Obama. Maybe I’ll change my mind once I sleep on it, but I’m pretty sure Obama was the big winner. Sure, maybe Clinton won a few more delegates — or maybe not, nobody seems to be exactly sure — but anybody who thought her nomination was inevitable certainly doesn’t anymore.
So yeah, it was Obama.
“Our time has come.”
“Our time has come. Our movement is real and .. change is coming to America.”
“We are the ones we’ve been waiting for”
Obama 2008
McCain won big.
This is to be expected, given how well he fits the mold of a GOP candidate, complete with Republican family values (i.e., adultery) and ethics (i.e., Keating Five scandal), along with the usual flip-flopping (from campaign reform champion to warmonger).
From the beginning, McCain seemed destined for greatness. His grandfather and father were both 4-star admirals:
“John Sidney McCain, Sr. … was a U.S. Navy Admiral. …
After the outbreak of hostilities between the U.S. and Japan … McCain … commanded all land-based air operations supporting the Guadalcanal campaign … [and was] commander of a carrier group in … the Marianas campaign … [and] a fast carrier task force … [in] the Battle of Okinawa ….”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J ohn_S._McCain%2C_Sr.
“John Sidney McCain, Jr. … served in World War II [as a submarine commander] …. [and] spent the 1960s in a series of commands … becoming Commander in Chief, U.S. Naval Forces in Europe in 1967 and 1968. During the Vietnam War, Admiral McCain served as Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Pacific Command from 1968 to 1972.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J ohn_S._McCain%2C_Jr.
Well, that’s admittedly a tough act to follow, and maybe too much expectation to live up to, and young John succeeded in not living up to it:
“Following in the footsteps of his father and grandfather, McCain entered the United States Naval Academy. … [H]is career at the Naval Academy was … lackluster. He had … run-ins with the faculty and leadership; each year he was given over 100 demerits … earning him membership in the “Century Club”. … [O]ne classmate said that ‘being on liberty with John McCain was like being in a train wreck.’ … [H]e … graduated … fifth from the bottom in class rank, 894th out of 899.
“McCain was then … a naval aviator in training at … Pensacola … Corpus Christi … flying A-1 Skyraiders. He earned a reputation as a party man … [and] dated an exotic dancer …. [H]e was a subpar flier …. During a practice run … his aircraft crashed into Corpus Christi Bay …. [H]e had another close call … from a collision with power lines … flying too low over Spain. … In fall 1965 he had his third close call when a flameout over Norfolk, Virginia led to his ejecting safely and his plane crashing.
“McCain grew frustrated with his training [assignments] and requested a combat assignment. … [He] was assigned to the … USS Forrestal, flying A-4 Skyhawks …. McCain’s first five attack missions over North Vietnam went without incident …. By now a Lieutenant Commander, McCain was … almost killed … when a … rocket from an F-4 Phantom … accidentally fired across the carrier’s deck … struck McCain’s A-4E Skyhawk …. The ensuing fire killed 132 sailors, injured 62 others, destroyed … 20 aircraft ….
“As Forrestal headed for repairs, McCain volunteered to join the … short-staffed USS Oriskany, which had … endured its own deck fire disaster and … had suffered heavy losses during Rolling Thunder …. [F]lying as part of a 20-plane attack against … Hanoi, … McCain … was shot down …. McCain fractured both arms and a leg … ejecting from his plane. He nearly drowned after he parachuted into Truc Bach Lake in Hanoi. …
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J ohn_McCain
Holy Cripes! Talk about accident prone! I wouldn’t want to ride in a car with this guy — let alone let him run our government! Electing this guy president would be the ultimate manifestation of the Peter Principle. I’ll bet he secretly suffers from attention defcit disorder.
In any case, even though McCain hasn’t locked up a delegate majority yet, I think we’re looking at the GOP nominee. Super Tuesday worked out perfectly for him. Huckabee won just enough to stay in the race, without being a threat, and his staying in the race ensures that the anti-McCain vote within the GOP will be divided between Romney and Huckabee, effectively taking Romney out of contention. It’s all over except for the accountant’s report.
On the Democratic side, I sort of agree with Goldy that Obama sort of won Super Tuesday … in the sense that Hillary didn’t run the table and he stayed alive.
You hardly can call him the front runner, though.
And S.T.’s results expose a fundamental weakness of Obama’s campaign: He targeted caucus states, and did well with caucus voters, but conceded the primary states to his opponent. What does that say about his chances in November — especially now that we know the GOPers will nominate their most formidable candidate? You can’t become president without getting poll voters to vote for you, and Obama has just given us a demonstration of weakness in that department.
It’s one thing to win over party activists who go to caucuses; it’s a very different thing to sell yourself and your platform to Average Joe and Average Jane who don’t follow politics and react viscerally to sound bites, bumper sticker slogans, and what little information they get from watching TV news.
I’m not saying he shouldn’t be the nominee. But he won’t be, unless he beats Hillary in voting booths, in the primaries yet ahead, and that’s as it should be. He has to earn it, and not just by winning over caucus-goers, but by showing he can win over ordinary voters.
For now, that remains to be demonstrated.
Roger Rabbit @ 2
Who’d a thunk it just two months ago?
but wasn’t obama supposed to lock it up?
an expectations game babe
When you get right down to it, Hillary won more delegates yesterday than Obama did, and nearly ran the table in primary states, where you have to win delegates by getting people to pull the levers for you in voting booths.
In the end, the candidate with the most delegates will get the nomination. And the candidate who is strongest with poll voters has the best chance of winning in November.
From this perspective, Obama’s “victory” consists of the fact Hillary didn’t clinch the nomination yesterday.
The margin in Calif is narrowing to 11% now, so while the Clintons will win Calif, it won’t be a Mass blow out.
This article talks about early mail in voting…up to half of the voters have been voting for a month already. Way before any Obama surge, Clinton meltdown. It could have been a lot worse, but Obama had a long row to hoe going in.
http://www.catholic.org/nation.....p?id=26708
Look at where we have come in two weeks state by state:
Alabama 1/25 poll Clinton led by 15 points. [Rasmussen, 1/25/08] Obama won by 15.
Arizona 1/23 poll Clinton led by 21 points. [Arizona Republic, 1/23/08] Clinton won by 9.
Arkansas 12/27 poll Clinton by 40. [Talk Business Quarterly, 12/27/2007] Clinton won by 42.
California 1/22 poll Clinton by 12 [Field Poll, 1/22/2008] As I type Clinton is ahead by 11.
Colorado 9/07 last polling done. Clinton by 16 [American Research Group] Obama won by 34.
Connecticut 1/20 poll Clinton by 14.[Hartford Courant, 1/20/08] Obama won by 4.
Delaware 10/07 last polling done. Clinton by 24.[Fairleigh Dickinson, 10/10/07] Obama won by 11.
Georgia 1/22 poll Clinton by 7. [Strategic Vision, 1/22/07] Obama won by 35.
Idaho No polling done. Obama won by 68.
Illinois 1/31 Obama by 11. [American Research Group] Obama won by 31.
Kansas No polling done. Obama won by 48.
Massachusetts 1/24 poll Clinton by 37. [Survey USA, 1/24/08] Clinton won by 16.
Minnesota 10/07 poll Clinton by 25. [Star Tribune, 10/2/07] Obama won by 35.
Missouri 1/25 poll Clinton by 19. [Rasmussen, 1/25/08] Obama won by 1.
New Jersey 1/23 poll Clinton by 17. [Quinnipiac, 1/23/08] Clinton won by 10.
New Mexico No polling done. Obama as I type is ahead by 1.
New York 1/28 poll Clinton by 28. [Gallup, 1/28/08] Clinton won by 16.
North Dakota No polling done. Obama won by 25.
Oklahoma 1/14 poll Clinton by 20. [Survey USA, 1/14/08] Clinton won by 23.
Tennessee 1/30 poll Clinton by 33. [Insider Advantage, 1/30/08] Clinton won by 13.
Utah No polling done. Obama won by 15.
Those are some amazing gaps to close and some seriously amazing winning margins for Obama. Clinton did nothing that wasn’t expected all along in the states she did win, although most were closer than expected.
This Obama thing is real.
Roger Rabbit @ 3
It ain’t like Republican caucuses, where hardly anyone shows up, and Mitt Romney tends to win because his supporters are more dedicated.
The Democratic caucus turnout is consistently ENORMOUS as a percentage of the Democratic electorate. And Barack Obama has done very well in every single caucus state — even winning the delegate contest in Nevada, despite being slightly behind in the popular vote.
But even just looking at primaries, Obama has done pretty well. If you added all the primary votes together, I doubt that Hillary Clinton has much more than a five point lead, if even that much.
I would say that neither Clinton nor Obama qualifies as the front runner at this point. It is very much a horse race (unlike the Republican contest).
@4 The stock market is like that sometimes, too.
@4 “but wasn’t obama supposed to lock it up?”
Au contraire, dearie, all the pundits who know what they’re talking about said Super Tuesday would NOT lock up the Democratic nomination. That’s because the Democrats use a proportional system, as opposed to the winner-take-all system favored by Republicans, which tends to produce a clear victor much earlier in the game. In most Democratic contests, if you win 55% of the votes, you get approximately 1/2 to 6/10ths of the delegates. Thus, it takes many more states to accumulate a majority, and the Democratic race probably will stay open until April or May.
Clinton is the party establishment’s candidate, and Obama is the classic insurgent candidate, and insurgent candidates almost always lose.
Roger Rabbit what the hell are you talking about? It is far more difficult to get folks to come out to a caucus for at least a couple hours not counting getting there and getting home, face their neighbors and stand their ground than it is to put a stamp on an envelope and pop it in the mail…or go to a polling station and stick a ballot in a box.
Caucuses are far more unpredictable, far more dependent on braving weather, far more intimidating.
Caucuses depend on a serious ground operation which Obama has shown in spades. Clinton depends on TV ads and that somehow is tougher?
Please…
Roger Rabbit @ 7
It is still too early to know who won more delegates on Tuesday. I have looked at several news sources on-line, and many of them have not estimated anywhere near all the delegates that were at stake in the primaries and caucuses.
If Clinton did win more delegates than Obama yesterday, I seriously doubt that she picked up even as much as 52% of the delegates at stake.
Roger Rabbit @ 12
There is a LOT of party establishment supporting Obama.
If you can call Obama an insurgent candidate, then McCain is much more of an insurgent candidate. Think he will lose (the GOP nomination, that is)?
But Obama is the most popular insurgent candidate since RFK, and he does have a chance, although I think it’s uphill. He can’t stumble. He has to sustain momentum. He has to win some tough contests. All of these things are difficult but possible.
And if he doesn’t? If his supporters are disappointed by the outcome of the nomination struggle, will they be able to support Hillary in the fall with the same commitment and enthusiasm with which they backed Obama? Or will they sulk, and hand the election to McCain? The degree of personal affection and loyalty for Obama makes me nervous. We need to be loyal to the party, not a particular candidate, and we need to focus on the goal of electing a Democratic president and a Democratic congress so we can reverse Bush’s policies and solve the country’s pressing problems. A Democratic congress paired with a McCain presidency will result in 4 years of gridlock, during which the Iraq misadventure will drag on, and little will happen in domestic policy. There will be no health care reform, nothing will be done about Social Security or Medicare, there will be endless partisan fighting over earmarks and judicial appointments and tax policies. The country can’t afford that, and our fellow citizens deserve better — we’ve GOT to win in November. We’ve GOT to run the table on the GOP. Republicans are extraordinarily weak this election cycle, and this opportunity isn’t going to come again. If Hillary is the nominee, we must all work just as hard for her as if Obama had been the nominee. If Obama is the nominee, we must all work just as hard for him as we would for God Herself. This is about winning in November and wresting control of government from the destruction hands of the GOP, and not ultimately which presidential candidate prevails in the nominating process.
@13 What I’m talking about is the number of party activists who attend caucuses is small compared to the overall electorate, and you don’t win presidential elections by winning caucuses. To win a presidential election, you have to get a large number of votes from the kinds of people who don’t attend caucuses. That is far harder to do than being popular with the activists of your own party.
Hey, I’m not pimping for Hillary here, even though I previously announced I’m “supporting” her. My “support” probably is meaningless because it looks like I’m too sick to attend my caucus on Saturday, which means I won’t vote for anyone. I’ve already bailed out of pollworker duties for the Feb. 19 primary; I’m too sick to attend the required training. This morning, heaving my chest as hard as I could, I got barely enough air to stay conscious. Mrs. Rabbit actually started to call 911. No, I wasn’t captured by the GOP and they weren’t waterboarding me. Although that sure must be what waterboarding feels like. The veterinarians seem to think this bunny is having asthma attacks. If so, I’ve been misdiagnosed for 50 years. Or maybe I’ve acquired a new health problem to add to an ever-lengthening list of health problems. What the hell. Don’t start celebrating yet, trolls! I ain’t dead yet. You may be extinct before me! The Rapture could be just around the corner! When you humans are gone rabbits will run this place and I’ll be their king. The king of the rabbits is immortal! Long live the king!
I’ve been up all night every night for the last 5 days because I can’t breathe laying down. I can’t breathe sleeping. So I have to stay awake 24 hours a day. Otherwise I’ll stop breathing. This sucks. Long live the rabbit king!
How To Get Another 20 Drops of Whiskey From An Empty Bottle
Holding bottle upright, run it under hot water for 60 seconds, then pour into a shot glass. Repeat 3 times or until no more whiskey comes out.
That old time snake oil worked better than historians give it credit for. As long as it was at least 80 proof, it didn’t matter what the other ingredients were.
Delegate Count
Needed to nominate: 2025
Clinton 845
Obama 765
Uncommitted 75
Edwards 26
Needed to nominate: 1191
McCain 613
Romney 269
Huckabee 190
Uncommitted 23
Paul 14
California is down to 10%…if Obama breaks single digits there it’s a LOSE for the Clintons.
Count your delegates when the counting is done…silly to do so before that.
Well with most of the right wing hatemongers on the radio denouncing McCain – the GOP is in deep doo-doo. The Rush Limbaughs of the world helped Bush steal the White House – but with the batshit crazy wing of the GOP up in arms about a McCain win, the republicans will be so fractured that there’s no way they can win. In fact, it looks like they’ll be in a minority so small, they won’t have a prayer of impacting ANY federal legislation for at least two years. The Dems will come out of Nov with a SUPERMAJORITY. Man – what a beat down these asshole republicans have coming and I can’t WAIT to watch it.
BBG@25: Please provide proof – “The Rush Limbaughs of the world helped Bush steal the White House”.
URL?
Citation?
Or another comment pushed from a non sunny place by SO2 gas?
Remember ChristmasGhost said Obama will NOT win CA due to the Hispanic his panic (or her panic) over Obama. Great PuddyPun! Looks like she can join the list of prognosticators.
I am going to implement Pelletizer rules from now on. And watch Lee and Darryl do NOTHING because it would be _____________ and ______________ and ______________ (fill in the blanks).
Post the same pellets in multiple threads. See post#2 and http://www.horsesass.org/?p=4240#comment-738411
After looking at those early exit polls, I was hoping for a big Obama night. As is, it looks like they both held serve.
In my mind Obama represents the future of the Democratic party, Clinton the past. I also now think Obama gives us the best chance to win in Nov.
It seems the thinkers in “flyover country” likes the new guy while the old time “deadhead” establishment likes the old hag.
Whudathunkit?
I thought the Moonbat! mantra was if you win more states you should be “king” or “queen” (double entendre meant!).
G Davis @ 24 –
It’s not a lose for Hillary unless Obama comes out ahead. And because of the way the proportions go by district in that state, it’s only a real ‘lose’ if she gets less delegates.
Don’t want a $1.3 trillion dollar tax increase? – Vote Hillary ’08.
DustinJames: You hate black people?
http://www.politico.com/news/s...../8358.html
On the moronic MSNBC Keith Olbermann show the NJ governor said he didn’t care how his state voted, he was voting for Heilary.
Now that’s scary!
As the saying goes “almost” only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. I would not tout Obama as a winner yet. Unless you want to take that almost is good enough attitude into the general and face another 4 years of republican rule. By analogy, John Kerry got more votes than Gore or Clinton before him so he is a winner but wait we still have the chimp in office. Almost is not good enough. As president Clinton said awhile back. “It is should be tough to become president that is a good thing”. I am not sure who thought the Hillary Clinton nomination was inevitable, it certainly wasn’t anybody in her campaign.
Hey 16%ers, you may need to stop calling Bush the Chimp. Better yet keep it up, chimp has better memory!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pag.....38;in_page _id=1770
PuddyStudy: Smarter than a human? You 16%ers surely know how to pick your metaphors. Waaaa haaaaa haaaa haaaa haaaaa haaaa haaaa haaaaa haaaa haaaa haaaaa haaaa haaaa haaaaa haaaa haaaa haaaaa haaaa haaaa haaaaa haaaa haaaa haaaaa haaaa haaaa haaaaa haaaa haaaa haaaaa haaaa haaaa haaaaa haaaa haaaa
Again the pre-election polls were by and large not very accurate. The Obama surge didn’t quite pan out as some had predicted, and the Clinton collapse also didn’t quite happen. We have a two candidate race that’s for once too close to call in February so WA state finally gets to have some impact on the candidate nomination. Now it’s our job to really study up on the candidates positions and make an informed choice at the caucus.
Gordon, apparently you like most liberals have no memory. Go back to early summer 2007 and view what she and her campaign was saying… At that time Barack was just a pesky mosquito.
I am so tired of having to post things the average liberal moonbat! should remember. Google it Gordon, and see how many times from people in or directly connected to her campaign said “when Heilary wins the nomination” or “she said when I win the nomination”. Use closely worded phraseology. If you need help the HoesesASSHole wordsmith Clueless Idiot can help you. Just don’t ask for Excel Spreadsheet help.
Happy hunting Gordon.
EWP: Not accurate polls? People lied and candidates cried.
And Obama is a better person that skanky Hillary ever thought about being.
DustinJames: 1.3 Trillion Tax Increase? Well how do you expect free health care for all will be paid for?
Whomever wins will need to address Terrorism in America.
Read the chronicled actions by friends of the 16%ers identified here: http://www.investigativeproject.org/.
Focus on the New Material Section.
I know most 16%ers don’t focus on this because Mike Moore said there ain’t nuthin happnin in America so it has to be true.
42 agreeing with Puddy
Yes! The next President will have to deal with Reprican terrorism. The need of the residual Republicans to incite
hatred will take great leadership to overcome.
BTW .. did BHO mashup POGO’s
“We have seen the enemy and they is us?”
My my my, even for Puddy I forgot this Smokey Robinson and Miracles song… Tears of A Clown – Heilary Clinton just before Super Tuesday…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2kxlZDOHeQ
Now if there’s a smile on my face
It’s only there trying to fool the public
But when it comes down to fooling you
Now honey that’s quite a different subject
But don’t let my glad expression
Give you the wrong impression
Cos really I’m sad, Oh I’m sadder than sad
Well I’m hurt and I want you so bad
Like a clown I appear to be glad ooh yeah
CHORUS:
Well they’re some sad things known to man
But ain’t too much sadder than
The tears of a clown when there’s no one around
Oh yeah, baby baby, oh yeah baby baby
Now if I appear to be carefree
It’s only to camouflage my sadness
And honey to shield my pride I try
To cover this hurt with a show of gladness
But don’t let my show convince you
That I’ve been happy since you
Cos I need to go, oh I need you so
Look I’m hurt and I want you to know
For others I put on a show
CHORUS:
Well they’re some sad things known to man
But ain’t too much sadder than
The tears of a clown when there’s no one around
Oh yeah, baby baby, oh yeah baby baby
Just like Pagliacci did
I try to keep my surface hid
Smiling in the crowd I try
But in a lonely room I cry
The tears of a clown
When there’s no one around, oh yeah, baby baby
Now if there’s a smile on my face
Don’t let my glad expression
Give you the wrong impression
Don’t let this smile I wear
Make you think that I don’t care
Cos really I’m sad…
CHORUS:
Well they’re some sad things known to man
But ain’t too much sadder than
The tears of a clown when there’s no one around
Oh yeah, baby baby, oh yeah baby baby
All rights to Smokey Robinson and the Miracles for the lyrics
Speaking of whom won or will win, I wonder if Barack will go after George Soros and have him pay his fair share of billionaire taxes per Clueless IdiotFool the class warfare king?
I don’t expect Heilary to do this since he funds her Media Matters and CAP 527 web enterprises.
A Challenge to the HRC Camp
I am tired of hype on any side. I did a little web based research to determine whether HRC really is experience4d outside of her time as the bedmate and partner of Bill.
As nearly as I can determine these are the facts:
1. Children’s defence fund …1 year of employment
2. after that, several years as corporate attorney with Arkansas firm, maun jobh as rainbmaker. Some pro bono work. Board member Wal mart. Relations to Tyson are nt clear.
3. As guv spouse served on committees interested in children. Chaired some ctees successfully.
3. White House years .. these are well known.
4. Senate .. she has done a good job as a local rep, servicing here people in NY. Has NOT been the elader on any critical legislation.
5. Authorship. Has worked with ghostwriters but never published a book or article most would tout as impressive.
None of this diminishes here obvious deep knowledge of government or wide aquaitances. Those are hard to objectify.
ant comments?
DustinJames: Here spend your money on these products.
http://www.cafepress.com/cp/buy/hillary08
This is my personal favorite.
http://www.cafepress.com/buy/r.....g_/c_/fpt_
And this is my personal journal.
http://www.cafepress.com/buy/r.....c_666/pg_1
The looks are P R I C E L E S S.
PuddyBud @ 41 – The 1.3 trillion dollar tax increase that Obama wants to levy on the backs on the middle class doesn’t do jack for ‘free healthcare’ – it’s his ‘plan’ to shore up social security, when there are better ways to make the plan solvent than balancing it against the middle class wallet.
That’s on top of the tax money he wanted to give to energy companies, Hillary voted against it.
Obama voted to give Energy Companies massive federal subsidies (a.k.a. our Tax dollars) – Hillary voted against it. – Vote Hillary ‘08.
SeattleBugsBunnyJew:
She mysteriously left out the time when Bill almost left her in her “memoirs”.
Don’t worry though. Puddy posted this too.
There is something unreal about last night.
Two highly qualified, intelligent dems fighting it ouyt to be President!
While I am an Obamaite, it is thrilling to imagine a real contest between these two very different people.
I wonder though, how can we get the debate between them moved off of the sot of sound bites and Clintonist spin room issues?
Here is a list of issues that I would LOVE to see them debate:
1. Should America’s well enbdowed private universities be required to make scholarships available on a competitive basis?
2. Is Taiwan defnesible if China takes action?
3. How can government arrest5 the corporate trend toward mega salaries unlinked to profits?
4. Should we have true national standards for evaluating education?
5, Should Bush’s Martian expedition be halted?
6. Do you have a real plan for the 12 million immigrants?
Puddy
You have good reason to suspect that SJ and BB are one, but be careful. In the mirky depths of the internet there are many trolls besides yourself.
FWIW .. I know the real identity of Bugs and you might be surprised who that is.
#19 Roger Rabbit says:
You are seeing life as you see it you silly rabbit. Speaking for myself, but I’m sure Puddy & Piper would agree, we don’t wish you harm and instead wish you the best of luck to feel better. Might be hard for you to understand that because that’s not how you view others.
Get well soon.
To all:
Be carefull .. since Puddy posts under a lot of surnames, not a ll puddies are the same.
@33: Puddy
Is that politico article correct? Is Obama realy going to be ahead in delegates after yesterday?
I hope so – but the Seattle times figures (I know – can’t rely on that rag!) had him behind….
To all you Hillary backers: just remember her 2002 speech on the Seante floor in support of the authorization for use of military force:
“In the 4 years since the inspectors, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaida members, though there is apparently
no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security
landscape of the Middle East which, as we know all too well, affects American security.”
Here she is shilling the false al qaeda in Iraq viewpoint, the false idea that Sadaam had any missiles capable of attacking the US (he didn’t) and the false nuclear scare of Dick Cheney and promoting the vote for use of military force in Iraq – I am SO glad she is the candidate with the best experience – to make the worst vote and approve the worst policy in US history.
Here is Obama in 2002:
“He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.
I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.
I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.”
Quoted under fair use. Compare on your own.
RR at 19: Your symptoms sound suspiciously like those affecting a friend of mine. He struggled with it for the better part of two years, as the doctors diagnosed it as allergies, asthma, angina, etc. The problem was that the symptoms were intermittant – by the time he got to the doctor all he could do is describe the symptoms, because they were fading at that point.
But he happened to be in the doctor’s office once as an attack was just beginning. The doctor listened to his heart, and found a problem (I forget the details – a leaky valve, or something). It was masquarading as a resperitory illness because his brain was telling his lungs that it wasn’t getting enough oxygen, so he kept thinking that he couldn’t feel his lungs with air, so he kept breathing deeper until he hyperventilated.
A little surgery, a three-week recovery, and he was better than new.
Anyway, for what it’s worth – make sure they check your heart and circulatory system, also.
Hey, let’s talk super-delagates. Isn’t it cool how the democrat nomination will depend, not on the voters, but on political insiders known as super-delagates?
correctnotright @ 55:
Hillary voters are not only voting for her because she can best get us out of the mismanagement of the war that Bush got us into, but because she’s the best steward for the slumping economy that we are currently getting in to – she is best capable of guiding us out into prosperity.
Remember that well over 80% of the country was in favor of the Iraq war when it started based off the false evidence presented, and the crap that was in the intelligence report that was presented as fact.
I was one of those that was blindsided and lied to, and I believed. I can’t fault her, as she was presented with even MORE overwhelming evidence in that security brief than what I was privvy to.
It’s the economy, and healthcare, and getting the Iraq quagmire wrapped up, and I believe Clinton has the best plans on leading us in all three of these issues.
Obama says it’s best to be right on day one, but he has made two major flip flops on important issues from previous positions: guns and universal healthcare. How can he be right on day 1 when he talks out of both sides of his mouth? – Vote Hillary ‘08.
I love Barack but the contrarian view is that he has a lot of problems with working class and Latino voters. Someone convince me that he’s broken out of his key demographic of African-American, white college-educated and young voters.
The older, working-class, union and latino voters are solid behind Hillary and are very likely to stay that way.
I’ll caucus for Obama but we have to defeat McCain in November. He’ll just continue Bush’s foreign policy failures only with more “boots on the ground”. I wouldn’t put a revival of the draft past this guy.
@46: Bugs bunny: yes – Hillary’s supposed experience is not all great and her judgement has been questionable. Her one area of expertise is health care – and her proposals were not approved 15 years ago and were one of the amjor failings of the clinton administration.
I also get the feeling that if Bill was not married to her – he would be campaigning for the person he is more similar to….Obama.
As of this morning, at least two local Seattle radio shows were nearly ecstatic with the thought that (a) our caucuses will actually “mean something”, and (b) “maybe one of the major candidates will actually come on our show!”
C/O Realclearpolitics.com this recap shows the delegates that can be “inked” in for one candidate or another as of today. CA and NY and the caucus states will take longer to sort out. This and the fact that super delegates are not reflected on a state line by line basis is why the two candidate totals do not equal the totals for delegates for each state.
2008 Democratic Delegates
Delegate Count
State Date Delegates Clinton Obama
Total – – 900 824
Super Delegates – 0 211 128
Iowa 01/03 57 15 16
New Hampshire 01/08 30 9 9
Michigan 01/15 0 * – –
Nevada 01/19 33 12 13
South Carolina 01/26 54 12 25
Florida 01/29 0 * C – –
California 02/05 441 101 59
New York 02/05 281 C 127 87
Illinois 02/05 185 27 79
New Jersey 02/05 127 51 37
Massachusetts 02/05 121 54 37
Georgia 02/05 103 22 45
Minnesota 02/05 88 24 48
Missouri 02/05 88 30 30
Tennessee 02/05 85 34 21
Colorado 02/05 71 C 6 13
Arizona 02/05 67 C 26 21
Alabama 02/05 60 21 20
Connecticut 02/05 60 C 22 26
Arkansas 02/05 47 23 6
Oklahoma 02/05 47 C 24 14
Kansas 02/05 41 C 9 23
New Mexico 02/05 38 C 13 12
Utah 02/05 29 9 14
Delaware 02/05 23 C 6 9
Idaho 02/05 23 3 15
North Dakota 02/05 21 5 8
Alaska 02/05 18 C 4 9
2,025 Delegates Needed to Win (Delegate Counts Come From AP, Wash Post, CBS News & RCP)
Upcoming States & RealClearPolitics Averages
State Date Delegates Clinton Obama
Washington 02/09 97
Louisiana 02/09 66 C
Nebraska 02/09 31
Maine 02/10 34 C
Virginia 02/12 101
Maryland 02/12 99 C
District of Columbia 02/12 38 C
More States
* Delegates After DNC Penalty C Closed Primary
Democratic Presidential Nomination
RCP Average Intrade
Clinton 44.8
Obama 41.6
RCP National Average: Clinton +3.2
More States
State Date Delegates Clinton Obama
Wisconsin 02/19 92
Hawaii 02/19 29
Texas 03/04 228
Ohio 03/04 161
Rhode Island 03/04 32
Vermont 03/04 23
Wyoming 03/08 18 C
Mississippi 03/10 40
Pennsylvania 04/22 188 C
North Carolina 05/06 134
Indiana 05/06 84
West Virginia 05/13 39
Oregon 05/20 65 C
Kentucky 05/20 60 C
Montana 06/03 24
South Dakota 06/03 23 C
Login | Register | RSS
SeattleJew: All good ones but the last one is wrong:
Do you have a real plan for the 12 – 20 million illegal immigrants?
@58: dustin James – Sorry Hillary is a polarizing figure and has already failed to get ehalth care passed – why should we think she is the one to get things done now – what has she done in the Senate to show that – in 8 years she has been the sponsor of……what?
I will vote for Hillary if she wins the nomination – but I don’t see her being a very effective president.
As far the the obama flip-flops – prove it. His health care plan is as close to Universal care as Hillary – who hasn’t said how she will enforce universal mandatory coverage (evasion and triangulation again).
The point is that Obama, in 2002, stated the obvious – that Sadaam was not a threat. Hillary went along with expediency and polical calculatiopn and capitulated to Bush. Go ahead and choose Hillary if you want – but you are getting a politician who calculates on issues instead of voting her conscience.
Most of our economic problems are tied to the huge budget deficit and the huge expenditures in Iraq. Also, it has prevented us from going after al qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
So our economy and our security have been weakened becasue Hillary and others did not have the guts to stand up and be counted against bush (by the way a number of other Senate Democrats DID vote against the AUMF resolution including Russ Feingold and others).
Numbnuts@54 wrote: “To all: Be carefull .. since Puddy posts under a lot of surnames, not a ll puddies are the same.”
EXCUSE ME YOU IDIOT!. I have not used any other name since Goldy decided to blow my cover on MWS. Notice Goldy doesn’t blow the cover on any lefty and headless posts under many different names and Puddy uses the power of deduction as needed.
There are other sock puppets who have Pud or Puddy or Puddybud in their name and of course Goldy let’s them pass too. So his “sock puppets will be erased” is also a bunch of BULLSHITTIUM!
Pay your gambling debt, Lambchop.
Correctnotright @ 64 – “As far the the obama flip-flops – prove it.”
This is from a previous post of mine, and these are in his own words – not ‘spin’. Not ‘taken out of context’. His own words.
We can talk about the well previously-discussed single payer health care model that he was originally ‘for’ (see YouTube for that video). and then he was never ‘for’.
Or how about his stance on guns? Obama was in Idaho and said he had ‘no intention of taking away folks’ guns.‘. Well then how come in this questionnaire he said he ‘supported banning the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.’?
Is he really ‘right’ on day one? I guess, only when his positions flip flop to whatever ‘right’ is today.
DustinJames@58 says: Nothing much cuz he doesn’t remember Heilary saying US troops still in Iraq into 2013.
Look it up DustinJames. You may be surprised!!!
DustinJames@58 says: Nothing much cuz he doesn’t remember the “false evidence” was the same Russia, Germany, & France had and they were Saddam’s best buds.
Too bad he still drinks the “kool-aid”.
Puddybud, nice spin, but she said no such thing.
You’re talking about a response to a question that she gave at a debate:
Tim Russert: Will you pledge that by January 2013, the end of your first term more than five years from now, there will be no U.S. troops in Iraq?
Obama: I think it’s hard to project four years from now, and I think it would be irresponsible. We don’t know what contingency will be out there. What I can promise is that if there are still troops in Iraq when I take office [and] if there’s no timetable [for withdrawal], then I will drastically reduce our presence there to the mission of protecting our embassy, protecting our civilians and making sure that we’re carrying out counterterrorism activities there.
Clinton: Well, Tim, it is my goal to have all troops out by the end of my first term. But I agree with Barack. It is very difficult to know what we’re going to be inheriting…. I will immediately move to begin bringing our troops home when I am inaugurated…. [But there] may be a continuing counterterrorism mission, which, if it still exists, will be aimed at al Qaeda in Iraq. It may require combat, Special Operations Forces or some other form of that, but the vast majority of our combat troops should be out.
*BOTH* candidates say they can not commit to pulling troops out by 2013, and only Hillary (in this response) says she will “immediately move to begin bringing our troops home when I am inaugurated“. Obama says he will “drastically reduce our presence” there but with no such immediacy. When Obama? Within the first year? Within the first 3 years? Hillary says “when I am inaugurated” she will begin bringing troops home.
I looked at the CBS estimates (and plugged them into Excel for easy addition:). There are some states whose delegates have not been fully allocated, but so far it appears that Clinton won 685 delegates yesterday, and Obama won 665, from all the states listed so far. Basically a draw, but a strategic victory for Obama, give the poll predictions for some BIG Clinton wins yesterday.
http://election.cbsnews.com/ca.....card.shtml
I also note that Clinton is ahead 974 to 905 overall — a lead of 69 delegates. However, Clinton leads 211 to 128 among superdelegates, or a margin of 83. To date, Obama has won 14 more delegates from primaries and caucuses than Clinton.
Clueless@59: “The older, working-class, union and latino voters are solid behind Hillary and are very likely to stay that way.”
Yes, they are. Stereotypes are hard to break! There always has been friction between my peeps and .5 of your peeps. No one is talking about the ethnic cleansing of blacks (by assassination) from LA latino neighborhoods. I haven’t heard your voice on this when Puddy elevated it here. But then you are a chicken on most non-political issues unless you can donkey spin it.
Correctnotright @ 55
Do you have a link to Obama’s 2002 speech? I am impresed by his wisdom, especially if the speech was made in 2002.
Puddy Bud @ 69 – Russia, France, and Germany also didn’t have 2,998 people killed in a terrorist act against them. They weren’t quite ‘on edge’ as people within our borders.
DustinJames: You doubt me? Let the games begin…
So you are calling Helen Thomas, deanness or doyenne of the donkey MSM women a liar:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/.....mas05.html
The Democrats who enable Bush
By HELEN THOMAS
HEARST NEWSPAPERS
Last week at a debate in Hanover, N.H., the leading Democratic presidential candidates sang from the same songbook: Sens. Hillary Clinton of New York, and Barack Obama of Illinois and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards refused to promise to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq by 2013, at the end of the first term of their hypothetical presidencies. Can you believe it?
Anyone noticing the desparity amongst Democratice and Republican voters with respect to numbers – are Republicans hiding, staying at home? Do they hate to vote in the primaries? Does anyone know of why there are so many more Democratic voters? Do the Republicans even stand a chance in November against the amount of Democrats participating in the primaries?
@60 HRC
Well, I think you understates here expertise. She has been around a lot and clearly has a deep grasp of ,many policy7 issues.
As for BC, I am ntio so sure. To me there is a hidden agenda int he BHO vs HRC scramble .. classism. WJC’s arrogance in the currect Khazakhiistan isse is one indication of his classism.
DustinJames: The games continue… Nuclear explosion #2
http://usadaily.com/Article.cfm?articleID=122936
The spin you are putting on it is that you are saying that she will keep the troops there to at least 2013, where she says she will not promise to have them out by 2013, the exact same promise Barack refuses to make.
Only Hillary says she will “immediately move to begin bringing our troops home when I am inaugurated“. Obama gives no such timeline.
War voters – how fast do you want the troops out of Iraq? Hillary Clinton promises that she will ‘immediately move to begin bringing our troops home when I am inaugurated’. – Vote Hillary ‘08.
DustinJames: The games continue… Nuclear explosion #3
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....01341.html
“During the debate, she rarely came out of a defensive crouch, as if determined to protect her favored position. Answering the first question, she said her goal would be to withdraw all American troops from Iraq by 2013, but “it is very difficult to know what we are going to be inheriting” from the Bush administration, so she cannot make any pledge — as Richardson and others feel free to do. Troops might be needed for counterterrorism work for many years.”
I’m surprised that no one is picking up on the real story of Super Tuesday.
Oh sure, everyone is buzzing about Clinton and Obama and how the delegate count is shaping up or what states Clinton won and which ones Obama didn’t.
What nobody is noticing is the real story of McCain’s run. He is the GOP front runner and it’s just about a foregone conclusion that he’ll win the GOP nomination. OK, no surprise there.
When you analyze where he’s won and more importantly, where he hasn’t it spells doom for the GOP.
McCain is handily winning in states that normally vote Democrat in the general elections. He can’t win in the core southern states and is losing to Romney in the Interior West states. In the states that have a big military population he’s either lost them or barely squeaked out a victory. Texas next week will be a huge test for McCain given the size of the population at Fort Hood. His remarks about keeping a military presence in Iraq for the next 100 years isn’t sitting well with military personnel and especially so with their families. Given the state of the economy, the huge deficit and national debt created by complete Republican control, the health care system in crisis, energy costs shooting up, jobs going overseas and a whole host of corruption, crime and random sexual encounters in the men’s room at busy international airports by Republicans isn’t sitting well with the swing voters and independents.
Couple that with the conservative talking heads who have a track record of bashing McCain as “too liberal” and would only support him in the General Elections as the lesser or two evils doesn’t exactly compare to “Shining city on the hill” that Ronald Reagan presented to the party.
Depending on what poll you read anywhere from 2/3 to ¾ of the country feels the country is on the wrong track. That is a signal for change. Them Democrats have been using that term for years now and interestingly enough for the conservatives in the race they’re using forms of that slogan, too. If the country was happy with the conservatives the GOP candidates would not be using he word “change.” Unfortunately for McCain he sided with George W. Bush on too many policies that are becoming blowback items for the GOP. Picking McCain is the equivalent of giving Bush a 3rd term as president and that’s how McCain will be portrayed by the Democrats who will have the ability to outspend Republicans by unusually large margins.
Here are the final tallies that will be reported on Tuesday night, November 4th, 2008.
President-elect: Hillary Clinton.
Vice President-elect: Barack Obama.
This is the Dream Ticket for the Democrats. Clinton represents the bridge to the 21st century McCain represents the infamous bridge to no where. Obama represents what’s on the other side of the bridge. Without question Obama has energized the youth vote and the minority vote which will guarantee Democratic majorities for at least two generations. The Republicans gambled on the Republican Southern Strategy and that bet went against them. Time and the changing demography in America have bared this out.
The Democrats will control the senate with 57-60 seats. Reaching the filibuster proof majority will end the Republican party’s clout decades and decades to come. Possibly another 40 year run or more.
The House will pick up another 17-23 Democratic seats.
By 2016
President Hillary Clinton will appoint at least 2 Supreme Court Justices possibly a 3rd.
By 2024
President Obama will appoint at least 1 SCJ and possibly 2
By 2045
GBS will pass on knowing that we Liberals fought the good fight and once again we prevailed in saving America from yet another threat to destroy democracy and freedom in our great nation. Thus, preserving for our posterity the Liberal ideals set forth by our Founding Fathers.
“I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality.” ~ George Washington
Fear not President Washington, we shall keep your torch of liberality burning for generations to come.
That right wing piece of shit James Dobson just came out and said he’d NEVER vote for McCain. All the Bible-thumpin assholes who follow Dobson will also probably refrain from voting GOP. So either they vote for the good guys – the Dems – or they don’t vote at all – which is half a vote for the Dems. Bye Bye GOP!
@63 Puddy
Yes, these people are illegal.
The issue here is that both sides are being panderbears. The Dems are being “fair” and “inclusive” and reps are wanting to waste money w/o addressing the issue.
The rep idea of building a wall is silly. This is expensive and will not work /o the sort of fascist tools used by the DDR,
Deportation would costs easily 100,000,0000,000!
My answer:
1. national ID card.
2, anyone w/o legal ID can not be hired.
3. anyone hiring illegals should be penalized big time.
4. This would force a fleming like exit. rather than a forced exit, the prohram would mean voluntary exist and we would provide funds to help folks leave.
5. a national immigration ploicy shold encourage needed immigraats.
howsthat?
DustinJames: She, like her husband put her wet willie finger into the wind and determine the political polling winds didn’t like her answer so she’s now moderated.
And… if I correctly remember your comments above you claimed I was wrong on this. Now you’ve moderated your words. Well at least you can see the Motel 6 light on too. Goldy and Clueless Idiot have problems seeing light!
Puddy …
You know darn well that you are not the only Puddy here.
Go back to your room and put that nice dress on your mom laid out!
SeattleJew: Ask the Mexican how the keep the Guatemalans, Costa Ricans and Nicaraguans out of their southern border. Then ask what happens if they find an illegal alien.
Go on, call someone in Mexico City.
GBS: Why not Obama for Pres and Hilary for VP?
@86 I know how things are done in mexico. I do not hink we want t live like that do you?
SeattleJew: Many good points. My wife’s family came here legally long ago. Why should others get a free pass illegally?
On another thread Lee called me an idiot when I posted the problem is illegal immigration. California is going bankrupt over this issue. I think the $15BM California budget shortfall should be paid by the hollyweird peeps.
As to who won between the dems last night, I could argue either way. Obama did very well, but some of the states he won (Idaho, ND, Alabama, etc.) will go republican in November and don’t impress me very much. Hillary did better in the big D States of MA, NY, NJ, Illinois, MO, and CA taking 4 out of 6. Obama did better in caucus states and Hillary did better in voting states.
It is clear who the big loosers were though. Teddy in MA and Oprah in California got their asses handed to them.
On the republican side, Romney’s kids must be wondering where their inheritance is going and if it will all get pissed away. Huckabee proves that the folks who deep fry squirrels and steal Gideon Bibles out of motel 6’s are still a force to be reckoned with. Rush and the other McCain haters in the party must be reaching for the Tums this morning. Very good night for McCain.
Puddybud @ 84 – no, I said no such thing and Hillary said no such thing – you’re wrong still.
@ 87
That ticket won’t work as well in the long run. 8 years from now Hillary and Bill will want to be semi-retired from politics and they’ll pass on to Barack the Clinton political machine. Coupled with the Kennedy mantel being passed to Barack he’ll become the standard bearer for the Democratic party.
Obama’s own campaign suggested that a “win” would mean coming within 100 delegates of Hillary after last night. He will do that easily, and depending on how things sort out, might even get more delegates than her.
He is now at an advantage with the upcoming races, having a little more time to get people familiar with him and having ample resources to work with on the groud in every state.
@73: Richard Pope:
Here is one link to Obama speech in 2002:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/.....raq_Speech
puddy@27…….thanks, i welcome the mantle of prognosticator….heh heh heh. i have many more up my sleeve…you want to know who’s going to be president?
and “bugs” @52..get real seattle jew.
“You have good reason to suspect that SJ and BB are one, but be careful. In the mirky depths of the internet there are many trolls besides yourself.
FWIW .. I know the real identity of Bugs and you might be surprised who that is.”
i know who it is too,and i am not surprised…….all you have to do [if the spelling doesn’t give it away] is scroll over the bugs and guess what? seattlejew/blogspot comes up. imagine that!
If “experience” was what mattered to the Hillary supporters, then Richardson or Gravel would have done better, cause they have even more experience. I think Hillary supporters don’t want to say that she is sneaky, calculating, ruthless, power hungry and manipulative.
Well at least Pelosi is tryin to get the NASCAR vote:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com.....forni.html
Interesting…
Blue John: You forgot vindictive, scary, demeaning, nasty…
Nope, nope, nope. I don’t see Obama as Hillary’s VP. That would be a disservice to his talent. He would steal the show from her on the world stage. I don’t see Obama being Al Gore to Hillary.
Either he wins this thing or serves out his term in the Senate and makes a hard decision about either a second term or a governorship as a springboard to the White House. Probably the former.
I see Hillary picking an older, seasoned political operator as a running mate someone who wouldn’t challenge Obama when it came time for him. I don’t see anyone in the Senate who’d be a good fit. That’s a tough one.
I’m tired of the Clinton “Triangulation”. Where the Democrats move towards the Republicans and the Republicans stay right where they are. Especially economically.
puddy and blue john…..don’t forget that hillary is also a pathological liar and finger pointing shrew that has so much baggage that she could be fed ex.
but she will get the nomination. that clinton “machine”…you just have to love it.
and the dems have been gloating for a year now about the “death” of the GOP. now that’s funny……..
‘it seems the rumors of our death has been greatly exaggerated’………..
do you know what the best part about all this is?
bill clinton’s “legacy”= POOF!
“Asked about Clinton’s recent comment that she would not allow herself to be victimized by the type of Swift Boat-style attacks that were leveled against Sen. John Kerry in the 2004 race, Obama said he had been vetted by his opponent in the nominating campaign.
“I have to just respond by saying that the Clinton research operation is about as good as anybody’s out there,” he said.
“I assure you that having engaged in a contest against them for the last year that they’ve pulled out all the stops. And you know I think what is absolutely true is whoever the Democratic nominee is the Republicans will go after them. The notion that somehow Senator Clinton is going to be immune from attack or there’s not a whole dump truck they can’t back up in a match between her and John McCain is just not true.” ”
Fair use and copyleft to the URL holder below…
http://www.breitbart.com/artic....._article=1
christmasghost @ 101:
“hillary is also a pathological liar”
Funny that telling the truth is something that matters coming from a shill like you.
IF, and that’s a HUGE IF, you were truly interested in politicians telling the truth you’d be infuriated with George W. Bush and the Republican party.
Their lies have lead to the death of nearly 4,000 brave American service members, 20,000 + wounded, hundreds of thousand dead innocent Iraqi civilians and trillions of dollars down the drain.
Here’s the link to prove it.
http://www.publicintegrity.org/default.aspx
Puddybud, since you claim to be a champion of truth and providing links you ought to look this one up. True patriots will. al Qeada sympathizers won’t.
The lies, corruptions, violating the Constitution are the reasons why your part is DEAD.
It’s already happened SWEET CHEEKS. The funeral is this November.
104 and 105..amusing. very.
if i really thought that bush lied i would be screaming it from the roof tops. but i don’t think he did. perhaps bad intelligence….and no excuses here, but after what clinton did to the intelligence community bad intelligence isn’t a big surprise to anyone that is an adult. period.
we’ll see whose funeral is this november. first of all, i hope it isn’t the american dream and way of life..in other words hillary in the white house. we already had enough trouble when her husband jethro bodine moved in and trashed things up.
i don’t put my party affiliations first.i put my american affiliations first. my family has fought in every war beginning with the american revolution……..
i want a president that will be a president for everyone in this country. every good american. that leaves out the far left i’m afraid…….and most of the far right too, frankly.
@ 32 DustinJames says:
G Davis @ 24 –
It’s not a lose for Hillary unless Obama comes out ahead. And because of the way the proportions go by district in that state, it’s only a real ‘lose’ if she gets less delegates.
No matter how you look at it, the Clintons did not *win* anything…unless you count the superdelegates that can change their mind at any time, so neither candidate can count on them.
Look at the race for real delegates:
Chart on the left hand side separates regular delegates and superdelegates…
http://demconwatch.blogspot.co.....-list.html
Less easy to differentiate, but ultimately says the same thing…
http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTIO.....orecard/#D
By far, Obama won the number of states. The conventional argument against claiming square miles is that it’s people that count.
So look at the Super Tuesday popular vote total:
TOTAL VOTES CAST
Clinton: 50.2% (7,347,971)
Obama: 49.8% (7,294,851)
That’s 53,120 total vote difference out of 14,642,822 or .00368% LESS THAN 1/2 %
So you want to claim again how the Clintons won anything yesterday? Especially considering their 20+ point lead in ALL the states yesterday just two weeks ago?
Please…
As an aside…your stoogy signature Don’t want a $1.3 trillion dollar tax increase? – Vote Hillary ‘08. simply shows your ignorance. Where did anyone come up with the idea that 97,500 per person is middle class which is the part of that Clinton quote you conveniently leave out?
@ 49 DustinJames says:
PuddyBud @ 41 – The 1.3 trillion dollar tax increase that Obama wants to levy on the backs on the middle class doesn’t do jack for ‘free healthcare’ – it’s his ‘plan’ to shore up social security, when there are better ways to make the plan solvent than balancing it against the middle class wallet.
.
.
.
.
From your same entry:
That’s on top of the tax money he wanted to give to energy companies, Hillary voted against it.
Obama voted to give Energy Companies massive federal subsidies (a.k.a. our Tax dollars) – Hillary voted against it. – Vote Hillary ‘08.
Obama press release at the time:
http://obama.senate.gov/press/...../index.php
Oddly enough he was apparently doing his job, that of representing Illinois in the US Senate.
“So, I vote for this bill reluctantly today, disappointed that we have missed our opportunity to do something bolder that would have put us on the path to energy independence. This bill should be the first step, not the last, in our journey towards energy independence.”
Below is a fairly balanced look at the Energy Bill vote by Obama:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....83130.html
So, is this a strike against Obama? In some sense, yes, obviously it was the wrong vote on a horrible bill and he bears responsibility. But this kind of provincial vote — for the financial interests of a legislator’s home state, against the broader national interest — is not exactly rare. Any Senator that runs for president is going to have some of these votes in their record. The question is, what do they propose to do as president, and what are the chances they’ll actually do it?
Care to refute every vote the Clintons have cast that favors NY State? You really want to go down that road, Senator to Senator?
@ 59 YLB says:
I love Barack but the contrarian view is that he has a lot of problems with working class and Latino voters. Someone convince me that he’s broken out of his key demographic of African-American, white college-educated and young voters.
The older, working-class, union and latino voters are solid behind Hillary and are very likely to stay that way.
I’ll caucus for Obama but we have to defeat McCain in November. He’ll just continue Bush’s foreign policy failures only with more “boots on the ground”. I wouldn’t put a revival of the draft past this guy.
I think you have it backward for who’s limited in their base draw of support.
The Clintons win nationally ONLY among older women and less educated, less affluent ( folks. That is transparently name recognition and a misplaced sense that the 90’s were better for THOSE groups than today. In fact, they weren’t FOR THOSE GROUPS, but then What’s the Matter with Kansas…why do folks insist on voting against their personal self interest?
Here’s a nice rundown on NATIONAL exit polls which paints a very different picture of who is actually the more limited candidate for each party:
http://ap.google.com/article/A.....AD8UKMP9G0
Another interesting look at the national exit polling:
The exit polls in the 16 primary states in which they were taken showed that the contours of the race as we’ve come to know them are still in place. Obama did well with African-Americans, men, the wealthy, those with college degrees, and liberal voters. Clinton continues to do well with women, older voters, Latinos, and those with less education and lower incomes. Inside those patterns, some shifts were visible. In recent national polls, Clinton’s lead among women was 15 percentage points. Exit polls showed that her margin among women was only seven percentage points (though among white women, her margin was 20 percentage points). Obama also turned in strong performances among white male voters, picking up 40 percent in Georgia and almost 50 percent in California.
Both candidates took advantage of their strengths but didn’t put to rest questions about their weaknesses. Obama beat Clinton by 40 points among the 52 percent of voters who say they want change. Clinton trounced him 91 percent to 5 percent among those who say experience is the most important quality in a candidate, but that group represented only 22 percent of the voters.
http://www.slate.com/id/2183819/
In California, without which Clinton would be conceding today, Hispanics make up a disproportional amount of the electorate. Old ties with the Clinton machine still hold in California, and apparently across the states, but you have to ask yourself if those same Hispanics will vote FOR a Rep compared to the Dem candidate in the fall no matter who those candidates are. The same holds true for the huge margin the Clintons are winning among older women. Do you really think they will flip to Rep because their woman isn’t on the ticket?
Ideology:
IDEOLOGY: SPLIT Obama has enjoyed an advantage among self-described liberals in other states, but Clinton and Obama fought to a draw among this group, the biggest ideological chunk of California Democratic primary voters. Clinton was favored by a wide margin of moderates.
http://www.10news.com/news/15229559/detail.html
Could it be that the Clintons appeal to those DLC Dems that insist we must move to the right while the right stays where it is? Could it be that Southern California is more conservative than we knew before and BOTH the Dems will have problems there? Which Dem would be more likely to convince those DLC types that the liberal/progressive agenda is BETTER for the country than the always compromise agenda of the DLC Dem?
I agree with you on defeating the Rep in November, and if it’s McCain, Obama runs by far the best against him:
INDEPENDENTS FLOCK TO OBAMA Obama benefited from a rule that allows California voters registered as “decline to state” to cast ballots in the Democratic primary. Nearly one in five of those surveyed identified themselves “independent or something else,” and they preferred Obama about 2-1 over Clinton.
http://www.10news.com/news/15229559/detail.html
This from the San Diego area that went by far to the Clintons, so it’s hardly an Obama biased source.
McCain’s ONLY way to victory is by drawing on Independents as the Rep base will not enthusiastically support him. Obama completely erodes that chance for McCain. If it’s another Rep running, they are all so flawed they don’t stand a chance in the general.
So there you go…your argument is based on a false premise that Obama is the one with the limited appeal…add to that his unsurpassed ability to GROW the Dem party, and he deserves not just caucusing, but wholehearted support FOR him…something I haven’t felt for a very long time as it’s usually about which is the lessor of two evils.
********
@ 64 correctnotright says:
…As far the the obama flip-flops – prove it. His health care plan is as close to Universal care as Hillary – who hasn’t said how she will enforce universal mandatory coverage (evasion and triangulation again). …
Ah, but she has started to elaborate how to enforce those pesky unenforceable (the Mass plan proves it) mandates…
Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., this morning left open the possibility that, if elected, her government would garnish the wages of people who didn’t comply with her health care plan. “We will have an enforcement mechanism, whether it’s that or it’s some other mechanism through the tax system or automatic enrollments,” Clinton said in an appearance on “This Week with George Stephanopoulos”.
http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek.....038;page=1
That ought to be an easy sell to Mitch McConnell opposition, don’t ya think? ;0
G Davis: Why does Clinton still appear on George Steponallofus? He still takes direction from them…
I don’t know Puddy…but if he’s still taking orders from her, he ought to inform her of his questions so she doesn’t say more stupid stuff like she’ll garnish wages.
Good god, can you imagine what the right will do with that in a general election?
Blech..