Simpsons sisters

    ZOMG I am never posting mental images again. Let me try this one more time.

    I didn’t call women supporting Clinton Simpsons sisters.

    Some.
    Clinton supporters. Seem very, I dunno, realpolitik about the whole thing. They talk about how she’s tough, she’s battle-tested, she is the one to win. She knows how to play the game and get things done, she knows how to beat the Republican slime machine. Those things may be true. But what they don’t talk about as much is why they want her to win. What makes them feel so good about her. What about her inspires or uplifts them. It comes across as kind of gruff, bitter, and tired. Like they want to reprise all the old fights of the ’90s, like that would be a good thing. And that kind of talk, involuntarily, reminds me of the Bouvier sisters. It’s just not inspiring, it’s depressing. I’m not picking a boxing champion, I’m picking a president. I didn’t cast around looking for some sort of insult to Clinton women, it just leaps to mind. Picture Lisa as a hopelessly naive, idealistic Obama supporter talking to them, and them saying “Huhm.” like they do. “Grow up, Lisa.” That’s what I picture.

    I swear to Goddess, I won’t do it again, ok?

    Never mind, myiq, ok, no harm no foul? I don’t do flame wars. I’m just teasing.

  172. 172
    bey says:

    It would force the GOP to literally own the damn war and its consequences. Bush planned on punting to fuck up the next president, but he didn’t count on it being someone from his team.

    That’s a resonable stance to take as long as you or no one you know is one of the ‘consequences’.

    I’m not convinced that Clinton will get us out of Iraq soon, but I *am* certain that she’ll do it sooner than 100 Years McCain.

    I caucused for Obama last night, donated $100 to his campaign this morning, and will happily vote for Clinton in the General, if she’s our nominee. Just not quite as happily as I would vote for Obama.

  173. 173
    John S. says:

    The spin on Monday was that Obama was about to win big, including winning California and Massachusetts and possibly New Jersey. Now the spin is that Obama won big because he survived.

    I don’t care about spin – I care about results.

    The results showed that Obama picked up a lot of steam and is giving Clinton a good run for the money. Obama is beating Clinton in contributions. And currently, the MSM shows that Obama leads in the delegate counts. Those are the facts, and that is all that matters.

    When Obama wins it’s a big deal, when Hillary wins it doesn’t matter.

    Winning is winning, no matter who does it. It seems like you are always coming from the “when Clinton wins it’s a big deal, when Obama wins it doesn’t matter” position, so perhaps you are seeing your own reflection.

    Intense ODS? I’m going to support Obama if he’s the nominee. Will you promise to do the same for Hillary?

    You sure do spend a lot if time railing about Obama for someone who doesn’t have issues with him. But like I said, if he gets the nod and you vote for him, that’s cool. I’ve already stated many times that I would reciprocate for Clinton.

    Lastly, can you engage in a discussion without making personal attacks? This isn’t Wingnuttia.

    Gimme a break. Calling yet another one of your anti-Obama screeds bullshit is hardly a personal attack, and seeing as how I didn’t base my critique on that, it doesn’t even qualify as an ad-hominem. So get off that soapbox already.

  174. 174
    John S. says:

    This was funny.

    Even funnier that the guy who routinely refers to people as ‘window-lickers’ thinks it is funny.

  175. 175
    Jen says:

    If someone else can think of an older yet very sexy, beautiful lady who is also a complete buzzkill, please let me know so I can amend my mental images accordingly.

  176. 176
    John S. says:

    Delighted to see Teddy, Caroline, and Maria with egg all over their faces this morning. Ah, dynastic politics……

    That is absolutely hysterical.

    Someone who supports Clinton bemoaning dynastic politics.

    Comedy gold!

  177. 177
    myiq2xu says:

    Gimme a break. Calling yet another one of your anti-Obama screeds bullshit is hardly a personal attack, and seeing as how I didn’t base my critique on that, it doesn’t even qualify as an ad-hominem. So get off that soapbox already.

    Despite the fact that you have ZERO credibility on this issue on account of your intense ODS,

    Yeah, it wasn’t personal.

  178. 178
    eric jung says:

    Does anyone know where I can get an Actual running delegate count? Have they finished counting? Politico (which I hate) says Obama is predicted to have more delegates, but CNN has Hillary up by ~80. Some stories on NPR seem to have Obama at a little less too, but I dunno if they ran those before the count was completed.

    Also, do any of you watch Simpsons? Selma and Patti (Marge’s sisters) aren’t disagreeable because they’re middle-aged unmarried women (Patti is a lesbian, btw), it’s because they’re joyless cigarette-smoking and generally stupid people. As are most of the Simpsons characters. If people are gonna take offense to the comparison (which is not unreasonable), it might be nice if they stopped trying to find the most hyper-sensitive way to do it.

    If Jen had said “Lisa Simpson vibe”, who is in many ways a condescending feminist, it might make more sense to play the women-hating card.

  179. 179
  180. 180
    John S. says:

    Yeah, it wasn’t personal.

    I stated the facts. Ones that are obvious to any regular here. You’ve spent weeks railing against Obama in every thread in every possible way. Usually, your rants are little more than unhinged diatribes, although occassionally they contain thoughtful analysis.

    If you don’t like those facts, then change them.

  181. 181
    Jen says:

    I’d like to suggest something we might, mostly, agree on.

    A debate a week.

    No, thanks.

    Other verdicts?

  182. 182
    RareSanity says:

    If someone else can think of an older yet very sexy, beautiful reasonably attractive lady who is also a complete buzzkill, please let me know so I can amend my mental images accordingly.

    Maureen Dowd?

    First of all Jen, you don’t have to amend your mental images for anyone. You have explained yourself over and over again, if someone still doesn’t get it, tell them to go pound sand.

  183. 183
    myiq2xu says:

    I stated the facts. Ones that are obvious to any regular here. You’ve spent weeks railing against Obama in every thread in every possible way. Usually, your rants are little more than unhinged diatribes, although occassionally they contain thoughtful analysis.

    If you don’t like those facts, then change them.

    You have stated an opinion, not facts, and not everyone shares your opinion.

    Please explain how saying that my “rants are little more than unhinged diatribes” is a thoughtful analysis and not a personal attack.

    Also, please provide at least two examples where I engaged in a unhinged diatribe against Obama.

    I’ll sit down while I’m waiting.

  184. 184
    myiq2xu says:

    If someone else can think of an older yet very sexy, beautiful lady who is also a complete buzzkill, please let me know so I can amend my mental images accordingly.

    Rudy Giuliani?

  185. 185
    The Other Steve says:

    Breaking News

    Hillary Clinton loaned herself $5 million to finance her campaign through Super Tuesday.

    She’s short on money. Apparently she blew all of her money on ads in New York and California to try to maintain her lead in the polls. This is why her campaign is now trying to spin these wins as being more important then the delegate count.

  186. 186
    Jen says:

    First of all Jen, you don’t have to amend your mental images for anyone. You have explained yourself over and over again, if someone still doesn’t get it, tell them to go pound sand.

    I know, I know, I just do hate being misinterpreted, and I cannot. let. anything. go. Stubborn as a mule.

    The amending is a joke, but you take the point.

  187. 187
    The Other Steve says:

    Also, please provide at least two examples where I engaged in a unhinged diatribe against Obama.

    Only two?

  188. 188
    empty says:

    Usually, your rants are little more than unhinged diatribes,

    Could you point out these “unhinged diatribes.” I don’t recall seeing any. It might be that I just missed them. Or it might be otherwise.

  189. 189
    Jen says:

    Hillary Clinton loaned herself $5 million to finance her campaign through Super Tuesday.

    Romney could probably give her some. He has plenty, he ain’t in the race, and Republicans dream every night about running against her.

  190. 190
    myiq2xu says:

    And currently, the MSM shows that Obama leads in the delegate counts. Those are the facts, and that is all that matters.

    Winning is winning, no matter who does it.

    Hmmmm. According to CNN, Yesterday Hillary won 575 delegates for a total of 818, while Obama won 560 for a total of 730.

  191. 191
    myiq2xu says:

    Only two?

    Show me one

  192. 192
    Jen says:

    According to CNN, Yesterday Hillary won 575 delegates for a total of 818, while Obama won 560 for a total of 730.

    And MSNBC has different numbers. It’s complicated math and I don’t think they’ve finished counting, have they?

  193. 193
    The Other Steve says:

    My virus scan just flagged something called JS/Wonka coming from a javascript loaded by iexplore.exe. This is the only site I had open in IE at the time this message came up. Anybody else seeing this from one of the ads or something?

  194. 194
    John S. says:

    You have stated an opinion, not facts, and not everyone shares your opinion.

    Ok, whatever you say. Your endless posts of snark, cynicism and derision are really pearls of wisdom. I’m convinced.

    Please explain how saying that my “rants are little more than unhinged diatribes” is a thoughtful analysis and not a personal attack.

    I didn’t say it was thoughtful analysis, I said it was a statement of fact. And while I’m at it, I might as well kill two birds with one stone:

    Cuz nothing can stop the Obama Nation!

    OBAMA NATION
    OBAMA NATION
    OBAMA NATION
    OBAMA NATION
    OBAMA NATION
    OBAMA NATION

    When will we cancel rest of the primaries and declare the Magic Unity Pony the winner?

    Here’s why Florida matters to Hillary from a practical standpoint:

    It firewalls SC before Super-Duper Tuesday. Now she won the most recent primary, not Obama.

    Most voters will not know or care about the delegate situation. All they will see is the headline showing HRC the winner.

    I can’t wait to hear the excusifying from Obama Nation after SDT when HRC is way out front in the votes and delegates.

    And once more for the record: I’m not a HRC supporter (but the Obamaniacs are making me into one)

    By the way, nice prediction there!

    She toed the line until after Iowa and NH (who want to be exclusively 1st and 2nd) and then . . . didn’t campaign in Michigan or Florida.

    What do the Democratic voters in Michigan and Florida think?

    Do you think they want their votes to count too?

    I’m sure Obama wouldn’t want them to count if he won those states cuz he’s transcended that stuff.

    Those all came from the thread where you pretty much tipped your hand to the other regulars here what your position was, and you haven’t let up since.

    It took days for you to utter anyhting resembling a critique of Obama – something about triangulation and phoniness if I recall correctly – and then you went right back to the snark, cynicism and derision.

    Like I said, your schtick has gotten old and everybody here has you pegged. So if you don’t like it, change the facts and start making more substantive critiques.

  195. 195
    myiq2xu says:

    And MSNBC has different numbers. It’s complicated math and I don’t think they’ve finished counting, have they?

    Dunno. What does MSNBC show?

  196. 196
  197. 197
    The Other Steve says:

    Hmmmm. According to CNN, Yesterday Hillary won 575 delegates for a total of 818, while Obama won 560 for a total of 730.

    575 + 560 = 1135

    How many delegates were in play on tuesday?

    The comment about Obama winning more came from Chuck Todd, and was based on doing the math. Those numbers are projections and not finalized.

    The numbers CNN is reporting are finalized numbers, which is why there are fewer than the total available on tuesday.

  198. 198
    John S. says:

    Google has your Obama schtick down, too.

    You can’t fool the Great Gizoogle!

  199. 199
    The Other Steve says:

    Why am I bothering to argue with myiqispie?

    He’s a wingnut.

  200. 200
    myiq2xu says:

    It took days for you to utter anyhting resembling a critique of Obama – something about triangulation and phoniness if I recall correctly – and then you went right back to the snark, cynicism and derision.

    The first was snark, and how are the other two “unhinged rants?” Please “state the facts,” and leave your opinion out of it.

    And according to CNN, Hillary is out front, just not “way out fron.”

  201. 201
    wobbly says:

    And that one man/one vote thing that that makes us all equal?

    Sorry, how about one person/one vote?

    How many persons/people/Americans have voted for Hillary Clinton since these primaries began?

    And how many have voted for Barack Obama?

    Love to see the “popular vote” totaled up somewhere in the blogosphere. When Gore won it in 2000, it was a big deal.

    Wasn’t it? He did not come out the “winner”, because of our crazed Electoral College system enshrined in the Constitution because the “slave states” had to be pandered to…

    It’s a holdover, but Gore, the designated heir of the friggin’ Billary/Hillary dynasty WON the popular VOTE in 2000.

    And now the other heir is making a run at it, and she is doing quite well…

    She really is. And jerks like you can’t figure this out?

  202. 202
    myiq2xu says:

    He’s a wingnut.

    So liberals are fascists and wingnuts too?

  203. 203
    The Other Steve says:

    The first was snark, and how are the other two “unhinged rants?”

    I have to say accusing Obama of triangulation would classify as an unhinged rant.

    It was pretty funny though. I keep expecting you to start a whisper campaign about how Obama fathered a black baby.

  204. 204
    Desmond says:

    Hmmmm. According to CNN, Yesterday Hillary won 575 delegates for a total of 818, while Obama won 560 for a total of 730.

    They haven’t even come close to finishing the counting. The projections other media sources are making are based on the probable FINAL numbers.

  205. 205
    Jen says:

    From the AP:

    On Tuesday’s busiest primary night in history, Clinton and Obama were separated by 40 delegates, with several hundred yet to be allocated.

    Overall, that left Clinton with 1,000, and Obama with 902, neither of them even halfway to the 2,025 needed to secure the Democratic nomination.

    I don’t know what to make of all the different numbers other than it’s damn close.

  206. 206
    The Other Steve says:

    So liberals are fascists and wingnuts too?

    A wingnut is someone who pulls things out of their ass to justify their preconceived notions. It’s short for saying someone has a few screws loose.

    Usually it’s Republicans. That’s why I find you so amazingly funny.

  207. 207
    myiq2xu says:

    I keep expecting you to start a whisper campaign about how Obama fathered a black baby.

    Shhhh! Two of them.

  208. 208
    Jen says:

    Was wobbly’s point clear to anyone else?

  209. 209
    John S. says:

    Please “state the facts,” and leave your opinion out of it.

    Whatever, dude.

    I have more important things to do than sit here and delve through all your posts. You asked for two – I gave you three. Now you want more?

    The Google link has pages of snarky Obama comments from you, but I suppose I’m just making it all up.

    And according to CNN, Hillary is out front, just not “way out fron.”

    That’s some nice parsing of your expert (yet incorrect) analysis. And according to MSNBC, Obama is in front.

  210. 210
    The Other Steve says:

    How many persons/people/Americans have voted for Hillary Clinton since these primaries began?

    And how many have voted for Barack Obama?

    It’s difficult to count, because Nevada, Iowa, and Alaska at least only report state delegates. You could approximate it based upon total delegates awarded and final attendance counts. It’d only be a rough estimate though.

    Someone posted some numbers from last night, and based on the states reporting… they were within 100k voters of each other with some 4 million ballots cast. Clinton was up slightly, but it didn’t include a few thousand voters out of Alaska.

  211. 211

    […] Worried?  Why should Hillary be worried?  The biggest reason? The other candidate.  Obama.  The guy with the delegate lead yesterday.  And the calendar?  That’s not simply a reason.  That’s a feeling.  Hillary is yesterday.  Obama is tomorrow. […]

  212. 212
    Billy K says:

    I don’t remember myiq being this unhinged, even a month ago. I think someone (Cassidy) has hijacked the name.

  213. 213
    myiq2xu says:

    The Google link has pages of snarky Obama comments from you, but I suppose I’m just making it all up.

    I will freely admit to making numerous snarky comments about Obama and numerous other things.

    But I haven’t made any “unhinged diatribes” about Obama. I kinda did on Cassidey once or twice, but not Obama.

  214. 214
    ThymeZone says:

    Obama wins more states on Tuesday according to this summary.

    Delegate count is pretty close.

    Unfortunately for Clinton, the momentum doesn’t seem to be on her side.

    Heard some excellent analysis today on the radio, talking about how the main difference between the Dem candidates was about perceived governing style. Cool, deferential, negotiate up, versus agressive, negotiate down.

    Or, if you prefer, mandatory immediate full coverage versus gradual and increasing coverage.

  215. 215
    myiq2xu says:

    I don’t remember myiq being this unhinged, even a month ago.

    Define unhinged. Just saying it over and over doesn’t make it true.

  216. 216
    John S. says:

    Bonus thoughtful comments from myiq2xu about Obama (because Google makes it so easy):

    He shore talks purty, don’t he?

    But if making good speeches was all it took, we would elect an actor as President.

    I guess it’s “get whitey” week at the Magical Unity Pony Headquarters.

    Are you saying that the Clinton’s are gonna make him fight dirty?

    St. Barack? He’s gonna start shoveling Magical Unity Pony shit?

    The Obamaniacs need to quit getting their panties in a twist because somebody is trying to sully Barack’s sainted reputation.

    Magical Unity Ponies have to shit too, and it don’t smell like roses.

    That’s just from the first fucking page of Google results. Feel free to examine the other 12 pages worth on your own.

  217. 217
    myiq2xu says:

    That’s just from the first fucking page of Google results. Feel free to examine the other 12 pages worth on your own.

    Still waiting for that “unhinged diatribe” thing.

    I’m gonna go take a nap, so I’ll check back later.

  218. 218
    empty says:

    The Other Steve Says:
    ..

    I have to say accusing Obama of triangulation would classify as an unhinged rant.

    O my!

  219. 219
    John S. says:

    Define unhinged.

    unhinged

    upset unglued; especially : mentally deranged

    And here’s another bonus definition:

    diatribe

    1: a prolonged discourse
    2: a bitter and abusive speech or writing
    3: ironic or satirical criticism

    I think describing your excessive volume of posts about Obama as unhinged diatribes fits both definitions perfectly.

  220. 220
    Darkness says:

    Which is why I think he gets the veep slot.

    I thought it was going to be Lieberman. Which would be glorious. He’s still got enough Joementum in him to sink another candidacy.

  221. 221
    John S. says:

    Still waiting for that “unhinged diatribe” thing.

    When you wake up from your nap to post another 13 pages worth of Google results on Obama, see my above post defining the terms.

    If you don’t think posting that volume of bile qualifies as “upset, bitter and abusive speech or writing”, then clearly we are at an impasse.

  222. 222
    Hypatia says:

    That is absolutely hysterical.

    Someone who supports Clinton bemoaning dynastic politics.

    Comedy gold!

    Irony was intended,actually. But I do think H. Clinton deserves to get some slack on this issue.

    Traditionally, women who ascend to the heights of political power, from Cleopatra to Benazir Bhutto, have done so through family. It would be pleasant if we lived in a society where women could achieve the very peak without such links and I hope it will be possible for new generations of women as it hasn’t been true before. But until now that’s how it’s always been.

  223. 223
    Billy K says:

    myiq2xu Says:

    I don’t remember myiq being this unhinged, even a month ago.

    Define unhinged. Just saying it over and over doesn’t make it true.

    I see you’re (successfully) shifting attention away from my actual point. Very nice.

  224. 224
    ThymeZone says:

    I’m gonna go take a nap, so I’ll check back later.

    Really? No clients today, Mister “Lawyer?”

  225. 225
    empty says:

    John S. Says:

    Still waiting for that “unhinged diatribe” thing.

    When you wake up from your nap to post another 13 pages worth of Google results on Obama,

    Went to the first page of your Google results and searched for myiq. Here are myiq2xu’s comments:

    myiq2xu Says:

    The Clinton haters in the media are gleefully discussing Hillary’s obituary again, just like they did after Iowa.

    The Magic Unity Pony is proclaiming he has virtually won the nomination, with only a small percentage of the total primary votes cast. He does talk purty though.

    myiq2xu Says:

    Even if Obama eventually wins the nomination, just for shits and giggles I’m hoping Hillary kicks ass on Super-Duper Tuesday.

    I want to watch the Nattering Nabobs of Negativism have to eat shit again for pronouncing Hillary DOA (again)

    They are having too much fun announcing her o-bitch-uary.

    Annoy the media – vote for Hillary!

    And here is a response to myiq:

    incontrolados Says:

    myiq—you are the drunk, I see.

    Don’t see any unhinged diatribes. The last one though would probably be classified as a personal attack.

  226. 226
    dslak says:

    Yes, empty, because Google only gave three results on the first page. You don’t have to deny that myiq2xu makes some good points at times to recognize that he’s had an uhealthy negative obsession with Obama.

  227. 227
    John S. says:

    The Great Orange Satan agrees with John:

    We still don’t know who won the delegate count, but it should be obvious that the race has shifted and that the Clinton campaign is reeling and Obama is now the front-runner.

    His analysis is quite good.

  228. 228
    Dreggas says:

    TZ,

    According to The Great Orange Satan himself Obama leads in pledged delegates now (forget super delegates since those can change) and has the Mojo for the rest of the states. He sees Clinton down and darn near out since she couldn’t finish off Obama last night.

  229. 229
    funfunfun says:

    i know no one ever reads down to comment #221, but i can’t not say what, as an Obama supporter, keeps me smiling today: all those Clinton supporters who told me Obama can’t put up a fight? who said he can’t take attacks, can’t make it happen on the ground, is just a media phenomenon? well, he’s beating your seasoned, tested, experienced political street fighter in all the ways that count. so maybe she’s more the myth?

  230. 230
    dslak says:

    Even if Clinton is slightly ahead in delegates, the fact that the states coming up on the 9th tend to favor Obama, that he’s flush with money, and she’s had to loan herself a few mill out-of-pocket don’t bode well for her.

    And I said last week, after Edwards was out, that Obama was done for. I’m eating a bit of crow, but it’s the tastiest damn thing I ever had.

  231. 231
    John S. says:

    You don’t have to deny that myiq2xu makes some good points at times to recognize that he’s had an uhealthy negative obsession with Obama.

    Precisely. I even said as much upthread.

    His unhealthy negative obsession with Obama is expressed through his numerous unhinged diatribes. It seems fairly obvious to everyone except myiq2xu and empty.

  232. 232
    John S. says:

    And I said last week, after Edwards was out, that Obama was done for.

    It ain’t over until the fat lady sings, and right now she’s still backstage in her dressing room.

    Looking at the results from yesterday, I am cautiously optimistic about Obama clinching the nomination. I don’t count Hillary out – not yet, anyway.

    I sort of feel like I did watching the Superbowl (as a longtime Giants fan)…the Giants had the lead and there was only 46 seconds left on the clock, but I was still nervous that the Patriots could come back and win it…until the game was officially over.

  233. 233
    myiq2xu says:

    Really? No clients today, Mister “Lawyer?”

    Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

  234. 234
    Dreggas says:

    funfunfun Says:

    i know no one ever reads down to comment #221, but i can’t not say what, as an Obama supporter, keeps me smiling today: all those Clinton supporters who told me Obama can’t put up a fight? who said he can’t take attacks, can’t make it happen on the ground, is just a media phenomenon? well, he’s beating your seasoned, tested, experienced political street fighter in all the ways that count. so maybe she’s more the myth?

    I have to agree. She came out as the inevitable one and expected everyone to just fall in line. It’s nice to see the queen dethroned by the little people. It’s almost as enjoyable as watching Leona Helmsley do the perp walk.

  235. 235
    Jen says:

    I’m eating a bit of crow, but it’s the tastiest damn thing I ever had.

    It’s the Kool-Aid and pony tears marinade. Really seals in the tenderness.

  236. 236
    John S. says:

    Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

    Wow, you can post while napping?

    That’s some neat trick!

  237. 237
    Mary says:

    If someone else can think of an older yet very sexy, beautiful lady who is also a complete buzzkill

    Hmm. Lilith from Cheers? Not quite old enough, maybe.

  238. 238
    Jen says:

    Lilith is pretty good. I’ll use Lilith now.

  239. 239

    Here ya go,
    Both these candidates suck as Democrats, I personally think Hillary sucks more so I’ll vote for Obama as an against Hillary. So I’ll vote for whoever wins against the Republicans, but I had hopes this time that I’d get to vote for somebody.

    For analysis I believe that the map is slightly in favor of Obama, the actual geographic map. Obama is growing at this point and Hillary continuing a slide that started as soon as the Primaries actually started. These are trends, candidates are humans and so are voters, it wouldn’t take much to upset the apple cart.

    There are very real reasons to dislike Hillary’s politics and there are reasons to doubt Obama’s. It isn’t derangement, maybe echoing the right wing nut machine on Hillary is, but that isn’t what is going on. There are things that are fantasy, Hillary’s experience is one.

  240. 240
    Cain says:

    How about that gal (the president) from Battlestar Galatica?

    cain

  241. 241

    There were no knockouts delivered, but Obama came out a lot stronger. He’s got a lead in the race, he’s got a lot more money and he’s got a string of primaries and caucuses coming up where he should clean Clinton’s clock. Thus, Clinton’s position today is a lot weaker than it was a couple days ago.

    I have heard (but have absolutely no evidence) that when the Dems planned on their Super Tuesday, it was supposed to be designed to finish off Hillary’s opposition. If it was, it must be very disappointing for her people. I expect that there are a lot of favors being called in today. And friends in the media will be called upon. Simply campaigning and advertising with a third of her opponent’s budget is not going to win it.

    As far as which states Clinton did or did not make an effort in, sorry. It’s hard to imagine winning New York and California and end up losing the delegate lead, but she did. The Dems will in all likelihood win Cali, NY and Mass in the general election, whoever the candidate is. But there is a perception out there in the rest of the country that Obama’s coattails are a lot longer, and even if he doesn’t win in, say, Idaho, there are a lot of Democratic office-seekers who may get a bump with Obama while a lot of Repubs and Clinton-haters will make an effort to vote against her and those who run with her. And there is a perception that Obama actually will win some of those Red states where Clinton would be a drag.

  242. 242
    Conservatively Liberal says:

    …iexplore.exe.

    Ahh yes, the Microsoft Virus, Trojan, Worm and SpyWare Welcome Mat.

    And I said last week, after Edwards was out, that Obama was done for. I’m eating a bit of crow, but it’s the tastiest damn thing I ever had.

    Yup, I have had to eat steaming, heaped plates of hot crow in the past. Most times I hated it, but sometimes I chowed down with gusto.

    Sometimes hot crow can be damn tasty.

    If someone else can think of an older yet very sexy, beautiful lady who is also a complete buzzkill

    Fran Drescher?

    About CDS/HDS, I am sick and tired of the word ‘misogynist’. If there ever has been a word that has been abused to death, this is the one. People like myself do not ‘hate’ or poke fun at Hillary for being a woman, we just don’t like her for very valid reasons and she presents a W-I-D-E target that is easy to hit. These reasons are of her own doing, not ‘right wing talking points’. While Obama supporters can drive me nuts, it is more like a nuts that is the opposite of Ron Paul’s supporters. Barely tolerable at times, but you can understand their enthusiasm and somewhat excuse it. It is not a nasty tone, so I can tolerate it.

    But some of Hillary’s most vocal supporters are people who are not doing her any favors by going to some of the extremes they have in their support of her. I see far more Hillary supporters being shrill and saying some damn stupid things than I have seen with the Obama’s supporters. Lay off with the misogynist and hate crap already! People can disagree without being conveniently pigeonholed under some titled category that satisfies nobody but yourself.

    Obama is not wiping the table with Hillary, but he is steadily building support across the nation while Hillary’s support is receding. IMO, Hillary is popular with the partisan Democrats. People who would be more than happy to have a progressive version of the last 7 years. They believe that it is their turn to ‘stick it to the right’. I can understand how this could be attractive, but if she did win and become President I believe these same supporters will be very disappointed as I believe Hillary will not be vindictive enough for them. She is not going to push any prosecutions against any key players in the current mess and IMO she will probably sweep it all under the rug while saying ‘we need to look forward, not back’ or somethinglike that.

    Barack is not ‘mean’ enough for the Hillary supporters, he is not a junkyard dog. He wants to be all lovey-dovey with the detestable right, and that is not acceptable.

    Have you people already forgotten that the President is the President of ALL Americans? Did Bush push you to the point that you want the same thing he had, but in a progressive flavor? I want someone who will work with the ‘other side’, who will attempt to get people to agree even if it is to agree to disagree. I want someone who I believe that while trying to work with the other side they will not bend over backwards for them (like Pelosi, Reed, Clinton and many others).

    If Barack wins the primary and the election, I bet it will be called a mandate. Like it or not people, we all live here and we need to find a way to co-exist and get along.

    To agree to disagree. Not hate.

  243. 243
    Snark Based Reality says:

    Wow. Whichever group is doing Obama’s website including the video on the “Donate Now” page deserves a fucking award. Talk about quality propaganda.

  244. 244

    […] Grim calls me “Obama’s biggest fan.” Heh. I guess John Cole would call me an official “fanboi,” except that now he is one too. […]

  245. 245
    Realsocal7 says:

    OBAMA has the knowledge to change the world he is an amazing insperation to myself and several other people. We love you and wish you the best of luck!
    (your biggest fan!) realsocal7 we luv u!!!

  246. 246
    Soccerfreak says:

    Obama,
    you are an amazing person! You have the characteristics to change the world. Its about time Bush was out of office. I find it a large upgrade from Bush to Obama we love and wish you the best of luck. I am a fifth grader in the state of California. I have a large interest in politics just like my father. We both have reason to believe you would be an amazing president. Even though that is an opinion your descions you have made about war and education are completely logical. If I could vote you would deffinately be my first choice. best of luck. We love you!!!

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] Grim calls me “Obama’s biggest fan.” Heh. I guess John Cole would call me an official “fanboi,” except that now he is one too. […]

  2. […] Worried?  Why should Hillary be worried?  The biggest reason? The other candidate.  Obama.  The guy with the delegate lead yesterday.  And the calendar?  That’s not simply a reason.  That’s a feeling.  Hillary is yesterday.  Obama is tomorrow. […]

  3. […] John Cole of Balloon Juice drives the major points home: Obama won more states, won more delegates, improved his numbers with key groups, widened his lead among minority voters, and over-all, outperformed Hillary. Period. The fact that the Clinton established machine has not been able to pull ahead should be a real clear sign of how much trouble they are in right now. This race was Hillary’s to lose, and last night she may have started doing just that. You will hear the Clinton camp talking repeatedly about winning the big prize- California. Winning California is irrelevant, as a Democrat is going to win Cali in the general regardless who it is. […]

  4. […] Also, at the end of the night, if the spin is anything I agree with John Cole… Obama won more states, won more delegates, improved his numbers with key groups, widened his lead among minority voters, and over-all, outperformed Hillary. Period. The fact that the Clinton established machine has not been able to pull ahead should be a real clear sign of how much trouble they are in right now. This race was Hillary’s to lose, and last night she may have started doing just that. You will hear the Clinton camp talking repeatedly about winning the big prize- California. Winning California is irrelevant, as a Democrat is going to win Cali in the general regardless who it is. […]

  5. […] Update John Cole brings us some reporting from the murky world of Democratic delegate counting. The Obama camp projects topping Clinton by nine delegates, 845 to 836. […]

  6. […] Update: John Cole says, Obama won more states, won more delegates, improved his numbers with key groups, widened his lead among minority voters, and over-all, outperformed Hillary. Period. The fact that the Clinton established machine has not been able to pull ahead should be a real clear sign of how much trouble they are in right now. This race was Hillary’s to lose, and last night she may have started doing just that. You will hear the Clinton camp talking repeatedly about winning the big prize- California. Winning California is irrelevant, as a Democrat is going to win Cali in the general regardless who it is. Spotlight […]

Comments are closed.