Go Hillary! She'll name Rupert Murdoch as her Veep. He's giving her money for her campaign. Does anybody out there recall that Murdoch owns Fox News and that Karl Rove is their brand new Nazi pundit?

Your blog seems to be one of the most level headed blogs I have read in a long time. I respect that.

What Obama (and to a lesser extent Hillary) doesn't get is that 90% of the reason Republicans and independents (and Youth) are moving to the Democratic Party is because of George Bush and the GOP and not because Obama (or Hillary) is Teh Awesome!!1!!

Whoever wins the nomination will be the beneficiary of a massive national movement against the Republican Party. And it is a movement that both candidates have largely not participated in.

Crap like this tells me the MSM wants more freedom and NO Dems to tighten the free rein of amalgamation that big media wants unfettered.....my take is the opposite.....unless Huckleberry is the Veep candidate I don't see the koolaiders turning out to vote for Grandpa!!

Get ready Dems.....the GOP smear machine will elevate to new highs Karl Rove and Wm Kristol are positioned to dump buckets of spew on the masses.

Hey, I learned a new word this morning! A blonde Mikka somebody-or-other with MSNBC was interviewing a Romney operative and she said, "He [Romney] has the good look. He has a look of.....presidentiality, if I could say that."

Presidentiality! I love it! I promise to use it once a day. "The question comes down to presidentiality, who has more of it, Barack or Hillary?"

Try it! It's fun to say out loud, too!

"The look...of presidentiality....is in...your eyes..."

Wasn't there an old song along those lines?

....ooooops, sorry for the lack of presidentiality in my linking....yah, that's the ticket!!

eriposte, from the link you have provided and from MSNBC and CNN count of delegates it looks like Obama is ahead of pledged delegates. CNN has estimated about 590 Pledged for Clinton and 603 for Obama. Super delegates can change at any time. As I have said elsewhere this can shift change in the super delegates support for Clinton. There are lot in democratic party who wants to curtail Clinton's influence on the party(Read Kennedy's). Hope she has a loyal super-delegates who are going to support her. If not I predict she will loose this nomination.

Seems there's been more than enough "buckets of spew" from fellow Democrats. Any Republican can just pull out the tapes and let either Hillary or Barack's own voice make the spew.

Obama makes up 10 delegates on Clinton and Paradox thinks Clinton came out better. Figures...

Hillary Clinton had an uphill climb.

Yep. That's why all of the polls had her with a solid lead a couple of weeks ago, often by 20 points or more. Super Tuesday was Clinton's to lose and the inability to capitalize on the lead points to a very telling fact about her campaign: When Clinton is head to head against Obama and both are getting their message out Clinton starts losing voters. You don't have to go any father than Florida to see an instance of this phenomena.

If you look at who is contributing to these two campaigns I think you'll find another explanation for Obama doing so well when coming from so far behind. He raised $39 million dollars from contributors averaging under $200. per contribution, while Clinton raised it from those making over $200 in contributions. Obama's appeal to the little guy is amazing, while Clinton panders to the well-moneyed republi-con old guard corporate interests.

There is a ways to go in these primaries, and California won't even allocate delegates until Friday. Edwards will likely be over 15% in many states, so he'll be getting a few delegates here and there. There are still a bunch of super delegates who haven't committed, and those who have only committed without actually standing for their candidate are still in play. Ain't it too damn cool!

If someone can't and could not win a big state w/ all the positive coverages, adulation, ass-kissing etc..by the MSM, the religious LEFT, etc.., can that somebody win the GE? Keep in mind that that someone has not had a single negative ad run against him YET.

Presidentiality! Woohoo!

Tin foil hat time: could all the manipulation of delegate counts be a setup for the meme that Clinton counted her chickens before they hatch? With all the dirty tricks aimed at her, I wouldn't be surprised at anything.

With all the dirty tricks aimed at her...

ROFLMAO!

Great post and as always thoughtful and balanced. Thanks, KK

With all the dirty tricks aimed at her...

I forgot, you can't dislike Hillary for the Iraq vote or the lobby money she takes.

Hillary gives the Republicans the best chance in November. The youth vote will stay home and the centrists will vote for McLame.

Hillary is NOT progressive. She's just another corporate shill. After the election yesterday, I bet the Green Party website is getting a ton of hits today. Sad to see us blow another chance at the White House.

Couple of things, Colorado Democrats are mostly Latino and Greenies. Obama won going away there.
Any results in New Mexico yet? Can't believe Clinton didn't kick Obama's ass there?

Looks like Ohio, Texas (probably Clinton) and Pennsylvania will determine the final Democratic outcome.

Obama's got more money.
Clinton did not get that good a return on her investment for Super Tuesday.
I guess she can always ask for more K-street donations.

What happened to Ted Kennedy's endorsement?

Obama had a wonderful night. Hillary just held on. He wins Missouri, the bellwether state, and pulls up even with her. He's well funded, she's spending her own money now. He won more states. Who'd have thunk it>

We had a whole year of Clinton Inevitability stories, and now her camp is spinning like crazy. Look for lawsuits re Florida and Michigan (winning by any means necessary). Look for Obama to pull ahead in the upcoming primaries.

I'm sure HRC headquarters behind the scenes is a pretty sober place today. They thought it would be a slam dunk, and here's this little upstart getting in their way. Life isn't fair, is it?

I noticed in Obama's speech last night he brought up Edwards point about who's running on lobbyist cash, SOS.

I liked that he both brought it up and took an Edwards line.

Edwards dropped out because he thought it would help Obama, I think that's becoming clear.

I forgot, you can't dislike Hillary for the Iraq vote or the lobby money she takes.

I'm sorry you're not feeling well, SoS, so I don't mind your lashing out at me with statements you know aren't true. Hope you feel better soon. I hate to add to it, but I wonder if you've seen how Obama has been mocking Edwards for his caring about the poor?

In a humorous riff, Obama mentioned a debate in which Tim Russert had asked him, “What’s your biggest weakness?”

Obama went on: “Well, I’m always losing paper. And so I have to have somebody around me to help me file things and keep my desk clean.”

Obama then said Russert had asked Edwards the same question.

“And he says, ‘Well, I am just so passionate about helping poor people,’” Obama said dryly.

Granted, it was a silly question and a forced answer, but apparently, it's now a "humorous" part of Obama's stump speeches. It just seems nasty and mean-spirited to me, but maybe I'm missing the "hope" message hidden in there.

Edwards dropped out because he thought it would help Obama, I think that's becoming clear.

Looks like he was a sucker for doing so, huh? In any case, I'm ready for the next installment of What Obama Really Meant gymnastics. Presidentiality, indeed.

Clinton spin is insulting.

Mrs. Inevitable is now in a delegate dead heat and lagging big time in money, with Omentum-friendly states next on the horizon.

Your arguments defy logic. Obama won in "red" or "swing" states where Democratic turnout beat GOP turnout. See the writing on the wall? Do I have to explain what that means to you?

Fuck. I think the pundits are idiots, and then I come here and you people make them look like Rhodes scholars.

Good question, New Age.

It appears that the exaggeration of the Kennedy mystique's influence on behalf of Obama was just that: exaggeration. It didn't even help in Uncle Teddy's home state of Massachusetts, let alone with the Hispanics in California (a Barak calculation).

Look at many of the states Obama won....they won't go Democratic in the fall. Not by a long shot. They'll be solidly in the McCain camp.

Clinton's wins are more realistic in terms of traditional Democrats, plus some additions.

Methinks the MSNBC/WAPO "We hate Hillary" campaign didn't work. In fact, methinks there was a backlash at the blatantly favorable treatment for Obama.

The Democratic Party is coming home to what really wins: NOT ultra-left liberal Uncle Teddy, but centrist, rational, competent Hillary.

Big Tent Democrat at TalkLeft is an Obama supporter? Geez, I've been reading him wrong the whole time.

I'd hate to burst your bubble eriposte but I believe that Obama has come out on a bit ahead on delegates and not Clinton.

Time has the delegate count at:

Overall
Obama: 908
Clinton: 884

Awarded on 2/5
Obama: 845
Clinton: 836

And looking down the road we have what are regarded as states which are better territory for Obama. If Clinton's going to win this she has a real fight on her hands and yesterday was anything but an 'accomplishment' for a candidate who has been regarded as inevitable for so long.

divide and conquer - heh heh

I'm sure HRC headquarters behind the scenes is a pretty sober place today. They thought it would be a slam dunk, and here's this little upstart getting in their way. Life isn't fair, is it?

Pretty uppity of Obama isn't it!
I'm getting all teary eyed thinking about it!
Oops, was that sexist? Misogyny and hate police please respond.

euzoius, It's clear that Edwards dropping out gave Obama a boost.

I live in MD and just got my first campaign call! I'm pretty excited that we're even on the radar this year. The call was from someone campaigning for Obama and I'm sure I'll get sick of calls between now and next Tuesday, but it's only a week. I'd love to see both Obama and Clinton in person, but I'm not sure they'll be here much with primaries in other places Saturday.

My friend is a die-hard Obama fan and we were talking about the differences in health care plans. I think I pointed out some things about the differences that she hadn't really understood before (I like Clinton's plan, think Obama's plan is ludicrous and think it's important to at least aim for universal care.) I kind of stumped her on that--not that I'll change her mind or that I'm even trying to, but it was interesting to see her reaction.

Eriposte, just so we're clear here, your analysis reveals that Hillary had a good night based on one link to CNN that shows Obama is projected to win more delegates, and another site using which shows Obama might be losing by about 10 or 20 delegates? That's what you're saying, right? LMAO! I think you need to work on your analytical skills a bit. However, your cheerleading with blinders skills are working great!

You guys can keep spinning. Hillary needed to knock Obama out of the race. She didn't, not even close. The longer Obama is in the race, the worse it is for HRC, and coming out of last night, Obama is in this for the long haul. Hillary might not win another race until March, or only one or two. You Clintonites are cheering this? LOL! Looks like some Dems are drinking from the Hillary kool-aid. I was, too, believing that she had it. I was so wrong.

Go ahead, curse away, deny away. A quick glance at any of the big leftie blogs except this show the state of the race, and the state is the Obama supporters are happier than clams. Meanwhile, the Clinton supporters sound like near professional Spin-meisters.

This post gives me a second thought regardign Obama. I voted for him here in California, but your point on Obama doing better in states that in the general election go Republican makes Hillary more attractive. My concern is just getting a Dem. in the White House.....that is were my vote will go.

A woman called into cspan this morning and said she had always been a republican but changed to be a democrat this year. So I was expecting her to talk about how Obama inspired her to cross over. But she was a Hillary supporter. She said she liked how smart and knowledgeable she is. She also pointed out that while everyone is talking about the youth vote, the AA vote, the women's vote, etc, no one is talking about the baby boomer vote. She said it's a reliable voting group and in her opinion, they'll go for experience and vote for Hillary.

I keep hearing about winning with women (or is it white women?). Does anyone know the breakdown of African-American women and how it compares to African-American men? Just curious.

CG, My elderly mother and father voted for Hillary. No doubt she knows the issues and what to say.

For me the final point was if it's the American citizen or her corporate backers she will favor who got her the Presidency.

I had to go with Obama.

It didn't even help in Uncle Teddy's home state of Massachusetts,...

Well, that certainly is a problem. I hoped Obama would have done better. Clinton and that 30 delegate lead 2 weeks ago was too difficult to overcome and just knocks the crap out of Obam...wait a second! Clinton's 30 delegate lead 2 weeks ago in MA...hmmmmm.

e'rip -

thanks for another solid post.

the endless,

scatter-shot chatter

from the media caused me to withdraw temporarily.

i've said here before i think clinton would make an excellent president and i think it is past time that a woman held the american presidency.

clinton is a bright and analytical woman, honest about her past failures, and with a real passion to change some of the harmful aspects of our society.

her candidacy and presidency would surely bring more women into national politics (there are already substantial numbers involved in local and state politics).

i agree that clinton has been brutally mistreated by the media - essentially she has been stoned by an angry village of mediaheads.

be that as it may,

this morning my ears pricked up at something i had not heard previously: that males supported obama over clinton in the feb 5 contests.

i don't know to what degree the pattern even exists, but if it does, it could be an interesting behavior pattern to follow.

it would not surprise me to learn that some male democrats will not support a woman, though, of course, there could have been other considerations behind the voting decision, e.g., economics and job security (rather than sexual stereotypes).

any way,

if you get a chance sometime maybe you can take a look at the male/female difference in voting and see if there is any reasonable conclusions that can be drawn from them.

thanks again for sensible commentary in unsensible times.

I am open to be swayed by any candidate’s achievements or details of how they are going to change things.

Still waiting to hear an ounce of substance from obama ...the silence is deafening

Instead we hear more rhetoric, the latest ..."I am now Clinton-tested"

...giggle

Still waiting

I have to disagree on the G.E. in Tennessee. Bill carried tenn. and frankly Gore lost it in 2000. If Gore didnt take the state for granted and actually did what he was suppose to do. He would have won and we wouldnt have the last 7 nightmarish years. Hindsight is 20/20 and Tennessee is purple and I really believe that Clinton has a shot in the G.E. One of the major reasons Kerry didnt have a chance here, was two biggies. One of the biggest things was the statewide party was in disarray, money being the biggest factor. The party is now in a better postion, it seems anyway by the meetings this go around. Second the party, and I can only go by talking to other dem. party members, was more about getting bush out. There wasnt a big PRO-Kerry vote, more of ABB. Clintons still have allies in this state, the old (Ned Ray McWherter) and the new (Phil Bredesen). So, just because we are in the South, dont automatically think we will go republican.

I wonder if Obama has run out of things to say.
He's thrown everything but the kitchen sink at Hillary, and she still beat him.
I read that he's blaming the Clinton's for Congressional losses in the 90's now, which seems like last ditch desperation to me.
If Clinton focuses on the issues, she should win.

She's going to win. I don't think Obama supporters--who receive all the media attention--understand how committed we are to this candidate. We are not going to let them, and the media, write this narrative.

The endorsement of Penn err Clinton by this site is one of the more startling examples of shark-jumping in the history of the blogosphere.

Hillary Clinton was the odds on favorite one year ago and she is currently in the favorite's position, so not much is really new there. Winning California, New York and Florida by wide margins will likely mean Clinton's the nominee, and it probably should. However now we know that white people will vote for a Black man for president, but few Hispanic's will. Women will vote for a woman and young people across the board think Clinton is a "same old thing" politician. If she cannot beat a very disturbed old man with almost all of Bush's bad characteristics and judgement, we'll have blown it big time. Turnout numbers indicate a Dem victory in the general should be easy money. However she's yet to poll ahead of McOld and until that begins to be routine in the polls....you gotta worry.

T2

It is stretch to add Florida because it was uncontested. She won on name recognition alone.

I read that he's blaming the Clinton's for Congressional losses in the 90's now,...

The mailer supposedly went to Alaska before Super Tuesday. I have some real problems with this mailer. It implies that someone named Bill Clinton was President and running the country during the 90's, and that there were major democratic losses during that period. Both are complete falsehoods. Will the politics of lies and hatred never cease?

"Keep in mind that that someone has not had a single negative ad run against him YET"

Yeah...but he had Bill in South Carolina and the Clinton serrogates.

angryman.... She had a huge turnout for a meaningless exercise. I somehow doubt that the people who voted for her in FLA will not do the same in the general. As far as "uncontested", I believe Obama was on the ballot as well and finished far behind.

T2
Point well taken. However, If your last name was Clinton and on a Democratic ballot; You would win if there was not campaigning. (Bill has 70% favoribility rating).

T2 Clinton....lol

Obama basically received free advertising worth hundeds of mils but still he could not win the big states. When will the Obamazoids wake up?

As far as "uncontested", I believe Obama was on the ballot as well and finished far behind.

By uncontested he means no one was instate actively working the vote. But in order to claim a Clinton win on "name recognition only" one would have to assume that Florida existed in a political bubble much like that inhabited by George Bush. There was very little active campaigning here in NY. No appearances by the major candidates. But still millions of voters managed to decide which candidate they preferred.

Does Florida not have access to news media and cable television? Do they not read newspapers while sipping their fresh Florida OJ? Could the poky little backwater that is Florida have really not known who Barack Obama was on primary day?

snark, I heard the "name recognition" thing again twice yesterday on Air America, in the midst of furious Obama coverage. Even the people in my office who avoid politics like the plague and plug their ears when I try to talk about it, know who he is. Again, they're trying to minimalize any positives that Clinton might have. I really have to admire the fact that she's still going strong.

angryman.... She had a huge turnout for a meaningless exercise. I somehow doubt that the people who voted for her in FLA will not do the same in the general. As far as "uncontested", I believe Obama was on the ballot as well and finished far behind.

Posted by T2 at February 6, 2008 11:52 AM

Yes, because NOBODY has ever heard of Barak Obama. He's not on TV. He's not in the news. He's not on the ballot. He doesn't get billions of lines of free publicity on the web.

Nope. He's just some write-in loser living in his mother's basement that nobody but you, his wife and his mother ever heard of...

Snark and Coyote:

You win today because I just don’t care about your shitty little blog anymore. I will help you:
Listen up all you Obama bots
Obama actively campaigned in Florida and was soundly beaten by Hillary
Obama was up 20 points in Cali and lost to Hillary by 10 points
Obama was leading Hillary in all the NE states and only managed to win CT
Obama only one in Caucus states and is rapidly loosing ground on all fronts.
Hillary swept across the US last night and even beat him in his own home state last night.
Pack it Obamabots and call it a day we had a bad night last night.
He may as well just throw in the towel and support Hillary.

lASTLY, Bill just undid his Slimy deal for the Canadian businessman.

I know what he meant snark, but in my book if your name is on the ballot against an opponent...it's a contest. They didn't keep the names secret until voting day.
You are 100% correct..although Clinton and Obama weren't in FLA in human form, they certainly made pitches to FLA voters on TV...I saw Hillary doing it....that's contesting the election. Not to be confused with Gore contesting an election in FLA in 2000...where his idea of contesting was to hand it to the other guy.
I agree with angryman that Clinton is a recognizable name. I'm not contesting that. My original point was that the triad of sizable victories over her only opponent in CA, FL and NY would generally indicate a very strong national position for the general. I am pretty sure that TX will fall her way also, after all, many Texas Democrats remember the name Clinton from when her husband was a two-term president.

angryman:

70% favorabililty? But I thought his administration was a disaster for Democrats? Obama sayz so.

Clinton admin was great. We all drank kool aide, pissed gold and crapped gold bricks.

I wish those days would come back once more.

You win today because I just don’t care about your shitty little blog anymore.

It's not my blog.

You know what would be even bette if we had TWO PRESIDENTS at once. YEAH!

Bill and Hill the two headed presidency. Hill could run things one week and then Bill.

Oh man...that would be heaven.

Bill could bang everything with a dress in the Lincoln bedroom; and we wouldnt have to worry about impeachment cause guess what? We would have a dem congress. It would be one big ass party.

Snark:

You should hide undercover because you dont want to go head to head with me. You will cry like your other blog mates.

You should hide undercover because you dont want to go head to head with me. You will cry like your other blog mates.

[rolls eyes]

Phidipides, I don't get what you are trying to say - Clinton smoked Obama in Florida - she got 50% to Obama's 33% ???

angryman: You should hide undercover because you dont want to go head to head with me. You will cry like your other blog mates.

sounds like someone needs to take a nap

my two biggest worries about Obama is that his "act" will grow old quick and that the worst ReThug opposition he has ever faced was Alan Keyes!

and btw, I will be voting for the Democratic nominee come November

interesting that Obama didn't win more considering the positive coverage from the korporate media (which will promptly change if he gets the nomination)

Gay Vet:
Who needs a nap? Your mother?

What is Obama's "message", BTW? Can anybody tell me? Even last night on MSNBC, the pundits could only say he was "inspirational". They didn't talk about any of his policy statements or plans.

I've just been looking at those big caucus wins that Obama fans are claiming will turn those red states blue.
Obama got the following percentage of registered voters in the following states:
Idaho -- 2.5%
Alaska -- 1.8%
Kansas -- 1.7%

Definately on their way to turning blue...

I guess he needs to change something going forward, same old rhetoric is getting tiresome.

end of the phenom phase

the pundits ... didn't talk about any of his policy statements or plans.

That's because they don't care about policy or plans. All they care about is having a soap opera to 'report on'.

Phidipides, I don't get what you are trying to say - Clinton smoked Obama in Florida - she got 50% to Obama's 33% ???

Early balloting made up 60% of the vote. With Edwards out who do you think they will vote for.

What is Obama's "message", BTW? Can anybody tell me? Even last night on MSNBC, the pundits could only say he was "inspirational". They didn't talk about any of his policy statements or plans.

Your not going to find any threads posted about that here bub! Better just go to his website.

snark, but this was somebody who was actually ASKED, "What makes Obama such a good candidate?" (or words to that effect).

/Then I believe they went on to talk about how Hillary cried.

I've been to Obama's website. I know what his platform and policies would be. Some of it is a little disconcerting.

My point is, that MOST of Obama's supporters don't know anything about his policies - they just think he's "charismatic" and "inspirational". Kind of like Ronald Reagan. And similar to the way George W. Bush was sold as a "compassionate conservative" and a "guy you'd like to have a beer with (HA!)"

Here's something really interesting from the National Journal which is referenced in the link that Joe provided a few comments up.

A strict policy nugget!

Seems that Barack Obama was declared the Most Liberal Senator for 2007 by National Journal. He finished 1st with a 95.5 rating! Impressive! Hillary Clinton finished back in the pack at 16th with a 82.8 rating. Interesting thing is that when you look at the "Key Votes" breakdown that they give Obama and Clinton only voted differently on 2 bills. The only other difference is that Obama had many many more "Did not Vote's" on bills that Clinton did vote on than she had on bills tha Obama voted on.

Now I think these types of ratings are a bit hokey but the listing of bills and how they both voted is definitely worth having a look at.

Seventied it! Mwahahaha!

...but the listing of bills and how they both voted is definitely worth having a look at.

You bet it is! Clinton voted against ethics reform in the Senate. What does she have against ethics? You look around and you'll also find she only missed 107 votes this session. And only 10 Senators had perfect voting records. These people are like a pack of undergraduates.

Wow - it's weird being in a pocket of rabid Clintonmania. It seems like Clinton supporters think Obama supporters are star-crossed and don't care about policy. All of Obama's policies are laid out on his website and are really quite similar to Clinton's. The main differences between the candidates are in style and politics. Is it wrong to ask for inspiration and leadership with good policies?

BTW, the comment above about massive turnout for the Florida primary is quite silly. There was a contentious propoerty tax issue on the ballot which drove up turnout.

it's weird being in a pocket of rabid Clintonmania.

You know, I really get a kick out of shit like this. We've got maybe one or two people for Clinton in here at any one time, the rest for Obama, and one crazy-ass troll pretending to be for Obama picking fights with the most polite of the commentors, and it's "rabid Clintonmania." How in the hell will you guys ever manage it if Obama wins the nom and the Republicans stop playing nice and go on the offensive? I tell ya, we'd better get a truckload of smelling salts, 'cos you guys'll be fighting over the fainting couch at the first sign of trouble. Sheesh.

Clinton voted against ethics reform in the Senate. What does she have against ethics?

In fact she voted for ethics reform. As did Obama. The S.1 Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 passed with both their support. What Clinton voted against was an amendment, S.Amdt.30, offered by Joe Lieberman to establish a Senate Office of Public Integrity. So I suppose you could say she's got something against Office's of Public Integrity.

CA Pol Junkie,Wow - it's weird being in a pocket of rabid Clintonmania.

Exactly, your eyes are't used to reading issues from a different perspective...because it's one that you most likely will not get from the msm, print media, and most of the left blogosphere unfortunately.

You should have been here more often even before Edwards dropped out. Many people here were former Edwards supporters, but had enough of the hysterica and wave of Obamania at other venues and came here to get a different point of view and excellent top rate analysis/debate. My opinions on the candidates has evolved and benefitted significantly from reading other viewpoints. The more educated and informed I became the better I felt casting my vote. (I just finally decided yesterday and it was a tough decision for me).I had been tuned out by the whole process but realized it was time to start really paying attention to specifics and not the hype and conventional narratives being touted by the media and many left blogs. I mean just yesteday in my state I really believed the spin that the local media and even blogosphere was hyping that Obama was going seriously challenge Hillary for MA...and that was not true. Anyway you should know that there is always more than one side to an issue and should make it a point to come here more often...just to get a differet perspective.

Most regulars here state they will enthusiastically vote for the the Democratic nominee no matter who it ends up being...so it's really quite tame in comparison to many commenters at other sites.

Just found out Hillary loaned her campaign 5 million of her own dollars.

SOS, what rock u been hiding under, lol ;-)

This gallup daily tracking is interesting, shows the oboma popularity run up to Tuesday, and then a drop off with Hillary doing some good interviews.

Should be interesting to watch how feb 5 affects the results.

daily gallup tracker

SOS, what rock u been hiding under, lol ;-)

The TLC comments thread.

This is funny and puts some perspective on any obama laughable claim/spin where "winning the most states" ,amongst other things, makes him the best nominee ;-)

oboma's funny five

That's leaving out the fact that some of his states are mccain states ;-)

Happy 97th Birthday, Saint Ronnie!

I wish I could find a still from "Bedtime for Bonzo", photo shop Bushs face on Bonzo and post it in your honor.

CA Pol Junkie, One positive response for Obama will net you two negative slams.
Be glad you kept it to one paragraph.

No Clintonmania here.

SOS, saw that too over at (Obama)Talking Points Memo...interesting indeed....doesn't sound good that's for sure. Having said that it seems like just yesterday that McCain took out a loan....gee...wonder how that ended up turning out for him?

campaign staff foregoing pay, ...that's bizarre!

Well, if Hillary's win was a super-spectacular and decisive as her supporters claim, she'll be rolling in millions more in cash by Friday, and her $5 million loan will be drained in 3 days. I'm sure we'll hear more about it, nothing is more important than money in our fine system.

Wonder where all her new money will be comig from? Prob'ly all those small donors that make up her "traditional base" of the Dem party.

Was it common knowledge that the Clintons have enough wealth that they can just float a $5 million personal "loan" to the campaign whenever they need to?

emal: "Most regulars here state they will enthusiastically vote for the the Democratic nominee no matter who it ends up being"

well.....not enthusiastically ;)

just came across this, made me smile

barry ;-)

Wonder where all her new money will be comig from? Prob'ly all those small donors that make up her "traditional base" of the Dem party.

Ah euzoius, go easy on them!

Sir McCain has no money altho his wife is supper rich but it does not matter. Mr Hope is trying to negotiate a seat on the tix. I saw their plan early on by them concentrating in smaller states/causues to rack up the delegate count knowing that they can't and could not win the big states.

[sarcasm]Just wanted to update you all on Dear Leade-- er, um, I mean Hillary's Glorious Victory last night!

According to CNN, her victorious delegate count from yesterday now stands at 580 delegates, utterly destroying capitalist puppet Obama's count with 571 delegates from last night! And, she is doing so well, she has taken on a $5 million loan and her people are working for free![/sarcasm]

LOL! ROTFLMAO! Like I said in a previous thread -- Pyrrhic victory for the Clintons.

Brian Bell:

it is sad to read your stuff. the guy had dream 2 weeks and still he could not win big states? WHY ? the guy had the entire MSM, the religous left behind him and still all he could do was win IDAHO. be happy that you won IDAHO.

We need to stop this Obama puffery and great hopeful rhetoric and elect Clinton, She has the know-how, and knows what to do. Obama HAS NOT changed anything in the Senate or DC. He's not an outsider. He is bankrolled by many big time people whose corporate interests are as vicious as any Republicans. I like that he projects a cool brother persona. He has not been tested in any sense of the word. Even if they despise McCain, Republicans will beat Obama down soundly.They want power and access to money. With Democrats pretending that race, class and gender issues are not distorting their views and creating pseudo- bliss for everything Obama and the same old tired female hating and subordination, racist and upper class dislike of Clinton - we will lose with Obama. So when will Blacks wake up, Michelle?

Let see, for Romney, self financing was an act of desperation. For Clinton, I suppose it's an investment in the future of the US. McCain went on public financing, but I hear he's about to go off it and back on private funds. Seems the money has been coming in now that he's leading. There's been a lot of Republican money sitting on the sidelines, maybe they're about to throw in.

We need to stop this Obama puffery and great hopeful rhetoric and elect Clinton

Yes! We must not have any inspiration from our leaders!

emal, I'm definitely not going to learn anything here. The spin is way out of control. People on blogs know to much too buy into it.

BTW, you want to know if someone has CLASS, check what happened today when Clinton, TeddyK, John Kerry and Mr Hope met in the Senate.

As Nick Noltle once said in movie, you can't buy CLASS.

womenlead menfight (4:42):

[(obama's) not an outsider. He is bankrolled by many big time people whose corporate interests are as vicious as any Republicans. I like that he projects a cool brother persona. He has not been tested in any sense of the word.]

good points.

if you have not already,

read the new york times story last week,

mike mcintire, nytimes, feb 3, 2008, "nuclear leaks and response tested obama in senate"

this is a story about how obama reacted to a (lowlevel) nuclear waste spill in his state.

if i read the article correctly, he began by declaring that he was very concerned about the issue

and he ended by making his bill dealing with the issue weaker

and weaker

and weaker.

turns out, one of his big money backers is a electric utility exec.

damn;

that shoots the theory obama is a free man and a force for change from our current corporate-run politics.

i should stop here,

but i will blunder on.

for months i have been wondering:

who funded obama early on?

who has been pushing him in the media since his 2004 speech to the demo natl convention?

in short, who got him started?

there is always money in politics - so where did obama's early money come from?

and where did his early strong support come from?

well, that electric utility exec may have been one of obamas's sugar daddys.

who were other's

that funded the beginnings of this children's crusade?

Actually, T2, the YOUNG PEOPLE went massively for Clinton in Massachusetts and California.

Surprised?

And it is Clinton who is now winning both popular vote and delegate count for Super Tuesday.

I'm guessing MSNBC is depressed. LOL

this is absolutely f****ing worth a bookmark, and recommended reading for any clinton supporter/hater alike...

...but especially snot nosed obama trolls

A word with Obamanation

Just for clarity----you know, actual facts instead of wild-eyed emotion, HERE are the FLorida results:

Clinton 856,944
McCain 693,425
Romney 598,152
Obama 568,930

Hell, Obama couldn't even beat Romney, let alone McCain. Clinton wiped the floor with ALL of them.

Those numbers are why the Obama-crazed MSM wanted you to think "Florida didn't count."

Both Obama and Clinton have both publicly said they will SUPPORT Florida being reinstated.

And reinstated, Florida will be.

Read it and weep, Obamanauts.

Well, it's Wednesday evening on the West Coast and it appears that when the votes were all counted Obama actually ended up with more delegates than Clinton. He apparently has a lot more money and has a string of primaries and caucuses he will probably win.

People should read Stephen Zunes' piece at Common Dreams.org about the candidates' foreign policy teams. It will explain to you why Clinton refuses to admit that giving Bush his war powers was a bad idea.

truely that Obamazoids now have to spin the delegate craps. truely depressing.

ONE MORE TIME, Obamanauts: Obama's campaign is saying they won the delegate count. (Not counting superdelegates)

But the MEDIA....CNN, etc....says CLINTON won both the popular vote AND the delegate count (counting superdelegates).

Obama's campaign is SPINNING, as usual.

Mary, that's not what we Obamans state. I have offered sources for every one of my quoted numbers. I have said he's either winning or within 10 or 20 of last night's delegates, unlike most of the Clintonites who just say, "Oh, no, she won the delegates," but offer no proof. Whether he actually won or not is not a problem. He held her, and that's all he needed to do to "win." The vast majority of the remaining races are his to lose. Clinton's on the ropes.

Wow, that's some discourse ya got going here Steve!

I'm going to offer up this thought.

Seems Sen. Obama thinks that Sen. Clinton has pulled out all the stops against him, and that he's weathered that storm, which proves that he can win in November.

I have a couple problems with that. One, he's implying that she's gone dirty and nasty and swift boat like against his campaign, only I don't think that is true at all. My feeling is that any "nastyness" by her campaign has been pretty mild, you don't hear these whisper campaigns about his black love child like McCain gets in So Carolina, as an example of nasty, and I don't think that she will go all nuclear wasteland on Sen. Obama to win the nomination.

Why not, you ask?

Because in the long term that will not serve the Democratic Party or this Nation, and all those of you who think she's another George Bush or just a dirt bag lying scum run of the mill Republican like every Republican elected to office, really isn't paying attention. If her voting record is 16th out of hundred, liberal wise, that isn't exactly a gop shill now is it. And their policy goals are pretty much the same, just methods and timelines and emphasis the big difference.

So I can't see her destroying Barack Obama with lies and filth in a desperate attempt to win as something she would do, there's just no good percentage in it. Sen. Obama, on the other hand, I could see him going that route, despite his lovely speeches.

Second, and this is the big thing for me, if he thinks whatever she's thrown at him is all the stops, what the hell does he think Rover and the Corps are going to do to him?

It sounds like he has no fucking idea of what those monstrosities are going to do to him. And those two points suggest to me that he does not have the maturity and jadedness, if you will, to be president.

Hillary Clinton is a Democrat, and I'm really getting tired of so many people saying otherwise. Is she going to take on the corps like I thought John Edwards would do? Probably not. But she's not going to be their lapdog either.

I swear, this comment thread is pretty pathetic, it's like one of those LGF psychopathic threads, only done by a bunch of Democrats, who, you know, just aren't that sociopathic or heartless, hence the Democratic affiliation.

Take a deep breath folks. Hillary ain't that bad, Obama ain't that great, this thing is going to the convention in Denver.

And just to remind you, I was an Al Gore, then in no great order John Edwards/Bill Richardson/Chris Dodd person. Also, let me remind you that there are no good republicans, and someone who preaches "unity" would be including republicans, and until they would ACTIVELY, loudly, and repeatedly repudiate Bush and Rove and ALL of their miserable policies, I would not welcome them into my unity group. No, back stabbing, lying, murdering bastards aren't welcome in my world, which makes me very unpleased with Sen. Obama's message. Oh, and I did vote for Hillary Clinton last night.

Here in Hillaryland, if you really feel good about the candidate you choose, why do you have to trash the other guy?

It sounds like he has no fucking idea of what those monstrosities are going to do to him. And those two points suggest to me that he does not have the maturity and jadedness, if you will, to be president.

I know this is an opinion and it is a major leap. Maybe there is a different way to compete with lies. Maybe there is another playing field with different plays. Maybe it's time to stop fighting the same old fights on republican and corporate media terms.

duckman gr

cheers!!!!!.agree whole heartedly with everything you said

I'm not clear on what you're saying there, smooth. And not sure where the major leap is, or are you referring to your own comments?

You go with the players ya got, not the ones ya want, right? Given the near total corporate dominence of the media, and they're working on the internets just as fast as they can, we have to work with what's here and now, in the hopes that the work we do know will move us towards that new playing field as we gain ground as liberals and progressives.

But like I said, the republicans, by their very nature as conservative, will not be the ones to lead the way, no they want to go the other way. And that's the republicans I'm talking about, not the Bush/Cheney/Rove/Gingrich/DeLay things.

he does not have the maturity and jadedness, if you will, to be president.

I think this is a very large leap. Based on what I know about Chicago politics and what happen to the Clinton "karl rove like" racial attack before South Carolina and how Clinton has now changed his game plan. There are better ways to confront lies and distortions head on.

The different playing field and different plays refers to playing a different game. The Democrats have been unable to beat the republicans because they have been playing by republican and corporate media rules. Gore and Kerry played that way. The Democrats (Clinton or Obama) will have to play by rules that will allow them to win. The corporate media can no longer be the referee. The distorted meanings (i.e. strong on national defense...the candidate most willing to place military industrial complex profit interest above the national interest is strong on defense - thats a lie) will have to be challenged. Quite frankly, it's time to kick the republicans cowards in the nuts!!!

We need to stop playing into the fear the media is creating about what the republicans will do. You know, based on where we are, the republicans are in no position to attack anybody.

I above post is mine not Duckman. Sorry Duckman.

I couldn't agree more about telling the "media" to pound sand. I was reading something today that they aren't spending as much money on teevee ads right now, and that's a good thing. Teevee doesn't need the money. In fact, if anything needs to be shrunk down to drown in a bathtub size, it IS the teevee media.

But all the framing stuff only goes so far. I would think that the candidate who actually spoke more directly about things would get a lot of currancy in this campaign. And I mean real direct speech, not bogus John McCain straight talk.