Last night (March 4, 2008) voters were out in force in Vermont, Rhode Island, Texas and Ohio. Although the official numbers barely budged, Senator Clinton is claiming a victorious night. The delegate count now stands at 1307 for Senator Obama and a trailing 1175 for Clinton (not counting superdelegates). How does that make a victory for Clinton? Well, after losing 11 primaries in a row to Obama (12 including Vermont, which reported an early and clear win for Obama last night), Clinton won 51% of the popular vote in Texas to Obama's 47%, and 54% to his 44% in Ohio. According to the Clinton campaign, those numbers, along with her win in Rhode Island, "prove" that she is the preferred nominee.
"Two-thirds of the people in America want this race to go on," Clinton said on MSNBC this morning. "I think the voters of Ohio - who are really the bellwether voters - spoke loudly and clearly last night. They were the first to take stock of where we were, and they concluded overwhelmingly that I would be the best nominee."
Yet, she still lags behind it comes to number of states won, number of delegates, primaries won, caucuses won and the overall popular vote. Furthermore, her superdelegates have begun to jump ship. The Clinton camp will say that you can't win the nomination without winning Ohio because history says so. Yet, during other moments of the campaign Clinton says what's past is past - for instance with regard to vote on the Iraq war.
Meanwhile, Obama says,
"We have a strong lead in delegates, and by the time we get to the convention we will have the most delegates and be the nominee. We have won more primaries, more caucuses, more of the popular vote and more states," and that Clinton "barely dented the delegate count last night."
Those are indisputable facts. However, the Clinton campaign did gain something valuable in Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island last night, something both campaigns need to maintain in order to take the nomination - momentum.
Voters in states like Washington, Virginia, Maryland, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Hawaii, Idaho and others might take offense at Clinton's insinuation that the voting didn't really begin until Ohioans went to the polls. But her campaign is using her lead in that state to its best advantage. Obama's advantage in sheer numbers remains obvious.
So, who do you think was the winner last night?
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 84
And Hillary is fully dressed in a pant suit and answers the phone? Who sleeps fully clothed? Don't you want your President to sleep? Giving the presumption that Hillary has experience answering the "red phone"? So, she answered the phone and then gave it to Bill? Or, maybe Bill was not in bed with Hillary but with an intern or Sharon Stone, and Hillary answered the phone and then had to go "knock when the room was rockin'" in the Lincoln bedroom and tell Bill that someone was on the red phone for him.
AND THIS WORKED! THIS AD REALLY WORKED! What does that say about your typical Democratic primary voter?
The next few weeks is going to be fun.
The big question, if Obama gets the nomination will the Clinton supporters vote for Obama and if Hillary wins, will the Obama supporters vote for Hillary?
Last night McCain made it abundantly clear that the wars will continue and that he will start dismantling the laws protecting us from the worst abuses of big business. He's already staked out his ground and it's the same as Mr. Bush. Can we really survive another four years of that?
sure she was out of the fight, and really she is by the votes.
She is doing the responsible thing staying in the race though
if she thinks Obama is going to lead to a Democratic loss.
This is a weird America, we have said we are against the war,
or it has been interpretted as such, and yet it still had support.
People say they hate Hillary Clinton, but more and more I think
that is a fringe on both sides.
McCain is now running against Obama, and Obama starting to
tilt with McCain. The farther this goes before the converntion
the more idea we will have how the election might go with
Obama.
I can only guess that going far left with Obama is going to end
up being a mistake as I've said all along, but it's certainly hard
to predict. I'm thinking Obama has less mystique now and the
mania is going to subside a little.
I don't think McCain is the same as Bush. And I do wonder how
much the media had to play in orchestrating the up and down
if at all.
In flicking stations this morning, I did sense a little more life in the demeaner of the TV hosts, I'd say they had a little more spring in their step now that Hillary is back in the game. Sure, some had fallen for the "Cult of Obama" but deep down, they really want Hillary to win.
Watch Brian Williams, Katie Couric, Wolf Blitzer, Keith Doberman, Joe Scarborough, they really do want Hillary to win.
It's time to watch the news and how it is broadcast.
While I prefer Obama, I have always felt Clinton would make a good president. I had given up the idea they could be on the same ticket but I find myself entertaining that idea again today with Obama as VP and succeeding Clinton in 8 years. Yes, that makes me smile.
First, it shows that Hillary is not out of the race, and the struggle will go on, and they will both spend more money that could be better utilized during the general election, and perhaps it will rough up Obama's "teflon". This also almost guarentees a contested convention. So not only does this keep Hillary in the race, it hurts the democrats in the general election.
I don't want to think about what would/will happen with another situation where one party controls both congress and the white house. Look how bad it turned out with the republicans. Hell, a McCain white house may be the best thing that could happen to the democratic party. It would keep them from getting corrupt like the republicans have.
Wyoming and Mississippi are next, then Pennsylvania. Wyoming and Mississippi are seeming unknowns, and they are considered to be small impact states. Hillary is expected to be strong in Pennsylvania.
I fully suspect that the Democratic race will not be decided until the Democratic National Convention.
We may well end up with an Obama-Clinton ticket; the "OC" for 2008.
The problem with that is that he presents himself so much better than Bush and is so much smarter that people will forget he still stands for war after failed war, and believes that wars can be funded without fiscal responsibility and without personal sacrifice of the American people. He's weak on the economy which is most people's biggest worry. But he talks better. Some people are going to be fooled. I sure hope not too many. This worries me because I think McCain will talk a good show unless you dig way down and actually examine the particulars.
Bill's Spirit: They are already talking about the ticket you describe one way or the other. Clinton mentioned it this morning in one of her speeches.
Winston: The press doesn't care whether the President is a Democrat or a Republican. That's right wing neocon fantasy that was built of whole cloth. What the press wants is stories, good or bad (but preferably bad). They report a Democratic fall as quickly as they report Republican ones, it's just that the past few years there have simply been a lot more Republican ones. That too can change at any moment.
Dave A: According to what I saw last night, even if one of the two wins all of the contests between now and the convention, neither one will have enough to tie up the nomination. I'm not entirely sure why everyone is so horrified by the idea of the convention being something other than a rubber stamp. Also, in the past, most of the races were not decided until June or so.
I would love a Clinton/Obama ticket. They will make McCain seem like an old fogey.
If Libs can't figure things out you only have yourself to blame. The left decided that they don't want any "winner take all states" (I believe I am correct that there are none) because EVERYONE is a winner. We can't have winner and losers everyone gets a star(or delegates) for trying. Like most of the left's policies, it's all well intentioned but seldom effective. Hey, I think that would make a good bumper stickers :)
I was surprised Obama didn't win Texas and do better in Ohio. But exit polls showed many people decided in the last three days -- an indication that the negative tactics deployed by the Clintons worked.
Part of me wants him to call her on the carpet for her unethical business dealings, trumped up experience, and win-at-any-cost politics, but that would go against his commitment to civility. What we're seeing is the very kind of politics he's trying to end -- the attacks and distortions that distract voters from the issues that matter to people's lives, the stunts and the tactics that promote fear instead of hope.
McCain is only, possibly, superficially similar to Bush. On Iraq, he was in favor of sending in more troops back in '04, even when basically everybody was against it. And no matter what you think of the surge, it's obviously worked out better than what we were doing before (ironically, the democrat's "new strategy" was exactly the failed strategy that we used before the surge--exactly the same) and has helped at least in part to the reduction of US casualties there, which everybody would agree was a good thing. His environmental policies are completely different--he's for a cap and trade system, he's against corn ethanol, and supported increased CAFE standards. On taxes, he voted against the Bush tax cuts, and personally I think that he's promissing to keep them in place because it's an unkeepable promise--congress, which will be strongly democratic after the next election, would never renew them anyway.
If Libs can't figure things out you only have yourself to blame.
Kudos to you, Victor V.
Why?
Because it was only a few weeks ago that I heard a female Republican strategist stating that was exactly the way to beat the Democrats -- for Republicans to vote in the Democratic primary for Hillary, therefore ousting the much more formidable Obama, and ensuring a win for McCain.
It sent chills down my spine that the Republicans could be so devious.
I was reminded -- hey! What do you expect? This is politics, and
this game is not for the weakhearted -- you play to win at all costs.
For those who are ready to jump ship -- the Obama ship, and board
the Hillary vessel, well. . .
tsk, tsk, and FOR SHAME, FOR SHAME!
You are either for CHANGE or not!
I do not believe in politics as usual, or voting Democrat no matter what.
If Hillary wins, McCain gets my vote in November. Period. The END
How is it change if you are pandering to Unions...wow that NEW
Pandering to environmental lobby...I know never done that before
Want to give up on our allies and run...Oh wait we did that already a few times
Take from the rich and give to the poor...you sure we haven't done that before?
Weaken intelligence...Wonder who gutted CIA the most...HMMM
So what exactly is this change the left keeps talking about? Seems to me same ol song.
So what exactly is this change the left is talking about?
Devious? ROFL I know dems have never done that..no they ONLY vote for their party. Lady you gonna get me in trouble here...am at work and just busted out laughing people thought there was something wrong with me...
Do I agree with it NO...but that's the system and now that it does not go in their favor Dems cry foul...Oh thats funny...thanks lady really needed a good laugh here at the end of day.
Also, I think it was Carolyn who mentioned a shared ticket. Hillary almost seemed to be planning on making a deal or something - and it's not necessarily a bad idea.
Clinton has the right to go all the way to the convention and it will be an incredible day if she does. I agree that it could hurt the party if the dirty tactics and mudslinging get out of hand, though. I think that Clinton and Obama should both be running against McCain right now - and simply let the voters decide (or join forces).
Obama does have the numbers at this point, to his credit.
This would be a win win for the democrats. Congress has negatives almost as low as Bush. Harry Reid is an ineffectual blowhard (and one ineffectual democratic blowhard in congress is enough) who has accomplished nothing in his two years. In his defense, the senate hs 49 dems, 49 reps and two independents that vote with the democrats giving them a paper thin majority. HC clearly has the skills to kick ass as majority leader, something the dems need if they are actually going to govern. (Winning a few more seats would help as well).
Additionally, if the Dems were to win with an Obama/Clinton ticket they would, at least temporarily, lose two Senate seats.
If I were McCain, I would rip off this commercial in a heartbeat and substitute myself as the experienced one and HC as the tyro.
Victor: The reason for no or few winner take all states for Democrats is not for the reasons you state but because unlike Republicans, Democrats feel that every voter's vote should count so proportional allotment of delegates is simply more fair and gives a much better picture of where the electorate actually stands.
Lisa: The problem with faulting Hillary on her "unethical business dealings" is that those were proven to be trumped up charges and she was found to be blameless. Are there some we don't know about? She's a politician; there have to be. Just not the ones cooked up by the Clinton hate machine during Bill's time in office.
Daniel: Once again for the 732 time, the purpose of the surge according to Mr. Bush was to give the Iraqi government breathing room in which to pass critical legislation. If that legislation was not passed the surge failed unless of course you accept Mr. Bush's changing the purpose of the surge after it was over and after it failed. Also, you have to factor into your evaluation the completion of ethnic cleansing, the flight of 2 to 3 million Iraqis, and the cease fire declared by the militias before you can factor in what part of the reduced violence was due to the surge in the first place. Decreased violence wasn't the purpose of the surge other than tangentially. Political action was.
I think if she can riff on the power chord of Obama is one big speech, but as he has gotten to the higher national level his actions have grown closer to Clintons, and he was almost complimentary of President Bush at some points. Clinton's greater exposures to world politics, is experience, something of value that separates them.
This spin, though very late, is essentially truthful, honest and does show the difference between them, also highlights Hillary's greater ablity to hit the ground running.
Also something about Obama started this breakaway when he made the comment about negotiating with rogue countries with no pre-conditions. I have always thought that was a major blunder an attempt to appeal to people's sense of fairness.
The reality is that just as we have only so much money to spend, there is only so much attention and processing power and time that a President has to put to task of being President. While it might seem positive to hold talks with these major world leaders, it can essentially be squandering time and effort that is needed for problems that are going somewhere and can be solved. I think some of the more emotional points that Obama makes should have been analyzed, broken down, and responded to.
Clinton's campaign has been bad in the sense that a mystique has developed around Obama that has allowed him to define the parameters of the race, and sadly he did not choose to get more detailed, he choose to bask in the sun so to speak.
Now, they are talking about a dream team. Would it be more like a nightmare? Let's see Hillary might choose Obama. Who will Obama choose for VP? Better yet, who would he put in his cabinet, maybe Jesse Jackson as Secretary of State? Think about who his friends really are. Who does his church support? Who does his family support? I guess I would really like to know because my immagination is going wild.
While I'd like to see the Democratic nomination sewn up, and while I believe Obama is the better choice, maybe having the primary continue a bit longer will serve the Democrats well. Consider this: while Hillary's tactics have been decidedly negative, they're softballs compared to what the Republicans will start throwing in the general election. Obama needs to figure out how to go on the offense without being offensive, and battling Hillary can only help. When the Democratic convention rolls around, I think there can be little doubt who the winner will be, barring a major faux pas by Obama. He doesn't have many skeletons in his closet - he's bared most of them in his two books.
For what it's worth, his books give you a good measure of the man, and help you to understand what he believes in. Joe Biden was right - he is articulate - incredibly so. Obama is a melting pot of his own, a mother from Kansas, a father from Kenya, born in Hawaii and educated in Indonesia. His heart is in the right place, and if he can keep his head up but loosen up a little, I think he can be a great president at a time when we sorely need one.
No, One is Lieberman, the Bushco best friend. The fact is there is no Dem majority in the Senate, and the obstructionist agenda of Senate Republicans has more to do with the low ratings of congress, than the "majority" Democrats ever did.
The surge strategy wasn't just about sending more troops in, it was a far more comprehensive aproach, and by almost all accounts has reduced violence, and US casualties have subsequently been reduced. Whether you think that the progress is sustainable, or we should have pulled out instead, it has worked much better than our last strategy. The democrats so called "change in strategy" was literally the same strategy that we used for 3 1/2 years. Had we done this 3 years ago when McCain supported this, chances are we wouldn't have to be there today.
http://lemonlimemoon.blogspot.com/2008/02/friends-of-obama.html
http://prairiepundit.blogspot.com/2008/03/friends-of-obama.html
That's funny. "obstructionist" is the exact same word Bush used when the republicans were in control of congress. The democrats thought that label was pretty stupid back then. It's so nice to see that our esteemed congressmen don't mind double standards.
WM H. It will be interesting to see if Democratic Senators get pulled into the cabinet. Am I getting ahead of myself? :-)
Diane, as usual, your article is drawing some great comments.
In terms of delegates however this is what it looks like
OH: OBAMA -9
RI: OBAMA -5
TX P: OBAMA -2
TX C: OBAMA +9 - There was a caucus in TX indeed!
VT: OBAMA +3
A loss of 4 delegates by Obama. Wyoming should make that up this Saturday!
"That's funny. "obstructionist" is the exact same word Bush used when the republicans were in control of congress. The democrats thought that label was pretty stupid back then. It's so nice to see that our esteemed congressmen don't mind double standards."
The situation then was completely different. Republicans actually had a majority. The only votes Dems could effect were ones that required a two thirds majority, and your comment fails to look at the then, and the now, in honest or non misleading terms. What a surprise from a Conservative, lol. And speaking of double standards, that filibuster thing, that Republicans have embraced like a long lost old friend, using it more than the Dems EVER did, wasn't that the one they were going to use the nuclear option on? What a laugh. Hypocrisy, your name is conservative.
If I promise my boss I will finish 15 tasks if he just gives me a quiet place to work, and when he comes back at the end and I've done none of them, do you really think I can look up and smile and say, but giving me space was the real reason for this assignment. I decided other than that I didn't have to do anything at all? Just how long do you think I'd last?
Well this isn't any different. Bush said the surge was so Iraqi government officials could act. Al-Maliki stood in front of the cameras and loudly declared that they would finish all of the milestones without difficulty. I'm sorry but unless that happened, the surge failed.
To answer your question I don't see that as progress. There is no military solution to the mess over there. Only diplomacy and government hard work will accomplish anything. Our government refuses to indulge in any form of diplomacy and the Iraqi government refuses to do its job. I think that we should leave since they have no intention of doing anything but take our money and sit on their hands. If, on the other hand, the Iraqi government had successfully completed even a third of their promised goals, I would be standing up applauding and urging them on. I'm tired of seeing our people dying and our money being poured down a rat hole so those people can do absolutely nothing. Hell they take so many vacations you would think their last name was Bush.
Bruce: I have a question. Is it dirty politics or an attack if what is being said is true, or is it only that if it's a lie? That's not being disingenuous. Apparently the Canadian conversation happened and the memo that was released was fairly accurate. Is telling the voting public about something like that dirty politics or being conscientious? I keep hearing the most harmless ads being called attack ads, and remembering back to Willy Horton and stuff like that, I keep thinking "you ain't seen nuthin' yet" and imagining how the Republicans will swiftboat whoever is the candidate.
Frankly (which you may have heard, always proceeds some spin), I think Obama is really slick but he is what is needed to defeat Rove and company.
First of all, I'm not a conservative, so you kind of allready invalidated yourself, especially on the subject of throwing around labels. But anyhow.
One, you had a republican majority congress and a republican president. The people had clearly spoke, whether I (which, believe me, I wasn't) or anybody else wanted. The democrats fillibusterd several bills, and refuesed to let judges get up to vote. The republicans have done similar things now, plus Bush has vetoed or threatened to veto a few bills. I don't see how the situation is different.
I don't want to start another discussion about Iraq, but the surge strategy was a hell of a lot better strategy than the pre-surge strategy.
The point is you don't. The situation was entirely different, with a definite majority, not the tie we have now, and the Republicans have actively obstructed any legislation they could, While the Democrats couldn't, period, to purposely give the impression this was a do nothing congress. Check the comparative number of filibusters, as well.
It's merely a stall tactic, to allow the oil companies to get their sweetheart deals. Separating into sects, behind blast walls, is not progress, It's merely trading todays casualties for tomorrows, and all that Al Queda in Iraq business is just hype, the Iraqi people had started throwing them out, wherever they could, long before Petraeus decided to arm another militia to bite us in the butt sooner or later, just like he did in Baghdad with the Shiite "police force" that then committed atrocities for the Shiite clerics. It is doing absolutely nothing to unify the country, and the Sunni's are beginning to see that, and react.
Also,"Separating into sects, behind blast walls, is not progress, It's merely trading todays casualties for tomorrows, and all that Al Queda in Iraq business is just hype, the Iraqi people had started throwing them out, wherever they could, long before Petraeus "
Not true, Al Queda was growing in influence as was used by liberal punch line "al queda was not in iraq before bush invaded". They have been painstakingly rooted out but of course you could not admit when our military is doing a good job. Just like the OTHER dumb excuse by the left that casualties were down because its hot....sheesh.
The blast walls are coming down and the violence is not increasing so again no factual evidence to support your claim.
Winston, the ad was bad because freedom of speech is only allowed when you complain about bush or Gen "Betray-us". It requires unsubstantiated claims and endless ramblings. And don't forget you are always in the clear if you sign off with "Bush is evil" I guess you missed that part of the constitution
Winston: The swiftboat ads were bad because they represented a very personal vendetta against Kerry by someone in his platoon. They were also bad because they were mostly lies or gross exaggerations. The part about him throwing his medals was, in my opinion, legitimate fodder for ads.
Viktor: The death toll in Iraq (for civilians) is around a thousand a month. That's progress? Would it be progress if that were your state? As for Mr. Bush, he's not smart enough to be evil.
Please check your sources. No wonder you are so negative all the time you believe the liberal bs that floats around. Then people accuse me of blindly toting the Bushy line...sigh
Iraqi civilian deaths have not seen "around a thousand a month" since August. Now the average is between 400-500
http://icasualties.org/oif/IraqiDeathsByYear.aspx
No matter how you look at it, not allowing bills to come up for a vote is "obstructionist". The democrats are just as guilty of that as the republicans. Therefore, it's hypocritical for anybody to call one side "obstructionist" and not the other.
I'm not sure if your figure or mine count the women being slaughtered since women are not really people over there by many people's reckoning. At any rate, no my figures aren't far off, though compared to what may be coming they are modest. If you were losing even 400-500 people a year to brutal murders in your your state, would you be so sanguine about the death toll? To be equivalent to the US, you would have to make that between 4,000 and 5,000 a month in an area the approximate size of Texas. Tell me Victor, would you find that acceptable?
I do not find a single death acceptable but you are forgetting one major fact. These acts of violence are committed by Arabs against Arabs. These are thugs and criminals that need to be confronted. Iraqis themselves say they are not yet able to protect themselves which is why we are STILL assisting them. We are not there to work on our tan but are doing our best to protect the citizens and find the perpetrators.
Your side of the isle is the one that wants to leave and just let them duke it out. It's your side that is willing to let this fledgling democracy spiral into chaos by leaving them before they are able to fend for themselves. Can you point to one incident where crime has decreased by reducing law enforcement? Telling them we will be leaving on Thursday will not make things better. It makes no sense and I challenge you or anyone to show me any empirical evidence where this has worked against crime. You don't tell thugs we will watch the jewelry store till Friday but then are going home…but of course you will just dismiss it as Bushy propaganda.
P.S. What "organization" are you referring too? My source is an independent source and sais total Iraqi deaths for Feb is 683 (573 civilians)
(I see that another line of discussion is going on and I do not mean to side track it, but I will comment on Diana's Theme)
What happened to the Caucus Chairpersons in Texas?
First, without casting any moral judgments over crossparty voting in the Primary, which is allowed in Texas (Republicans voting for Hillary), I think it is important to consider the effect it had on the overall numbers and the outcome of the voting on Tuesday.
I believe it had a more than sideline effect on the final results.
Meaning that the percentage numbers and delegate allotment numbers Do Not actually reflect the Desire of the Democrats in Texas... I belive that the actual numbers likely have Obama out ahead by some degree.
I say this in a "Trying to look at the numbers in relation to the Real situation" sort of way rather than a "Rooting for a Candidate" sort of way.
Secondly, I was at a polling place and stayed for the Caucus part of the voting. The Caucus was Chaos.
Primarily because the Chairpersons for the Caucus event did not show up!!!
What causes Caucus officials (four in this case) to just not show up and to have no explanation as to why? It seems that this happened at any number of Polling places...
Any ideas on what might have happend???
In an observational sense, I was quite impressed with the will of the people to carry out the event... to conduct their civic roles and their drive to be Counted in spite of the chaotic, unexpected, and hindering situations...
I'm also impressed with the conduct of both the Hillary and Obama supporters during the chaotic caucus process ...
I was surprised with the apperance of Republican Crossover voters showing up at the caucus. (I understand that it happened quite a bit in the Primary portion, but going to the Caucus seems a bit much... No?).
There is a huge major flaw in your thinking. While you're correct that a small part of what is going on in Iraq is criminal activity in the generally accepted sense of that word, the vast majority is either sectarian violence or the work of outside agitators such as al-Qaeda. Yes, it's Arab on Arab. Last time I checked that's who lives there. It would be hard to document a lot of, for instance, white on chinese violence there.
What you describe as "criminal" activity falls into several camps. First and foremost it's religious sectarian violence as one religious sect tries to eliminate the others. This particular battle is centuries old. Second, it's political violence as the various political groups jockey for power. This also includes the shrinking but still significant impact of al-Qaeda there. Then there is tribal violence. That has a lot to do with power struggles on a much lower level and is also hundreds of years old and deeply entrenched.
I"m not quite sure where to assign the upswing in vicious violence against women who don't meet some religious nut's idea of what is correct. This is currently a big Muslim thing, but it has happened with every major religious group at one time or another. The very nature of deeply fundamental religious fervor is violence and hate.
My final observation is one that you continually ignore. Iraq is not a "fledgling democracy" in any sense that we here in the west can understand. The government there is ineffective and refuses to act. Maybe they are so powerless or so weak that they cannot act. Without them acting, there can never be peace in Iraq. So essentially all we are doing by remaining there any longer is paying huge sums of money for them to sit by the pool and pop bonbons. I advocate giving them a generous timeline in which to begin doing their jobs. If they make an honest effort and begin moving forward, then we stay. If they continue to do nothing, we begin pulling our troops back to safe positions immediately outside the country. All actions should have consequences. Not doing anything is also an action. It's time for the al-Maliki government to either do their jobs or lose them. I object strenuously to the loss of even one more American life just so these people can sit around and ignore their jobs.
Does anyone have the latest count of delegates that came out of Texas, Ohio, Vermont, and Rhode Island? I still am a little baffled at how much a "win" seems to mean when the delegate count is so close. The Iowa county conventions are coming up soon. This is where delegates elected at the precinct caucuses on Jan 3rd will meet and some will realign. For example, the Edwards delegates might have to choose between Obama and Clinton. Same with some Biden and Richardson delegatees.
Apparently not much. The following is from Rick Casey's column in the Houston Chronicle:
"It also is, simply put, wrong.
Some Republicans did vote in the Democratic primary. And some did cynically vote for Hillary.
But the numbers don't support Burka and Masset.
First there is the exit poll taken on behalf of a consortium of national news organizations.
With a sample of more than 2,000 voters across Texas as they left the polls, the numbers are pretty solid.
Nine percent of those who voted in the Texas Democratic primary identified themselves as Republican.
That might be enough to turn the tide for Hillary, except for one thing. They didn't vote for her.
Obama won 53 percent of them, compared to Hillary's 46 percent."
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/casey/5599976.html
Point in case...
I was at the caucus after the Primary voting and waiting around for it to start. My wife and I ran into someone she new from work whom she knew voted republican in the past and if anything seemed more likely aligned with Hillary (she's a child birth educator). Her Husband who voted in the Republican primary was there with her.
She gave every impression that she was there to vote for Obama. (she in fact did not look or seem to be proud of being there at all).
I therefore was quite surprised when the call came to split into groups of candidate preference that she did not infact move over to the Obama side...
I don't think she was proud of what she did, but she did do it...
I have a hard time seeing her honestly replying to an exit poll...
No, WM H., in this case ESPECIALLY, I would have to say that Exit polls would be Quite USELESS in capturing what the Republicans did in the Texas Primary...
I would Really have a hard time taking THAT seriously....
Like I said, it would be disingenuous (especially living in Texas and knowing what is going on here) to not consider the REAL effect that Crossover voting had here...
Carolyn,
1. We been through this before but you choose to ignore the reality that Shia and Sunni live together in other parts of the middle east - without blowing each other up on a daily basis. This crime is committed by people who have distorted Islam which actually is a peaceful religion. Those are the ones I am afraid of, they do not mind dying in the process of achieving their goal.
2. How much worse would the violence be if we were not there? I agree there is a lot of infighting going on but how much worse would it be? No one really knows but I think we can be pretty sure it won't get better if we just leave.
3. Ineffective government? Have you seen our approval ratings? These guys have NEVER had a democracy. They were either ruled by someone from the outside or some dictator from the inside. I really do find it amazing that we expect them to learn everything so quickly when after 200 years we still have an obstructionist congress, can't get vital national security legislation passed or at least debated and then you complain about the Iraqis... Heck look at the cross voting happening in the US…not like we have this democracy thing all figured out.
4. I love the lets move the troops to a neighbor theory. Where exactly would you put them? Iran might be a good place. Let's move them Saudi...oh no wait THATS what got the problem started... Syria won't take them neither would Jordan by large numbers. Look we can only move so many people into Kuwait and Qatar(not exactly a neighbor) and that's pretty much it.
Bottom line, with the exception of Ron Paul ALL candidates understand that we can't just pull troops out arbitrarily. This administration and McCain are committed to a troop decrease but the main difference between left and right is that the right does not want to tell the enemy when we are leaving. We will have troops there for a long time, just like we still have 73K troops in Germany, 40K in S. Korea and Japan. I seriously doubt we will have anywhere near that many in a few years but our job is already changing from front line to support. What bugs me is that Clinton or Obama are not publically telling the truth about what they will do. They make little hints like will remove all combat troops. So you are essentially leaving US support people that can't protect themselves. Does THAT strategy make sense?
No matter how you look at it, not allowing bills to come up for a vote is "obstructionist". The democrats are just as guilty of that as the republicans. Therefore, it's hypocritical for anybody to call one side "obstructionist" and not the other."
Not hardly, my friend. Saying the other side has done the same is well and good, until you consider the comparative volume of the actions, and in that light, I stand by my statements. Also, why would they not after six years of what they were subjected to by the Republican majority?
If things are so good over there, what else are we still there for?
"My proof what the surge was actually for comes from decreased casualties."
I seem to be remembering something called benchmarks, though I know that's inconvenient truth for you change the goal in the middle of the stream, types.
"Remember libs said that sending more troops would only kill more Americans...well you were wrong there too as it is a fact that US casualties decreased."
They have now, but as much from Iran reining in the Shiite militias as anything else, and if you compare the year of the surge, with the one before, you will see that the comparative casualties were almost double, month by month.
"Also,"Separating into sects, behind blast walls, is not progress, It's merely trading todays casualties for tomorrows, and all that Al Queda in Iraq business is just hype, the Iraqi people had started throwing them out, wherever they could, long before Petraeus "
Not true, Al Queda was growing in influence as was used by liberal punch line "al queda was not in iraq before bush invaded". They have been painstakingly rooted out but of course you could not admit when our military is doing a good job. Just like the OTHER dumb excuse by the left that casualties were down because its hot....sheesh."
What an idiot, The numbers most certainly did go down, as they did every year, due to the hot weather, at that point, and the casualties were almost double if compared to the year before, month by month. Al Queda was being persecuted all over Iraq, BEFORE, Petraeus supposedly worked a miracle. The Iraqi people are not ready to live by Sharia law, and had had enough.
"The blast walls are coming down and the violence is not increasing so again no factual evidence to support your claim."
I think you jump the gun, and you might want to check on where they are slated to come down. And you might thanl the Iranians if it does succeed, because they are responsible for the stand down of the shiite militias, not the surge.
"Winston, the ad was bad because freedom of speech is only allowed when you complain about bush or Gen "Betray-us". It requires unsubstantiated claims and endless ramblings. And don't forget you are always in the clear if you sign off with "Bush is evil" I guess you missed that part of the constitution"
We're missing quite a few parts of the constitution, as a matter of fact, thanks to you cowards, but there it is.
This may be the defining issue of the year.....It is considered dead certain that Obama will have more delegates at the conclusion of the primary/caucus season. Any kind of reasonable mathematical analysis confirms that.
The issue will be whather the super-delegates will go along with the so-called will of the people, especially if Obama not only has more delegates and states but also more total votes.
If the super delegates push Clinton over the top, and that is a reasonable possibility, then we may find out what those detention centers are for. I think there may well be riots.
If not riots, a hell of a lot of core democrats stay home.
Empty rhetoric as usual. Things are "better" but not yet good as hundreds of innocent civilians are being killed every month but I guess that's an acceptable number for you so we should just leave them to their own devices.
The administration has always said that benchmarks are goals its your side that is using this as excuse to run out on them.
The administration has also said that it is not just a military solution but also a diplomatic. The left kept complaining that there is not enough diplomatic emphasis. Now that both the military solution AND the diplomatic efforts are showing results its not good enough for the left. I guess there is no satisfying people like you.
David,
not sure if we will get as bad as riots when HRC gets the nomination. The left will spin this and say but she did get more votes and delegates...if you count FL and the other state (forgot which one it was that also moved the primary date). I have a lot of confidence in the Clinton spin machine so she comes out of this smelling like roses. We are talking about a party that buys into empty rhetoric like "change" without really understanding what that actually means so this should not be a problem.
I think there is a group among them that are interested in Not making the process a "back room" thing and to reflect the primaries and caucuses.
I'm not sure what the justification would look like were the bulk of Super Deligates to go Hillary's way if Obama remained in the lead to the end of the Primaries and Caucuses...
Who's interests would they be representing?
What would their reasoning be?
Would they be representing themselves?
If not themselves, then whom?
What interests would they be representing?
If it did come out that way, wouldn't the "displeasure" with that outcome be justified?
Is gaining the reins of power more important than the WAY the power is gained?
(I know the answer to that as applied to the Bush administration, but that one is gladly just about over, but not soon enough)
Isn't that counter to the intentions of "Democracy" ??? (again the Bush example stands out)
I'm not necessarily interested in cynical answers to those questions (though I understand that the examples of the Bush administration may seem cynical... but are they? or are they fair and realisitic in an objective sense? (The "gladly" and "not soon enough" of course represent my feelings on the situation)).
PS - I don't think that 'core democrats' will stay home in the event... I think you underestimate the "displeasure" with these past 8 years with that sentiment...
Either way these Primaries turn out...
Democratic turnout in the the General will be there...
I cannot remember a major national election, that come election night, we do not hear the talking heads jabbering on about turnout in the inner cities. The minority majority districts typically help the dems when they turn out and hurt the dems when they stay home.
I live in a middle of the middle class neighborhood in Texas and vote in a precinct that no one would ever mistake for anything other than the republican sure thing that it usually is. I attended the caucus for my precinct. The turnout was large, overwhelmingly minority and voted for Obama 80/20. The pride and enthusiasm was overpowering and infectious. I do not see how this carries over to a Clinton campaign.
Minority voters are a key democratic constituancy but this is as much from history and habit as a core philosophical affiliation. Utter neglect of this constituancy by republicans also helps and gives these people no where else to go.
If Hillary is the nominee I would stay home or actively vote for McCain. If Clinton loses, Obama is instantly the frontrunner for 2012. I she wins, Obama is done.
A
Empty rhetoric as usual. Things are "better" but not yet good as hundreds of innocent civilians are being killed every month but I guess that's an acceptable number for you so we should just leave them to their own devices."
On one hand, you all try to make it sound like paradise over there, and then, on the other, how we need to stay for a hundred years. Yeah, I know he's talking about like Korea or Japan, I don't care, we don't belong there in that capacity, either. What you folks don't seem to understand is your policy is promoting terrorism, born out in all previous NIE's, and will, as long as we have our boots on their ground. As for the hundreds, I believe it is closer to a thousand a month, last I heard, and no it's not acceptable, but unlike you, I consider our presence there to be a crutch the government is using to keep it's power, without taking the steps necessary to make the country actually work, and will, at a thousand a month, well, forever if you people have your way. Also, what in the hell makes you all think that there is a chance in hell you are going to reverse a thousand years of sectarian violence to get to a solution they all can live under, without reinstalling a ruthless dictator like Saddam? That arrogance is how we got drug into this mess by you giant brain types, that never figured you needed to give a thought to culture and religious history. Pathetic.
"The administration has always said that benchmarks are goals its your side that is using this as excuse to run out on them."
Well, they were goals your chimp in chief put up for our own guidance, goals he said we would adhere to, but you have continually set goals, and then, when they were not achieved, you have reduced your expectations, repeatedly. Some of us think you always will, at least till those sweetheart oil contracts are set in stone. Promises you make, over and over, about getting real about ending this abortion you all got us into, and don't keep, will often get you this kind of reaction, amazingly. enough.
"The administration has also said that it is not just a military solution but also a diplomatic. The left kept complaining that there is not enough diplomatic emphasis. Now that both the military solution AND the diplomatic efforts are showing results its not good enough for the left. I guess there is no satisfying people like you."
Hmmm....... the political progress of the Government is pathetic, but you all see great hope when a frog farts over there, so it's looking rosy to you. Mission accomplished, a frog farted. Talk about empty rhetoric. As for not being satisfied, here's a thought. Accomplish a few of those goals you yourselves set up, something of substance, at all, politically. Why should anyone be satisfied with your president's continual incompetence and stalling for time? You are, it would seem, very easily satisfied.
Regarding turn out, Obama and Clinton are inexorably intertwined at this point... It appears that Obama will likely have the Nomination, but if Hillary gets it, she won't get it without appealing to the support of Obama and his supporters... So either way... they are there...
The minorities you speak of (in terms of "History" as well) have Historically been Disenfranchised from the Vote by both direct and 'indirect' efforts...
A taste of 'enfranchisement' tends not to go away so quickly...
Those sentiments you expressed seem a bit more on the side of wishful thinking from a Republican point of view than a reflection of reality...
Historically Speaking, Texas used to be Democratic (and is still split very closely down the middle) ... (but that is a story for a nother place and time), Might this not be a swing back to a Democratic Texas...??? hmmm
Either way... the turn out will be there...
I have hinted at this and even said it, but it is not just because of
McCain, or Clinton, or Obama, it is because this country is starting
to fray, like the builders of the tower of bable.
listening to people talking here there are so many realities that
intersect in so manyh different ways ... a country depends on a
common vision at least on some level.
this certainly is not everything I think it should be or can
be, but the world is chaning, it is ghetting closer to us, and
confronting us, and we all see a different thing.
we have riots, or we have political assassinations. i think it is
absurd to think Obama wants to instill a new new world order
when he does not understatnd the old one, or the new one.
countries are falling apart, and the global unions are where
political power needs to come from now, but we have a huge
percenrtage of Americans scared to death to yeild power to a
North American Union.
The people are so busy working and acting inefficiently politically
they do noty realize where their power is. It is in moving forward
not moving backward. Forward is into more globalism and
more tolerance, removing governments and systems that oppose
this, and creating unions of people who have power that
can confront corporations across countries.
I am not a betting man, but if I were, I would still not bet on who will wind up winning the White House. The Democratic Party should have run Kerry or Gore (who thinks that Gore would NOT win if he ran?), and Kerry (who I have met several times socially) might have a chance if he were to focus on winning and not letting others get under his skin so that Americans could see the real Kerry.
As for Iraq, that was a huge mistake. The U.S. is a terrible colonial power, and I personally think that no U.S. troops should be in Germany or Japan more that six decades after WW II. U.S. adventurism is already counter-productive and working against America's long-term interests, and whomever the next President will be, she will make sure (hopefully) that we get out of Iraq once we have left it better than we found it -- soon -- and stay away from invading any other countries whose names consist of four letters transliterated and begin with the letter 'I'. We have a lot of things to fix here (I am not saying by the Federal government, but locally through public and private entities) that we can't do because of the distractions of a fundamentally flawed international strategy. The Bush Administration has forgotten that Klauswitz wrote that war is politics by other means, not that politics is war by other means.
Best regards,
Hunter Wallace