If Clinton is the nominee, she will energize and motivate the party base - and I mean the REPUBLICAN party base. She will do what McCain alone doesn't seem to be able to do: she will motivate the Republican base to turn out at the polls in droves, so they can vote against her.

I have benn volunteering for Obama and I can tell you this; these young voters and first time voters will NOT vote for Hillary Clinton if she is the nominee. I urge them to consider the Party, but they just want Obama - as do I. I beleive he will win the upcoming states and for good reason - HE IS THE REAL THING. If Rezco is all they have to swiftboat him, he's in pretty good shape. HE IS THE CANDIDATE WHO WILL BEAT JOHN McCAIN! Republicans I know are unhappy with their choices now. The only thing that will unite them is a Clinton to vote against.

I wrote my Senators and congressman today to ask them to use their Super Delegate status in favor of our party and our country. I urge thsoe of you who support Obama to do the same because they can change their support at any time. Make sure we have an honest leader, someone who will make government transparent again, someone we can trust to do the right thing! Do you REALLY trust the Clintons?? I sure did - in 1992 and 1996. But not now; their time has passed. The 'wink wink nod nod' nature of their politicism is, to say the least, discouraging. I am pasting below what I sent in e-mail - you guys should do the same!

I am writing you today to beg you, as a Super Delegate, to support or change your support to Barack Obama. In any other election, I would have supported Hillary Clinton, and certainly would be proud to see a woman as President of the United States. But after what Bill Clinton pulled in South Carolina and all that has followed, I cannot help but think that a Clinton candidacy will give us President McCain.

How can we stand in the way of this inspiring leader? Have you heard a crowd at ANYONE elses "victory" speech chant "U.S.A., U.S.A." along with Yes We Can and now, "We're the ones we've been waiting for." You know as well as I do that these are not empty words.

I am on Obama volunteer in California and have seen people coming to the polls who have never voted before because they felt disinfranchised by the "establishment." And obviously, young voters are coming out in droves.

I fear these new Democrats will not vote if Hillary is the nominee - I know my own children have said as much as well as many young volunteers. This is not good for our Party and not good for our country.

It is my understanding that Super Delegates can change their vote at the convention. Please consider this, Sentaor _________. And do take a look at the "match-ups" on line - Obama beats McCain every time, Hillary does not.

Please, for the sake of the party and our country, support Barack Obama!

Clinton has raised over 5 million in less than 24 hours eclipsing Obama and more importantly Obama is refusing to have any further debates! What a coward! Hillary has already accepted five invites for debates while obama hides behind Oprah's skirt! America wants substance not a blowhard coward like Obama who is afraid to debate a woman who is clearly smarter and more experienced, hence more prepared to lead. Obama is a loser and a coward! No wonder Obama has so much Republican support! The love battling cowards!

Obama can beat the likely ticket of McCain-Huckabee in the South. Obama won more votes in Georgia and South Carolina than McCain and Huckabee combined won in those states.

Obama won 295,091 votes in South Carolina, to 272,132 for McCain and Huckabee combined.

Obama won 700,366 votes in Georgia, to 629,708 for McCain and Huckabee combined.

Although Clinton won narrow victories in the Tennessee and Oklahoma primaries, she did not win more votes than McCain/Huckabee in those states, and won't beat the McCain-Huckabee ticket in those states in November.

obee1

"Hispanics have shown themselves to be very racist in their votes and that to me has been the real eye opener in these elections."

Yeah, I'm sure that knowing this is why Bill Richardson left the race before Nevada and Florida...and why Hillary and Obama both support a path to citizenship. And of course 80-90% of Southern Blacks voting for Obama isn't racist, it's just the Hispanics for Hillary and McCain.

It's not true that the early state primaries and caucuses had no relevance (as written in one of the comments). The early primaries weeded out most of the candidates - which means that voters in states like mine don't have the same choice as those in the early states. It would be nice if we did.

I vote in Kentucky. Our primary is in May. Even though the Democratic primary is down to two candidates and the Republicans' to three, I hope the races are still competitive then. It would be the first time in at least a generation that our primary votes mean anything.

Meanwhile I'd like to also disagree with a recent New York Times editorial ("Divided They Run" 6 Feb 08). The NYT op-ed board believes there is a huge rift between Clinton and Obama supporters and that it will be extremely difficult for the winning candidate to unite the party. The NYT editors believe too much of the political hype.

There are plenty of Democrats who like both candidates. There are few Democratic voters this season who believe they are voting for the lesser of two evils or even that only one of the candidates on the ballot is good.

Barring some unforeseen event -- when the general election arrives -- most Democrats, Independents and even many Republicans will be happy to vote for any candidate who repudiates the administration of the past 8 years. The Democrats' main worry then (other than an internal implosion or a successful Swiftboat attack) will be that the Republican candidate manages to position himself as a Candidate of Change too.

Until a week ago, Obama's campaign refused to pledge that, if elected, he will work toward breaking the glass ceiling for Asians Americans. His refusal may have contributed to the large, 3:1 margin (73% to 25%) of AsAm vote for Clinton in California.

In California, AsAm slightly outnumbers African Americans. Yet the 3:1 AsAm vote for Clinton is nowhere to be seen in the mainstream media, a very low glass ceiling indeed. If Obama wants Change and Hope for all Americans, he should have addressed the concerns and needs of AsAm long time ago (as Clinton, Edwards etc did) and not sounds hypocritical to them. He might have won California. A lot AsAm do like him.

The BBC's North America editor Justin Webb points out that Mrs Clinton won in states such as New York, New Jersey and California that will be major Democratic targets in the presidential election in November.

In contrast, he says, Mr Obama's wins were in states such as Georgia and North Dakota, which are not such key prizes, raising legitimate questions about the long-term viability of his campaign.

Hi Mark,

Sorry, but I missed your response. I try to keep up on the threads, but so much is coming so fast that the old stuff gets quickly lost. I'll take a look for it. I always enjoy your posts as they tend to be responsive to the thread rather than copied and pasted rants.

I stand by my previous comment that twisting someone's name is schoolyard name calling. If Frank Rich did that, he lowered himself to do so. All 6 remaining candidates (sorry, Sen. Gravel) have put everything on the line for something they believe in. I do respect that, even when I don't respect their views.

Zouk - glad to have gotten on your radar. Technically, it wasn't a stain. Those don't come out when you wash clothes. She just kept the dress. A weird keepsake, you must admit.

BB

frankdiscussion1,

Your interpretation of history is amusing, so I'll take a stab at what happens every friggin' time a Democrat gets into office:

The economy tanks, or else they artificially balloon it with a dotcom boom or something similar that lasts just until they are about to leave office, at which point the economy tanks. They send troops overseas into a bunch of countries where America has no business sticking its nose (Vietnam, Somalia, Kosovo), but it's not like these are really American troops anymore because they have usually ceded them over to the UN anyway. Then they wring their hands after a few deaths and want to bring everyone home, all the while blaming Republicans for warmongering. Democrats pass a bunch of free trade agreements and hand out most favored nation trading status as presents (returning the favor for illegal campaign contributions), which they claim will reduce prices for American consumers and build a stronger, more equitable global economy, but which actually just send American jobs overseas while impoverishing the people in most of those other countries as well.

At least Ford got us out of Vietnam, and at least Reagan brought an end to the Cold War.

History is so annoying when you aren't allowed to pick and choose, isn't it?

The 'conservative wing' of te Republican Party is just a little to the right of Adolph Hitler... LOL.

Based on vote totals on her convincing wins in Tennessee, Arkansas, and Oklahoma, it looks clear that Clinton would deliver these three "red states" to the Democrats if she is the nominee in November. Add to that her strength in Florida and the possibility that she could make Texas at least competitive in November (due to her strength with Hispanic voters) and Clinton would be difficult for the GOP to beat in the general election.

She is also well-positioned in Missouri. While Obama very narrowly carried the state on 2/5, Clinton swept all of the rural areas of the state where the nominee needs to be strong if they are going to carry Missouri.

The person who said Bush was a 'winner' may have been right. It is the American people who lose when we elect Republicans in office. The present one is a traitor, a a compulsive lier, spies on the American people, kidnaps, tortures and is utterly corrupt.
And EVERY SINGLE TIME a republican has been elected president three things have happened.

1) Massive deregulation followed by widescale fraud. This is accompanied by 'voodoo economics' (as they later referred to Reagan's use of tax breaks for Big Companies and the rich).
2) The economy tanks amid huge scandals as the actions of the scumbags allowed to go wild through deregulation and a blind eye.
3) The government bails out these scumbags at taxpayer expense.

Ford, Reagan, Bush I, Bush II...

It happens EVERY FRIGGIN TIME. yet some utter and complete morons keep thinking history won't be repeated 'this time'.

Sheeeesh.

JKaatz, I tend to agree with you. As a big McCain supporter, I am hoping that Obama can overtake Hillary and win the Democratic nomination for two reasons:

1) Hillary would never consent to be Obama's VP. On the other hand, I could see where Obama might consent to be Hillary's VP if asked, and THAT could be a very formidable ticket to beat.

2) Obama-mania, the "cult of personality" that has sprug up around him, has forestalled any real examination so far of his actual positions on the issues. This won't last. At some point, the dirty little secret is going to come out: Obama is WAAAAY to the left of the majority of the American electorate. John McCain, on the other hand is perceived as slightly right of center, which is where the most votes are in America today.

Putting these two things together, I think that I'd rather see McCain run against Obama in the Fall than Hillary. One other thing ... and I hate to bring it up, but it's the truth ... is that a significant number of white Democrats, especially in the south, simply aren't ready for a black president yet. They'll tell the pollsters one thing, but when they're actually in the voting booth behind that curtain, they'll do another.

All in all, I don't thinks could possibly have broken any better for John McCain over the past two months. He really has caught every break imaginable along the way. As long as he doesn't do or say anything REALLY stupid, he now has the Republican nomination locked up while the Dems seem set for a real knock-down, drag-out fight that won't be resolved until their convention. And whoever they nominate, McCain will have a very good chance at beating. But my one big concern is a Clinton/Obama ticket. That's why I'm hoping Obama can pull it out.

Senate Republicans Blocks Dems' Bid To Add $44B In Aid To Elderly, Disabled To Stimulus Plan:

I see no newspapers in the US are revealing the actual roll call vote; I got it from the Guardian (UK).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/7288703

Basically, 5 out of the 8 Republicans who voted for it are up for reelection this time: Coleman (MN), Collins (ME), Domenici (NM), Dole (NC) and Smith (OR). They know they have to face voters in 9 months. But to their credit, Grassley (IA), Snow (ME) and Specter (PA) voted for it and are NOT up for reelection.

GOP Senators who are up for reelection and voted NO are: Alexander (TN), Allard (CO), Chambliss (GA), Cochran (MS), Cornyn (TX), "bathroom boy" Larry Craig (ID), Enzy (WY), Graham (SC), Hagel (NE), Inhofe (OK), McConnell (KY), Roberts (KS), Session (AL) and Sununu (NH). REMEMBER THESE GUYS AT ELECTION TIME IF YOU'RE SUFFERING!

I don't see Obama winning a general election. His appeal in the Democratic party is generally to the left. Moderate Republicans I talk to just don't see the appeal of Obama's "flash", and grudgingly admit that Hillary has demonstrated strength, determination and a command of the issues. I suspect that if Obama is nominated, the Republican partisan machine will successfully limit his voting base to the left wing of the spectrum, giving McCain the election.

I don't see Obama winning a general election. His appeal in the Democratic party is generally to the left. Moderate Republicans I talk to just don't see the appeal of Obama's "flash", and grudgingly admit that Hillary has demonstrated strength, determination and a command of the issues. I suspect that if Obama is nominated, the Republican partisan machine will successfully limit his voting base to the left wing of the spectrum, giving McCain the election.

I don't see Obama winning a general election. His appeal in the Democratic party is generally to the left. Moderate Republicans I talk to just don't see the appeal of Obama's "flash", and grudgingly admit that Hillary has demonstrated strength, determination and a command of the issues. I suspect that if Obama is nominated, the Republican partisan machine will successfully limit his voting base to the left wing of the spectrum, giving McCain the election.

I think its important for Obama supporters to really understand how Clinton supporters feel.

We want our candidate on the ticket just as much as you do yours.

The only question is which one goes first.

There is no question that both have to be on the ticket or you lose 1/2 of the party or the other.

The Democratic Party is split 50/50 down the middle and neither side will accept a ticket that doesn't include its nominee.

The only question left is Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton.

I think that Clinton/Obama is better, but I'll accept Obama/Clinton.

We need to quickly decide which one it is and then win this election!!!!

Everyone has got to face facts. The Democratic Party is split 50/50 down the middle and neither side will accept a ticket that doesn't include its nominee.

The only question left is Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton.

I think that Clinton/Obama is better, but I'll accept Obama/Clinton.

We need to quickly decide which one it is and then win this election!!!!

SPECTACULARLY. Obama has won some primaries and will win more. Now if you're talking about Mitt Romney, the Caucus King, then your observation has the ring of truth...

"A 'win' in a caucus is NO WHERE near as significant as a win in a voting primary where the demographics of the voters reflect the US population as a whole."

Really? Somebody had better tell the DNC! They've been counting delegates awarded in caucuses just as much as they count delegates from primaries!

Posted by: Blarg |

In terms of predicting VOTER BEHAVIOR, caucuses ARE NOT as significant.

Typically caucuses are NOT statistically representative of the voter demographics.

Dem candidates since 1960 who have become the general election candidate largely through support in caucuses have all done one thing consistently - LOSE SPECTACTULARLY in the general.

"A 'win' in a caucus is NO WHERE near as significant as a win in a voting primary where the demographics of the voters reflect the US population as a whole."

Really? Somebody had better tell the DNC! They've been counting delegates awarded in caucuses just as much as they count delegates from primaries!

Posted by: Blarg |

In terms of predicting the patterns of voter behavior, caucuses ARE NOT as significant. The are not representative of all potential voters.

Every time the Dems have had a general election candidate who achieved that status laregly through caucuses (since 1960), they have all been consistent in one thing - LOSING SPECTACTURALLY.

I'm surprised he didn't list Claire McCaskill among the winners: she did a tremendous job helping Obama over the line in Missouri, despite the absurd efforts of Politco.com, AP and others - who couldn't wait to get their "Clinton gets the upper hand" spin on - to call the Mo. race early for her. I think McCaskill is clearly now on any Obama VP short list. She deserved more mention as a "winner" that Czilla's silly self-indulgent item listing "Homebody Reporters" among the winners.

Clinton won in blue states like CA, NY, MA, and NJ because of the massive Hispanic vote. Hispanics have shown themselves to be very racist in their votes and that to me has been the real eye opener in these elections.

God forbid McCain legalizes these bigots.

Ho;;ary has always acted in the past with a Presedential bid in mind and that is why people are right when they see her as a cold calculating woman.

She ignored and forgave hubby over the Monica cheating affair, just kept her marriage together for her shot at the white house.

Yes, I did support Hillary in the past, but with Barack in the race, there is no comparison. Barack was right on Iraq from day one, unlike Hillary who is responsible for the Iraq mess and the eventual death and destruction on an innocent nation ending up in the deaths of 600,000 civilians, if thats ok for you, you will be fine voting for HRC.

Obama is way more articulate than the fake Hillary, who has nothing new to offer, she uses the same rehersed lines from many a past political rally.

Ibama is witty and sharp, not allowing HRC b1tchiness during the SC debate to bog him down and thats when he really gained the respect of millions of people.

Obama is classy.

Jews are one of the strongest Hillary supporters, and every time I hear the HRC posters claim sexism for white men not voting for HRC, it makes me think if the Jews are pulling the same race/gender/religion bait they use when one opposes a jewish candidate by calling the opponents anti-semites.....

Just because we dont vote for HRC does not mean we hate women.

Are you not voting Barack because you are racist?

I found my "Envy/Jealous" Factor was rite on concerning the white male vote against Hillary. My "Fear" Factor was rite on concerning the Repub vote for Obama. This is no excuse, I missed the intense passion of the Obama supporters. Now if this support will go to Hillary when she is the nominee, I think we may have a shot at the magic 60 in The Senate.

I like Obama quite a bit. If Hillary wasn't running he'd have my vote in a heart beat. I just think Hillary is so much better its like they're not even from the same planet.

When you see them debate, its almost embarassing for him.

Obama doesn't know what to do without a teleprompter.

He's a good actor, but not Presidential material, at least not yet.

We should have had an African-American in the Whitehouse years ago.

Its too bad Colin Powell didn't pan out.

But if you look at things in a color-blind and gender blind standpoint, there's absolutely no comparison between Obama and Hillary.

Hillary wins by a country mile.

She's the much better candidate.

Even if she is a Girl!!!

The fact that 40% disapprove Bush does not make him a "loser". His support among Republicans is still up near 80%.

And he, unlike any of the other winners was elected....twice.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/12/ap/politics/mainD8MJRGCO0.shtml

"Sen. John McCain defended President Bush's Iraq plan on Friday as a difficult but necessary move, parting company with lawmakers questioning the wisdom of the military build up."

Clinton won in blue states like CA, NY, MA, and NJ. Big deal - whoever the Democratic nominee is, he or she will win those states in November. Obama has shown he can win votes in red states, which makes him a stronger general election candidate. His victories in the South are especially impressive - in both South Carolina and Georgia, he won more votes than the top two Republican candidates combined. Recent history shows that the Democrats win the WH if they win at least some states in the South, and that the Democrats lose if the Solid South goes Republican. If Obama puts the South in play in November, it's all over: he can start writing his Inaugural Address.

Whereever Zouk is, I wish the king of it would go back....and take his jackels and moonbats with him.....wadda freak....

Could Obama be any more out of touch?

I heard him say today that he has been "tested" in this campaign. What is he talking about? Bill Clinton called his campaign "a fairy tale" and Johnson made a veiled reference to his admitted drug use. Obama then went to party elders whining about racism and they put pressure on the Clintons to stop. That was it. The whole thing lasted less than a week.

My dear Mr. Obama, if you think THAT is being tested in modern American politics, it just shows how green and naive you are.

I read these blogs so seldom. Why? Because they are always inhabited by delusionals like kingofzouk spewing copious amounts of drivel. They come from both sides of the aisle. They are so sure they are smarter than anyone around them. They consider insults and name calling acceptable forms of behaviour. Intelligent discouse? I think not. Sure, some are trying to have a good, solid debate, but it is always ruined by the delusionals. So anyway, the last time I read this blog was just before the 2006 elections. For some reason, I decided to read today. Sure enough ... same old drivel from the same old delusionals. The funny part? The last time I read, Kingofzouk was spouting about the upcoming landslide win for the Republicans, a win that would prove all the pundits wrong. So how did Nov. 7, 2006, go for your party again, Mr. Zouk? And here the Zoukster is, predicting another landslide in 2008. Excellent. I can't wait for the sequel to 2006. That will be a wonderful day indeed.

To svreader: I would love to see a woman president...but let it be someone who achieved it ON HER OWN, not gaining name recognition on whom she was married to. Hillary Clinton is too divisive, too much a relic of the past. She's Lurleen Wallace with a Yale Law degree.

I preferred Edwards, but now I'm in the Obama camp, thank you.

You left out a few winners, Chris. (I bet you're tired.)

BIG WINNER: Barack Obama for doing what seemed impossible just a scant few weeks ago, i.e., going head-to-head with the Clinton juggernaut and bringing it to a halt.

BIG WINNER: The Democratic voters and Independents and cross-over Republicans, who had a VERY clear choice of candidates with incredibly different perspectives and problem-solving modalities.

BIGGEST WINNER OF SUPER TUESDAY: American Democracy, as "We, The People," took control of the political process again and taking it away from the ones who've so long "owned" it!

I would say SurveyUSA is a winner for polling Clinton 10% ahead in California and Reuters/Zogby a loser for having Obama lead by 13%.

You mentioned Arkansas twice for Huckabee.

NBC News is undercounting (mainly Clinton) delegates in large states. In popular vote and likely final delegate count from Super Tuesday, Clinton remains in the lead (before counting superdelegates).

John, the farmer was in the fertilized egg business.
He had several hundred young layers (hens), called 'pullets', and ten roosters, whose job it was to fertilize
the eggs.

The farmer kept records and any rooster that didn't perform went into the soup pot and was replaced.
That took an awful lot of his time, so he bought a set of tiny bells and attached them to his roosters.
Each bell had a different tone so the farmer could tell from a distance, which rooster was performing.
Now he could sit on the porch and fill out an efficiency report simply by listening to the bells.

The farmer's favorite rooster was one he called "Butch", a very fine specimen he was, too.
But on this particular morning the farmer noticed that Butch's bell hadn't rung at all! The farmer went to investigate.
The other roosters were chasing pullets, bells-a-ringing. The pullets, hearing the roosters coming, would run for cover.

But to farmer John's amazement, Butch had his bell in his beak, so it couldn't ring. He'd sneak up on a pullet, do his job and walk on to the next one.
The farmer was so proud of Butch, he entered him in the Renfrew County Fair and he became an overnight sensation among the judges.

The result...The judges not only awarded Butch the No Bell Piece Prize but they also awarded him the Pullet surprise as well.

Clearly Butch was a politician in the making:
Who else but a politician could figure out how to win two of the most highly coveted awards on our planet by being the best at sneaking up on the populace and screwing them when they weren't paying attention.

Just remember when you do go to vote...........
the bells are not always audible

Add to your list of losers:

Ted and Carolyn Kennedy and Gov. Deval who endorsed Obama to see him get whipped by Clinton by more than 10%.

As Joan Vennochi puts it "The workhorses beat the show horses. Clinton won."

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/02/06/a_loss_for_kennedy/

Dear Fix,

I again enjoyed your recap of Super Tuesday. I wonder if you or some would comment on Mitt Romney running as the logical heir to the Bush dynasty and yet running against a broken Washington at the same time? If its broke, guess who broke it, Mitt!

The smart thing to do is unify Democrats around Clinton/Obama as soon as possible.

Its the only way to unify the party.

Otherwise we lost one half or the other.

Clinton/Obama '08 - The unbeatable ticket!!!

Anything else is suicide for the Democratic party.

Add Republican Mormons to the list of losers. They feel rejected in their own party, but they can't in good concscience support pro-abortion, pro-"gay marriage" candidates.

If the McCain-Huckabee ticket comes up, the democrats have to think real hard: do they want to win or lose in a landslide?

If they go for Obama, it will be the second option, if they go for Hillary, it will be the first one.

Just look beyond Obama's rhetoric, or just take away his visions and dreams and change and hope and see what is left. To my mind, there is no substance left.

This guy has flip-flop written all over him: "I'm the underdog, but I break records when it comes to collecting donations." I was quite P@#$ off when I received a begging email from him on the day he announced his $32m record. He is a liberal, but fails to vote on abortion other than "present". He talks about gun control, but promises voters in Idaho that he "will not take their guns away from them". He calls himself a liberal, but can't stand to have his picture taken with the mayor of San Francisco, who held fundraisers for him. Why? Because the mayor allows same-sex marriages in his city... This guy is a hypocrit!

People call Clinton greedy, they claim that she would do anything to get elected and that nobody likes her.
Well, on closer inspection, Mr. Obama does not look very modest or humble about his wads of cash, coming from individuals and big business alike, slum lords, nuclear companies, he does not care at all, unless he gets criticized.
Right now, he is fighting for every delegate available and since he feels that this might not be enough, that the Superdelegates might tip the scales, he is currently appealing to them to forget about the rules and to just vote for him in a tight race. How poor is that?

The only change he is interested in is the change of rules in his favour, the change of his status from senator to president.

He is a great showman, a good orator, a likable person, but look beyond the sweet-talkin' and all you will find is a lot of hot air.

Look at his results, look at Clinton's. She won most of the important states, except Illinois and Georgia to a lesser extend. She has most of the female vote, the hispanic vote, older people, lower income groups, lower education groups. Just look at Florida (btw, if Obama had won Florida, he would fight like crazy to get the every single vote counted). Nobody campaigned there, so what you get is how people vote without local influences and candidates going from door to door. Clinton beat the hell out of Obama there.
And btw, if the Democrats had the usual winner-takes-all, Obama would be history right now.

If the republicans send out McCain-Huckabee, Obama will lose spectacularly. Independents will go to McCain, the Hispanic vote in the Southwest will go to McCain, even California will go to him, Huckabee will bring in the South and the religious votes, both will bring the whites, the gun-owners, the conservatives of both parties.
Obama will have the liberal vote in Boston and Minessota, Illinois, the black vote in the South which will give him nice, respectable, but useless second places and the high income groups. It'll be a desaster.

Clinton on the other hand is even seen by Ann Coulter as a conservative alternative to McCain ("She is our girl"), she would bring in the female vote, will battle McCain for the hispanics, will win California, New York, New Jersey, New England, the swing states, Arkansas, the black vote will return to her, old, lower income and lower education and she will steal lots of republicans from McCain. She will do extremely good. So look closer at Obama and see beyond his smokescreen.

from the master projectionist himself: "come to waste another day posting nothing?"

Who can make this stuff up?

If Huckabee is the VP millions of disaffected Mormons will not vote the Republican ticket.

Another loser, and a big fat one at that is Ted Kennedy.

Another loser, and a big fat one at that is Ted Kennedy.

How about VP Huckleberry? See the WVA caucus, where in precinct after precinct the non-viable McCain vote went straight to Huckabee just to stick a fork in Flip Romney. That, along with Huck's recent congeniality toward McCain, plus Huckleberry sticking around for a few more weeks is what McCain gets for the deal.

just curious, does king of zouk have a job (or a life outside of his blog). his posts and iq suggest not. sad

Ron Paul has been my candidate throughout the primary process. Is it really true that he has been unfairly treated by the media? For whatever reason, he has been unable to put to good use his huge support on the internet. Even Fox News put up his supporters' overwhelming text message approval after he debated his GOP rivals. Congressman Paul was interviewed and questioned many times by major network news organizations.

More than media neglect, Ron Paul's candidacy has been thwarted by the many closed primaries of the Republicans. The party elite is openly contemptuous of him, because his is true to his beliefs and to the principles the Republican Party was founded on. The sad truth is that the GOP of today is quite happy with crony capitalism, big government and imperialism.

Wow - what a night, exciting for everyone. No clear winner, but alot of people fired up, ain't it great. I don't like the ripping and shredding and comments posted only to spew hate, they do not help the candidate one is hoping to convince others to vote for, actually - they are a turn off. In the end, you are either a loyal party member or not, if you choose to go off and vote for the other party, go ahead - baby wa wa i'm not gonna vote for.... is baby crap and shows you are too young to vote mentally. And if you do, don't blame the Clintons for your decision, are they so much an influence in your life you can't make a decision on your own? My dream for me is a democrat in the white house, we have two amazing candidates. The dream ticket is a good idea, if they can work together than so can we. My choice is for Hillary based on the economy and experience. What do I think of Obama? a great man who has a great future in politics. I respect and admire Hillary Clinton for all she has done for women and children over the years, for her endurance and grace under incredible pressure, and her ability to represent the best attributes of women with her professionalism. Her sponsoring of legislation while campaining just proves her work ethic is formidable. Nasty names belong on the playground, not in political arguments, besides - your veins are popping and you won't change anything. I quess I am just amazed at how many women are still bound up with male conditioning and just can't accept that a woman can do the same job as a man, just as well - maybe better. At least now we have a chance. May the best person win.

Anyone care to comment on the signficance of these numbers? Missouri, Arkansas, Colorado, and NH are all swing states. Missouri (by 6% in 04), Ark and Colo (by 5% in 04) went for Bush in 2000 and 2004. Minnesota awent for Kerry in 2000 and 2004. NH went for Bush in 2000, but Kerry in 2004. The ones at the bottom (S Carolina, Alabama, Georgia, and Oklahoma) are solid red states. Of all of these, the only one where there have been more voters in the Repub primary is in Alabama.

Missouri primary
Total Democrat votes: 800,000
Total Republican votes: 550,000

Arkansas primary
Total Democrat votes: 283,000
Total Republican votes: 208,000

Colorado caucus
Total Democrat votes: 118,000
Total Republican votes: 56,000

Minnesota caucus
Total Democrat votes: 200,000
Total Republican votes: 63,000

New Hampshire primary
Total Democrat votes: 283,000
Total Republican votes: 231,000

South Carolina primary
Total Democrat votes: 530,000
Total Republican votes: 441,000

Alabama primary
Total Democrat votes: 538,000
Total Republican votes: 561,000

Georgia primary
Total Democrat votes: 1,045,000
Total Republican votes: 955,000

Oklahoma primary
Total Democrat votes: 401,000
Total Republican votes: 329,000

How about Mitt on the loser list? He and the MSM kept trying to say it was a two-way race between him and McCain. Even with all his millions, he can't escape the fact that people just don't want him. Exit polls for Huckabee showed that many of their second choices were McCain, not the flip-flopper and panderer from Massachusetts - so much for the idea that Huckabee was taking votes away from Romney.

If Huckabee had Romney's pocketbook available, there wouldn't be any question of taking him seriously. How many times does the guy have to "surprise" the MSM to be taken seriously? They didn't see him coming in Iowa and they didn't see him coming this time around. Beware MSM on counting him out again.

And finally, if he were able to get the nomination, Huckabee is a much tougher opponent for Democrats to take on than the MSM gives him credit for. He is not a right-wing wacko - he is actually a rather moderate governor who can speak on the main street economy, health care, poverty, education, etc., that I and my fellow Democrats care about. He won't get my vote, but I don't buy into the MSM labeling him a right-wing fringe guy who can't win the general election. He can, because he won't have to secure the right-wing base because they trust him.... thus he won't have to say a word on far-right issues unless prompted, and can speak well on all the social justics issues Republicans usually fail at - enough to get some cross-over votes.

(Note the MSM did the same to Dean in 2004, making him out to be some crazy lefty because of his opposition to the war and his support from the anti-war members of the party - but the truth was, Dean was rather moderate, more so than Kerry and others in my party).

If McCain chooses Huckabee as his running mate I am certain many offended Mormons will not vote for him, not even while holding their noses.

Drindl: I did a quick count from the CNN results page. They say that McCain has received about 4.78 million votes. But that counts states that voted before Super Tuesday. If you want the Super Tuesday number, I get more like 3.6 million. As Bsimon said, it's not quite a fair comparison. I'd also like to see total turnout numbers for each party.

PROUDTOBEGOP: If I could trust McCain to appoint Justices like Alito & Roberts I might reconsider, (he thought Alito was too conservative)but having observed him and read his book "Faith of my Fathers", I believe I know what he will do. He will never jeapordize his true base(Liberal MSM) by appointing conservative judges.

If Obama wins the dem nomination, I will be more than happy to vote for him. Why? He does not hate me like McCain does. And if HRC is the nominee, I believe her to be more conservative than McCain and would appoint more conservative judges from her than we would ever ger from McCain.

Someone said to me yesterday that the Press was controlling the elections. I gave that idea some thought and found relevance in the claim. But this morning I got conclusive proof. All the lists of winners and losers I have seen in quite a few publications, most if not all, have left Ron Pauls name off the list. His message isn't reaching the general public because the media will not give him any print. I think it a shame we are so quick to back whomever the press throws at us rather than do our homework on a candidate. We also need to demand all contenders get fair coverage, whether the media likes them or not. Ron Paul is a bit squirrely but his message needs to be heard.

hillary clintion's SOTU speech circa 2010

My fellow americans. As you know my health care intitative spent all the money for the next few years. we already have raised the tax level to 100% on the rich. bill's speeches in china and dubai are not selling that well anymore so I am really at a loss as to what to do for money over the next three years of my term. I will be going on a listening tour to consider some options.

Hey youba. Good points on who won where.

My answer would be that the coastal bastions of liberal elites are predominantly states with urban populations. Those voters tend to recognize the government as active in their lives, and tend to vote for the party insiders.

The upper midwest, etc., while white and maybe less educated are also largely rural. Those folks tend to give the government the stinkeye... and vote for insurgents.

This might be why "ultraliberal" Obama is doing so well in "red states" and bland, white Hillary is kicking butt in urban centers.

Just a thought.

Posted by: julie: "The guy next to me in line was a Republican; so was the woman next to me inside at the rally. But they liked what they were hearing from Obama."

What I have noticed in my 60 years on earth is that Republicans, for all their conservatism, are really less racist than Democrats, who proclaim their liberalism. The vitriolic hatred the spew against Obama--"empty suit," closet Muslim, kid, not his time, etc.--is the remnant of when the Democratic party was Southern based and included George Wallace and Strom Thurmond. I think black people have had enough of the two-faced, slimy patronage of people like the Clintons, who now have their pet Latinos to bolster them, even though it was black people who marched and bled so Asians and Latinos could have civil rights in this country. In the photo of LBJ signing the Civil Rights Act, no Latinos or Asians are in the picture, just MLK and his black colleagues. Where were they then, and where are they now? Not that they should vote for Obama because he's black--but how ungrateful and lowlife to vote against him because he's black.

"i find it amazing that it could be this evenly split. does anyone know how many votes were cast for McCain, in total?"

I haven't seen such a number. Its not an apples-to-apples comparison anyway, because McCain is in a three-person race, whereas the Dems are down to 2. Comparing total votes by party would be more interesting. I understand the GOP is suffering miserably, in that regard. Here in MN, it was 3 or 4 to 1. (200K DFL, v 50 or 60K GOP).

Obama supporters should focus on their candidate's strengths. The more they make trashinh Hillary their primary campaign technique the more they hurt Democrats and the more they help Republicans.

The focus should be on Clinton/Obama '08 -- The unbeatable Ticket!!!

moonbats in jackal's packs -- what a colorful imaginary children's world you inhabit, zouk.

Clinton had won 7,350,238 of those votes (50.2 percent) while Obama captured 7,295,400 votes (49.8 percent)

conclusion - even half the Democrats despise hillary so much they are willing to vote for a pre-pubescent high school kid as their nominee.

Can you say L-A-N-D-S-L-I-D-E

and now:

so hillary clinton - the "frontrunner" is broke and all her doners are maxed out already, only halfway through the contest.

this is the person who is going to balance our budget and run the economy?

this is pretty fitting for a Lib candidate. time to hit the chinese bank account and get those dishwashers, monks and all the other "no controlling legal authority" donors in line.

Unfortunatly, in this case the donors gave willingly, not like the taxpayers will have to when she needs to be bailed out.

bill, you better gaet over to china and make some more speeches for your joint account. Oh wait, that violates campaign finance rules, as if you care.

blert is right way back in the second post:

The obvious winners are the voters in the states that have primaries and/or caucuses scheduled in the next couple weeks.

'There is a condition out there "talking to themselves" - it is when a group of people spend a great deal of time "talking to themselves" - and they become quite oblivious to the fact that they are not talking to anyone else, nor is anyone else listening to them.'

we in the reality-based community call it movement conservatism.

I agree with those who say that the Kennedys should count amongst the losers of last night. But actually, I think it's even broader than that. I think that endorsements, on the whole, aren't doing very well this year. And I think this has to do with the national mood.

Part of what's driving the 'change' narrative is that most people have some things that they're really just utterly sick of from the past seven (or more) years. And one of those things is arrogance. Bush/Cheney have acted with tremendous arrogance. (To be honest, Bill Clinton did too, though he hid it a lot better, at least from Democrats.)

The difficulty is that it's hard for endorsements not to sound arrogant. It's hard for a politician to say, "I endorse Alan Snapplebeak," without sounding like he/she is saying, "I know you voted for me, and I know better than you, so I'm telling you to vote for Alan Snapplebeak, and that oughta be all you need to hear." It sounds arrogant. I think this is one reason (amongst others) why Bill Clinton's pre-SC antics hurt Hillary. Even for people who liked Bill Clinton a lot, it still sounded arrogant of him to be telling them whom to vote for. Similarly, though I'm a strong Obama supporter, I was a bit irritated at the Kennedy endorsement. I wanted to say, "Thank you, Ted, but I don't need you to tell me how to vote."

I think the same dynamic also affected the IA and NH votes. Before IA, Hillary was painted, in many quarters, as inevitable. There's a kind of off-putting arrogance about that, and I think it hurt her in IA. Then, after Obama won in IA, the media narrative did a 180, and we were told that Obama was inevitable. That, too, was irritating, and I think it hurt him in NH.

This election is drawing much higher levels of interest than normal. And the more interested people are, the more attention they pay. The more attention people pay, the more they want to make up their own minds, and the more they resent being told, either by a politician giving an endorsement, or by the media, whom they should vote for. After seven years of an administration that couldn't care less what the public thought, we finally get to help pick a new administration. And we'd very much like to make up our own minds. I think endorsements in general will be less effective (and maybe even counterproductive at times) this year. The one exception may be if it comes down to superdelegates. There, I can see endorsements from high-profile figures having a powerful effect. But in terms of pledged delegates, I think endorsements are one of the losers, not just of last night, but of this year.

Regards,
Beren

several moonbats in drindl's pack of jackels make feeble insults due to the inability to offer anything of substance.

"A 'win' in a caucus is NO WHERE near as significant as a win in a voting primary where the demographics of the voters reflect the US population as a whole."

Really? Somebody had better tell the DNC! They've been counting delegates awarded in caucuses just as much as they count delegates from primaries!

'NEW YORK (CNN) -- Just how sharply are Democrats divided between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton?

Of all the votes cast on Super Tuesday for the two candidates nationwide, they are only separated by 0.4 of a percentage point.

By midday Wednesday, 14,645,638 votes were reported cast for either Obama or Clinton on Tuesday. Clinton had won 7,350,238 of those votes (50.2 percent) while Obama captured 7,295,400 votes (49.8 percent).'

i find it amazing that it could be this evenly split. does anyone know how many votes were cast for McCain, in total?

Re: Kennedy endorsement.

Obama was more than 30 points behind in MA and CA before the Kennedy endorsement. He was behind double-digits in national polls. He closed to within 10 points in each of the states and is in a virtual tie with Clinton nationally. He gained even more visibility with Kennedy's endorsement and it got people thinking about the past vs. the future.

Some endorsements don't matter but Sen. Kennedy's endorsement did make a huge difference in the media coverage of Obama and it defintely got him some votes in places that he was trailing.

' I was just pointing out how generally moronic you are.'

as you can see, several people a day point this out to zouk. but he no other life but it sit on this blog all day long and be insulted by his betters for his absurd, braindead parrotings of rush limbaugh. i guess it's masochism.

Posted by LonewackoDotCom: "1. The MSM - including the WaPo - will find some way to spin the results as an indicator of support for illegal immigration. The fact that Obama's pandering and racial demagoguery didn't help him will make that a bit more difficult."

One can tell you're a Hillary supporter because you lie so easily. The New York Times endorsed Hill-Billy, but this is what the Times editorialized today: "Mrs. Clinton fired the first divisive shots of this campaign..."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/06/opinion/06wed1.html?hp

Your post here is why most independents won't vote for your candidate during the election, if she wins. You emulate her in that she is low down, dirty, shameless, a liar, a panderer, a war monger, a hypocrite, and a Republican in Democratic clothing. Her husband introduced separate sentencing for felons based on race, intervened on genocide based on race, promoted NAFTA, and was convicted as a liar. He's not running for president, but if he gets back into the White House, I would, were I HRC, make sure the cigars are locked up.

************
So far it looks like Obama is the darling solely of (1) males who in the top 85-95% of income with post-grad degrees who are white and under 44, and who have no real concerns about the economy or healthcare or (2) blacks. That's it. One minority group and an economically and educationally elite group of younger white voters who are primarily male. Why do I hear echoes from the '70s of the taunts about wealthy white armchair liberals in the profile of his supporters who are not black?
*******************

Wow - it makes sense in that case that Clinton is winning by so much.

Oh, wait a minute...

@ svreader:

As a detail-oriented person, I'm sure you care about researching the details, and not just using broad generalizations. If so, please read:

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/02/obama-actually.html

This narrative that Obama ignores policy specifics is, well, just plain wrong. He's done lots of good work on nuts and bolts stuff that doesn't win media attention. He's been a very substantive, thoughtful legislator. People hear his soaring rhetoric first, and then assume (MSM, I'm talking to you here) that because he gives such good speeches it must mean that he pays no attention to specifics.

In case you don't want to follow the link, I'll quote one paragraph out of many:

"I came to Obama by an unusual route: as I explained here, I follow some issues pretty closely, and over and over again, Barack Obama kept popping up, doing really good substantive things. There he was, working for nuclear non-proliferation and securing loose stockpiles of conventional weapons, like shoulder-fired missiles. There he was again, passing what the Washington Post called "the strongest ethics legislation to emerge from Congress yet" -- though not as strong as Obama would have liked. Look -- he's over there, passing a bill that created a searchable database of recipients of federal contracts and grants, proposing legislation on avian flu back when most people hadn't even heard of it, working to make sure that soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan were screened for traumatic brain injury and to prevent homelessness among veterans, successfully fighting a proposal by the VA to reexamine all PTSD cases in which full benefits had been awarded, working to ban no-bid contracts in Katrina reconstruction, and introducing legislation to criminalize deceptive political tactics and voter intimidation. And there he was again, introducing a tech plan of which Lawrence Lessig wrote..."

Really, before we say Obama ignores policy specifics, maybe we should pay more attention ourselves.

Regards,
Beren

There is a condition out there "talking to themselves" - it is when a group of people spend a great deal of time "talking to themselves" - and they become quite oblivious to the fact that they are not talking to anyone else, nor is anyone else listening to them.

I know.

This is where the democratic party is now - they are talking to themselves. The Democratic party has no idea at all, in fact, they are so caught up with the "ideas" of their candidates that they do know what the center is thinking, nor do they care.

The center will decide this election.

Just because one or other of these candidates is able to capture voters in a democratic primary, that doesn't mean that the center is ready.

Obama supporters need to chill the crowing about 'red state' wins - they were caucuses or had a a primary where the Dem voters were heavily black. In fact, Obama is having trouble with core voters.

Caucuses in small states can easily be 'flooded' by partisans of a candidate as they are not widely attended by potential voters. It did happen in those states - lot of college students who were not residents of the state changing their residency and registering to show up at the caucus. Obama won in these states:

Iowa - caucus
Alaska - caucus
Colorado - caucus
Idaho - caucus
Kansas - caucus
Minnesota - caucus
North Dakota - caucus
New Mexico - caucus (by .04 or something ridiculous)

A 'win' in a caucus is NO WHERE near as significant as a win in a voting primary where the demographics of the voters reflect the US population as a whole.

That means in an open voting primary you have to look at the voter demographics and see how closely they parallel the entire country.

He won

South Carolina - Dem primary dominated by balck voters and not representative

Georgia - see South Carolina

Alabama - see South Carolina

(In a general, those state have gone neo-con Republican for years - he'll get slaughtered.)

Utah - Mormons who would see hell freeze over before voting to give a woman power

Missouri (>1 or 1% margin.)

Connecticut

Delaware

Connecticut and Delaware are NOT typical of the U.S. Connecticut is incomes that are 30% than the rest of the US, with 24.8% more college and post-grad degrees than the rest of the US, and with slightly more men than women than the rest of the US. Delaware is incomes that are 10% than the rest of the US, and has close to 2 times the gap between the number of men versus the number of women than the rest of the US.

Why are those differences with the rest of the US important? Because of the exit polls of the voters in CA which is representive of the US population.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#CADEM

Here is how the voter profiles develop as to who supports which of the candidates:

Obama -
(a) Whites: males (25% of voters) under 44 years old (40.5% of voters) with post-grad degrees (19% of voters) whose households have income of $100,000 -200,000 per year (22% of voters) for whom neither the economy or healthcare are important issues
(b) Blacks (6% of voters in CA)

Clinton -
(a) Whites: women (28% of voters) over 44 years old (59.5% of voters) with less than a post-grad degree (81% of voters) whose households have an income below $100000 (72% of voters) or over $200000 (6% of voters) and for whom the economy or healthcare are important issues
(b) Latinos (30% of voters in CA)
(c) Other races not Black, Caucasian or Latino (11% in CA)

So far it looks like Obama is the darling solely of (1) males who in the top 85-95% of income with post-grad degrees who are white and under 44, and who have no real concerns about the economy or healthcare or (2) blacks. That's it. One minority group and an economically and educationally elite group of younger white voters who are primarily male. Why do I hear echoes from the '70s of the taunts about wealthy white armchair liberals in the profile of his supporters who are not black?

The fact that nearly 80% of all voters consider the economy a major or 'the' major issue in the election does not bode well for Obama. He comes in very poorly among those who are concerned about the economy and/or healthcare.

The real losers are the American people, who have to endure these a-holes running for office. God help us. No matter who gets elected, they'll make a mess of it.

ghokee writes
"[Obama] matches up very poorly with McCain."

On the contrary, Obama matches up very clearly as an alternative to McCain, in terms of policy. In terms of integrity and strength of conviction, McCain and Obama are well-matched; we would be blessed to have them running as opponents in the general election.

The biggest losers will be The American People if Bill Clinton is upstairs with some bimbo while his wife is doing official business in the Oval office. That possibility alone is enough for me to vote for anyone but Hillary.

According to preliminary results from exit polls of Democrats leaving New Mexico caucus voting sites, Clinton ran strongly among Hispanics -- men as well as women. White, non-Hispanic voters, regardless of gender, favored Obama.

Exit polling also showed that Obama was the clear favorite of liberal Democrats; Clinton led slightly among self-described moderates, who often are swing voters in general elections in New Mexico.

Whoops. Paste job didn't work. Here ya go.

This blurb from today's AP sums up Obama's chances of getting elected:

>

Clinton also led moderates in Arizona and had a larger lead among moderates in Missouri.

Obama is the most liberal of all US Senators and attracts members of the party to his campaign who aren't going to vote republican anyway.

He matches up very poorly with McCain.