hi Jane

Year of the democRAT!

He organized for caucuses and Clinton didn’t. But also caucuses favor highly motivated supporters and Obama seems to have more of those. Though, mind, I think Clinton could have had them too if she’d told them early enough that she needed them. The huge surge in donations shows that.

No idea on the midwestern states though.

What an adorable picture!

Why is Obama winning? It may have more to do with Sen. Clinton than Obama. Just a thought.

What about all them college kids they bussed in from out of state?

It’s not because he is getting more votes?

Obama does well, because he says that extraordinary things can be accomplished by ordinary people. He bursts the bubble that, why bother it can’t be done…it will never happen…Huckabee is doing the same thing for the Republicans (who are now referring to themselves as the Party of Conservatism…that’s how bad it’s getting for them).

Obama is like an anti-depressive. The country needs that…we are recovering from PTSD caused by the Neocons…now we can believe that we can actually go on and live (even though the Pukes relentlessly tell us that we are going to be incinerated pretty much daily, in order to keep us afraid and depressed)…Maybe we will be attacked, but I don’t want to waste the life I’m living now worrying…I’d rather try to hope to have a better world…and if they incinerate me, well, so be it. I’d rather go out having hope. JMHO

“Obama takes Kennebunkport, results coming soon”–they mean the caucus results but I want it to mean results for BushCoNorth. And not the one they foresaw.

http://www.turnmaineblue.com/

EPU’ed a couple of threads back, but I remarked that Obama had apparent won Cape Elizabeth, which is Portland’s VERY well-decorated bedroom community and quite conscious of its elite status. I would have expected Hillary to do well here, and seeing Obama prevail maikes me think that something really is going on.

(Now if we can just get Obama/Edwards for a ticket!)

we were discussing two big questions regarding this race that I haven’t heard satisfactory answers for — a) why does Obama do so well in all these white midwestern states, and b) why does he do so well in caucuses?

a) Hope and Clinton fatigue;

b) Superior field organization and highly motivated supporters.

Yes it is a good picture.

But please Jane, keep your eye on the puck.

Who bussed in to where. and how did they register to vote if they were not residents? explain, dear Raven.

You look great Jane, hope you are feeling great as well.

No wonder there’s a shakeup in the Clinton campaign.

But, Penn is still there…!

The Old Guard is still backing Clinton, don’t discount that. Now that McCain is the GOPs nominee, a lot of folks are making the tactical decision of who has the best odds against him. Polls say Obama, my heart/head say Obama, and the money says that others agree.

Boxturtle (Very glad to see that)

It was a running gag yesterday, I was just goofin.

Obama has been moving up steadily for a long time now. There’s no way to know, but I think Obama might have won California and a few other states if Super Tuesday was held a week later.

Clinton’s huge advantage last year was partly name recognition. Now that is dissipating because more and more people want to know who this new guy is.

And I think it’s fair to say that there is a built-in percentage of Democratic voters who are concerned about the influence of the DLC.

I think a lot of people are tired of the “old guard” and are looking for some fresh faces and new ideas.

Is there any Repub hanky-panky going on, with people voting in primaries as Dems for the person they see as the weaker candidate (for the sake of this hypothesis, let’s say Obama)?

There are no Diebold machines at caucuses.

Dingaling.

Getting more votes? Obviously he is. That’s not what I was getting at. We in this house voted for Obama in the Oklahoma primary. And hope he is the nominee. We judged Mr. Obama first on his opposition to the Iraq war. And over all we think he’s more rigged for change than Clinton. Other than that we focused on HRC’s record, the company she keeps, and the derivation of her campaign financing. But in the end we just don’t trust Senator Clinton to do the right thing on some very basic issues. And lastly, we simply don’t find Clinton very personable. Oh and we dislike the DLC, an organization of which Senator Clinton is a Team Leader and has deep roots. And of course for some it boils down to plain old ‘warmth’ and the so called ‘likeability factor’.

Hockey is a great game … I wish the Maple Leafs knew how to play it … *g*

Obama has scored heavily from the endorsement of his cousin, Dick Cheney ! /s

WOW!! Anyone know what the predictions are for the year of the Rat? We have to choose between being the DemocRATs or the RepubicRats–and we know they are rats because records number have left the ship (of state).

And with the RNC treasurer under investigation by the FBI for financial fraud, soon they will be ratting on each other. In fact, he was also treasurer for a number of campaigns, the campaigns of—the very rats who have left the ship since the scandal broke in August.

Obama does well at caucuses for the same reason he draws huge crowds. The people who like Obama really really like him, and are willing to make the extra effort, above and beyond voting, to support him. It takes a lot of work to go see a candidate give a speech, and it takes a lot of work to go participate in a caucus. Obama’s supporters are sufficiently motivated to do either.

Unscientific poll from a Green Bay TV station’s website:

Assuming John McCain goes on to win the Republican nomination, who will be his Democratic opponent?
Poll Results:
Hillary Clinton 45.42%
Barack Obama 54.58%

Sample size is just under 300 right now.

Maine results so far:
79%
Obama, Barack 1,817 59% 15
Clinton, Hillary 1,263 41% 11

Quite the contrary, if a few of the Repugs are advocating voting for Hill if McCain is the nominee, it gives pause to think they would vote for Obama as the ‘lesser’ opponent… Personally, I think they’re screwed either way…!

Cassie also posted about Obama.

Obama has scored heavily from the endorsement of his cousin, Dick Cheney ! /s

So there IS a skeleton in the closet that the Republicans will use this November!

it’s the “year of the rat.” Must bode well for the Republicans.

because it’s their last year???

I wish the Maple Leafs knew how to play it … *g*

Aren’t they paid professionals?

You think the Repub owned voting machine industry would not rather have Clinton as an opponent for McCain? With her leading the ticket, it’s a repuglie blow-out.

Oh! You think Repuglies don’t steal elections.

Dingaling.

Why does Obama do so well? People a fed up to their ears with Bush, his constantly playing on our fears, and the abysmal results of his administration. Including lots of independents and repugs. Obama has managed to raise hopes, and really built a movement. He was in Bangor (Maine) yesterday–an overflow crowd came, some of them waited four hours in the cold to get a seat (he spoke to the ones who couldn’t get in separately). There really is a great sense that many things have gone seriously wrong, and a great hunger for change and hope, and he has tapped into it.

Jane, you look fantastic! Be my Valentine? :-)

Yup, either Hillary or Obama will trounce the Repug nominee … providing the voting is not rigged …

Obama beat them to it last night … smacking Cheney around in his speech …

Though, mind, I think Clinton could have had them too if she’d told them early enough that she needed them. The huge surge in donations shows that.

Yeah the Clinton campaign just announced that they got $10 million in donations last month…and half that was from ONE DONOR! (And maybe much of the rest from another major supporter ;-)

If you do it (triangulating) long enough, eventually folks will start understanding that you’re doing it.

Surely you jest?!

it’s the “year of the rat.” Must bode well for the Republicans.

because it’s their last year???

Last year was year of the Bush monkey.”

I think they’re trying to eclipse the BoSox string of years without winning the championship ! *g*

Is there any Repub hanky-panky going on, with people voting in primaries as Dems for the person they see as the weaker candidate

I believe most primary elections are closed. And Republicans have an open race of their own, so I’m sure are voting there. The Dem party is attracting the Dem and Independent vote.

Obama has tapped into a reservoir of intense political passion that has not been plumbed by a politician since Bobby Kennedy in 1968. This intense passion plays very well in caucus states.

Caucusing is basically public voting. You have one candidate with the cult of personality behind him and another with less charisma but is a razor on policy. Which do you think lends itself to groupthink/mob mentality/etc in a public voting scenario?

We would gladly support some combination of an Obama/Clinton ticket. We think it a winner.

Ding ding ding/.

I think the GOP is too busy rigging their own electons. I see that as soon as McCain edged out Huckabee in Washington state, the party decided that 87% of the caucus votes was just the right number to count.

I hope FDL has some spies who can clue us in on the NRCC accounting fraud, and the apparent Washington state caucus fraud.

As I said last night on that great FDL ’sucks’ post, whenever I worry about Democratic infighting over the presidential nomination, the GOP out-trainwrecks us.

The refined high brow very moral and upright patriotic GOP looks like they turned themselves into a gang of thieves without honor, and will proceed to devour themselves.

Well, the BoSox prove that there’s always hope… BTW, they’ve won more WS than the Yanks this century… *g*

Anyone watching 60 Cheapshots? Notice the difference in tone between the interviews of Clinton and Obama?

Fresh caught catfish for supper folks. Eat your heart out. It’s a Democratic supper.

Lots of sour grapes here, I see, which is very unfortunate. Why is there this constant condescension of actual Democratic voters? I don’t get it.

Possibly because the MSM gushes all over him and gives him a pass on virtually everything. After the two conventions that will be a distant memory, and Obama + Rezco problems are going to be front and center. In my opnion they think it would be easier to beat him that HRC. Why else would so many of the republics be voting for Obama?

P.S. Gung Hey Fat Choy

Au contraire, I am dead serious. The hatred for HRC is tailor made to get out the repub vote in favor of even the hated McCain. It stands to reason that if Repubs own the machines>and have in fact stolen elections for Repub candidates>then why WOULDN’T they steal a Dem primary to get the most likely candidate for them to beat, by a wide margin?

Of course, if Obama is the nominee the election will be close enough to steal without being too obvious.

Hi Jane -

Great picture. You always look good sitting in the stands at sporting events,

Hockey can only be watched up close and personal. It’s unwatchable on TeeVee.

It’s really amazing what has happened this year. I’m watching the turnout, and hoping for a tsunami in the fall.

I think the GOP is too busy rigging their own electons. I see that as soon as McCain edged out Huckabee in Washington state, the party decided that 87% of the caucus votes was just the right number to count.

Yeah, what kind of Huckery is this? :)

Huck is sending in the lawyers!
http://blog.seattletimes.nwsou….._here.html

I love watching Rethugs meltdown.

Hey Kiddo, what’s the recipe for those catfish?

Look at the numbers. No, I don’t mean delegate numbers, I mean actual voters, especially the voter’s numbers in primarys instead of caucus’.
A caucus takes place over a short period of time at a certain place and time. Its reported that Obama draws more affluent, educated. That means in caucus states its very hard for the hourly, lower wage voters to participate. Not to mention, Obama has run an expensive caucus campaign with paid organizers.
But, when Nebraska is considered a win with a TOTAL participant count of less than 30,000 caucus goers. That hardly compares with a million voters in a primary state. For example:
Saturday:
Kansas Caucus:
Obama – 27,172 (23 delegates)
Clinton – 9,462 (9 delegates)
Oklahoma Primary:
Clinton – 228,425 (24 delegates)
Obama – 130,087 (14 delegates)
Total:
Clinton – 237,887 (33 delegates)
Obama – 157,259 (37 delegates)
So Clinton could win the popular vote (esp. see Florida)
Obama recieves more delegates (due to the smaller caucus)
Explains why the super-delegates may be important and the majority of super-delegates are an elected representative of their constituency.

Jane asked, “a) why does Obama do so well in all these white midwestern states, and b) why does he do so well in caucuses?”

In KS (a caucus state) he did better than Clinton because he out-organized her. I heard that he had more paid staff in-state and that they were here earlier than Clinton’s staff. They had an active GOTV effort. Obama made a couple of appearances in the state. Our governor and some key legislators endorsed him. Also, his grandparents lived here many years ago and his mother was born here–that may have helped somehow. But mainly it was organization, organization, organization. Or so it appears to me. And I think the intensity of commitment of his supporters made the caucus format work to his advantage. It was cold and snowing heavily on caucus night.

That was sort of what we concluded — he does well among the activist class and they’re more likely to show up to a caucus (as opposed to working class housewives, say).

I think there’s also something to the theory that his supporters are more likely to be men, and in a group setting some women are less likely to go against outspoken or assertive male supporters in a way they might in the privacy of a voting booth. I’m not sure what the dynamic is at play, but coming from a women’s college there are all kinds of studies about how women are less likely to assert themselves in group situations with men in a way they will if men aren’t around.

(It’s one of the arguments for women’s colleges, in that women who come out of them are more likely to be outspoken and assertive — something like 50% of all the women who have ever been in congress come from women’s colleges, when they are only responsible for something like 6% of the female graduates).
‘
Of course this is all a guess. I have no idea if it’s true.

Although it was great to have figures like President Clinton, Senator Clinton, Senator Kennedy, and Senator Obama visit the state, it’s not just famous politicans who have generated that excitement. Everywhere I go in the 1st District, I hear people talk about how much we need to take this country in a new direction. I know “change” is an overused word these days, but it really is what people want, and what we need.

That’s from the http://www.turnmaineblue.com site; written by a woman visiting the caucus being held in the Portland High School gym. I guess I find that convincing: people want things to be different. That gets the Ds out, and why would anybody vote for Hillary if they want something new?

Year of the Rat? I’m still writing Pig on my checks!

‘Caucusing is basically public voting.’

My understanding is that the many states’ caucus results are not final or binding -official decisions will be made at official state party meetings. So there should be some follow-up on final results for some of the caucus states.

I have no interest in the horse race aspect of Democrat nomination, and very suspicious of all these delegate counts that make assumptions about what final results are in many caucus states, and include super delegates.

People are setting themselves up to be disappointed and fractious, no matter who the nominee is, and that is not good.

Maybe I am not moved because I was for Edwards, but both Obama and HRC will need to prove themselves as more than cautious centrists by what they do in the future. Need to get one or the other nominated and keep the party together and enthusiastic, anything else is secondary.

I am astonished that Clinton got beaten so badly in Maine… I wonder, if you took the actual “body count” in the caucus states vs. the primary votes, how Obama stacks up? (seeing how as so many fewer people vote in a caucus)

Perhaps the country doesnt want a dynasty. This is my problem with Hillary.
If she were VP, Bill would be in check.

thanks, Jane.
and geez .. you look like you’re about 16!

Here you guys are! I’ve been talking to myself two threads below. LOL

Don’t have TV here. What is the slant?

Thank you, Peter! I would love to be your Valentine.

and geez .. you look like you’re about 16!

Keep it quiet, but she is! Child prodigy, ya know :-)

Easy. Dip in egg batter, salt, black pepper, chili powder, and pull fillets through corn meal and flour mixture and pan fry in canola oil. Over medium heat. Enjoy.

Jane, you are adorable as a few are pointing out above! :-)

I think the caucuses are harder to steal and rig and this is why maybe Hillary isn’t doing so well in them. Maybe?

Electronic voting machines can’t be trusted, which is so sad.

I think that makes YOU my valentine.

;)

Ummm…this is interesting…a person with a sign that said, ”Not another Clinton”…is hauled out and told, ”I will arrest you”….watch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLFBPLnnq3s

I have been following the Maine caucus reports all day via TurnMaineBlue.

http://www.turnmaineblue.com/s…..iaryId=779

These may be caucuses, but Mainers are not likely to change their minds due to “social pressure” (for whoever suggested that general idea above).

The turnouts for the ME Dem caucuses were huge, overwhelming in numbers and in numbers of new delegates. Big cities as well as small rural places went for Obama. People are saying they are few up with the status quo, and that they see Clinton as part of the status quo.

Hoping this means the Mainers are ready to kick out SuzieQ!

Hi OldCoastie. The coolest part about the caucuses today is Maine has a black population of about 4%, so mainly whites voted for him. I love that!

Obama inspires a notion that things will change. Hillary not so much.

I dont’ understand the worry about dynasties, simply because successvie presidents would be from the same family. What difference does it make? Does any one think that we would not have dynastic politics if successive predidents came from different families, and had different surnames?

The dynasts are the powerful reactionary rich and corporate interests. These people they shoot into the presidency are their stooges, nothing more.

that is why congress more important.

it’s harder to rig a caucus than a voting machine. there was some rigging going on in nh. you do look fabulous jane.

On Super Tuesday, they both ended with almost exactly the same number of votes. Not delegates, actual votes when you added them all up (49.2% to 48.8% IIRC). Don’t know what the numbers are now, but they probably favot Obama now, so that doesn’t hold too much weight over the long term.

I agree that sometimes caucusing is going to play to the hand of the individual that is going to be emotional orator. This is more likely to happen when the caucus turnout is high and bringing in enthusiastic individuals.

In a smaller caucus people may chat about policies and even issues that affect people at a Statewide level. There’d be more discussion, questions-answers, and give-and-take. But in like is what is happening this year exuberance, and the sheer mass of people make it much more difficult to do that. Thus the charismatic individual and new participants have the upper hand.

Why is Obama taking the Plains States? That’s more complex, but I think it’s largely that Clinton took them for granted…thinking that the voters there would simply not support a black (or bi-racial) candidate. It’d be interesting to see just how much organization Obama was doing in these states. Certainly there was a massive effort in Iowa (with the whole Students For Obama movement) and in Kansas (with his extended family)…but I wonder if there was an organized plan to go out and canvass in these States. There certainly was a big effort in Washington…so I wonder if some of those folks went over to help out in Idaho. Did his Illinois team do work in Minnesota?

The funny thing is that with his momentum right now he can actually apply pressure on Clinton in Texas (lots of Obama supporters in Houston-Beaumont and Austin), Indiana, Ohio and Pennsylvania to a degree that he might actually win this thing on delegates.

Why is it sour grapes? Clinton has done better in individual voting scenarios, short of SC, so why is bad to actually suggest some options as to why there is such a disparity? “Be cause she sucks and Obama Rulezzzz!”-isn’t quite a complimentary reflection of the minds of Democratic voters either. The term “mob mentality” wasn’t meant as a derogatory, just that when in groups people act/behave/think differently than when they deliberate on a given issue individually. I’d say it’s arrogant to say that Dems are not capable of groupthink phenomena. It could be both, Obama being a solid candidate and said charisma/personality and how it factors into grup voting situations. Just a suggestion.

60 minutes…they are taking the penny away…they will have to round everthing up by 5 cents…

Very sneaky….

Hockey can only be watched up close and personal. It’s unwatchable on TeeVee

Actually the best place is playing hockey

Back in the day I loved playing football (both ways – right defensive end, left offensive tackle) but was natural at hockey (hmmm … left wing, coincidentally)

So how does Obama fit into this mold?

Yep, his organizational skills have served him well. And her decision not to play in caucus states really hurt her; his choice to play in all of them early on paid off gangbusters.

You are soooooooo lucky. I LOVE the Rangers -albeit always from the blue seats. Their fans are one of a kind. Not much coverage in Florida. More like no coverage. You are sooooooo lucky. But apparently you’re a jinx. So,next time you get tickets – especially THOSE tickets – let me know and I’ll take them off your hands. For the Rangers, of course.

My understanding is that the many states’ caucus results are not final or binding -official decisions will be made at official state party meetings.

The caucus is the first step of a multi-step process. I’m sure it varies somewhat from state to state but it begins with the precinct/town/county caucus. From there to the Congressional District level and from there to the state level. Some states may run things in back to back days. I know when Kentucky used caucuses, it was a county caucus on a Saturday morning then a couple of weeks later the CD caucus was held with the State caucus the following day.

Caucusing is basically public voting. You have one candidate with the cult of personality behind him and another with less charisma but is a razor on policy. Which do you think lends itself to groupthink/mob mentality/etc in a public voting scenario?

You know, it’s easy to be cynical about these things. But if you were BO, and saw the possibility of building a movement for some real change in the US, wouldn’t you do the same? IMHO there is really the possibility of new directions and programs like we haven’t seen since Roosevelt. Not guaranteed, but the whiff is in the air. Many people are ready for that.

Thanks so much for your interest today! Turn Maine Blue has done a terrific job in logging vote tallies along with other good information.

I hope the results of today means Suzie-Q is out the door.

Explains why the super-delegates may be important and the majority of super-delegates are an elected representative of their constituency.

No super delegates are an attempt to counter act the little folk when they act up. If these delegates are to represent their constituency, do you agree that each super delegate should vote for the candidate who won their state?

Yeah, we could have our own 2000 election, within the Democratic party! Yay. :

Oh, and as for the remark about problems with caucuses and who can participate (problem with hourly workers, etc.) the Maine caucus took place today- a Sunday!!!!! probably the day least likely to impact those low income wage earners in terms of time available

I keep asking about the dynasty because Id love to know why it doesnt seem to matter to people. It does to me

“Obama inspires a notion that things will change. Hillary not so much.”

I like Obama, but my problem with him is that there is too much emphasis on ‘notion’ and less on specifics. What I know of Obama’s specifics, he is more centrist on many substantive policy plans than HRC, and in a way that makes his proposals more vulnerable to attack from face bipartisan efforts to derail real reform. I admit his is strong on lobby and campaign finance reform. Health care and his proposals for recession stimulus package are two exmaples.

I will go since I am sounding like a broken records, but we need a strong and aggressive congress, more important than whether Obama or HRC elected.

Not so fast. Here is a listing of the race so far. Obama has one almost just as many primaries, just also more caucuses.

Obama Primary Winners (9 altogether):
South Carolina
Alabama
Connecticut
Illinois
Missouri
Utah
Louisiana
Delaware
Georgia

Clinton’s Primary Winners (10 altogether):
New Hampshire
Michigan
Arizona
California
Massachusetts
New Jersey
New York
Oklahoma
Tennessee
Arkansas

Obama’s Caucus Winners (10 altogether):
Iowa
Alaska
Colorado
Idaho
Kansas
Minnesota
North Dakota
Nebraska
Washington
Maine

Clinton’s Caucus Winners (1 altogether):
Nevada

Uncontested or Inconclusive at this writing:
Florida
Michigan
New Mexico

Here is Arianna take on the new campaign manager, Maggie Williams.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..85909.html

…and plus we had 2 snow storms (the 2nd one during the caucus had blizzard like conditions) today which didn’t keep voters away. Cool, huh? ;-)

That’s at least two very white states (Iowa and Maine) that Obama has won conclusively. I can’t help but be proud of the US for that. And as my son (who goes abroad often) pointed out today, having a President of color would do wonders for America’s reputation abroad, at the very least symbolically.

Perhaps people are just worn out by the Clintons. I don’t know.

I attended the caucus in Colorado and trust me, EVERYONE knew who they were voting for before they arrived. How did I know? They were all carrying signs and wearing stickers backing their candidate. The actual vote was a formality. There was no mob mentality involved.

Kay- well, as you know, I am “from way” but I do know a bit about Maine.

Was your take really the same as mine- that all of this new Dem enthusiasm and commitment really might signal the end of SusieQ? I am SO hoping that is what today’s results mean.

Its reported that Obama draws more affluent, educated.That means in caucus states its very hard for the hourly, lower wage voters to participate.

Don’t forget the huge AA turnout (snark) Hmm I had no idea that Nebraska, Maine, Washington were filled to the brim with such highly educated and affluent people.

Not to mention, Obama has run an expensive caucus campaign with paid organizers.

I take it you have facts to back up that assertion? That is a slap in the face of the thousands of VOLUNTEERS that have phone banked, canvassed, contacted friends, families, etc. on behalf of Obama.

Hopefully, November’s weather will be Autumn Summer like conditions…!

Not cynicism, just a suggestion informed by working in social sciences. There’s a difference between trying to understand something and saying, “Everything he’s done is lame and meaningless!” More power to him if he can ride that pony to the Whitehouse.

Perhaps people are just worn out by the Clintons.

I think you’re right. But a lot of the wearing out is due to the repub attack machine. Not really the Clinton’s fault, that bit, but it’s there all the same.

I’m really a little envious of the Obama supporters who really seemed convinced that their candidate is “the one”. That’s a good way to feel. Wish I saw what they did. I’m still looking.

Yes. That’s the point. It’s a more even split in primaries vs. caucuses, not necessarily that Clinton is inherently “better”.

Not sure if Arianna can be objective about anything regarding HRC.

I think it matters that the candidate will be going against McCain. Obama provides the better contrast — especially old way vs new way, pro-war vs anti-war, etc.

Surely you jest?

Dynasties=Monarchies where power is kept “in the family”.

Clinton has done better in individual voting scenarios, short of SC

Why is there this constant need to downplay states that Obama won? Louisiana yesterday was a primary, not a caucus. He won 57% – 36%. That’s a blowout.

Clinton is a very famous person who people are thoroughly familiar with. She should be doing better. I think she would be if it wasn’t for the Clintons’ overt strategy of triangulation all these years.

Edwards is apparently shopping his endorsement. Maybe he will surprise people and pick Hillary. That would blunt the impact of this weekend sweep.

Caught off guard, but I believe that most of the caucuses have been open. Although there are exceptions (California) he’s had better luck in open primaries than in closed primaries.

I did some numbers from exit poll percentages in New Hampshire (open primary) and had it been a closed primary Clinton’s margin of victory would have been much wider.

Since South Carolina Clinton’s been pretty badly attacked in the press and combined with press attention given his South Carolina win combined with the press ignoring Clinton’s Florida win, probably has added media created momentum as a factor for his margins this weekend.

There’ve only been four midwestern states involved. Two primaries, Illinois and Michigan and two caucuses, Iowa and Minnesota.

Illinois his home state for an easy win and Michigan where Clinton won about 56% of the vote.

Iowa was a logistic advantage bringing in busloads of voluteers across the border from Illinois and targeting independents in a way they’d never been targeted before.

I feel that targeting and messaging directed at independents has been his biggest advantage. But, since South Carolina the media has helped immeasurably so that targeting independents may not make as much difference at this stage.

What’s really curious is that he’s also attracting liberals. He’s the most conservative Democrat to get this far since … I can’t really remember when and I’ve followed politics since 1952. He’s even more conservative than Clinton and yet look at what we’re seeing.

I feel that way too, PeterK. It’s a reflection of how the country is changing and how far we’ve come. I would say MLK would be proud today if he were still alive, don’t you think? ;-)

Was Maggie testifying in Congress?

Honeslty, I didn’t think of Suzie-Q once today (didn’t want to ruin the mood! LOL!), but since you mentioned it, it does appear that there are some Democrats in our state who will vote outside the box, meaning, they’re willing to take a chance on someone whose name is not as familiar as say…Hillary’s. Americans are sick and tired of Bushes and Clintons being in the White House. I know I am and the people I talk to everyday here in Maine and online.

I can’t really speak to what the hell they were thinking, but here’s one local source with a few more details on the WA State GOP caucus count.

http://www.king5.com/topstorie…..77710.html

Well… I caught ‘em and cleaned them and now will cook them (catfish). I knew Lahoma would somehow get her way out of cleaning them. It’s a game we play. But the lady is definitely on KP. (well maybe). Headin’ for the kitchen. We always had fish on Friday’s growing up. My Mother always told me fish was brain food. I eat a lot of fish, but this is one of those issues I’m not quite sure Mom was right about. Sorry Mom.

Did anyone see James Hoffa on Washington Journal the other day talking about the super highway….????? Not only the one from Texas, but the one up the California coast. This is NAFTA in its current manifestation. Texas is debating it…yeah…the 10 lane highway to Canada. This is real, and it is not good for America… it will result in huge loss of jobs for Teamsters. Just sayin’. This is not CT stuff, this is real.

“So how does Obama fit into this mold?”

See my comment 95. I think when you look at Obama’s specific policy and program proposals, they are less progressive than Edwards or HRC’s. They are more open to attack from vested interests disguising themselves as bipartisans and centrits, and that threatens to greatly weaken them as effective reforms. The specific’s of Obama’s proposals run counter to the ‘change’ part of his rhetoric. I think that is his weakness. I admit Obama is strong on traditional lobbying and finance ethics reform, but not sure how important that is in the long run compared to other approaches to corruption.

I have to admit that I think the presidency needs to be taken down a few notches. The Cold War is over, the threat of national destruction 30 minutes away is remote, and therefore no reason for concentrating so much unlateral authority in presidency.

No matter who is elected I think best thing would be for a progressive and aggressive congress to kick some presidential butt around for next several terms.

Of course, if McCain wins, then probably a neocon project he will take on will be getting up another cold war with a massive nuke power for GOP partisan advantage, in which case an aggressive congress to check presidential nonsense will be even more important.

Let’s hope so! Even if it snows, CTuttle, we can handle it. :-)

do you really think that none of it is their fault?

From Bloomberg news via Yahoo

Obama’s campaign has invested time and money in caucus states like Kansas, Alaska and North Dakota in an effort to bring new people into the process from across demographic and party lines, his aides say. Clinton, 60, of New York and other recent Democratic presidential hopefuls haven’t.

Please recognize that not every statement of fact is intended as a challenge to your preferred candidate.

Not cynicism, just a suggestion informed by working in social sciences. There’s a difference between trying to understand something and saying, “Everything he’s done is lame and meaningless!” More power to him if he can ride that pony to the Whitehouse.

I see what you mean. What’s exciting is that he has the possibility to ride that pony, and bring a lot of dems along with him. That gives him an incredible potential. What he would do with it, no one can say for sure. But electing someone always involves some level of trust.

Re Collins in Maine: I’m less optimistic that a Dem win for President would help that much to defeat her. People aren’t so easily dragged along here, and she is pretty popular. I think Allen needs to really find some weak spots and go after them, can’t take her defeat for granted at all.

I suspect Obama does well in caucuses because your “vote” isn’t secret. This is true, right? (I have never been to a caucus, but that’s how I understand it.) No matter what the issue, many vote a certain way when others can see how they vote. (Or speak. How many people say racist/misogynist things when no one but others that appreciate such horse shit are around?)

Heh, at least VG won’t be there to find another ditch…! *g*

Jane, one of those midwestern states checking in here (WI)

I think the organization issue is big. Obama will be in Madison (home of UW Madison, Edgewood College, state capital, etc.) Tuesday night at the Kohl Center (holds 17,000) and other locations YTD. Hillary is going to Marquette in Milwaukee, but not until next weekend.

Ours will be a primary on the 19th, so we’ll be a good bellwether. Large urban area (Milwaukee) with sizeable african american population, many mid-sized and smaller cities, and lots and lots of rural communities. Growing hispanic population in addition to all our euro-ethnic folks (da belgians, swiss, germans, irish, etc…)

I’m a transplant, but we’re very practical. We want to know the facts and we aren’t necessarily impressed by money or power. And we’ve lost a lot of soldiers and sent our Nat. Guard troops over and over.

Gov Doyle and Dave Obey have endorsed Obama, our Lt. Gov endorsed Hillary. Russ and Herb Kohl are still deciding.

Oooooh, he better not endorse Hillary!! I have become accustomed to his not endorsing either of these candidates, neither one of which strikes me as having his grit and valiant support for the underdog. But ESPECIALLY not Hillary, who, it seems to me, finds that it is all about the possibility of exercising power.

I’ve heard that argument quite a bit but when I ask the same about Hillary, I get a moment of silence, some stuttering, a bit of fumbling, a little more silence and then the subject changes.

Here is his platform spelled out http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

Foreign Policy http://www.foreignaffairs.org/…..rship.html

Surely you jest?

Dynasties=Monarchies where power is kept “in the family”.

——————

The real power is not in the Bush or Clinton families. It is in the extremely welathy corporate and ancestral power centers. They back them, they give them money, they promote them. The Clinton family is a new arrival. Bush family has been there for years, but same in pricniple.

So, no, I don’t jest. The Bush family are their wealthy backers operatives. The money and power glommed onto Clinton when they saw he was a political winner. The prominent political families are tools That is my opinion.

everyone was trying to deny this. also trying to deny the amero.

Super-delegates….the next obstacle.

Oy Vey!!!

Ours will be a primary on the 19th…

My caucus is on the 19th too, and I think Obama will take Hawaii in a landslide…

It’s hard to imagine that MLK wouldn’t be proud.

It’s simple. Hillary is losing because she doubled down and refused to accept Shuster’s apology.

And I’m only partially kidding. She made herself appear insincere by over-reacting and perceived insincerity is death to candidates. Ask Mr. Mittens. Ask Mr. 911. And for that matter ask Kerry and Edwards, whom I consider to be deeply sincere, but who lost because they were framed as insincere. Hillary shot herself in the foot.

There’s no more egregious victim of sexism than Valerie “Wifey sent him on a junket so she’s fair game” Plame. Shuster put his foot in his mouth but he’s no sexist and when it counted, he was there in the trenches fighting the good fight for months and months while everyone else was looking the other way.

Sorry I don’t buy the “he wins because of closet racists”. There is nothing racist about supporting Hillary. I don’t think a bunch of midwestern white people are walking into caucuses with Obama stickers to prove to anyone anything (esp that they are not racists, when they really are?). Take the easy answer. They just like him more.

But as to your 2 qusetions, they stunmp me too. Obama is a midwesterner, after all. But I don’t think that’s it. HRC won MI butI guess that’s not a “white” midwestern state. I dunno. Maybe viewing these states in the context of their whiteness is a mistake. MN & the Dakotas have pretty progressive traditions and BO is probably more attractive to morec progressives than HRC. The second question really puzzles me. More like shocks me. I figured Hillary had the organization and the oraganization people who have organizations of their own and that would give her a mojor advatage in caucuses. Only thing I can think of is that Obama and his people just plain busted their butts to get oraganized in less time than HRC had to get hers together. we hear alot-too much-of the garbage about how BO has star qualities and magnetism and all of that. He and his people aren’t getting enough credit for rolling up their sleeves and doing hard work.

CT- *g* good memory! I only drive into ditches in the summer

Yup..but that is just a conspiracy theory….

It is real. Texas is debating it now.

Updating myself, the Journal Sentinel (Milwaukee) is reporting that Chelsea is coming to speak in Milwaukee, Madison, LaCrosse and Eau Claire on Monday and Tuesday.

I never did. What I wanted to point out was other factors could be in play no matter the candidate. mkay?

I disagree that caucuses necessarily attract more affluent and better educated individuals. In fact many of the caucuses had absentee ballot opportunities as well. Maine certainly did.

I’d also point out that Obama made a major outreach effort to increase the number of previous non-participants in the caucuses AND primaries. Hillary would have done better if there had not been any new registrants or new voters. Her polling numbers of “Democratic Voter in 2004″ are always higher than Obamas.

Remember that caucuses/primaries also have delegates partitioned by numbers of registered Democratic voters in that district. Thus working class districts will generally have HIGHER delegate representation than wealthier districts. Thus delegates are issued based on the registered Democrats in a district regardless of whether that district has five voters (or caucusers) or 500.

In that sense the Primaries and Caucuses both are generally going to provide a greater measure of support from working class/poor districts than wealthier areas that are over-represented in the General election.

It’s a general rule (although being broken in this election) that dispropotionate numbers of wealthier people VOTE in general elections. That’s even more true the smaller the numbers voting.

I will bet that if you look at the caucus results in many of these states Obama does much better in districts and precincts where the turnout is high, Clinton in precincts with smaller turnouts. That’s certainly true in Maine.

Interesting. I wonder if it’s possible to test that theory with polling data? Anyway, Kevin Drum has a good rundown of a number of theories here:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.c…..013095.php

I don’t know about this Box Turtle. Given that Obama has more endorsements from Senators covering the spectrum from liberal to moderate, what we are also witnessing is the battle over the DNC and the nomination has everything to do with who will control the DNC, especially IF the nominee wins the election.

Makes you want to be a fly on the wall in some of these deliberations.

Anyway there’s a lot more turmoil and conflict than what we see taking place in the press, the caucuses and the primaries.

Whaa…, ya didn’t even have the weather excuse…? *g*

From Bloomberg news via Yahoo

Obama’s campaign has invested time and money in caucus states like Kansas, Alaska and North Dakota in an effort to bring new people into the process from across demographic and party lines, his aides say. Clinton, 60, of New York and other recent Democratic presidential hopefuls haven’t.

WTF does her age have to do with anything in this paragraph? The most charitable reading is that 60 year old New Yorkers as a rule do not invet money and time in caucus states. Is Rudiculuos 60 already? Do we now have to tax the media for agism as well as sexism?

PeterK- I wasn’t thinking about a Dem win for President, more like based on what I read about Maine caucuses today- that Dem caucus-goers/ voters in ME are newly energized. I was hoping that that meant a take down of SusieQ.

Sorry, you missed the point. Partly, people are tired of them, but in addition, people are tired of hearing about them, and a good bit of that last part is due to the repug attacks, which you can’t blame on the Clintons.

I am not saying one or the other is better. HRC is stronger on specifics of her domestic policy proposals, weaker on strategic vision of foreign policy, and especially on Iraq, and her backers and hagers on are worrying.

Obama’s list of issues and up-front statements are very strong, but the devil is in the details. Ad in the details, many of Obama’s domestic proposals are less progressive, and more open to attacks that will derail them.

So I am not advocating one over the other, they both have their strengths and weaknesses, and I think a wash. Main reason I do slightly prefer Obama is he seems to be a better politician, seems more likely to attract moderate and independent voters.

But I cannot see either one as an outstanding reformer. Hope they prove me wrong. Improtant thing is no McCain. That is key. Stopping McCain with either Obama or HRC is fine with me.

I really think that Obama is looking forward, Hillary back. No matter what their policies are.
I know my 34 year old daughter is politically aware for the first time because of Obama.she voted for Bush twice.

Will Barack testify about his dealings with Rezco?

I hope she gets taken down too. I just meant that a dem win for president isn’t so likely to help that happen. It’ll need more, IMO.

I didn’t mean to slap anybody. We’re all soldiers in Democracy. I said “paid organizers”. Volunteers are true blue Americans.

Re: Shell @126.
How many people say racist/misogynist things when no one but others that appreciate such horse shit are around?

I’ve been accused of that. ‘taint so.

I’d like to see Obama take Texas to dispel the Latino-Black divide, as He’s dispelled the closet-racist notions with his resounding victories in the Mid-Western States…

I mostly was for Obama, over Hillary, because of Hillary’s Iraq (and Iran) votes. However, since the super-primary day, I find it hard not to loathe Hillary, although I didn’t before, despite what many Hillary supporters claimed.

The latest is the worst — the Shuster affair. She says his apology wasn’t enough, and his suspension wasn’t enough. Then she brings up Chrissie Matthews. Fine. And true. But no mention of Tucker? (And Lanny Davis says he is great!) And — the piece de resistence — after this, she still wants to go on FOX to debate. What the ….? And, of course, her apparent love for McCain (according to her husband), who said REALLY bad things, directly about Chelsea.

Gawd, I hate politics. I don’t mind putting your opponent down for their views. But this sh*t is just 3rd grade.

OK, but it seemed like a challenge to the other commenter’s veracity. I googled the phrase “Paid Obama staff in caucus states” and found a bunch of articles besides the one I linked to from newspapers in the various states as well as the WaPo0. And that was just the first page.

Like what for example? just curious not trying to influence or sway :)

Sometimes I feel like we are landing at Normandy with this election…

Seven states hold “precinct level” caucuses and then they hold primaries:

Alaska, Colorado, Iowa (?), Minnesota, Nevada, North Dakota will hold primaries in the coming months:

Media and Candidat Methods of Counting Delegates Varie and So Do Totals

Neck and Neck Dems Woo Superdelegates

Are 796 Insiders Going to Steal the Result of Your Efforts and Contributions?

Huge with a lot of time until they happen for media spin and campaings:

March 4: Texas and Ohio
April 22: Pennsylvania

Clinton has the well oiled machine there; Obama has time to push his momentum there.

In some states the DNC can replace some super-delegates until March 1 if it wants–and in one state at least it can add a Super-Delegate to replace someone who no longer is.

Keeping Maggie Williams up at night is mobilizing the campaign to steal the election from Obama via Super Delegates if he wins the popular vote and the delegates.

On the minds of many of the attorneys who are in charge of the super delegates in the states–litigation that may be fruitless to react to the stealing.

On the mind of Dr. Howard Dean–Who knows?

When will the Michigan and Florida revotes be?

• February 10: Maine (D)
• February 12: District of Columbia, Maryland, Virginia
• February 19: Hawaii (D)*, Washington (primary), Wisconsin

MARCH 2008
• March 4: Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont
• March 8: Wyoming (D)
• March 11: Mississippi

APRIL 2008
• April 22: Pennsylvania

MAY 2008
• May 6: Indiana, North Carolina
• May 13: Nebraska, West Virginia
• May 20: Kentucky, Oregon
• May 27: Idaho (R)

JUNE 2008
• June 3: Montana, New Mexico (R), South Dakota

Door to door in Peurto Rico–”Hi–Just happened to be cruisin’ your hood. My name is Barack. My name is Hillary. My name is Michelle. My name is Chelsea.

Absentee votes at caucuses? Never heard of that before and WA State did not offer that option. I guess individual state party rules can be as arcane as they want to be.

He’s very popular here with the youth and others.

In the frame of your argument, they were left out and they are a huge factor in his success

Maybe so. That’s just the only reason I could think of.

With either Dem candidate…! ;-)

I think you were quoting a comment/link I put out there rather than CTuttle and I have no idea why they felt Senator Clinton’s age was appropriate or necessary in that article.

I think its about momentum too. Obama has quite a string of wins, no matter the size.
Hillary hates caucus’ said her people are working and cant get to them, Please explain.

A challenge that it was ALL paid staff not that he didn’t have them.

I was the caucus chair in my Washington state precinct that went for Hillary by a 4 to 1 ratio. However, all the other precincts in our location went heavily for Obama in about the same ratio as the rest of the state.

My Observations:
My impression was that the Obama supporters were better organized.
A fraction of them were very highly motivated for Obama.
Many were leaning to both candidates — especially us mature voters and happened to tip to Obama.

A number of Obama supporters that I talked with could just as easily have been Hillary suporters; and a good fraction of Hillary voters would have been just as happy voting for Obama. A very common comment was that most people caucused because they were energized by the mess that Bush has made of the country (over 90% were first timers). The bottom line seemed to be that most voters could have voted for either candidate, but ever so slightly tipped one way or the other. In my opinion, the main factor for tilting was a positive emotional response to Obama, or the media barrage (negative) over the last 16 years had made them a bit reluctant to vote for Hillary. The emotional response I mentioned is due to Obama’s charm and oratory skill — and their effect on most of us. But even then it seemed like a very close call for many voters. I think it’s because we Democrats have two awesome candidates.

I am anticipating the primary results next Saturday in Washington State. We have a rare situation where the Democrats will have both a caucus vote and a primary ballot vote on subsequent weekends. The Democratic primary vote will have no impact on delegates, but I’ll still be very interested to see if the primary vote matches the caucus vote — I’m betting that Hillary will do a lot better in the primary. Caucuses are a very different animal. For what it’s worth — I tipped to Hillary.

In the frame of your argument, they were left out and they are a huge factor in his success

It seems then that your argument is more with TradMed as they are the ones reporting that the paid staff on the ground in all these states is a large reason for the success. Paid staff which is training and organizing the volunteer staff.

I meant that her testifying was fact not opinion.
and Maggie is not running for Pres.

totally unresearched guess, but are white, midwestern state colleges a factor
obama’s off the cuff, ‘let’s work together guys’ schtick is pigment agnostic under 25

LOL!

Here’s a cool chart of the Maine caucus today:

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms…..&om=0

Blues are for Obama (represented as “O” on the left, of course). ;-)

Heh, Mahalo, Bra, I didn’t say that…! *g*

Nobody puts on their parka and trudges through the snow on a Tuesday night just so they can see how everyone else is voting and follow like some mindless sheep. If they show up at all, it’s because there’s a candidate they want to vote for.

Papers put candidates ages in articles all the time and I don’t really get the point in just tossing it in unless the article is about age (McCain’s ‘too old.” Obama’s young. Which is crap, too, but that’s for another day.) Ageism is tough nut to crack.

Wow!!

Did you happen to watch Bill Moyer last Friday night?
It was interesting. There was a Latino Evangelist Leader talking about the up coming election. He seemed to think the brown/black divide is real, not imagined.
I think it might take more than Obama winning in Texas to change that reality.
They usually have his show on his website, if you want to watch the interview.

If he’s supoenaed, I’m sure he would. Why would he be?

Hear, hear!!

I’m just throwing this out there to go along with Martha’s first post.

When Barb Lawton announced she was endorsing Hillary at the state convention last summer, she did so in the face of (what seemed to me at the time) overwhelming support for Edwards among attendees. She’s remained solid in her support, but she’s not a superdelegate either. The question is, how much will her support help Hillary in Barb’s native Green Bay area? Haven’t heard of anyone coming to speak in the shadow of Lambert Field… (I’m an hour from there, so I can keep hoping.)

Doyle announced he’s backing Obama after Iowa. I got the feeling he stuck his finger into the wind to see which way it was blowing, but I could be wrong.

Obey originally endorsed Edwards and just switched to Obama. The other Congressmen have remained mum, even mine (Kagen) hasn’t tipped his hand, although he and I talked about the race this summer (when everyone else was still in the race). I got the feeling he was asking to see who the people were supporting at that time, without talking about who he was favoring back then.

I know two of our superdelegates, they are tight with Russ, and I don’t expect them to endorse anyone until after the (open) primary. Afterwards, I expect them to announce for whoever wins the popular vote.

Finally, the last presidential candidate that passed through my home town won the whole deal: JFK. Just passing this along for all the scheduling people that want to guarantee a win in November. I can set them up with venues if they need help…

How old is Obama? Exactly 40?

It’s raining blue snow! Oh yah!

Problems with Obama domestic proposals:
1) health care -lack of attention to unverisal care as important aspect of health care reform. His health economists advisors say no problem with getting high enrollments, but MA enrollment so far says otherwise.
2) recession stimulus proposal -too much tilted toward giving money to high middle and upper income families, too much for business. Not only would such a proposal open door to Bushite plans to turn it into another give away to rich, but not as cost-effective macroeconomically.
3) Social security: his initial treatment of that confused the issues of long term imabalance that starts 30 or 40 years from now, and short term trust fund issues. This opened him up to attacks from bad-faith opponents of social security.

I have to admit that obama has moved in the right direction on 1) and 3) recently, but he provided ammunition to opponents who would take advantage of Obama weak points to destroy refrom altogether. And his movement towards stronger positions shouls some lack of thought and preparation -he had a few weeks of mixed messages and confusion wrt policy specifics.

Look either Obama or HRC would be fine. Just saying that without a strong congress to push them hard, I think people are expecting too much out of getting one Dem or another into presidency.

Patti Doyle and others had to make a decision. Given the money they had on hand, where did they think it could be best spent? They decided to channel it away from the caucuses. They threw some money at a big party where hardly anyone came as Frank Rich points out today:

Next Up for the Democrats: Civil War

Where did that $5 million dollars come from Hillary loaned herself? Ron Burkle? Out of the mystery hundred million donors to the Clinton library as a thank you for Mining Deals? $31.5 million came to the library from the Kazakhstan mining deal? Will the library fund now shunt the mysterious donor money to the Clinton campaign. I haven’t brushed up on this, but I guess the rules on conversion of money for campaign donations are loose.

How many more Hillary Romney-esque loans are in the future, and where are they coming from? Not from Romney–that much I get.

RBG- well, cinnamonape is correct re: Maine

http://www.turnmaineblue.com/s…..iaryId=675

~~~”Many people don’t realize that they may participate in the Maine Democratic Caucus even if they are unable to attend the actual caucus,” said Maine Democratic Party Chair John Knutson. “We believe it is critically important to make it as simple as possible for Maine Democrats to participate in the caucus process.”

Knutson believes this flexibility will make it easier for students, seniors, shift-workers, working mothers and others who find the caucus times inconvenient to participate in Maine’s Democratic Caucus. ~~~

Not so arcane, really.

I did watch it, and I’ve seen the Latino-Black divide up close and personal, in my twenty years with Uncle Sam… I still find it highly puzzling, considering, they’re both facing the same hurdles…!

I know what you meant, and I will gladly vote for Barack if he’s the candidate. I’m just sick of the negative press about her when everyone else gets a pass. Barack is just as guilty of participating in unsavory political maneuvers as HRC is. She just doesn’t get the pass he gets.

Not really as the OP had it as part of his/her argument and that excluded other factors that could account for the outcome, like volunteers. The media will continue to come up with ‘their’ meme to explain it and they aren’t going to listen to me but someone posting here will see it.

46?

Ya have to be at least 45 yro to be Prez…!

On the other hand if I’m not mistaken, the Maine republicans vote by county, so most have to travel long distances. Also, they don’t allow absentee balloting either.

Hi noonan, I forgot that Barb Lawton had committed to Hillary so early. Tammy Baldwin also endorsed Hillary (my congress critter). I’ll send good brainwaves that Obama heads nort’ …

I hit enter too quick. For example, I have friends in Austin that have already organized a grass roots office for Obama and had been doing outreach and visibility before the official office and ‘paid’ people showed up this past weekend.

Last year, Obama came to Austin (okay Austin is different), but 22,000 people came out, and we were young, old, hispanic, and not hispanic….

He has a presence here. Remember, Texas used to be Democratic….before the Delay days….remember, the Dems in TX left TX and escaped and were chased by Delay when he had his bid redistricting campaign going…they escaped to OK, I think. (Why were Delay and Rove on teevee today, instead of in jail?)

You’re right. i think it was established here in a thread last night that both candidates suck equally. Either one is fine.

47 I believe. Born in 1961. Somebody correct me if I’m wrong…as if you wouldn’t…

I thought it was 35. Shit. I’m an ignoramus.

I thought the age requirement is 35?

Just as guilty? Could you name some things?

Read about the Rezco indictments. I think Jane blogged about it last week. If anyone thinks the repukes aren’t going to be all over that you are kidding yourselves.

I agree with you. Now just project that to the general election. I just cant bear all the stuff dragged out again.
I dont feel Hillary has earned the nomination.
Im sorry, I never liked her…but I will vote Democratic no matter who.

Those are legitimate concerns. I’m not too fond of his healthcare plan or his energy plan but I plan on being very vocal in that area

CT – It is 35 yrs.

You’ve got some reading to do. Nice try.

A fact of political life is that every political campaign has both paid and volunteer staff. And the volunteer staff rarely gets credit for their efforts unless they screw up somehow.

Thanks for the link RBG. In a way quite hilarious although in 2000 they also wanted to quit counting votes. This time it seems they don’t even want to make a first cut.

And what’s the deal with a combination caucus and primary?

Did anyone see James Hoffa on Washington Journal the other day talking about the super highway….????? Not only the one from Texas, but the one up the California coast. This is NAFTA in its current manifestation. Texas is debating it…yeah…the 10 lane highway to Canada. This is real, and it is not good for America… it will result in huge loss of jobs for Teamsters. Just sayin’. This is not CT stuff, this is real.

Yup, it is real and it will mean a loss of union jobs — Teamsters as well as the ILWU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Br31mdP8-Ug

Yes, I think the age is 35. Remember JFK? (Yes, I know he wasn’t 35, but he was barely 45 when assassinated.)

As for Barack — GOD I AM OLD! He looks about 35 to me. LOL

Is that before or after we are all over the infinite crimes the Repubs have committed become exposed to the light….just sayin’…If Rezko is all they’ve got….well they are in for a rude surprise….

The Repubs are the criminals…and they are worried about war crimes…Goldsmith even said so. So, there.

Obama is not a criminal.

If that’s the best they can do, bring ‘em on. Sure there are indictments, but my question is why would BO be subpoenaed?

http://illinoisreason.wordpres…..ere-there/

Agreed. no there there. No legs.

Thanks!

I’ve observed the same, living in Los Angeles my entire life.
At school. At certain jobs.
It is puzzling.
I guess that’s a subject for a whole debate in itself.
That guy was interesting, though, wasn’t he?
Really kind of broke the stereotyping of Evangelicals for me.

I’m with you there, suffering from scandal fatigue as well.

The OP had that fact left out, hence my comment.

Yeah, I was surprised how old he was when I checked his biography. He’s older than me and has kids younger than I do (and I got a late start). My students all think he’s much younger than he is, especially compared to Hillary – to them she’s in the same league as McCain. You know, when you’re young once others get to a certain age, they all just look “old”.

that is the OP of the original comment, not Jane

House of Representatives is age 25
Senate is age 30
President/Vice-President is 35

Forgot to hit reply. That was for LS @ 120 ;-)

Hillary and Obama are not the criminals….

The Administration and those complicit are.

I’m not trying to do anything, and I have read. That’s why the concern.

In all sincerity and with respects to Hillary, there is a nationalistic revolution underway in the United States, and Hillary just doesn’t fit in that picture.

VIVA OBAMA!

Thanks for the link. It’s very cool that the party goes to those lengths to be inclusive.

Not true. The age requirement is 35.

See US Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5

I type too fast LOL but yes that is true that volunteers rarely receive their just credit but they do make wonderful scapegoats

Hey, it’s not just us thinking WA R’s pulled a fast one!

Huckabee is disputing the results!

Are you guys seriously thinking the repukes would pass anything up? I wouldn’t put a damn thing past them. They investigated the Clintons fo years over nothing. That’s all I’m saying. Again, I will vote for whomever the candidate is.

Wrong! It’s actually just the opposite! Almost all the caucuses have been closed – available only to Democratic registrants. Maine (closed), Washington (closed) Nebraska (closed), Louisiana (closed), Kansas (closed), Minnesota (closed), North Dakota (closed), Alaska (closed), Colorado (closed), Idaho (closed)…there may be one or two open caucuses (Iowa?)…but most that have occurred are closed. They are for Democrats only…no independents or Republicans can participate.

Compare that to the Democratic Primaries:
Utah (open to independents), California (open) Georgia (open), Alabama (open), Tennessee (open), Arkansas (open), Massachusetts (open),Missouri (open)
vs. Connecticut (closed), Delaware (closed), Illinois (closed) , New Jersey (closed), Oklahoma (closed), Arizona (closed), New Mexico (closed), New York (closed)

I’m worried that this isn’t going to get any attention until it is too late…while Nero fiddled.

This is a major issue folks.

It is 35. Obama is 46. JFK was 43 when he was 35th Pres.

Article II, Section 1 of what is left of what used to be the Constitution of the U.S. that’s now in tatters and will get stomped on much more in the next 12 months.

On Tuesday it will have a blow struck as the Jello Jay-Cheney-Addington version of S. 2248 passes in the Senate.

Then it’s on to the smoky smoky room where you don’t get to go. The House-Senate Conference Committee.

Yep, I was seriously mistaken…

# natural-born citizen of the United States
# be at least thirty-five years old

i didn’t miss your point, i just don’t happen to agree. they’ve been wrestling in pig shit since the good old days of arkansas. i’ll bet they dealt it out in spades. energy out energy in.

Jane,

Great pic of you at the game and the Pups are thrilled you are getting some serious fun time.

My sense is that people sense change in Obi more than Hill. He’s the new kid and not an insider. The insiders, of which Hillary is one, didn’t do much for middle america in the last 8 yrs.

It’s great that race seems to not be an issue. Good for America…. at least the dem voters.

Hillary carries a lot of baggage so people are afraid of that and when neutral go to the new guy.

I don’t think the outpouring of support is about issues as much as it is about Obi could really do something new. People are hoping. And that brings them out and they may be desperate too. People are hurting.

Hey Kay- you still there? I had a caucus v. primary question about Maine, earlier. Voting to select D candidate for ME-01 is still to come. Will this be a primary, or a caucus?

McJoan has much more about Washington.

So, what are we going to do when the nomination is decided for us in the smokey backroom?????

Well??? What are we going to do????

Sorry, Hilary IS one of the criminals. Obama MAYBE not so much.

All republicans are criminals. The last honest Republican was Lowell Weicker. EVERY republican is a criminal.

Why does Obama do so well in caucuses ?

Google Maine Primary. The first link is sponsored by the Obama campaign. Essentially requests you to register so they can assist you in getting to the polls. AOBTW gives them a shot at converting you if you’re thinking HRC.

Where was the Clinton link ?

If HRC should win the nomination- which is perfectly OK with me- her organization must be revamped. And I don’t mean by hiring Schrummie.

Meanwhile Obama is winning delegates ,in part, the “old fashioned way” by a good ground game.

Oh for Valentines I think pups should give it up to Act Blue in honor of the ladies of the Lake!

If that happens we are going to FAX bloody murder and tell the back street boyz we are taking the party back and they better watch their back in the next election.

I see, but I don’t agree. I hardly see the Clintons as angels, but they have taken way more than their fair share of negative sh*t from the repugs and msm. Remember the impeachment? Or even further back, when HRC first appeared on the national radar, she immediately started getting slammed, before she had hardly said anything. Only explanation I could come up with for that one was her gender.

Toronto beat Detroit last night, Montreal Thursday, and Ottawa last Saturday, three good teams.

They also lost to Florida on Tuesday, 8-0, so I’m not predicting a Stanley Cup.

Great thread pups! Gotta go now, but thanks Jane, you can really get us moving. And thanks especially for agreeing to be my Valentine, my year is made! :-)

I heard that. It sounded like a Ron Paul ralley.

Does anybody have a good link on the caucus/primary results for the congress critters that will advance to the general election…?

How about the fact that Hillary’s first real public attention was taking on very powerful and wealthy insurance companies and lobbyist?

The Smokey Superdelegates and the manuevering to get them. I have heard that people with the last name Clinton are calling them, and one description of those calls costed David Shuster the indignity this morning of having Timmie or Timmah call him “one of our reporters” instead of even David.

That is the question. And for me a lot of how much of the smokey rooms get to come into play are how the DNC or whomever else at the local end settle the Michigan Florida revote question and those big 3 states on Mar. 4 (Texas and Ohio) and April 22 (Pennsylvania).

“Clinton has done better [overall] in individual voting scenarios, short of SC.”

I meant that the race is more even when you look at primary races. If it weren’t then as of Super Tuesday, Obama would have had a blow out w/ the popular vote, but he didn’t. If he continues with his current numbers maybe so.

Maybe it won’t happen. Obama now ahead in delegates:

CBS News –

In the delegate chase, Obama has pulled ahead of Clinton, even when the support of uncommitted super delegates is figured in. According to CBS News estimates, Obama holds a razor-thin lead with 1,134 delegates overall to 1,131 for Clinton.

You mean health care? I meant before that, when Bill first became a serious candidate for the Pres nomination. They went after her immediately, no policy issues involved IIRC.

hahahahahaha Yes, I know how kids think about age. Mine are early 20s and they think just as you described.

“Caught off guard, but I believe that most of the caucuses have been open. Although there are exceptions (California) he’s had better luck in open primaries than in closed primaries.”

As you can see Obama has done better in closed caucuses than in open ones (split). And in regards to open vs. closed primaries…Hillary has won California (open), Tennessee (open), Arkansas (open), Massachusetts (open), Utah (open to independents), and Missouri (open). Her victories in closed Primaries were in New Jersey (closed), Oklahoma (closed), Arizona (closed), New York (closed). That’s far more OPEN PRIMARIES than Obama.

Obama has won only two open Primaries: Georgia (open)and Alabama (open) and I can guarantee you that cross-over Republicans had very little influence in those wins. In contrast he won in Connecticut (closed), Delaware (closed), Illinois (closed), and South Carolina.

New Mexico (closed) is still disputed.

“I did some numbers from exit poll percentages in New Hampshire (open primary) and had it been a closed primary Clinton’s margin of victory would have been much wider.”

I’d like to see those numbers. You’re wrong on most of the other stuff you are asserting.

Let’s see…

(1) Caucuses are inherently undemocratic.
(2) Primaries are inherently democratic (one person, one vote)
(3) Obama wins caucuses, but not primaries
(4) Obama is being undemocratically selected.
(5) This is Very Good for the Democratic party and our democracy.

What am I missing here?

It is one of his issues … not labor union issues but anti North American Union type issues

What’s really curious is that he’s also attracting liberals. He’s the most conservative Democrat to get this far since … I can’t really remember when and I’ve followed politics since 1952. He’s even more conservative than Clinton and yet look at what we’re seeing.

Actually Obama’s rating based on his Senate votes is more liberal than Clinton and ranks close to Kennedy.

#3 is wrong. He has won 9 primaries to HRC’s 10. Not a huge disparity.

So Senator Clinton is shaking up her staff. You know something Senator. Your faltering campaign is not about your staff. It’s about you.

Do you mean what Super-Delegates are pledged thus far? Or how many delegates not Super have been won? That depends on whose list you believe–there are actually several different ones. I posted three articles on that but I might not be understanding what you’re looking for.

Hi Valley Girl. To be honest with you, I’m not sure. I volunteered to be a delegate for Obama today and I thought I heard someone say that we will go to the state convention in May to determine the 24 delegates to represent Maine for the national convention. I don’t think we do primaries anymore. I could be wrong on this, though. If I find out at some point and you’re on here, I’ll let you know. Thanks. :-)

Okay, I’m going to bed. Nite nite everyone.

Guess I’m not quite the ignoramus that I thought.

I agree with many who have spoken so far: Hillary is running like it’s 1995. It’s almost as if the whole time the GOP was slamming her and her husband, she was making a list, thinking, “I will get back at them — do just what they did to me.” Only things didn’t go quite as planned. Obama came along. So, the strategy is being played out on him — not nearly as much, but some.

She really did make a huge mistake with her Business As Usual approach.

This is the nbcnews.com headline:

Obama takes snowy Maine with ease

What do you think? Are they talking about the climate?

What’s really curious is that he’s also attracting liberals. He’s the most conservative Democrat to get this far since … I can’t really remember when and I’ve followed politics since 1952. He’s even more conservative than Clinton and yet look at what we’re seeing.

Obama is a liberal. The ADA ratings have him consistently rated as one of the most liberal Senators in Congress. He rated 100% in 2005 and 95% in 2006. In fact, this is where the Republicans will target him…that he actually rated higher with the ADA than Kucinich one year.

Obama wins caucuses, but not primaries

That is a fallacy right there: Obama won 10; SC, AL, CT, IL, MO, UT, LA, DE, and GA… Hill won one more (11); NH, MI, AZ, CA, MA, NJ, NY, OK, TN, and AR…

This is the nbcnews.com headline:

Obama takes snowy Maine with ease

What do you think? Are they talking about the climate?

I agree that it sounds awful, but I think they really were trying to make clear that the weather was bad.

I have to say I am disappointed. I realize this may come across as sexist. But I have thought for a long time that it was past time for a woman president. (my lady would make a great one) (alright… so I’m biased). I had high hopes for you Senator Clinton. And who knows, I may still be voting for you to be our next president. And if that’s the case, I won’t be disapponted.

Maine Democratic Caucus Results Update 70%

Barack Obama 1,564 58
Hillary Clinton 1,122 42
Uncommitted 17 1
Others 3 0

Sunday 10 February 2008 | 70% reporting | Updated 6:50 PM EST

I thought Maine was a caucus and absentee ballots could be submitted by Feb. 6.

FWIW about “Super” delegates. Probably not a whole lot to be done for this election cycle but for the future, the absolute best way to get rid of them is to become active with your local Democratic Party. Volunteer as a precinct election worker. Attend local Democratic party meetings. If you believe so strongly that these are bad, then work within the party to change the rules.

The Democratic Party is an organization that has rules that can be changed. So if you believe they are bad rules, work to change them.

This is funny to me:

Have you noticed that the GOPigs and some talking heads are always shrieking that So-And-So (Democrat) has THE MOST LIBRUL VOTING RECORD IN THE SENATE?

It’s as funny as Bush killing “the No. 2 Terrorist.” The number of No. 2 terrorists — and the number of Most Liberal Democrats — which is greater?

Dang, I can’t count either… Obama won 9 and Hill won 10…

Sweet dreams. ;0)

Hey cinnamonape

Don’t know if I ever gave you my email? Here it is: frisian320i at hotmail dot com

If you have the time you might be interested in coming to our DFA/PDA meetup on the first Friday in March (usually the first Weds.), one of the guest speakers is going to be a former FDL Book Salon guest. I’ll send you an email if you want, don’t want to name them in public and jinx it ;-)

i just heard an interview of a guy who was involved with the clintons early in their political career. if just 5% of his story is true, they deserve everything they have coming. i’ll find the interview for you tomorrow peter and you can listen for yourself.

But I just don’t think it will go anywhere. Also, it’s being brought up now. It’ll be an old, tired non-story by summer, if it’s a story at all. Besides, Hillary will have shit to deal with if she wins.

I’d like to hear some Roosevelt ideas from Obama. So far the things that have turned my neck have been by Clinton on various social programs i.e.-college money/grant at birth, amongst others. They’ve gotten my attention more out of a “Really? This’ll be fuel for the Pugs.”-than anything, but ideas nonetheless. That’s just what I’ve heard in passing though so if you have any stuff for Obama, point me in that direction.

That’s a question I’m sure could be debated on a lot of fronts, but I thought most people consider Obama markedly more liberal than Clinton as to actual issues, and this is just my opinion, but I’m not letting the “transformative Reagan comments” influence my judgement in trying to decide who is more liberal because I don’t believe he was embracing Reagan policies so much as an overall approach for change.

Actually, I want to know the results of the challengers/incumbents in the congressional races from the primaries/caucuses for the general election…

Rachael Maddow pointed that out while arguing with Pat Buchanon. PB said that Obama was the most lib. Rachael said that’s what they said about Kerry, that’s what they say about whoever is the dem frontrunner.
Personally, I think that will be a plus this year.

New York Times update

Candidate Vote† % Delegates
Barack Obama 1,878 58.6%
Hillary Rodham Clinton 1,305 40.7
Uncommitted 17 0.5
Others 3 0.1

I agree it being a good thing to bring it up now. The republics spent 8 years and millions of dollars investigating the Clintons. IMO they will do the same to any dem who takes office. It’s about the haters, not really about the Clintons.

Great for Rachel! We need more outsiders like her to be talking heads. If she weren’t there, I can guarantee that no one else would have disagreed with Buchanan.

Actually you are wrong ! At least about closed primaries in the state of MInnesota. Yes you need to register as a Democrat in order to vote but you can do so at the sign in table. This by the way i sa great way to recruit new people to the Democratic Party. gezzzz what’s wrong with that?

At our caucus over 800 people showed up and all voted for the presidential race. Some stayed for less time than others. We discussed and passed resolutions for withdrawl from Iraq, and funding medical benefits for the soldiers returning therefrom. All passed unanimously!

Then we held subcauses to discuss the MN Senate race and around 300 people voted this time. Al Franken got over 67% of the votes and delegates assigned to him for the next level of our City wide convention. This is grass roots politics – don’t cry about it celebrate the fact that so many people actually give a damn this time around to show up and volunteer to be delegates and work for the DEmocratic Party!

I would be saying the same thing if it was Hillary winning by these margins – but it aint’t happening that way.

Siun has a brand new thread ready about us “Killing a Lot of People.”

Pete- my Q had to do with how Maine Dems select D candidate for House/ senate races. The Dem candidates for house are still unselected. Not a big issue in ME-02, but there are still many contenders for D candidate for ME-01.

Um, yes, there was a snowstorm here today. That did not dampen turnout, which was huge.
Ans Maine is largely white but it’s not actually a midwestern state ;-)

Sorry, I spit out my wine on that one.

Well it certainly could be read with a double meaning.

I have to agree strongly that while there are very sophisticated searches unerway to mount powerful smear machines for either Obama or Clinton for the general–extremely well funded by people like Richard Mellon Scaife and all kinds of Swiftboat cells who are actually in the U.S. trying to attack.

Trivia Question: Which are greater in number? Terrorist cells in the U.S. or Swiftboat cells gearing up to smear the Democratic candidate?

All I can say is I’d love to be on the opposition research team to go after John McCain aka Mo Better Bush the Third Term.

You’re never going to have more material that’s legititmate to use against McCain provided by 7.2 years of this administration.

In New Mexico, where we are still counting ballots, Clinton carried all but 4 counties, and had a lead of about 1,000 votes after the initial count. Of course there are 17,000 provisional ballots that are being verified and counted now. So the provisionals will decide the race.

Obama won Los Alamos county (richest and whitest in NM, one of richest in country, also a LOT of elderly), Santa Fe (by huge margin, around 4,000, that gave him the initial 117 vote lead over HRC), Bernalillo (one of the largest counties in nation, by land size, and the largest population in NM with Albuquerque and environs), and (this is very odd) Catron county, which is known for a requirement that people must carry a gun (I don’t think it is enforced). The Catron thing is weird.

Maine (closed)…no independents or Republicans can participate.

Not so, 50-100 independents were registered as Democrats at my town’s caucus today so that they could caucus with us.

Sorry there. I’ve been watching the campaign against Susan Collins with Tom Allen, but Kay and some others are probably much better equipped on the House race(s) in Maine.

I’ve always thought Maine’s two Senators are high on my worst list in the Senate–and I know at least one worked her way up as a staffer for years but to me their votes have been awful.

Any Texans out there? Does it seem Hillary has that state locked up?

I’ve always thought Maine’s two Senators are high on my worst list in the Senate–and I know at least one worked her way up as a staffer for years but to me their votes have been awful.

Yes…it is critical that Tom Allen replace Susan Collins in the Senate this year. To that end, IMO Obama at the top of the ticket would help and HRC at the top hurt to some extent.

Does this mean Mainers are sexist?! Remember when Hillary won NH, some news analysts posited it shows that New Hampshire must be racist (since they didn’t vote for O) even if they deny being so. I wonder if these same insightful analysts will be writing columns on Maine’s sexism, since fewer votes were cast for Hillary in Maine.

Well. I looked at a list that stated whether one had to be a Registered Democrat or not to participate.

In the case of Maine, and perhaps elsewhere the registration date is such that a “previous independent” or “unregistered” voter could join up. Theoretically that could result in some shenanigans. Especially when the Maine Republican caucuses aren’t on the same day. I wonder if Democrats could do the same to the Republicans and then hop back.

My major point still stands though. Clinton has actually won more open Primaries than Obama. Her caucus victories were in open and closed formats (and Obama has predominantly won his in closed formats).

The person I was responding to said that with the exception of California Hillary had won closed Primaries and Obama open ones and open caucuses. He was implying that Obama was somehow benefitting from Republicans and Independents sabotaging the race. He also made the comment that caucuses are biased in favor of the wealthy and educated, so that’s why Obama was winning them. I don’t think that the way caucuses are run supports that conclusion at all. Delegates are proportionate to the Democrats registered in the precinct. If the precinct is poor socioeconimally and the folks there are registered they would get more than a rich exurb precinct mainly consisting of Republicans.

My account of a Maine caucus.

Same folks were writing that because Obama didn’t win a majority of White voters in SC that he couldn’t win a Primary nationally once it left black majority areas. They neglected to realize that NONE of the three candidates won a MAJORITY of White voters in So Carolina…and that it implied that people were voting strictly on the basis of race. That Edwards supporters only supported him because he was the White male in the election!

These pundits ignore all the minutia that actually play into determining who one will vote for…and most of that is whether the individual will relate to the issues that face the voter or the community. When Al Sharpton ran in South Carolina few blacks supported him, simply because they didn’t view him as being an effective candidate.

Thanks Gordon…you guys did well! Hopefully the large turnout will be mirrored in November and also have down-ticket impacts!!!!

Of course they will! Right after “it’s really good news for Republicans“.

To be a Republican these days, you have to swear that tax cuts raise revenues, that a few ten of thousands of nutcases pose an existential threat to the nation, that the only way to preserve civil liberties is to take them away, that the Statue of Liberty doesn’t mean what she says…

And to be a pundit (who gets airtime), you have to be a Republican.

Hi everyone, Jane. I was out when all the Maine news came it, it would have been fun to see it all unfold.

From my vantage the Maine vote speaks volumes about the new potential to defeat Susan Collins. It means that Maine (including her neighborhood on the north border) went, not with a female perceived as middle-of-the-roader (Hillary) but for a male, anti-war promoter of change from the ground up. Hopefully Obama will help to secure a Dem Senator in Maine by returning to campaign here, and offering his caucusing data.

Apparently (from Turn Maine Blue, Obama has taken Houlton, which is kind of the heart of Collins territory.

Hi Gordon, I saw that Houlton win early on -and Machias (I used to spend alot of time of there in French country) so I know the area well. I wouldn’t have thought it possible a decade ago- but wow.

Maine caucus results from state party headquarters with 99 percent reporting:

State Delegates Clinton Obama Uncommitted Other
Statewide Total: 3496 1396 2079 18 3
percentages: 39.9 59.5 0.5 0.09

sorry, Wordpress destroyed my formatting

Obama does so well because a lot of democrats understand that Hillary Clinton has been part of the problem; not the solution.

And, I read that Edwards has met twice with Clinton in the past few days, and was supposed to meet with Obama…tomorrow, I believe.

He could be getting ready to come out for someone, and I would be very suprised if it’s Clinton.

Clinton 39.9 percent
Obama 59.5 percent
Uncomm. 0.5 percent
Other .09 percent

I voted for Obama in the New York primaries because I actually like him. Hillary is part of the Pelosi-Reid axis – people who promise big things but don’t deliver.

And there’s that vote for the war that continues to trouble me. Can’t she make some kind of statment – through an underling if need be – that she at least regrets that vote?

Give us a reason to vote for you, Hillary. Something.

DennisQ@308:

“SOMETHING.”

Dennis, you got a tough row to hoe. Good luck! :o)

And yet she wins some states, so the original question cannot be answered simply by the seemingly all-purpose “my candidate is teh awesome,” it really requires some analytical skill to discern why he wins supermajorities in midwestern states specifically.

This love affair between Obama and his supporters is quite something. But, sorry to say, their candidate sucks.

Of course, Hillary sucks more, so who can blame them (Obama cult members) at this point.

Man, this whole thing sucks big time.

I wonder what the effects will be as, over time, his supporters begin to see how he governs and how much he truly sucks. Will they crash & burn or just sizzle with anger? It’s inevitable of course — after all their candidate sucks, they just don’t realize it yet.

Jane, thanks for the clickback. Nothin’ against your flexing your impressive analytical skills.

I just think we’re getting close to the point that the impetus for making Obama our nominee is becoming very strong.

But, we’ll know more about that Tuesday night.

And again, who’s she going to “debate” on Faux, tomorrow night?

Giuliani? :o)

MarkH; I don’t think he sucks at all. I think he’s a huge winner for our side, and if he continues winning, I think in the general, he’ll shred John McCain’s ass like it was lettuce. :o)

I also think we’re on the verge of making some serious political history.

At this point, I’m really not missing Edwards so much. I don’t think he could do what Obama has done. :o)

Caucuses–community organizing; appealing to professional activists. People have said this.

Obama is from Illinois. He has gotten people in rural Illinois and southern Illinois to buy into him as a senator. Not to insult Jane, but I am not sure we would be asking why Obama was taking the Midwestern states if he was white. Also stereotypically Midwestern values are about “solving problems” rather than “scoring points”. Being a Democrat isn’t a cultural thing in these states as much as a belief about how government can solve problems.

I’m a long time Next Hurrah follower, been having log issues over here – but to pipe in on Texas – I’d say no Hillary does not have it locked up.

In the columns I’d say the following, we have a pretty substantial black population which should help O, but we have a HUGE latino population that will tilt in favor of H.

However this state is predominately Republican Dallas and Houston in particular, and as we all know the right wingers have beaten on Hillary for years and years, so there are a lot of people around here who just don’t like Hill.

Texan’s, as a general rule, are not racist (as opposed to Oklahoma, where they are very racist, but don’t like to admit it – I’ve lived twenty years in each state, so I know both pretty well) That cuts in Obama’s favor and is the primary reason he did so poorly in OK – they don’t really like Hillary that much up there either.

If it weren’t for the big latino population in TX I’d say Obama would win, but with the way the latin vote has been going it’s anybody’s guess. Obama needs to reach out the Texas Latino’s big time. Most of the latinos I know here don’t like the war, so perhaps he can build on that with them.

That’s my two cents – I don’t think Hill can count on Texas. It’s up for grabs as far as I can tell.

at 99% it is Obama @ 59% with 2,079 votes and she comes in at 40% with 1,396 voters. How is this in any way representative of the people of the State of Maine? The population of Maine is 1,274,923. And about 3500 voters get to decide? This is why I dislike Caucuses so much. At least this one was on a Sunday so that even working people could participate.

BTW, the Maine caucus numbers (total 3,000 roughly O@2,000 and H@1400) are representative of STATE DELEGATE counts NOT total voters. I believe the voter numbers are close to 40,000

Obama’s strength in the Midwestern states is not at all surprising as long as you remember one simple fact: Midwestern farmers are part of Obama’s “base”. That was true in 2004, when he won the Illinois Senatorial primary, carrying the South Side of Chicago, the affluent liberals, AND the downstate corn farmers. It is even more true today when his opponent is Sen. Clinton.
When Obama talks about working across the aisle and finding common ground with the Republicans, the Midwestern farmer understands this as common sense. On the other hand, a candidate who says that Republicans are not to be trusted is way off base. Republicans are not a vast right-wing conspiracy, they’re our friends and neighbors (and in-laws).
Senator Clinton’s feminism, which wins her the votes of working women in the Metropolitan areas, means nothing to farm women. There’s no glass ceiling on the farm, just sky. No issue of equal pay for equal work, just work.
And the fact that Obama is black is neither here nor there to the farmers, an interesting fact perhaps, but one that comes with no political baggage. None of the racial politics of the cities has anything to do with farmers.
You can talk about Kenya and Indonesia and Harvard Law and community organizing on the south side, but don’t forget: there’s a whole lot of Kansas in Barack Obama.