Jane!

Thanks for help in the last thread. I got a reply together and will now shovel.

Last night was effectively a tie, with both candidates having upsides and downsides in certain areas.

Like others, though, I don’t see how this doesn’t go all the way to the convention.

Yep, that’s the rub for me, too. I can’t say I’m happy about that outcome…

I just posted a response downthread, I don’t know if you saw it in time for your response.

Jane: I disagree with you fundamentally. Obama was way behind going into California and basically was in a fight to both catch her and move beyond her. Many people in California had voted early when Clinton was dominant. Look at the demographics of NM to see how strong Obama is in many of these areas. Basically this (and most of the other state results) suggests how weak Clinton is. And, with money problems it won’t get better soon. By the way on women, younger women are polling Obama it is the elderly woman who are going with Clinton principally.

For entertainment value, I like that it’s going to the convention. Laying up a big supply of popcorn.

Way to call it Jane!

“Clinton SMOKED Obama in the hard-to-reach areas of SoCal and the Central Valley.”

I wonder why that was? Everyone is talking about how Obama is grapping up the Red States, but the Inland Empire is pretty conservative too. I wonder at the disparity.

Really missing John Edwards. He pulled everything to the left. And he may be the main reason the Fox debate didn’t happen last time.

Like others, though, I don’t see how this doesn’t go all the way to the convention.

I’m leaning in that direction myself, Jane.

Here in Missouri, the electoral map for the democratic primary looks like a general election map of dems and the GOP. Obama took KC, St. Louis, and Columbia (home of U of Missouri), while Clinton took the rest of the state.

Both sides can spin this to their advantage. For Obama, it could appear to be that he had more traditional party support (McCaskill) and excited GOTV workers, and thus would have the regular Democratic partisans in the Democratic strongholds more fired up than Clinton would. Alternatively, Clinton could say that because of her showing in the sticks, she would be better positioned to fight in the GOP areas of the state should she get the nomination.

This ain’t over in Missouri, even after the votes are counted.

“Elderly?”

You might want to use another word.

I live in the Central Valley in California. I was shocked at the results as this place is blood red. Even Kings and Kern counties broke for Clinton. It’s a head scratcher.

It was snark. I think the Demographic is post 50.

Arizona is another interesting factor on the HRC & BO race…. BO has had staff here and offices for several months working all over the state, going to the district meetings & the quarterly state meetings. HRC office opened after Iowa and slower to put surrogates out there at events. The Gov endorsed BO plus Rep. Grajalva switching switching his endorsement from Edwards to BO.

HRC still won by around 30K votes. It has been nonstop BO & HRC ads on TeeVee for weeks. Both have been here and HRC & Bill several times in the last few months.

Large number of voters voted early & mail-in ballots prior to the Edwards dropout. Voting started Jan 7th. That is a big problem when things change so much.

DKos diarist sees it differently:

After winning no states on March 4th, Clinton will have no choice but to drop out on March 5th. Obama’s delegate lead will be too much even if Michigan and Florida were to be counted. The Super Delegates, wanting to ensure their own job security and have access to the new White House, will line up behind the winner of the majority of the elected delegates.

we shall see…

Hmm, if the numbers I saw are correct, Obama won more delegates and more states. I don’t see how that’s not a win for him.

Us elderly post-50 women are mighty sensitive to such snarks. *g*

A few visits in the week before wasn’t enough to do the trick, and California is so huge that it takes a while to set up the ground game.

That said, the polls for Cali were all over the map, but it’s really not a surprise to see Clinton holding onto her main firewall, just as it’s not a surprise to see her win New York. What is surprising is to see Obama winning heavily-white states like Utah and being competitive in New Mexico (not to mention winning Minnesota by a huge margin, a state Clinton had been picked to win by seven, and edging Clinton in Missouri).

Obama won more states. Hillary won slightly more delegates.

Does California vote in this primary again or am I missing something?

Not according to this:

http://www.politico.com/news/s…../8358.html

New post from dday at Calitics

Yeah I’ve noticed that a lot of people think calling women like me “over the hill” is funny — in fact is seems to be the dominant narrative with regard to Hillary Clinton — but I must confess I miss the joke.

I thought I heard the reverse this morning. I stand corrected.

So when did Rashamon enter the race and is he/she Moslem like Obama or cold and teary eyed like Clinton?

Last night was our primary.

I live south of SF. My county (San Mateo) and Santa Clara county broke about even for Hillary and Obama. Would have thought Hillary would do much better.

I understand the point about California and Massachusetts as well as not winning demographics Obama has been making enormous efforts to attract. However, he was down by a huge margin nationally and closed that. Also the fact that most Dems are happy with either candidate means that Clinton winning California and Mass is not an indication of Obama’s inability to win them in the general. He would.

Yesterday documented a great deal of momentum for Obama with Clinton still winning impressively in important states. Until yesterday Clinton had a noticeable delegate lead. Now it is relatively less noticeable. Parity in appeal nationally, rough equity in delegates, and losing ground in money is not a sign of Clinton strength.

I am happy with either candidate, I prefer one or the other depending on the day. But in terms of electioneering, I cannot see yesterday as a net positive for Clinton. Obama does have more work cut out for him, but what about Clinton? She is losing voters in key demographics every day. Which demographic has been sizably growing for her? She is holding, not building, a constituency. She needs to change that to keep superdelegates on board with her.

Someone pointed out yesterday that a substantial amount of absentee votes were cast prior to the Kennedy endorsements, which may have had an effect on the outcome.

Having attracted a lot of national attention, I’ll be interested to see how that drills down to unearthing more detailed information on Obama.

I think the headline you link is “Obama CLAIMS more delegates.” With a million absentee ballots yet to be counted in California (according to Frank Russo), I don’t think there is an accurate total yet.

That very well could be. From what I saw at my precinct yesterday, there were more people than ever by a wide margin.

I think, aside from appealing to the blogosphere, if Obama rejects the Fox debate, he can hurt Clinton using the money advantage he has. She needs the Fox debate for the free air.

I have a lot of problems with commenters and the pundits. Obama performs miracles even when he loses. I would have thought the Kennedy/Kerry/Dewal endorsements in Mass would have helped. But, no, the hype did not matter. This morning the MSNBC folks were going on and on about Obama. Conclusion: If Hillary wins a state wow Obama came from far back to just within reach. If Obama wins the electorate, all wise and powerful, has done the right thing. The intellectual dishonesty is simply striking. My guess is that this will be a close run thing and neither candidate can afford to ignore the other side. If they do then we will, as we often do, snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Cliche: yes, true: yes.

I’ll never get over “the Hill” if she loses to McCain.

Ah-ha, well, luckily I did include my caveat of “if these are correct!

Going into last night, I thought a push would be a (marginal) win for Obama, because he seems to have the mo, but what do I know?

Yer crackin me up here.
Over the hill?
Don’t make me laugh.
You got it goin’ on, trust me on this.

Just a reminder: everyone knows that whatever the result on the Democratic side, it’s always good news for the Republicans.

/snark

That wasn’t the point. But rather, that the demographics seem to suggest that it is an age issue, not a gender one. In short, California is not a good model on this because of the early voting and how much distance Obama had to make up.

According to the Field poll taken from Jan. 25 – Feb. 1, Clinton won 32% of absentee voters to Obama’s 31% (Kennedy endorsed on the 26th). I’ve heard a lot of people say that Clinton won California based on votes cast early in the cycle but have yet to see anyone cite backup for it.

I’ll never get over “the Hill” if she loses to McCain.

Your are not over the hill? *g

The Clinton campaign in California is almost old enough to vote. It started in 1988, when Bill made his disastrous national convention keynote. Holding Hillary Clinton to 52% in a state where she’s permanently been campaigning (and raising money) for her entire public career is a very significant accomplishment.

Obama’s Massachusetts loss was due to the Boston machine’s efforts for Clinton, and her support among pols who apparently wield a GOTV machine. So much for the Kerry and Kennedy endorsements. Maybe someone will challenge them in their primaries.

Clinton lost San Francisco despite the Feinstein and Newsom endorsements. Her victory means Los Angeles Mayor Villaraigosa will probably be our next governor, as he proved he can move votes.

When will Barbara Boxer commit to a nominee? Tweety said last night she’d said she’s endorse after the California primary. Has anyone heard from her today?

Me too Jane- another example of clueless sexism- a real knee-slapper, eh?

I am still going on the inevitable candidacy that Sen. Clinton was pushing for most of the campaign.

She ran almost as an incumbent and now she’s in the fight for her life by a political newcomer.

That’s my frame and I’m sticking with it.

-G

P.S. I am voting for whoever wins the Democratic nomination, let me state that loudly and proudly.

With all due respect, do you get that you just called me an “old bag” and that there are a lot of women to whom that IS going to be the point?

And then there is Texas with a large Hispanic population, a small black population and 195 delegates to be decided on March 5th. The news headlines in this state are already touting Texas as the “Decider.”
I believe Texas will go for Hillary.

Quick gut check: if Hillary had been in Barack’s position in regard to position in the polls and delegates two weeks ago and performed as Barack did last night, would you think Hillary would had failed yesterday or that Barack had “won”?

I looked at the exit polling from CA and Clinton won or tied Obama in EVERY age group. Her win was huge.

When Huckabee wins Texas, I might not ever stop laughing.

I think yesterday was a tie and factors on both sides make it difficult to draw any conclusions about the rest of the primaries.

Except that they are also likely to be a tie, more or less.

Thus a fun convention.

CA was not a devastating loss. Did they have a realistic chance? Probably not, considering the absentee ballots already cast. Jane’s post regarding FL breakdowns clearly shows how that has been an advantage to HRC in several states.

Was it a media let down? Yes. Everyone wanted to have some drama to cover. But we should focus on the fact that this will play for awhile and make sure that all the Democratic voters have a chance to be heard. For me that has been the best part of this race. Nobody by the end of this thing can claim that the voters didn’t have a voice (unless it goes down to Superdelegates overriding seated elected delegate. (That could be a huge problem).

Teddy, when is Arnie due for his next election? And is it expected that Villaraigosa will run against him?

-G

Second that, but unlike Jane, I am an old bag.

I don’t know what the hell tweety is talking about. Boxer said on Young Turks yesterday that her Super Delegate vote would go to the person who won California. She did not say anything about endorsing. No one cares about DiFi’s recomendations, she a DINO anyway.

But, as I recall, it was also noted that the early reports would be heavily pro-Clinton because those were the write-ins. So, it suggests a somewhat different story. To make any sense of this you have to look at the differences between two weeks ago and today, at key places such as Missouri, and what happens in the next coupld of weeks going forward which look very good for Obama.

And BTW, Richmond, I like you. I think you just might want to take a step or two back on this one. I don’t think you meant it badly, you just might want to consider how people are hearing it — and how it takes quite a bit to get past something like that thrown into the middle of a sentence.

I never called you that. For what it is worth, I assumed you were thirty. Nor, do/did I have any idea who you voted for. So, I assumed you were speaking generically.

Okay, I don’t think “write-ins” means what you think it means, and please take advantage of internet technology and use links. I genuinely want to know where people are getting their information because there is different stuff floating all over the toobz and it makes it difficult to compare if you can’t look at source material.

Sessions sez that because U.S. use of torture wasn’t as bad as what Japanese & Germans did, U.S. is therefore morally not culpable.

I think Hillary will win Texas, but do you think we can carry it in November?

I think VA, OH and PA will be the deciders. Three big swing states. If they break significantly either way it will be determinative IMHO.

Step backward taken. Frankly, I was being partissan (which we tend to try to do better on here). But, I usually agree with your posts, and this one I (personally) thought was inaccurate, hence my comment. But, my apologies to you and others offended.

Obama’s California defeat was devastating

I couldn’t agree more. Mass. and NJ aren’t good omens either.

I’ll fight to the death for HRC to be President if she’s the nominee but I think Obama has more potential to quell the Republicans. HRC too much baggage and I feel she’d be using alot of her energy fighting the Republicans if she were elected. I hope Obama can move forward.

I’m 48 and I didn’t vote for anyone, nor will I — I’m in Virginia and you have to register 30 days before the primary, I missed the deadline.

Richmond, some of us old bags were in the midst of politics when you were very young, or didn’t exist at all. We elders vote and I voted for Edwards and will always vote for Dems. Maybe the old bags should form a party – or maybe just have a party.

Take away the super delegates and Obama seems to be surging with the voters.

If this trend continues he will rack up more delegates than Hill going forward. Then the super delegates will feel pressure to honor the wishes of the people.

It would be terribly elitist if they (the big guys) gave it to Clinton if OBI had even slightly more delegates.

Jeffy Sessions can bite me.

Your are not over the hill? *g

couple of years shy. I’m a wise-guy beyond my ears.

Fooled me! :-)

I’ll drink to that.

Excuse me! Find where I said “over the hill” or “old bags.” And, you have no idea who I am.

Hmmm. I’m going to add another angle here. A prolonged Democratic primary is good for either of the Dem candidates.

It helps Obama in particular, because he’s running against the “inevitable” nominee. She’s not looking all that inevitable at this point, and the longer it goes, the better his chances.

But I think it also helps Hillary. Her biggest problem in the general is that a lot of people have an irrational hatred of her, and that hatred tends to subside when people actually start listening to her and getting to know her. A prolonged primary battle is a going to give her a lot of free press, and people are going to see that she doesn’t really have snakes for hair, and she doesn’t turn people to stone with her gaze. I think that’s what happened in her 2000 Senate run. When she first announced, a lot of people reacted as though the anti-Christ was running. As the race went on, she picked up support, and it ended up being a blowout. She has a lot to gain from a prolonged primary battle, particularly if she wins in the end and picks Obama as her running mate.

I am an old salt and proud of it. Not tatts, or piercings either. hahaha

Me too.

But this is just too much to digest. Giants. Super Bowl. Super Tuesday. I’ll catch up on all this political stuff sooner or later. I guess they all gotta do some tweaking here and there and spend shitloads of money. We’ll see.

Durbin gave an eye opening speech Amazing!

Exactly. I think Jane was channeling Tweety on this post.

Off topic: Why do all TV news political coverage sets look like the engine room of a 25th century gay disco interstellar cruise ship?

All I know last night is that before the returns Jerome Armstrong was quoted as being good at predicting these things and was cited as predicting Hillary Clinton would win 15 of 22, including California.

http://firedoglake.com/2008/02…..edictions/

Turns out Obama did lose California, but the scorecard read 13 for him and 8 for Clinton.

If the expectations gave was cited to be the prevailing wisdom of those in the know, then Obama had a hell of a night.

But the fact that Clinton held serve in California means it was a draw and not a rout for Obama.

And on we go.

I just now found out I get to go to Voter Registration and straighten out why I can’t find my name on the list of voters for either of the two neighboring towns I have lived in for the past five years.

And , BTW, for being the same age, you look to be half my age.

Dahlink, you look FAAAABULOUS.

What did the conservatives used to say about moral relativity anyway?

-G

I just hope that whom ever wins will bring unity to our party.
I heard an Hispanic leader in LA say that Hispanics just dont like blacks. he made no apologies.

Jne said that you should consider how some people would hear your remarks, not just what they say, and that some would hear them as old bags, etc. And so they did. Escaping the discussion thru recourse to literalism doesn’t address the substance.

As for me, 30 years on Wall St. drilled out all my sensitivity to those kinds of remarks. But there’s no reason why every (senior) woman should be expected to have been desensitized.

I made it through the 80’s without a mullet, the 90’s without a tattoo and the 00’s without a yellow ribbon magnet on my car.

-G

Don’t be so defensive. This is supposed to be a good day – enjoy it. You need to lighten up a bit. I don’t know you but I would like to meet all those here. We could have some interesting conversations without yelling, I’ll bet.

hmmm . . . I thought everyone over thirty is “elderly.”

[ducks]

Since I’m 58, that makes me a GOFFO — Grumpy Old Fart For Obama.

In my precinct caucus last night, 92 people showed up — there were 5 last time. The viability threshold was 14, and there were 16 Hillary supporters in the straw poll. The age/gender/race demographics were not a factor — members of all groups supported both candidates.

While I admire Hillary’s knowledge and experience, Obama’s charisma is the real deal. And if you don’t think charisma matters, ask President Kerry how his first term is going.

IOKIYAR

From what I have observed in Central California. Your remark is spot on about the way the two groups get along here.

But I think it also helps Hillary. Her biggest problem in the general is that a lot of people have an irrational hatred of her, and that hatred tends to subside when people actually start listening to her and getting to know her. A prolonged primary battle is a going to give her a lot of free press, and people are going to see that she doesn’t really have snakes for hair, and she doesn’t turn people to stone with her gaze. I think that’s what happened in her 2000 Senate run. When she first announced, a lot of people reacted as though the anti-Christ was running. As the race went on, she picked up support, and it ended up being a blowout.

FrankProbst: Thanks for this perspective. I had never thought of it that way. If she is the nominee, I hope your perspective holds out in November!

I never even considered on of those yellow ribbons, why bother?
Magnets don’t stick to rust…….

Jane, this is the most sensible response I have read thus far to the Super Tuesday results. I fail to see how an Obama partisan could be anything but disappointed in his performance yesterday. Yes, he did well, and yes, the fact that the nomination contest will continue for awhile is a good thing, but up until the votes were counted, there was a palpable feeling in the Obamasphere that he could finish Clinton off yesterday. In fact, he underperformed rather spectacularly when measured against those unrealistic expectations.

When Kos finally commits to a candidate, he dons the rose-colored glasses, crosses to the sunny side of the street and puts on a happy face. So he’s playing it as a magnificent Obama victory. But try as they might, he, Matt and others can’t make the results out to be something they weren’t.

However, I doubt that the irresolution will continue all the way to the convention. I don’t expect either of the remaining candidates to concede the nomination before then, but I think it will be clear how the vote will go before the convention convenes.

98% of New Mexico counted Obama leads Clinton by 71 votes.

Texas has a strong grassroots organization for the Democrates. Remember Tom Delay?? He is reviled in this state and the redistricting fiasco that he engineered plays against the Republicans. Yes, I think the Democrates will carry Texas in November!

Jane, you are a breath of fresh air in the Obama smoke-filled progressive blogger rooms; and the reason why I come here first (since the Plame/Libby days) to get some sense of perspective. The chutzpah about Obama “winning” more states is beyond bizarre when Hill clearly won big in the populous states that Democrats need to win. CA, AZ, NY, NJ, MA… these are the big, populous, Blue states. Despite the huge media bias against Hill, and the massive Obama cheerleading that took off after SC – the Kennedy, Shriver endorsements that strategically got repeated play in the week leading to Super Tuesday, the democratic voters refused to bite and stuck with the first woman candidate with a chance at the Presidency. This is huge! I couldn’t care less what the testosterone, misogynistic (to be charitable, they may not be aware of this but it is there) crowd spins this as, Hill won big!

I live in a charisma-free zone. As far as I can remember, I’ve never been impressed by anyone on that score, and have always distrusted those who others thought had charisma. From my POV, Obama makes a good speech, and that’s it.

AGEISM:

It gets so tiring to listen to. I get tired of hearing about Hillary’s age (sheesh she’s only in her 50s) and as much as I hate the rethugs I get tired of hearing about McCain’s unfitness for office because he’s in his 70s and Grandpa Fred. Both of them are unfit for office but age has nothing to do with it.

“If you aren’t my relative, you aren’t moral”?

Jane, this is the most sensible response I have read thus far to the Super Tuesday results. I fail to see how an Obama partisan could be anything but disappointed in his performance yesterday. … there was a palpable feeling in the Obamasphere that he could finish Clinton off yesterday. In fact, he underperformed rather spectacularly when measured against those unrealistic expectations.

Only for “unrealistic” Obama partisans.

Both Clinton and Obama each have a fair share of those, but c’mon it’s not a terribly broad based disease.

And the polling shows most of the rank & file really likes both of these people. I’m one of them.

But please do not put words in my mouth I did not say (or think). I was looking at demographics – it is the plus-fifty group of women, NOT the under -fifty women who are the key Clinton supporters so to say this is a priori about gender is inaccurate.

I believe Hillary’s just 60, but agree with what you say. Stick to important qualifications, not age alone. If advanced age means you’re senile, like Reagan, that’s substantive. Otherwise no.

For what it’s worth they reports now are that Obi has won more delegates than Hill.

Who has the momentum? You tell me.

The easiest metric to understand, especially for innumerate Americans, is “who won the most states?” By focusing their efforts on caucuses and small-state primaries (and perhaps with Ned’s endorsement in Connecticut) the Obama campaign swamped the most easily understood metric 13-8.

This bodes well for their appeal and messaging for the fall, in my view. Make things very easy to understand and digest, especially when up against a warmonger maniac like McCain, who is neither a maverick nor a moderate.

There were three ways to “win” yesterday:
1. Win the most states (Obama rout)
2. Win the most delegates (likely a tie)
3. Win California (Clinton in the popular vote, have we seen delegate counts yet?)

No one can be said to have decisively won California until we see delegate counts, especially when Clinton’s twenty-year campaign yields only 52% of the popular vote. A Super Tuesday tie favors the insurgent. The next six contests (LA, WA, NE, VA, DC, MD) may all favor Obama.

Having barely tied up Super Tuesday, how will Clinton spin six losses in a row?

I still don’t get selecting a candidate based on charisma.

“They make me feel good” is for choosing sex toys, not Presidents.

Dominant narrative? I dunno, Jane. I’ve heard quite a bit of bullshit about Hillary, but don’t think her age has dominated the discussion. As for insults to you, I’d like to think either you’ve misconstrued something or a commentor has been sloppy in articulating his thoughts. I do it all the time. Mean no harm and don’t think any was intended here by Richmond. Still, it seems like fodder for a robust discussion of an important enough issue (i.e. disparate treatment of age in men and women), so…. by all means, carry on. Not that you need my permission.

OT — Meanwhile 5 undersea cables have been cut, apparently isolating Iran…

Here’s what happened in WWII:

“At the outset of the war, the Germans had five transatlantic cables that ran through the English Channel. One went to Brest in France, another to Vigo in Spain, one to Tenerife in North Africa and two to New York via the Azores. The English cable ship Telconia cut them all in England’s first offensive action in the war. This left a cable that ran between West Africa and Brazil that was largely American-owned that the Germans could use. In short order the allies ended that source of direct cable communications with the overseas world.”

From my vantage, Hillary threw it all away when she co-sponsored the flag bill, promoted the Iraq war, and is dishonest – trying to challenge the Nevada caucus places, going in to campaign in Florida, leaving her name on Michigan. And, equally importantly, you cannot peel Bill from Hillary and that will sink them in any election.

I’m charisma challenged myself.

I probably should have voted for Nixon.

The Obis did not think that they would trounce Hill on supa tues. But they are showing momentum. And the inevitability of Hill and the machine DLC machine is proving not that inevitable.

Either one is not what I would like. Either of them is a world better than any R.

We need to drown the R meme once and for all.

Hillary Clinton is 60.

Thanks :-) – Also running on super Tuesday sleep deprivation, Patrots loss, and too much work.

One thing that every D should be grateful to Obama for is that he is signing up lots of new D voters. We need that.

Jane, you are a breath of fresh air in the Obama smoke-filled progressive blogger rooms;

You are killin me over here!

Busted:
I second that!! Someone needs to check themselves.

Doc, you are ascribing too much head space to the masses.

Unfortunately it’s all an image thing. The people are completely driven by advertising themes and approaches. Substance is way over their heads.

A prolonged primary battle is a going to give [Hillary] a lot of free press, and people are going to see that she doesn’t really have snakes for hair, and she doesn’t turn people to stone with her gaze. I think that’s what happened in her 2000 Senate run. When she first announced, a lot of people reacted as though the anti-Christ was running. As the race went on, she picked up support, and it ended up being a blowout.

The more Hillary campaigned, the more she won over Upstate New Yorkers, who are the antithesis of the NYC stereotype, and closer to the Fox News demographic. Hillary is very good on most issues, and Obama’s lack of experience is his greatest weakness.

We have two very good candidates, and we should be very strong in November no matter who prevails.

I don’t have a clue about Texas, and I live here. It’s been so long since the Democratic vote was a factor. There is a large hispanic population, but the black population is considerable, particularly in about the eastern 1/3 of Texas where the largest populations are. If it followed earlier patterns, Houston and Dallas would probably go for Obama, whereas San Antonio and South Texas would go for Clinton. Still, Sheila Jackson Lee is a Clinton campaign staff member.

There are some liberal college students, but I don’t believe as many as in other states. I really don’t have a clue. The only thing I can say for sure is that I see a lot fewer Bush bumper stickers than I used to.

“Exactly. I think Jane was channeling Tweety on this post.”

Tweety? The most misogynistic anti-democrat, anti-Clintonista out there equated with Jane moderately pointing out the obvious? It goes to show how far to the pro-Obama side the field has tilted. How is this any different from the wingnut imbalance on the right?

Never mind my 101. I read the rest of te comments. They made up. No robust discussion after all. Goin’ back to lurkin’.

I don’t see yesterday as anything except a victory for HRC. The media drumbeat on the ’surge’ for BO was turned back. Caucus states are an abomination on democracy in my mind. The crowd (mob) mentality around BO scares me.

When Janet and Raul endorsed BO here in Arizona you would have thought that might have carried the state, but it wasn’t very close. HRC still carried Pima County (Tucson) by 52-45 and the TV coverage for BO was pretty extensive here.

I think the money race will start to even out. The Clinton machine knows how to raise money.

It will take some time but it will be over before the convention.

Experience does not matter in a president.

Bush proved that. Anyone can be president. Is that good? hell no.

You get elected and then assemble the team which does 99.9% of everything. Here boss read this, sign this.

Exactly! A lot of dictators make good speeches (not calling anyone a dictator) but, the point is, that is not the attribute we should follow. And how about Michelle Obama? How unhelpful is that? If Barack doesn’t get the nomination she won’t vote for Hillary! That’s a meaness that doesn’t play well with me.

FormerFed, were you once TiredFed?

if so, congrats on your retirement!

Now in “lighten mode” but wasn’t so thrilled with people saying i said what I didnot say, and using that fiction to attack.

While I am partial towards Obama(since Edwards dropped out), there are some Obama people that need to chill out. You are right about Tweety. it’s truly disgusting if someone thinks that Jane is parroting Tweety talking points.

What is it with New Mexico and razor thin margins of victory?

-G

In fact, he underperformed rather spectacularly when measured against those unrealistic expectations.

The realists didn’t have unrealistic expectations and were therefore pretty happy with the results.

Not that Sen. Clinton did too shabby.

I still predict a Clinton/Obama ticket.

Easy with the dictator crap.

-G

Regarding money: Obama raised thirty-two million dollars in January alone. Clinton’s camp says they raised more than ten million, and won’t be more specific. Of course, they could have raised fifty million and still have reasons to be shy about that. But I doubt it.

The Clinton campaign may be on fumes, and tapped out with its $4600 donors.

There are a whole bunch of people that need to chill.

Hillary wins big in California. So, that means Hillary would win California in Nov., but not Barack? Barack won Illinois big, but Hillary wouldn’t in Nov.? The point is that both Dem candidates will win the solid Blue States. The question to be answered is which Dem has the best chance to win enough of the few swing states that determine the winner? If we look at both candidates, Barack can draw more Independents and Republican lites. I believe the strongest Dem ticket is Obama/Webb. I’m listening…

Nonsense. I would bet that she will campaign for Hill if she is the nominee.

Obama is not the anointed old boy/gal candidate and he didn’t have the machine on his side.

He is coming from the outside (more or less) and he is doing remarkably well at inspiring lots of people to get involved. HE may be responsible for MOST of the new voters in the party. And the party needs them in November.

But who put out those false expectations? Media, they always like to make it a balanced fight. The reality was that from the outset what the Obama folks wanted to do was to keep Clinton within a hundred delegates. And, they succeeded at that and more.

I’m getting a more and more worried about this coming to a head with Iran.

-G

Good Morning Jane I really like your post.
I have a few thoughts to add; The progessive agenda and where it goes is much more important to me than candidate that is why I support Edwards he made the case.
Clintons love to talk progressive, then move to the center. The Blue Dogs will throw her more support money and political backing like DiFi,
The people progressive have had trouble moving of off accomodating conservatives like Pelosi, Reid and Hoyer are looking for Clinton to carry that mail.
We need that progressive agenda. The dems voters were really great and came out in droves magnifying greatly the possibility for change. The repubs was so wounded by the Bushco record a lot were no shows for the primes but more %may come out for the general. The difference is a huge opportunity.
The netroots will have to roll up their sleeves and hammer on the progressive agenda. Do we have the power?

No, I’ve been retired a long, long time!!

Teddy I heard (CNBC yesterday I think,no link sorry) that 2/3 of her donors had reached their limits.

Driveby *wave* to everyone:

But the campaign will go on, which will put renewed pressure on smaller bore fare, like Hillary Clinton’s acceptance of a Fox News debate . . .

Obama on Faux noise here and here. The preznit following through on his committment to AIDs *cough* Surge has brought down violence *cough, hack*

I think the money matters…but by this point does it matter as much as early on?

I would think that Clinton can command a LOT of free media coverage. It’s just her and Obama and the race is so compelling and close (and now unusual in so many ways) it will get all the media coverage they could want.

Dont forget HILLARY VOTED FOR THE WAR IN IRAQ. She won’t get my support for that reason alone.

There’s a band in Athens called the “Dictatortots”!

Look

The Obama campaign attached an Excel spreadsheet containing “state-by-state estimates of the pledged delegates we won last night, which total 845 for Obama and 836 for Clinton — bringing the to-date total of delegates to 908 for Obama, 884 for Clinton.”

apropos of dictator crap

Richmond, that sentence with the highlighted part was lifted off of someone elses post, I was responding to that and didn’t put it in quotes.

All in all it was a pretty good day for the Democrats.

The GOP has got to be sweating the numbers.

-G

I like kidding about my age. I truly enjoy being older. There are so many things I don’t have to do any more but I still enjoy laughing – a lot.

That has got to be about the best line ever…

I still don’t get selecting a candidate based on charisma.

“They make me feel good” is for choosing sex toys, not Presidents.

Charisma should never be the reason why you vote for a candidate, but all else being relatively equal it sure helps.

Think about the last several presidential elections. Loved Gore, he lost partly because the media harped on his personality. Kerry – same deal. Go back further Mondale, Dukakis… Let’s face it a presidential election is partly a sales job and you have to be a salesman to clinch the vote. Bill Clinton – great salesman. That’s why he won. Ronald Reagan, great salesman. Again – he won.

I don’t like that voters decide this way, but they apparently do. So I’d rather meet or even exceed the charisma gap than have another very well qualified candidate go down history as “should have won.”

Whatta mental image…;)

I dunno. It was alot of primaries. i don’t think anybody sensible on either side could have gotten their hopes up too high. they do have sensible people on both sides don’t they?. I mean, in the last few weeks, Obama made up gorund in the big states (NY, NJ, CA, MA) he wound up losing, no? They (Obama people) really can’t be devastated by last night’s results. The Repubs are more interesting to me this morning what with Romney getting all pissed about Huckabee and McCain doin’ a tag team on him. At least Willard sez so.

Because the post was obviously tilted and possibly delusional if the assertions were altruistic. Obama made huge gains in Cali in the last few weeks and the appearance as of now, is that he is peaking at the right time. And, if Drudge is right, Clinton is having to dip into her own “Romney Money” while Obama has the ability to hit up prior donors – remember, he outraised her 3-1 last month alone.

Sorry, but the analysis doesn’t add up.

Ok. I didn’t look at the earlier one. Yes it was an excellent day. And, imagine the republicans trying to sort through the huckabee-Mccain mess.

The dictatortots at My Dung Video. Apologies to Ho Chi Minh.

I’m sorry, but it is not deification. I was just pointing out that “chrisma” is a dangerous road to follow. Many have followed chrisma and been led over the cliff. We need to look at substance and issues.

Great post, Jane. Not sure what they’re drinking (or maybe smoking?) over at OpenLeft but they really called this one wrong.

BTW, CNN now has the delegate count at Clinton 825, Obama 732.

All I want for chrisma is my two fwont teef

:-)

The other day on msnbc, Boxer said, as super delegate, she would support the candidate who wins in California.

Yeah. And I’ve bnever heard Jane string together 7 questions in one breath and then demand a yes or no answer. Tweety does that alot. Annoys me to no end.

c’mon it’s not a terribly broad based disease.

It strikes me as being considerably more broad based on the Obama side of the divide than on the Clinton. This is a question of inner feeling and emotional response, but I’ll stick with my notion that Obama fans have a sense of underachievement as a result of yesterday’s outcome. Granted, many Obama supporters are as grounded as Clinton supporters, but the efforts of some to present Super Tuesday as a significant Obama triumph are simply not realistic.

It is simple. In the current atmosphere (especially at MSNBC) it is heads, Obama wins, tails, Hillary loses. Except for KO’s newshour, which I’m not willing to let go despite his unfortunate lapses into Tweety-like behavior, I have given up on MSNBC for any information on the democratic race. Even CNN is less biased relatively, and I am still digesting yesterday’s media analysis report that stated that Faux News was more balanced than the rest of the MSM TV outlets when it came to coverage of Hillary and Obama.

Charisma (as discussed by Weber and others since) is actually a very positive thing, i.e. the ability to convince others of matters important to one. Jane has charisma for example. FDR had it. What is bad is charisma used for bad ends. The problem with Kerry was that he had zero charisma. Reagan had great charisma, alas he used it to effectuate awful changes.

Obama outspent Clinton over 3 to 1 and still lost.

Facts are stupid things, something by a guy whose approach to politics Obama admires.

what will bill do ? besides that/?

I too am very fearful of how charisma fuels the rise of authoritarian rulers – aka dictators.

Charismatic religious conservative “leaders” have massaged their parishoners into supporting plutocrats who destroy their parishoners’ jobs and communiites for three decades now.

Reagan and Shrub spilled rivers of blood, cheered on by voters with strong emotional connections to the candidate and zero factual knowledge.

In my own religious community, I’ve had the opportunity to watch a charismatic single leader use that charisma to conceal predators on the organization’s paid staff. In academic medicine, I watched a charismatic predator effectively destroy an entire department’s asset base. But he had great suits and really good teeth.

I’m very glad to see the explicit connection between charisma and dictatorship raised here.

(and no, I’m not suggesting Obama will be a dictator…so we can let that rhetorical canard go back to eating slugs…)

I imagine they’ll accept the Fox News debate challenge and don’t think netroots opposition to it will play a factor in the decision.

I wouldn’t mind the debate if they were given some concessions

for instance, they would need guarantees that all media would have free access to the footage

I would also insist they get some kind of guarantee the repukelicans would debate on air america

since I don’t think either will happen, I am really surprised they are even talking about it and if obama wants to gain some ground I think he should say’

“hillary can debate herself on fox because they are neither fair nor ballanced and until the republicans guarantee a debate on air america I will not debate on faux news”

Within 100, that was the plan. And these list it depends on who/what is being counted, super delegates etc.

Jane, I think your assessment is right on target. One factor that should be addressed regarding Hillary’s ability to capture the Independent and Republican vote will be her VP choice. My guess is that it will be Wes Clark. His credentials would sway a lot of conservatives who are on the fence.
Caucus votes are not a true reflection of the Democratic process. Our state used to have them, and they’re hellish. They take up hours of your time, thus most people don’t show up. And in my opinion, a show of hands is not a very valid way to count. Dominating big mouths typically take over the process and sway the vote. Private voting booths provide a much more accurate reflection of what voters REALLY think. The caucus procedure should be done away with completely!!

True. Can’t be an effete snob about this election stuff. Showmanship or likeability or whatever it is, is a good thing.

He did not have the Clinton machine to begin with. And, now she is broke, and not likely to get much more from her super wealthy supporters (not to offend anyone here :-). Obama has lots more where his earlier historically high funds came from.

If I was the Obama campaign I’d be scratching my head this morning going “what do we do for an encore?”

Just go out and win a few more.

I can see moderate Dems voting for McCain if they value “experience”. It worked for Lieberman in Connecticut. Clinton won big over Obama with those voters who valued experience. The fight between McCain and Obama will come down to who is able to create a bipartisan coalition to “get things done”. McCain can point to all the bills he has cosponsored with Democrats as proof that he is a “uniter”. He is already changing to that message and that is why the Republican base is having hissy fits.

I think it sould not be a given that all Dems will move to Obama in the fall, especially if they value experience.

“What do we do for an encore?”
Two words: Al Gore

Wes Clark’s near launching of WWIII in the Balkan’s still leaves me rather reticent to support him on any ticket.

-G

Yup. Keep choppin’.

McCain: 100 more years of war; Obama: not. That is the message that will come through.

This weekend: Louisiana, Nebraska, Washington
Next Tuesday: Virginia, Maryland, District of Columbia

It was alot of primaries. i don’t think anybody sensible on either side could have gotten their hopes up too high. they do have sensible people on both sides don’t they?

And a lot of Obama’s wins were in caucus states, not primaries, for whatever that means. Agreed that it was not sensible to get hopes too high on either side, but my reading of the usual sites surely saw a lot of it. Yes, sensible people are on both sides, but the more some try to make yesterday look like a big Obama victory, the less sensible things become.

Yup. And like it or not, HRC can unite people against her.

This is assuming that Hillary has no chrisma. That’s a negative that has been overplayed. Have you watched her townhall meetings lately? She has mastered the warm but articulate image and never hesitates to answer each and every question in clear and euridite responses. The more people see her, the more they respect her. She’s never intense and never off key.

I think FOX news is just as fair and balanced as MSNBC anymore. I’ll never watch that channel again. The whole MSNBC bunch must have fallen on a tree limb and got the same anti-Hillary stick wedged up their collective asses!!

I observe that if Hillary wins the nomination and later the election, given all the resistance in the past, she goes in with a clear mandate for specific policies that will be hard to dispute. Specificity serves her campaign. Obama, given the nomination and win, goes in with a mandate for optimism. A congress depending on donor financing has a way of squeezing optimism out of green presidents for the first two years, stalling progressive policies– look at the first two years of Carter and Clinton. The drawn out campaign will serve Obama only if he gets more specific about progressive policies.

I’m not sure the case is quite as clear-cut as you appear to believe.

Though the Obama camp is bragging of his gains among Latinos, this boast should be taken with a grain of salt: in Arizona and California, the two primary states with large Latino populations, Clinton won easily. Obama won Colorado and New Mexico, which were caucus states–with unrecorded Latino participation in those caucuses.

In fact, it would not be going to far to say that except for Illinois (his home state) and Georgia and Alabama (states with large African-American populations), Obama won by serious margins =only= in caucus states.

His two primary state victories were squeakers–Connecticut by 3.5 per cent, Missouri by 1 percent. In the other primary states, Clinton beat him handily.

And, yes, I do realize that Clinton didn’t beat him as handily as the polls anticipated a few weeks ago, but isn’t it time to put that poor overused cudgel back in its holster? (I’ve actually seen messages on other sites loudly arguing Obama actually won California because he only lost by 10 points because a month ago, he was behind by 20 points.)

No doubt Obama had a good night, but by any realistic standard, so did Senator Clinton. The actual result both in delegates and popular votes was a tie, which even cable-TV anchors–not a group known for antagonism towards Obama–were willing to acknowledge.

Yes, Obama did better than his expectations of a few weeks ago, and, yes, Clinton did worse. So what? We have a draw; what’s next?

Obviously caucus states have the same weight as primary states in the delegate count–that’s why the count is so close. But what yesterday indicated was that as of today Obama–momentum or not, cash advantage or not–can win a primary in a high-population state only with the near-total support of African-American voters. Missouri was a victory for him, but a victory with a sting in its tail.

This isn’t to say he can’t expand his voter pool, or that Clinton doesn’t have obstacles of her own, but it’s a bit premature for Obama admirers to start secretly dreaming of invitations to the inaugural.

Oh yeah. No way it was a big Obabm victory. He played a lot of catch up but no big victory no how.

The only way we really lose is if Obama people get so pissed they don’t vote, or Clinton people get so pissed they don’t vote. The only way that could happen is by a lot of name calling, announcing of opinions as fact, and nasty comments. As far as what’s going to happen regarding fund raising and other future primary events, it will all come out in the wash and our arguments won’t effect it at all.

yeah Hillary’s broke, she’ll be flashing leg froma street corner trying to spot another desperate effort to win the largest state.

She’s won New York, Florida, and California.

Those weren’t caucuses either.

No, the problem with Kerry was that he voted for the Iraq war and didn’t campaign on ending it. He just bitched and moaned a little like a back-seat driver about George Bush not doing it right. This is more of what we have to look forward to if Clinton wins the nomination.

What happens to Edwards’ delegates at the Convention? I know delegates are “released” after the first ballot, but can he “designate” them on the 1st?

“Because the post was obviously tilted and possibly delusional if the assertions were altruistic. Obama made huge gains in Cali in the last few weeks and the appearance as of now, is that he is peaking at the right time.”

She trounced Obama by double-digits! Who is being delusional?

Wes Clark’s near launching of WWIII in the Balkan’s still leaves me rather reticent to support him on any ticket.

Same. His proposal for how to handle the Russians at the airport was acutely dangerous.

I was thinking along your lines when I mde my comment, but decided not to open pandora’s box.

Didn’t know that about Michelle Obama. I should think that the appropriate resonse would be: Of course, I think my husband is the best candidate, but that’s for the voters to decide. And whoever wins, I’ll not only vote for him or her, but work to turn out all the new voters that my husband has brought into the wonderful Democratic party.

That is wet heavy snow I’ve been shoveling. I’m in for a rest.

Here is what I take away from Lawrence, KS. Four years ago, about 50 people gathered in an auditorium to caucus. Last night over 4000 people gathered in the face of a winter storm warning at three different caucuses, standing in parking lots and mud, in a cold downpour to have a chance to have a say. Some whined that the volunteers weren’t ready for them. They prepared, but no one was that prepared. Our caucus had to open a second site for the overflow.

That desire to personally get out and try to affect the process was mighty heartening (though the Clinton folks looked a little dispirited; Obama took 80% in the caucus I was at).

Agree – she also has charisma. Alas, she is not as masterful a stump speaker as Obama, or Bill once was. But, I doubt that that will be the deciding factor, except that if she is the nominee rather than Obama, there are likely to be alot of people who peel off either for McCain or for staying home on election day because of her war vote, Bill ties, and partisan history.

And that he picked Edwards as a running mate.

Jane:

Wow, you must be smoking some great stuff. Obama is the Establishment Candidate? Is that what you said…seems that as the days go on, some of the supposedly objective blogs are losing their objectivity. The injection of partisanship on the analysis of this race will only affect your traffic and reputation. But I guess if you cared about that you wouldn’t have posted something so ludicrous as what I just read. The closet Hillary bloggers are going through the 7 stages because Big Momma should have put Obama away last night but she didn’t. With his money and momentum, she cannot stop him. His is the easier path to the nomination. Be a big woman and admit it or are you going to cry as well…

Obama for President

“No one can be said to have decisively won California until we see delegate counts, especially when Clinton’s twenty-year campaign yields only 52% of the popular vote. A Super Tuesday tie favors the insurgent. The next six contests (LA, WA, NE, VA, DC, MD) may all favor Obama.”

I noticed on a map of California counties and winners in each that Obama won from SF to Eureka, on the coast, Alameda county (Oakland) and Yolo (Sacramento). These only amount to about six congressional districts. He won lots of districts on the Nevada border and a few in central and S. California—for maybe another half-dozen. I don’t know how that translates into delegates.

My main concern is who is electable and who can help Congressional and Senate Dems get elected as well. I really don’t care if they go down to Crawford and debate in Bush’s back yard with Karl Rove asking the questions. I seriously doubt anybody watching Fox will switch their vote to the Dems anyway but it sure will be a sideshow.

I also don’t know if Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama is the dream ticket. I have a feeling Hillary is looking at Richardson.

Excellent comment, and I sincerely hope that the drawn-out campaign will lead to more specific content in Obama’s speeches. I don’t get a primary vote until May, and, in case it still matters, I would like to be able to vote for Obama with confidence, something I could not do now.

Only if he held on to them. Normally they are released after the first vote, I believe.

I have a feeling Gore will not speak out until the general, and he was (arguably) the last meaningful endorsement. I think we’re past the endorsement phase.

Mr. Spandex also had/has no charisma. For him it is all about him.

Total delegates to date. Democratic totals include pledged delegates and superdelegates.

he is not as masterful a stump speaker as Obama,

That’s an understatement but we are sexists if we don’t like her voice.

I don’t get it.

-GregB @ 168
Wes Clark’s near launching of WWIII in the Balkan’s still leaves me rather reticent to support him on any ticket.

egregious- Same. His proposal for how to handle the Russians at the airport was acutely dangerous.

Both right wing talking points. Your concern is noted.

It was a response to the things listed about Kerry, I just added my favorite.

But who will that help if people are accepting as gospel that “The Surge is working” ’cause all the papers and TV stations say so? Sometimes ya gotta stick with these tings if you want to achieve victory, doncha know? I fear that msm will paint McCain – or permit McCain to get away with painting himself – as downright prescient ( not wrong or stubborn) on the war.

new delegate count as per msnbc:
834 – clinton
838 – obama

You got it wrong about my political inclinations. I call ‘em as I see ‘em. Living in Washington you learn a little bit about things that don’t make the newspapers.

Richardson da VP man.

I’m not saying she lacks it. I just think Obama has more. Up against McCain, who will be a strong opponent I think it will help.

Also, once in office, we have to get progressive legislation through. That will also require a sales job. Hillary in person, from what I understand, is very likable and in debates like CA she comes across well. This isn’t a problem with her, just the reality. For example, if HRC or any candidate is on the TV he will probably change the channel or not even listen to what they are saying. Obama, however, he will turn the volume UP. That has to be good for selling the democratic message.

That is one serious ass whuppin!

I had seen that earlier. But again it is who you count. Super delegates aren’t obligated to vote a particular way, I believe, so some do not count them at this point.

This is the kind of recurring story I keep hearing lately that really has my hopes up.
The Pugs are in for an ass kicking in November I’m thinking.

Maybe Hillary Clinton has a really good answer to those questions (sarcasm).

This illustrates why nominating Clinton would be such a disgrace and a disaster.

Ok, stick with things ya know, like horses and donkeys instead of cars, candles instead of electricity, buttons instead of zippers. Alas, it is all about the money, as Eisenhower suggested – more gun sales.

California results
Clinton 51.9
Obama 42.4

That’s not double digits unless you’re counting the decimals.

Wife was tapped early last year to do a double max for Clinton…and did.

We’re both quite happy Obama supporters…and have given a grand total of $100 so far.

MSNBC just said that latest figures have Obama ahead in the delegate count.

That was the canard in New York when she ran for Senator but it turned out differently didn’t it? She won her last election with 65% of the vote.
This negative stuff just never plays out does it?

I just drove thru Naples Florida (about noonish) and heard JOY FM calling for a GOP hunger strike because of McCain. The lady announcer said that we need a man of God in the White House. Oy vey.

I think she wanted the Mittster.

snark? Um. There are alot of great women speakers who have charisma. Rachel Maddow, Oprah, Marie Shriver, Woopie… to begin with.

Re: Calif interior red counties going for Clinton

I suggest you should keep in mind that these were Democrats voting for Democrats, vs. an open primary that allows party crossover voting. Democrats are a minority in those counties. What the Kern and Kings counties Dems voting says to me is that these more conservative Democrats preferred Clinton to Obama in a two-person race.

new delegate count as per msnbc:
834 – clinton
838 – obama

Does that include yesterday’s democratic primary in europe? 22 delegates there, if I remember yesterday’s NPR story correctly. Possibly going heavy for Obama.

OT: WH says waterboarding legal.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/m…..62008.html

No, not a disgrace and disaster – I’m not a Hillary supporter but that’s the way democracy works. The people do the selecting – unless you are Bush, of course.

I’d like to hear her warmly and articulately explain her AUMF vote, Kyl-Lieberman, and everything in between.

Maybe some great, big rolling teardrops will wash away all the blood.

Have a look-see at this
graph at the bottom of the page. Kind of telling peak-wise, don’t you think?

Hillary won by an overwhelming margin in NYS because the Rs couldn’t find a decent candidate to run against her. That’s it. The campaign was a farce. In fact, I’m surprised the Rs got as much as they did (and can’t remember who the R was).

Well, like Senator pothole, she did a great deal listening to issues regionally and taking care of them. Also, who was her opponent again? Hmmm.

That got botched – my husband was the “he”. (And again this isn’t a gender issue, its the same with him for all the candidate’s male or female, except Obama.)

Democracies can’t disgrace themselves? Such as by starting wars? Or continuing occupations?

I live here, you don’t have to tell me how folks vote. I’ve been active in GOTV here for more than 20 years. Central Valley is blood red. The republics outregister the dems here by a wide margin. Clinton did well here no matter how you cut it up. Farmers usually go GOP.

Yup. And what was the spread two weeks ago?

- What is the delegate count?
- How many points did Obama make up in the last 7 days?

= Money is not an issue for either

PS: If you see a hunger-striking Gop,please do not feed.

Obama has the pledged delegate lead and if over the next 7 primaries/caucuses this lead grows (as it most certainly will) the party and the voters will see the light and vote for future growth of the party base instead of trying to grind out a pyrrhic victory for Clinton.

I did not see the numbers on the cash – so maybe you are correct on that. I know Obama was breaking records.

Money will not be a major factor, but if the margin is small could be the factor.

Or use the term/trope democracy to do the opposite (the duly elected Iranian and Palestian leaders for example, or the situation in Russia, Pakistan and Kenya. The Bushies have made Democracy into a meaningless term – and worse.

Let’s take the mock out of demockracy.

As far as the money issue, I think it shows Obama’s strength in bringing new people into the process, but it won’t help him put the election away. If that were the case, Romney and Guiliani would be on top for Republicans. Not broke McCain or Huckabee (still doing well).

Whoever, wins it will be because they earned the votes IMHO.

The persistent harping on the AUMF among men who never seemed to care that John Edwards took the same vote has a lot of us old bags quite skeptical of this kind of passion.

LOL and more. That should be the title of a post!

Greg, I think Wes Clark did a phenomenal job taking care of the Serbian conflict. He was competent, strategic, and used his negotiating skills to the max. After Iraq, what was happening in Serbia seems minimal, but the ethnic cleansing there was horrendous. Milosevic was responsible for so much slaughter and bloodshed, and Wes Clark put an end to it—unlike some Commander-in-Chiefs I know.

Gotta do my wash but have enjoyed the discussion.

Hillary won by an overwhelming margin in NYS because the Rs couldn’t find a decent candidate to run against her. That’s it. The campaign was a farce. In fact, I’m surprised the Rs got as much as they did (and can’t remember who the R was).

IIRC, Jeri Ryan’s allegation that her hubby the R-candidate for IL had taken her to public sex clubs tanked the R campaign – and left the path open for a state Senator to win the general election for Federal Senator – hence Sen Obama.

Nothing wrong with differing opinions.

Money serves several functions:

Giving money deepens the givers “investment” in the candidacy, and further willingness to campaign and buttonhole friends.
Money supports the campaigning.
Money demonstrates viability to the rest of the electorate (and the media).

Even if you aren’t running out of cash, people may see you as running out of gas if the numbers drop.

Rick Lazio!

According to an Illinois commenter last nite, Obama’s campaign was up 20 points on Ryan before Jeri’s tale came out, Ryan dropped out, and Keyes was substituted. I have no links, or even memory of who made this claim.

The game in town seems to be how we defeat John McCain, the sickening sycophant of George W. Bush. In this house we have decided to tout an Obama/Clinton ticket, or the other way around. We think either combination would trounce Mr. McCain. Of course if egos, (Hillary’s and or Obama’s) stands in the way of statespersonship and what is vital, then we in our home we would have little sympathy for Senator Obama or Senator Clinton.

Jane,

Hill made a boo boo with that vote AND Kyl Lieberman. But she dug herself in deeper. She had a clear path out.

They lied to us and I trusted the executive branch not to be liars. They have proven again and again to be liars. She didn’t say that. Dat’s no good.

The news headlines in this state are already touting Texas as the “Decider.”
I believe Texas will go for Hillary.
—-

I doubt that a Red state is going to be the decider. Is it winner take all, if not then it won’t be.

“The Right Way in Iraq

By John Edwards

Sunday, November 13, 2005; Page B07

I was wrong.

Almost three years ago we went into Iraq to remove what we were told — and what many of us believed and argued — was a threat to America. But in fact we now know that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction when our forces invaded Iraq in 2003. The intelligence was deeply flawed and, in some cases, manipulated to fit a political agenda.

It was a mistake to vote for this war in 2002. I take responsibility for that mistake. It has been hard to say these words because those who didn’t make a mistake — the men and women of our armed forces and their families — have performed heroically and paid a dear price.”

Here’s my hope: That Hillary is a lot more progressive than she’s willing to show right now. That her healthcare plan will evolve into Universal healthcare once she wins the WH and the dems win Congress. That her despicable vote on Kyl-lieberman was just to win the Jewish vote and she will improve relations with Iran once she’s pres. (or at least not start another war). That she knows that tipping her hand will doom her but once she’s pres., her liberal side will show.

Barack Obama has funded the war right alongside any other Senator.

Were he that adamant against being there he could have cast a protest vote against it, were it that much of a cause to him.

In fact, it’s one of the main votes he’s made, of the third of votes he’s been present for.

I’m 48 and I didn’t vote for anyone, nor will I — I’m in Virginia and you have to register 30 days before the primary, I missed the deadline.
—–
Your not voting! Tsk Tsk.

Now there is a good idea. The Republicans should all stop eating. Food prices will fall and there will be more for the hungry of the world. Somehow though I don’t see this happening, but the bigger the hate they have on for McCain, the better. Just how nasty a candidate are the wingnuts looking for and when can we just get back to laughing at them?

AUMF was a big deal…and big reason it took a long time to come around to Edwards (and Kerry in 2004). It was and remains poor judgement. Honest acknowledgement that it was a mistake.

It’s undeniable that Candidate Edwards was not bringing the same set of policies to 2008 that he brought to 2004, or that characterized his time in the Senate, even though the “Two Americas message wasn’t new.

But the clear progressive agenda was tough to ignore.

Hillary is placing huge emphasis on experience. If that’s your angle, then what you did with that experience in the biggest vote of your career is particularly salient. (Taken to the extreme, that’s what differentiates a statesman from a hack; which isn’t the case we’re dealing with here, but…).

Both sides can spin this thing however they want. Adding it all up, it was an inconclusive tie: Obama won a hair more delegates than Clinton, so the race will go on.

Certainly the size of the loss in California is disappointing to Obama. Likewise, only winning 8 out of 22 states is disappointing to Clinton. Jane says the California loss is devastating. Jane, as Atrios is fond of saying, I don’t think that word means what you think it means. For a loss to be devastating, it has “to lay waste, to render desolate”. But while it’s Clinton’s biggest win of the night, it was cancelled out so effectively by other losses that Obama actually won more delegates.

So we go on. The best news of the night was that vastly more people voted for Democrats than voted for Republicans.

yeah Hillary’s broke, she’ll be flashing leg froma street corner trying to spot another desperate effort to win the largest state.

Tell me that I’m misjudging your tone and that line is just snark…

He recanted the vote. That’s not better than standing by it? One of the things I keep harping on is that Clinton has to answer for this vote — in debates, in front of the public. She can’t do it, probably because she doesn’t in sincerity regret it. Edwards, while weakened by making a stupid and immoral decision initially at least stood on some solid ground lateras a potential critic of the war.

Why is this point not clear? Obama is a bit of an empty vessel, granted. But Clinton, as far as the war and foreign policy generally go — is a known quantity of noxious quality. She can only compromise herself further by opening her mouth and compounding the lies in a presidential debate.

It really baffles me why a site that directs such deserved vitriol on the war towards that creature of the Clinton Rahm Emanuel, for example, doesn’t make the connection and send a little Hillary Clinton’s way.

Hmmm. I’m going to add another angle here. A prolonged Democratic primary is good for either of the Dem candidates.
—-

I agree, no matter any “front runner”/”underdog” strategy-story or anything like that. McCain needs to be stale news with much air time to Clinton and Obama in the gap (and to me they are pretty similar so no -need- to kill eachother) – and see who and when McCain picks for VP.

To me they have 99.9% the same policy with Obama being the “orator” and Clinton being the “tactician”. Both have their strengths, if there are better labels for what they got feel free to change them.

Last word:

Dead heat! Votes cast for both candidates: 50% to 50%

http://www.time-blog.com/swamp…..teres.html

You only compound the error when you do something like defend Clinton by quoting Stanley Fish who last year, whaddya know, was defending Clinton on the NYT’s pages for…her AUMF vote. Where has your intuition gone? Can’t you see she’s the Democrats’ war candidate?

When Kos finally commits to a candidate, he dons the rose-colored glasses

—-
If the MSM has not picked up on the fact that many bloggers are partisian for candidates they will soon. I am pretty sure they have as I have seen them “balancing” the bloggers – for example one from KOS and one from HUFF. Its of course painfully clear either before or soon after they open their mouth.

We love you Jane, but COME ON!
As Hillary is about to hold another press conference chortling her victory -to drown out all the coverage of those silly home state tornadoes, no one car sanely say that an upset victory of 13-9 is really a draw. These are states, red and blue and purple and hot and cold -he won those!

In November that’s what it’s all about, and any super delegates who get the idea to upset the voters majority -is treading on dangerous grounds.

The entire country is coalescing around one conclusion -we don’t want the Clinton’s back in the White House.
And to demean the fact that both of the Clintons vast amounts of experience were only able to beat an unknown new kid on the block in their own backyard of Mass. by ony 17 points is f***ing amazing.

Remember where we were 30 days ago??
“..As January was ready to pass the baton to February, the Illinois junior Senator found himself in the same situation as he was in during December – down double digits nationally, down double digits in California, and projected to lose most Super Tuesday states by significant margins.”

That’s something to applaud, not attack.

Think I messed that up, KOS is Obama right?

Edwards apologized, though. I believed him. ‘course I believed him when he said he was “in it through the convention”, too. I just would like to hear that sweet old lady show a little of the same contrition as the nice young man did.

We still have in place all of the US attorneys that Rove put in that weren’t fired. Muskasey “the torturer” heads the Justice Department. McNutty has all of the same Bush dirty tricksters working for him. So explain to me how bringing the same Clinton coalition together without adding the excitement and inspiration of new voters, younger or older, is going to overwhelm the republican smear and trick machine? We need so many people in this fight that there much less opportunity to game the system. I am serious when I tell you that unfortunately Hillary has a ceiling. Many, many people do not want to relive the insanity of the cycle of abuse that accompanies the Clintons wherever they go. They didn’t create it, but we will all have to live through it. I can’t. Nor, can I live through another 4 years of court packing(that will last a lifetime), ripping apart what’s left of The Constitution, ignoring climate change, permanent tax cuts for the super rich, and bomb bomb bombing Iran! Hillary may get some of these new voters, but all of the triangulating in the world is not going to win this thing! We are going to f—this up. I just feel it!

OT- I just had to post this headline from Crooks and Liars.

Memo to Arlen Specter: We wanted you to investigate the Patriot Act Spying not the New England Patriots

*g*

Barbara Boxer pledged her super-delagate vote to the winner of the CA primary. something to watch if the tide goes way prObama..

Geez. I missed the “among men” the first time I read that. Leave aside the fact that there was a substantive difference in the positions of Clinton and Edwards on the war (Edwards recanted!), what a thin-skinned comment.

It’s one thing to complain about the sexism of the media, but why extend the presumption of sexism so hastily to your commenters?

I respect Jane, but disagree with almost everything except the last sixteen words.

It’s way interesting to hear Hillary supporters down play Obama’s rise in the polls in both California – and Massachusetts for that matter. “Decisive” victory is spinning a story that should have ended last night according to Hillary supporters back December. Obama was polling in the twenties in these states not all that long ago.

She is far from blowing Obama out as so many Clinton people told us she would come Super Tuesday. They spoke with confidence knowing she had a huge machine behind her and has been campaigning for the presidency from day one in New York.

Hold on Hillarys, the ground is still shifting!

OBAMA 08!

“As Hillary is about to hold another press conference chortling her victory -to drown out all the coverage of those silly home state tornadoes, no one car sanely say that an upset victory of 13-9 is really a draw. These are states, red and blue and purple and hot and cold -he won those!”
Most of his red state wins were in caucus states. This doesn’t show overall strength although it does add to his delegate count. Caucuses are always run by the activist wings of the parties. This is not the same demographic IMHO as the party base (blue collar/working woman).

The funniests posts are the ones that are against Obama and mob/rose-colored glasses…that are 100% rose-colored for Clinton.

Thank God I was for Edwards and now bash both of them with equal zeal (over time, sometimes I go spider monkey on one of them on a particular day).

The argument against the other candidate due to rose-colored zeal is right up there with a post that whines about other people whining. Just an observation, perhaps sticking to the issues would be more informative.

Standard disclaimer that I am talking about comments on both sides (not the main post), and have done this myself in the past.

GregB February 6th, 2008 at 9:53 am 123
In response to ohbytheway @ 118
Easy with the dictator crap.

—-
The dictator argument could go either way, on one side you have Obama who gives great speaches and talks about unity but lacks a bit of specifics. On the other you have a political family that was already in the WH for 8 years (8 years ago) and are lining up:

RayGun-Bush I, RayGun-Bush I, Bush I, Clinton I, Clinton I, Bush II, Bush II, Clinton II, …

The language-laden arguemnts (dicator, elderly, etc) are funny to spot as well.

It is simple. In the current atmosphere (especially at MSNBC) it is heads, Obama wins, tails, Hillary loses. Except for KO’s newshour, which I’m not willing to let go despite his unfortunate lapses into Tweety-like behavior,

—-

I noticed KO slipping up a few times as well. Seems like some talking points made it into his Gatorade over the last few weeks. He chopped up Edwards, and seems to go along with most (tankfully not all) of the Clinton is bad themes.

Jane once again another great and HONEST piece. Your “Hillary Haters” article was spot on as, I would argue the National Media (and not Barack Obama) has been her main opponent.

I think you should write a piece about this argument that HRC is ‘unelectable.’ I did an electoral college breakdown of last night and this is what I found…

· HRC will surely carry Ark and TN in a general election (two states John Kerry lost). And she played very well in FL despite the ‘non-campaign.’ In fact HRC got more totally votes than John McCain did in the FL primary.
○ Even though she lost MO by a very slim margin, HRC still collect 200,00 more votes than John McCain in that state as well.
○ If she wins those three states the democrats win the general. Conversely Obama will likely not carry TN (Harold Ford effect) and has no shot in ARK.

· Obama’s wins in states like AL, GA, ID, UT do not mean anything in the context of the general election. Democrats have no shot of carrying those states in the general especially because an Evangelical VP on McCain’s ticket nullifies Obama’s advantages in the black communities in GA and AL.

· Another note – VA is basically a “purple” state now. Allen got booted, the current Governor is another democrat, Warner is retiring and Jim Webb (D) is the other senator. Plus former Governor Mark Warner (d) is running for that other senate seat. Basically the democrats hold ALL the important public offices there.

We’ve aimed a tremendous amount of vitriol Hillary’s way. For her war vote, for the Iran votes, for the culture war stuff with Joe Lieberman — but for the Hillary Haters it’s never, ever enough.

When you’re sitting there trying to make surgical distinctions between Obama’s and Edwards’ and Clintons’ records that don’t really exist which give you license to laud the men and despise the woman, it’s hard to look beyond the rage and wonder what fuels it.

I’ve had the opportunity to watch a charismatic single leader use that charisma to conceal predators on the organization’s paid staff. … I’m very glad to see the explicit connection between charisma and dictatorship raised here.
… (and no, I’m not suggesting Obama will be a dictator…so we can let that rhetorical canard go back to eating slugs…)

—-

It seems more like you are “suggesting” he is a pedophile. Not a total slam, its just the way its written up.

I do not think the President needs to be charismatic or a dictator to cover things up. Bill Clinton was charismatic and could not cover up the perjury, Bush is not all that charismatic and has “covered-up” (in the open) a march towards a “dictatorship”.

A mere babe compared to me at 71…I do not feel I am an old whatever…look at gandhi he was in great shape when he was around 80…I think all that fasting made his organs more efficient. Diet, exercise, lifestyle and attitude keep you healthy and productive more so than age …Ladies are ladies no matter your age.. I have seen some 80 year old ladies that would run 30 year olds ragged.
Case in point most of the work done on these sites are fem driven and we greatly appreciate your hard work. No couch potatoes here.

Jane,

I do wonder about the HRC haters. Have they ever watched the lady? There may much more in play here and you need to keep pointing it out.

I should say I voted way back in NH. I will vote for the Dem in the general unless as the Dude says: “New shit has come to light”.

Gore didn’t carry TN. I don’t know that HRC will “surely” do so.

This “Hillary Hater” epithet has to go; it’s akin to “Bush Basher” or “Bush Derangement Syndrom” for derisiveness and dismissiveness and, above all, dishonesty and evasion. I don’t give a fuck about Hillary Clinton as a woman, or even as a person; It’s the war, not her womb. She’s just a politician (she’s even a more human-sounding one than most I’ve heard), indistinguishable from Emanuel or Holbrooke as far as imperialistic foreign policy goes — but, as you point out yourself — you already know that. Try to forgive me for being a little heated in urging my preferred candidate in the thick of these primaries, when these choices matter. I find the forebearance for her bellicosity inopportune right now.

They’re not “surgical distinctions”, for crying out loud. Get a transcript of the Obama/Clinton debate and reread the portion about “changing the mindset”. What on earth is Clinton going to say about the war or Iran in the debates with McCain? Even if she comes of as more reasonable or “competent” in such a face off, shouldn’t I be galled, and alarmed, that I’m faced with the choice of two war proponents, again?

We’ve aimed a tremendous amount of vitriol Hillary’s way. For her war vote, for the Iran votes, for the culture war stuff with Joe Lieberman — but for the Hillary Haters it’s never, ever enough.

Not sure who ‘we’ is here, but it is not me.

When you’re sitting there trying to make surgical distinctions between Obama’s and Edwards’ and Clintons’ records that don’t really exist which give you license to laud the men and despise the woman, it’s hard to look beyond the rage and wonder what fuels it.

Personally, I have stated here that their voting records are very very close, and that both candidates are moderate democrats. That anyone sees this as a gender battle surprises me. That is the opposite of what Obama is saying, but it is certainly reminiscent of the divisive strategies of Karl Rove.

But I do agree with you on one point at least–there does seem to be some rage at work here.

So, Clinton and Obama are ‘neck and neck’ and vitrol, here and elsewhere, at the boiling point.

What happened to ‘issues’?

Is it an issue that, despite Democratic euphoria and sanguinity, a loss, yes, a loss, in November is not just remotely possible, but quite possible?

Instead, it would appear, with nerves frayed and many hopes crashing heavily, that ANY attempt to raise real, actual, serious issues is considered an invite to a food fight.

Best Political Comment of the Century, so far:

Kirk Murphy.

“…charisma.

‘They make me feel good.’ is for choosing sex toys, not Presidents.’”

What kind of a non-sequitur is this? I barely watch television coverage of politics any more. Every time I’ve seen Clinton, though, particularly lately, she strikes me as winning, poised, disciplined and intelligent. She also has a subtly sexier look. What’s not to like?

That’s not what I’m basing my choice on, however.

“Hillary Hater”. Give me a break from that vapid little epithet.

Several people have noted the distinction: Obama opposed the war from the get go. Edwards very directly apologized for his vote. Those are differences. I don’t think you can see gender being at work without ignoring those differences. AUMF is a loser for Hillary not because of anything having to do with gender but because she was wrong and won’t admit it.

driver’s licenses
economic/mortgage disaster in these faux outlying communities?
i think we haven’t counted enough of the outstanding 3 million
votes to know yet, but IMHO, it was issues driven, not age/gender/race
or church goin’ as every exit poll shows.

It’s not Hillary Hate, Jane, the numbers just don’t add up. Pinning everything on a 53%-43% win in Cali is just not accurate. Obama is making huge gains nationally and he has the money advantage. Pretty simple.

Take a look at that RCP graph.

Oh, but you’re wrong. As FormerFed noted @278, “There may much more in play here.” With me, it’s Oedipal…

I believe there are Hillary-haters. I think they’re called the travelling press-corps covering the primaries. And some of the cable news “journalists”.

But those people aren’t leaving comments at FDL, and Jane’s comments above certainly do not apply in my case.

Take a look @275.

How do we get rid of the super delegate system??

Obama got “smoked”? Really…seems like he’s ahead in the delegate count right now.

and? what about it?

I’m the “Hillary Hater”.

she said “We’ve”, not “You’ve”

Amen!!! I am worked for both Clinton campaigns when Bill was running and for Hillary both times for the senate. I have had friends tell me that Obama got in the way. It was Hillary’s turn. Well, I am so sorry, but as much as I like Hillary, and will work for her if she is the nominee, I think giving the back of the hand to those of us that support Senator Obama is pretty shabby. I will not vote for anyone, just because they are a woman, or of a certain color, or even because “it’s their turn.” Not now, not ever. Too much is at stake.

Well devastating is not quite the word I would use, but then again, this isn’t my blog :) I think that both candidates did a fantastic job and it looks as though it will go up to the convention.

I just don’t get the premise that she ‘blew him out of the water’ I looked at the county breakdown (available on CNN’s site) and he carried San Francisco, while she walked away with LA. I won’t even go into the whole latino vote business because as a latina, I refuse to let a bunch of non-latino people tell me that a) we are all alike and constitute some block b) that we have some sort of issue with another minority c) that I have a different agenda (immigration) and that is what is driving my vote.

I voted for Obama yesterday and dropped some cash on his campaign this morning. He speaks personally to me and that is what drove my vote. I wish Hillary no ill will and wish her and her supporters all the best. This is what tempers my comments and any urge to spin, insult or minimize the success of the other candidate. Passion I understand and am thrilled to see it, but we aren’t each other’s enemy, or did I miss something? This looks to go the distance, so we will see each other at the finish line and then we fight for the Whitehouse and the SCOTUS.

I’m not sure I would know a non-sequitur if it hit me in the butt, although I do read the comic strips. What I was trying to say (and not very eloquently) was that there are a lot of HRC haters in the world – not that there were a bunch on this blog.

I have some problems with some of what HRC espouses, as I do with what every other candidate says. It is just that I feel the mob atmosphere that is starting to surround BO bothers me and that HRC is sounding a lot more rational these days.

Would I vote for either one – you betcha!!!!

p.s. I don’t hate Hillary or myself or other women, it is just an issues thing

Totally agreed. I often wonder what demographic I fit into. My Dad was Irish and Native American. My Mother was Black. I am a woman over 40 married to a German and Irish guy. So according to pundit logic I should vote for who?

Obama, of course. Silly question…

Jane,

i haven’t read comments but i agree with you in your assessment of what happened yesterday. Hillary came out very much ahead. she’s got the better organization out in the field where the two were actually battling. Obama did well but he’ll have to do better in the next three months or Hillary will come out on top. it may come down to Denver in which case if she’s got the bigger count going in the Super-D’s will go with her.
i sure hope the two of them get together and plan some strategy to work together from now on out. let the Repubs eat their own. if we don’t work it out it could be bad …..

Oh, yeah..that would be the “white” connection, huh? But what about my political “womb.” Wouldn’t that be a slap in the face to my sisters?

(one old bag to another) — I think one of the very successful parts of Obama’s campaign has been to associate Clinton with “oldness” — in a way that comes off as both appealing to the young and a subtle gender-specific dog whistle. And it has been working.

The immediate question isn’t whether you’ll “vote for either one”, but who you’ll vote for in your primary, now, and hopefully it’s not totally inappropriate to be so insistent on this single point.

This attitude of being content with either candidate kind of rubs me the wrong way because it’s a way of eliding the one key difference between the two — or it might be better to say it’s a way of trying to erase Obama’s biggest asset in the race: that he’s clean on the war.

I would turn that old saw around — I don’t prefer the devil I know to the one I don’t. I’d say: I prefer the person I don’t know to be a devil from the one I know to be one.

I’ve had the opportunity to watch a charismatic single leader use that charisma to conceal predators on the organization’s paid staff. … I’m very glad to see the explicit connection between charisma and dictatorship raised here.
… (and no, I’m not suggesting Obama will be a dictator…so we can let that rhetorical canard go back to eating slugs…)

—-

It seems more like you are “suggesting” he is a pedophile. Not a total slam, its just the way its written up.

Uh – RedX – the “predators” I refer to committed/concealed acts known as theft, forgery, and embezzlement. No sexual abuse. All victims were adults (and organizations) over 30.

If you like, I can put on my shrink hat and explore about possible meaning of your projection of pedophilia onto my account of economic crimes.

Lemme know.

1diva,

no, no, no, no. It’s just that he’s the best candidate.

I also suspect (with nothing more than anecdotal evidence) that “Hillary hatred” as a motivator in voters is overstated. Republicans are good Oceanians and can be programmed easily for a two-minute hate directed at anyone; witness the 2004 RNC vis a vis Kerry. And here’s where the anecdote comes in — my rightwing crap regurgitating coworker, who subscribed to all the charges leveled by Swift Boat Veterans for Libel, ended up voting for Kerry.

Clinton will kill McCain despite all this rigamarole about how “divisive” she is. She’s a completely bland, unimaginative establishment figure. I don’t get it.

Boy, I know a lot of Repugs that are now saying the same thing about Bush – “oh, we didn’t really know what he was like” – yadda, yadda, etc.

I don’t think a “one issue” approach is possible, the world is much too complex. And I am a DoD career guy that has been against the war in Iraq since day one.

I fit no stated demographic..well wait.. I’m Brazilian woman (proudly of African, German, Portuguese and Native descent) under 30 (barely) in grad school, who listens to classical, soul, heavy metal and trance music. I hate tv and read books, love caipirinhas and hate mojitos, think tofu sucks but is an avid raw food vegan.

Why isn’t there a candidate that fits MY demographic? LOL

This doesn’t even address how Clinton will motivate women to turn out. More anecdote: I was just talking to my Democratic, middle-aged, white, female coworker about the VA primary and after a week or two of urging Obama, asked who she’s voting for. She wasn’t saying, i.e., she’s voting for Clinton. Convince me that being a woman isn’t a positive asset for her (New Hampshire?), which is why I find the indignation about the sexism she suffers from media scumbags relatively frivolous compared to the substantive matter of her foreign policy profile and personnel.

But wait–there is!

Name’s Obama…

OK, I’ll quit now…

LOL I already voted for him. Though i doubt he is a raw foodist :)

I feel that it is no coincidence that McCain’s commercials include the mantra “ready to lead on Day One” straight out of Hillary’s playbook. It is a clear indication of his preferred opponent in November as well.

Jane, you rock. And it hurts me to hear you call yourself an old bag even in jest. If you are the definition of an “old bag” I want to be one.
Yes, valentine’s day is coming up.

For the record – I am a registered independent and in AZ we don’t get to vote in the primary.

I got into a big row with the local demos a couple of elections back but it didn’t change anything.

I disagree. It’s the only distinction I see between the two, or at least the only one I care about.

So let me get this straight. We have to take away from Hillary early voters, superdelegates and older women. Anyone else we have to delete from the process in order to make Obama a winner?

The polls have been all over the place in this election, yet Obama supporters insist on citing any poll that showed Hillary with a lead as if it was gospel. She beat Obama like a drum in Massachusetts, where there is no significant early voting, yet we’re supposed to beleieve that if those early California voters had only known about Ted Kennedy’s endorsement, they would have flocked to Obama. If his endorsement, along with Kerry and Patrick, didn’t deliver Massachusetts, what logical argument can be made that it would deliver other states? Just because the media played it like Princess Di’s wedding doesn’t mean Teddy’s endorsement had that much effect, no matter how fervently Obama’s supporters wish it was so. And Teddy’s endorsement was supposed to help Obama most significantly among Latino voters. I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest that Latinos probably don’t make up a huge percentage of early voters. So how do you spin this any way but that Latinos preferred Clinton? Seeing phrases like “(Obama won) Minnesota by a huge margin, a state Clinton had been picked to win by seven,” drives me crazy. She wasn’t “picked” by anyone. A poll showed her with a lead. A poll also showed Obama winning Massachusetts and New Jersey. Polls are interesting, but cherrypicking polls and pretending they representn actual facts is just silly.

As for all of the crying about how the superdelegates somehow don’t represent the wishes of the voters, how do Obama supporters rationalize the extent to which his support has come from caucus states? You can talk about GOTV all you want, but the fact remains that caucuses are dominated by die-hard political types, and are about the most undemocratic elections we have in this country (unless you consider the secret ballot not to be a significant part of our democracy.)

And by the way, Obama won the city of Boston, despite Mayor Menino’s strong support for Hillary. So I really don’t think it’s accurate to portray this as the political machine somehow coming through for her.

The fact is, Hillary started with strong name recognition, which definitely gave her a boost in the early polls. But Obama has been campaigning for a year, and we’ve gone through 18 debates and reams of fawning Obama coverage. At what point will some of you folks stop portraying him as the plucky upstart, whose every defeat somehow translates to a moral victory?

At what point will some of you folks stop portraying him as the plucky upstart, whose every defeat somehow translates to a moral victory?

OK, I hear you.

I’ll stop right after inauguration day.

Actually, you can stop at counting delegates.

Exactly right! LOL Maybe we should start our own party and create our own candidate!

It’s OK to disagree. I think we both want our brave men and women home from Iraq as soon as possible.

Must go do some errands outside the house – enjoyed our discussion – that is what is wonderful about this blog. Cheers!!

Oh and I’m married to a carnivore loving and tea hating Brit

Gore/Edwards….equals experience, hope, change, national security, carbon foorprint reduction. Reference: Assualt on Reason Capter 4&5 which goes to correcting the Attorney General debacle and the politicisation of Federal government, The failed policy of USA as world policeman and global control by one nation…a community of nations in cooperation brings back moral leadership and social safety net and regulatory oversite over the market place.
This could happen at the convention with a platform to fix the economy, the unfair tax structure and correct the Clinton NAFTA disaster bringing back some of our manufacturing sector to the rust belt and a plan for revitalizing regional economies. Also strngthening the dollar through taxing the wealthy instead of deficit spending.
There are solutions to all the problems…a progressive energy policy at the top of the list that will start putting people back to work. Building low cost housing for the homeless and low income population that makes up a lot of our service economy by putting the construction industry back to work. Allowing all that are at risk under subprime to refinance at a low rate and letting the investment bank eat the loss from their scam. For openers.

You are?

Well, good. I’m glad that’s settled.

I had somehow gotten the impression that the appelation was more universally applied and ‘gender-related’ as well.

Almost by definition, all who question/hate Hillary’s ‘positions’ who are also Democrats, must be males. Otherwise, we may be dealing with ’self loathing’ women, ashamed of their own sex and unworthy of the mantle of ‘fairness’ which that sex is, justifiably, noted for.

Note: The preceding sark is snark and nothing else, except that, in my opinion, in general, women are better looking than men. I know, as a member of the less good-looking sex, that by saying that I’ve revealed an essential prejudice perhaps, but it actually gets worse, I really like intelligent women and would dearly like to see one reach the Presidency, however, I should not like to think that my qualms about Hillary render me hateful or suggest that I’m full of rage about it. My anger, frankly, is essentially reserved for certain other parties …

OK that’s it! Let’s just buy some land and start a commune! Your family and mine!

Jane,

I love you and all you do but you’re way off base here, falling prey to the Zogby syndrome, in which wildly inaccurate polls set an unrealistic expectation. She had commanding win in CA, I’d agree, though not devastating as you say. Have a little perspective, for goodness sake, and look at where she was situated in California several weeks ago and where things ended up. If you view the campaign since Iowa and NH, and where things stood then compared to where they ended up, ending with NM (whenever that’s resolved today), you can’t possibly be saying that she has gone from, overall, an apparently “inevitable” position to one that is fragile, at best.

This is exactly what is wrong with Obama’s “campaign. He is, if I may so put it, sowing “cross generational” conflict, i.e. pitting those of, say, ages under 40, with those over that age. And, in doing that, subtly belittling the achievments of those of us elderly folks in years gone by (btw I’m a white male age 57). This same attitude is shared by his supporters, many many of whom (including his wife) go so far as to say that they would not vote for Clinton if she is the nominee.

This is not what a “uniter” does. So, I’m way more amenable to a Clinton nomination, tho’ if Obama wins the nomination, I will hold my nose and, unfortunately, vote for him (knowing that he’d be better than any republican). It would be nice to think that Obama’s supporters (and wife) would reciprocate.

-MS

I think much of the issue has to do with the way that people minimize what has been accomplished. It’s primary season, we get a chance to vote our preferences and voice our opinions to get to that all important prom date in November.

Thank you for the friendly snark.

I have another observation. Some of the commenters, and even Jane Hamsher, should see the corner they’ve painted themselves when they defend Clinton by undermining the value of Obama’s 2002 statements against the war or his subsequent record as a junior Senator (his non-vote on Kyl-Lieberman is the notable disappointment). It doesn’t advance the cause of ending the war to argue that neither Democratic candidate was really against invading Iraq, even if it were true. What we want is a “clean” candidate who can argue, without the curlicues, that invading Iraq was a catastrophic decision that must never be repeated, and that the occupation must end.

By the same token Clinton is sowing “cross-generational conflict” by touting her thirty-five years of experience. I think you’re being oversensitive. It’s inevitable that the younger, less experienced candidate will depreciate the experience of the older candidate, particularly when she’s already been in the White House.

Thanks, mui. I am so comfortable with myself on that front right now I even surprise me. But thanks for the kind words.

Was that snark or are you serious?
Whatever happened to personal responsibility? If my spouse could vote (can’t Brit) and chose a candidate different from my own, I am hardly going to level it at the candidate’s feet. Your wife’s statement that she refuses to vote for Hillary if Obama loses is indicative of what has caused us liberals to implode so often (if my candidate doesn’t win, I won’t play)not the candidate.

“It doesn’t advance the cause of ending the war to argue that neither Democratic candidate was really against invading Iraq, even if it were true.”

Tell me you did not just say that.

That was what this primary process revealed…America is ready for serious policy change…the Pugs have the same ol shit on a shingle…America is feed up.
The door is open only the blue dogs are in the way. How stupid can you get…not business as usual.
Jane your post is good. The fight over candidates is inappropriate now…it should be a fight for policy, issues and defining reform.
This political climate has tyhe potential for change as did the protestant reformation…social democracy somewhat like Northern Europe with a stable monetary policy that other currencies can tie to. Big oil begone …take your wars with you!

Do they hate John Kerry as much for his vote? Or John Edwards? Did the Hillary Haters not vote for the Kerry/Edwards ticket? Or is Hillary special?

The majority in the country (87%?) were initially in favor of the war, having been sold the bill of goods by people like Colin Powell. Most people, including our European friends who did not support the rush to war, believed that Saddam Hussein possessed WMDs; Saddam admitted as much that he fostered the idea, never thinking that he would be attacked over this. However, the “purists” among the progressives would like to exclude the vast majority in this country for having initially gotten the war wrong.

Obama was not in the senate at that time, so we don’t know how he would have voted. But we do know that he has joined Hillary and others to authorize funding for the war once he started his brief tenure there. Based on what I have heard regarding his Reagan and “Republican big ideas” statements, and what was reported yesterday in the SF Chronicle on how he avoided being photographed with Mayor Newsom at the height of the same-sex marriage furor, I see him as just another middle-of-the-road democratic politician; considerably less odious than your typical Republican pol, but certainly not the saint that he is made out to be. There is no excuse for the disproportionate amount of vitriol being poured on Hillary other than pure sexism and misogyny, buried or otherwise.

Wobbly, I believe you misunderstood me. My point was that every democrat should back the eventual democratic nominee, regardless of whom they had backed in the primaries.

I.e., I believe we’re for the same thing, no?

-MS

I’m shocked Hillary won California last night, truly shocked. I thought the Kennedy endorsements and pumping up the “Camelot” thing was going to be a snowball the Clinton campaign could not stop. But it fizzled on its own, was it because voters don’t believe Obama measures up yet to JFK/RFK, or does Ted Kennedy still carry so much baggage even a significant number of democrats see him with disdain? I think Obama’s impressions of MLK speech writing, oratory, and physical presence works better for him.

I also think last nights primaries demonstrate yet again voters are not going to be told who to vote for by the MSM, pundits, endorsers, or the candidates themselves. Huckabee’s success showed that and Romney’s failure to buy votes was glaring.

There is no excuse for the disproportionate amount of vitriol being poured on Hillary other than pure sexism and misogyny, buried or otherwise.

There is just no distinction between people who (I agree) just spew hate and those of us who disagree with her and have chosen to back another candidate? Me, misogynist? buried? Oh, I give up. Where do I go to turn in my vag?

Jane, Edwards apologised and admittee he made a mistake and said he would have the troops home in 10 months. Hillary refused to apologise for her vote. I feel Lieberman in her retinue that means more beligerence…I hope that that is wrong.

most definitely we agree on that point. I just hope that this whole primary doesn’t cause such disdain that we don’t pull together and focus on the larger picture (presidency,SCOTUS)

Ridiculous. Kerry and Edwards renounced their votes. No two Dems, with the exception of Joe Lieberman, were in a better position to slow the move towards war than the combination of Bill and Hillary. They made a calculation, a political calculation that seemed safe in that climate and would, they thought, preserve their political viability. Their continued joint support of Bush’s adventure had an enormous impact. They have blood on their hands, and to me, that trumps everything else. All of us here KNEW it was a vote for war.

“I looked at the county breakdown (available on CNN’s site) and he carried San Francisco, while she walked away with LA.”

She carried the Western section of SF, the populated Bay peninsula (Daly City onwards) all the way into Santa Clara and San Jose (which is the largest city in the Bay area, BTW). I don’t have the figures around, but when I glanced through the newspaper this morning, I recall that except for SF (excluding the Western section) and Marin, these other Bay area regions went overwhelmingly to Hill.

I agree with many others: Hillary cannot get away with her Iraq vote. BS on that line that “everybody else did, too.” Another lie. Half of the Democrats didn’t. And, unlike Edwards, being a NEW YORK senator made it easier for her, than it was for him. And he said it was a mistake.

And now it’s IRAN. And Fox. And changing the rules about Michigan and Florida.

Enough Hillary. She was … and is … a Republican.

Why is this point so hard to explain? I don’t know what’s in the hearts of these politicians. In the end of the day I don’t care that much whether Hillary Clinton enthusiastically or cynically or reluctantly or opportunistically or timorously or deludedly voted for the AUMF (and Kyl-Lieberman). Nor do I care whether Obama spoke opportunistically or sincerely in 2002 (or the other day in Los Angeles). What matters is that she did vote for both and hasn’t disavowed either act of warmongering, while Obama didn’t (half point on Kyl-Lieberman). Obama, on the other hand, can credibly, without distraction or contradiction, present himself as the candidate devoted to remedying such warmongering now and in the future, and, more importantly, has already begun to do that.. Clinton hasn’t even taken the first step, which was to acknowledge that it was a bad idea to invade Iraq. How on earth can she advance the debate on this for the country’s sake? And what will the Iraq platform look like with her as the nominee?

And that is the skeptical, jaded variation on my argument; I don’t even take into account the years of evidence (which you know as well as anyone) that Clinton, the Senator from New York, enthusiastically supported the war and occupation and a “hawkish” policy on Iran, and my intuitition that Obama isn’t really so keen on this bomb-the-wogs foreign policy.

False. Europeans believed no such thing. Powell’s U.N. presentation was overwhelmingly derided as a charade.

If by “hate” you mean contempt, yes, I “hated” Kerry as much.

Obama was up 20% when that story broke. He was already pulling away and did not need Ryan’s sexcapades to win.

To me, Obama didn’t win California because there wasn’t enough time. If he had surged even 2 weeks earlier, there might have been a different outcome.

How many Californians voted absentee, up to a month earlier? Hundreds of thousands. I doubt those votes were counted.

I was just looking at overall county results, not nitpicking here. My point was that it was not devastation rather that both candidates did well in California.

You’ve rightly applauded Edwards here for advancing the debate on various issues. One of the things he advanced the debate on was the war, by recanting his AUMF vote. Perhaps he was opportunistically playing to the base. It doesn’t matter though: he advanced the debate. Clinton can only win on the issue by obscuring or avoiding the debate.

I am older than Jane (not by much) but I DO laugh at the “old woman” jokes. I remember making digs at “old people” too, when I was very young.

A childish habit. It has always been there, and always will.

And I can tell you this — I have been young, and I have been old. Being old is better. Real youth is SO fleeting. Just remember to check back when you are considered OLD — by your standards today.

“Me, misogynist? buried? Oh, I give up. Where do I go to turn in my vag?”

I meant the Hillary Haters who spew vitriol about her. What would you call the female McCain supporter who asked him how to take care of the bitch? There are a plenty of women who are ‘misogynists’, just as there are Blacks who are ‘racist’; Spike Lee’s jungle bunnies and jigaboos comes to mind, as do Clarence Thomas and Ward Connerly.

[RBGNote;let’s be very careful how we use some of those words.]

This is interesting to me: “Hillary Haters”

Since when is everyone who is against Hillary a HATER? And don’t disagree — I see this in countless blogs.

To be against Hillary, or to disagree with her is not HATRED. What did you call those against Kerry? Male Haters?

Of course, most Americans will fall for this.

California flash- Independent voters in LA County where there are 800,000
voters registered as independents had a difficult time getting Democratic ballots and even if they did had to make a special request to have their votes counted in the Democratic primary- STAY TUNED

I wonder who the wifecheating mayor of LA supported?

In fact, Obama is sowing cross generational conflict, which is one of the things that turned me against him. He has essentually painted an entire generation with responsibility for everything that’s gone wrong with our country, with no distinction between who’s on what side. He dismisses all of the battles many of us have fought so hard as “the battles of the 60s” as if we were all caught up in some crazy game. I see this reflected a lot in comments from his supporters, many of whom have an “it’s time for you old folks to get out of the way” attitude.

I checked the SF Gate site. The populous Santa Clara county went 54.8%/39.3% and San Mateo county went 51.4%/43.5% for Hill. Alameda, with its relatively high Black population went 50.6/44.7 for Obama. While people talk about the Latin vote, and how it favored Hill, the Asian vote went overwhelmingly to her (>70% as I recall).

Point taken.

I don’t see where anyone has said being against Hillary automatically makes you a hater. But if you haven’t noticed the tone of comments about her all over the blogosphere, you haven’t been paying attention. Shrew, harpy, witch, Shrillery, Hitlery, the list goes on and on. I don’t see anywhere near as much hatred directed against Obama.

“All over the blogosphere”, huh?

Try addressing the commenters here, at this site.

On the issue of Hillary’s vote for the AUMF, it seems some people feel that vote has disqualified her from ever being President. If so, why should she apologize to you? Would you ever support her, even if she did so? But in a larger sense, I think people have to look at this in the context of the time, not so much to excuse Hillary’s vote, but to think about the Democratic Party message going forward. The invasion of Iraq was favored by a huge majority in this country, rightly or wrongly. Portraying those who supporteed it as warmongers with blood on their hands strikes me as a bit of a turnoff to the general electorate. While public opinion has turned against the war, I doubt everyone who supported it feels the need for some kind of mea culpa. They used to support it, now they don’t. Making it some kind of moral dividing line is a loser, in my opinion.

my last response to you @ 348 I think she did great and he did great (he made up much of the gap that had been there weeks before)

Sorry, I was under the impression that the election was being discussed at places other than this site. Why am I restricted to only talking about specific comments made at this site?

And by the way, I was responding to this comment from shell: “Since when is everyone who is against Hillary a HATER? And don’t disagree — I see this in countless blogs.”

This is dishonest or wrong on several points.

“On the issue of Hillary’s vote for the AUMF, it seems some people feel that vote has disqualified her from ever being President. If so, why should she apologize to you? Would you ever support her, even if she did so?”

I’ll support her in the general election. I think I’m a typical Democratic critic of hers in this regard.

“The invasion of Iraq was favored by a huge majority in this country, rightly or wrongly. Portraying those who supporteed it as warmongers with blood on their hands strikes me as a bit of a turnoff to the general electorate.”

This is where you’re being dishonest. A poll is different from the politicians for voted for the war and media voices (NYT, all the major tv networks, all the op-ed pages of major newspapers) promulgated propaganda. The public can be forgiven from polling in favor under a deluge of vicious propaganda; this is not a plesbiscitary democracy. Meanwhile, I, and most commenters here, knew the war was a lie before the invasion simply by reading the newspaper carefully; Clinton is lying or dumb when she says Bush fooled her.

“Making it some kind of moral dividing line is a loser, in my opinion.”

This should speak for itself, but I can’t help adding: A lot of people argued for geopolitical reasons we shouldn’t have the Nuremberg Trials. That was a “loser”, too. We have waged an aggressive war that has killed hundreds of thousands of people. It’s a moral issue. And there’s a great twofer: genuinely opposing it in the general election is a “winner”!

We must read different things. I have seen none of the terms you mentioned, although I do not believe they aren’t there. Likewise, I have often, OFTEN heard that those not for Hillary are Hillary HATERS.

I think you’re mischaracterizing several of my statements. My first point was addressed to “some people (who) feel that vote has disqualified her from ever being President.” I recognize that many Dems oppose her because of the vote, but will support her in the general. But it’s hard to see how the people who use phrases like “warmonger” and “blood on her hands” will ever support her.

And I agree, the votes taken by politicians are different from opinions held by the general public. But as is said, my post was “not so much to excuse Hillary’s vote, but to think about the Democratic Party message going forward.” It’s not about opposing the war now; that’s pretty much a given. I’m addressing the attitude evidenced in your statement “Meanwhile, I, and most commenters here, knew the war was a lie before the invasion simply by reading the newspaper carefully” Again, I don’t think communicating the message that anyone who supported the war must have been stupid, incapable of critical thought or just not paying attention is a winner. I don’t care what the majority of commenters here thought (in the context of this discussion). The fact still remains that many of Hillary’s critics point to their own opposition to the war as evidence that any thinking person knew it was wrong.

And for the record, I was very vocally against the war from the beginning, as well. But I also remember the mood at the time, and I’m not prepared to make that vote a moral dividing line. And the vote was not to invade; it was to give Bush the authority to use force after going to the UN. I realize many people will argue that anyone should have known that Bush would go to war, but it’s hardly equivalent to the Nuremberg Trials.

If Hillary admitted it was a bad vote (a la Edwards), I would consider voting for her. But she made it worse by doing the same thing about Iran. That tells me she isn’t saying anything because she needs to look “tough.” And that is BS.

Exactly. I find that very off-putting, too.

Not to sound like a broken record, but I fail to see how Obama supporters can keep citing the Iran vote. She showed up to vote and went on the record, for better or worse. I fail to see how Obama ducking the vote, then criticizing her from the sidelines, represents a new way of doing politics.

The fact still remains that many of Hillary’s critics point to their own opposition to the war as evidence that any thinking person knew it was wrong

You’re overstating the case here. Most Democrats knew the war was wrong and voted accordingly. The exception was in the Senate, where a thin majority of Democrats voted for the war. That was because the presidential wannabe’s (Biden, Dodd, Clinton, Edwards and Kerry) were afraid of opposing what looked to be an easy, popular war. As a group, they put their own careers ahead of their consciences.

I resolved at that time that I would never vote for any of them. There has to be some accountability, right? Gender has nothing to do with it. If Edwards were still in the race, I wouldn’t vote for him either.

And by the way, the war authorization vote was not a difficult decision. Everybody knew Bush was cynically exploiting national outrage after September 11th.

I’m hesitant to comment on this post but since the first paragraph after the Stoller quote is about Cali, I think I can add a little insight

Jane said:

I respect Matt but disagree on almost everything. Obama’s California defeat was devastating; both campaigns made it ground zero for all their firepower, pulling out all the stops and Clinton won decisively in groups she’s had a hard time competing with before — everything but African Americans and young white men, atheists and people who make between 159-400k a year. Gays broke huge for her, so did Asians and Latinos, churchgoers, married people seniors — as did young people 18-24 in both Massachusetts and California. As Dave Dayden said at Calitics, “Clinton SMOKED Obama in the hard-to-reach areas of SoCal and the Central Valley.” It was a heavily contested battle where we got to see everything they’ve got, and Clinton scored a decisive victory.

I wouldn’t say that Hillary winning was devastating for Obama 1) She had a huge lead as recently as a few weeks ago 2) She’s the candidate of the establishment (trust me, a know a few people) 3) name recognition

Then there’s the fact that delegates are awarded proportionately

“Gays broke for her” Do you mean West Hollywood? Because SF went for Obama by the same margin as the state for Hillary. Are there exit polls which I haven’t seen that reflect this?

“Young people 18-24″ I’m not doubting you, but are there exit polls for this?

As far as D Day’s quote, I disagree completely: From personal observation having lived in SoCal and being a current resident of the Central Valley I saw these two areas as a significant stronghold for Senator Clinton because SoCal is a traditional conservative area when you take into consideration the defense industry, military bases and areas such as the Inland Empire; and the Central Valley having been a magnet for people in economically distressed areas such as the Southern Plains in the 1930’s and Latin America at present – these people tend to be more conservative socially and tend to be drawn to one more authoritative in nature, and tend to be more religious who would gravitate to a more conservative candidate (which Hillary has done in many of her votes) and more well known candidate.

Barack did make a huge strategic error as far as I see it, because he could have made huge inroads, if not taken the extreme Northern California counties, the Sierra and the Antelope Valley had they spent the money with direct mail and cable tv ad buys, but that’s water under the bridge.

I hate to criticize the blog posts of others, especially those for whom I have a lot of respect because I know how much time and effort goes into a blog but I had to add a few of my own personal observations

Peace

California flash- Independent voters in LA County where there are 800,000
voters registered as independents had a difficult time getting Democratic ballots and even if they did had to make a special request to have their votes counted in the Democratic primary- STAY TUNED

I wonder who the wifecheating mayor of LA supported?

Same person that sack of shit has always suported – himself.

However, Ambitious Antonio is merely Mayor of the City of Los Angeles.

Elections for the County of Los Angles (pop 10,250,000) are conducted by the County gov’t, which is lead by the Five Princes Royals aka the Board of Supervisors. They have been split on party lines (R/D) for decades.

Exactly the point. Well said, and well worth repeating over and over and over again to the Hillary people as they live in denial of the fact that their candidate lacked the conviction to stand up and be counted in opposition to Bush’s BS, and proceeded to serve herself instead of her country.

OBAMA 08!

That’s fine but the term ‘hater’ is thrown about a bit too casually to tag those that criticize her or flat out don’t support her. It’s a loaded term and to dismiss criticisms of her policies or not supporting her as ‘hate’ or ’sexist’ or ‘misogyny is simplistic thinking and insulting

“I fail to see how Obama ducking the vote, then criticizing her from the sidelines, represents a new way of doing politics.”

That is like voting “present”; an old Obama way of doing politics. This fake war with Iran isn’t happening. We are stretched so thin that we will be lucky if we get Afghanistan right. Besides, wasn’t it Obama who was threatening to attack Pakistan at one time? I don’t fault him on this, but shouldn’t the “warmongering” label for the goose be the same for the gander?

“That’s fine but the term ‘hater’ is thrown about a bit too casually to tag those that criticize her or flat out don’t support her.”

If you re-read Jane’s essay, she wasn’t throwing the term indiscriminately, and neither was anyone else in their responses here, afaik. There is nothing wrong with criticizing Hillary’s positions; however, it is well documented that the media has been one-sided in their criticisms, and have indeed piled on selectively. Some Obama supporters also qualify as Hillary Haters based on their scurrilous comments about her.

oh dear. Can we agree to a discussion where already explained or debunked whoo-haa isn’t thrown out as an example of policy/issue disagreement (on both sides). His ‘present’ votes have been explained over and over and i understand that this is like arguing with the universe but can we have an actual discussion without resorting to playground tactics.

Sheesh

If you read through all my posts, you will see that I wasn’t addressing Jane rather the discourse that is out there.

Re Kern county votes, Bakersfield newspaper this morning said 20,735 for Clinton and 11,156 votes for Obama. Amazing for such a conservative town. McCain got 17,244 votes. This was 283 precincts out of 444.