VOTR Night Open Thread

It's VOTR night (Vermont, Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island). Use this space to discuss the results and prognosticate about what's coming next.

And just because it's also March 4th, here's a fun clip from Portland band March Fourth.

Discuss.

Comments

  • BCM (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Sure, I'd be glad to fire the first salvo tonight: Didn't Hillary look wretched last night on the Daily Show?

  • Katy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    That is what's important when it comes to the female candidate isn't it? What she looks like?

    Seriously, what is wrong with you?

  • (Show?)

    Man, you really need to let up that approach - or are you a prankster Republican sewing discord on the Dem site?

    Your comment has nearly convinced me that BCM stands for Bash-Clinton Misognynist. How often do you criticize the looks of non-female candidates?

  • (Show?)

    What a fun video!

    Meanwhile, voters in Brattleboro and Marlboro instructed their respective city attorneys to prepare charges, to arrest Bush and Cheney if they should pass through town.

    Anybody else feeling a little embarrassed to live in a country where things get to this point?

  • (Show?)

    I'm following the results online at cnn.com - so far the net delegates from VT and RI are even (Obama's gained 4 in VT, Hillary's up 4 in RI, still counting). No delegate estimates yet for OH or TX.

    Go Hillary!

  • BCM (unverified)
    (Show?)

    You took the bait...

    Now that I see you're up in arms about this charachter assassination, I expect you to denounce Clinton's campaign releasing the photo of Obama in Kenyan dress.

  • (Show?)

    Sorry, I'm done feeding the trolls.

  • Opinionated (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Hillary has been projected winner in OHIO. She is leading razor thin in TX. She won Rhode Island.GO HILLARY!

  • BCM (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Chris, I've been posting here longer than you have--I'm no troll. But, thank you solidifying Clinton hypocrisy for all of us to see.

    I suppose Paddy's "Winning and dignity" can now be more properly extolled as unfair. You're all espousing the notion that we can't attack Hillary, but you can throw mud at Obama. It's grossly unfair.

  • (Show?)

    Texas may not be decided for quite awhile. There are reports of serious voting irregularities at some of the voting and caucus sites. A Taylor Marsh post includes the text of a memo from the Clinton camp on the topic.

  • Katy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Who's throwing mud at Obama? We're excited about Hillary and that makes you angry. I'm not even sure what you're talking about anymore. Took the bait? How childish.

    This thread is supposed to be about the elections tonight and I'd like to stay on topic. Looks like Obama won Vermont, Clinton won RI - and Ohio and Texas are still too close to call. Exciting, but I'm a geek.

  • (Show?)

    BCM I want to take you seriously, but "baiting" with misognynist nonsense is not to me serious discourse, nor is quoting Drudge in what was a very flimsy accusation and certainly not any tactic of the Clinton camp. You seem to forget that neither Hillary nor her campaign staff are stupid. They will never do something that would so obviously produce blowback among progressives; but the Republicans were happy to set it up and the Obama camp was all to happy to take that bait and smear the Clinton camp with the accusation.

    You are clearly very partisan for Obama and that's fine; I don't at all grudge you the right to be proud of your candidate and tout his strenghts. I also don't have any problem with documented criticisms of Hillary's actions, but your post of a hyperbolic op-ed politico piece is not substance.

    I have not "thrown mud" as you say but I will call out divisive and abusive tactics, and criticize real actions of Senator Clinton's rival. We may not have the show-biz appeal that Obama has but we have a movement too, and it's just as Democratic and sincere as yours.

    The best thing we can do is figure out how to maintain mutual respect and put our collective momentum in the same direction. I hope you can meet Hillary's supporters halfway, for the good of the party and our chances in November.

  • (Show?)

    Oops - forgot to close an italics tag, sorry!

    Hillary wins Ohio by double-digits: "As Ohio goes, so goes the nation."

    Hurray! Hillary has my heart... and my vote!

  • gold (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Hillary says that she and McCain are the superior candidates for National Defense. What a bitch move. She made a talking point for McCain if Obama wins. She is doing a “me or nothing” sabotage.

  • BCM (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Katy and Chris, I'm beginning to wonder if you're one in the same. Admin: can we have an IP check please?

    I never said any of you were throwing mud, I said the Clinton campaign was.As such, it was arrogant of you to undercut the dignity of Obama supporters on BO.

  • Katy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "but YOU can throw mud?" Hmm, who were we to think you were responding to?

    Go ahead Kari, check the IP. hahaha.

  • (Show?)

    BCM, you're grasping at straws here. I don't mean to belittle your concern over the integrity of the site but it is kinda funny. I've stood my ground on forums with 10-to-1 Obama-to-Clinton supporters and never had to resort to accusing anyone of posting from two accounts.

    gold, take your misogynist labels and go. Seriously, why is that kind of language permitted? If Hillary was black would you use a racist epithet? Shame on you.

  • (Show?)

    Hey, it's a whole different group of commenters on a night when Hillary's charging forth. Now why would that be...?

  • Pat Malach (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Didn't John McCain look wretched tonight when he gave his victory speech?

    And thanks, Hillary, for saying that McCain is better on national security than Obama. What a classy move. Reminds me of the time your husband lied about having sexual relations with "that woman" in the oval office.

    "Exit polls have showed that fans of Hillary — who once said they would be happy with Obama if Hillary dropped out — were hardening in their opposition to him (while Obama voters are not so harsh about her)." --Maureen Dowd
  • Katy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Jeff, I've been on all day... usually too scared to post because some of the Obama supporters are quick to bash me - even though I try very hard to only say positive things about my candidate. Something they are very slow to do.

  • Opinionated (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Hey Katy, Looks like Hillary backers have the house tonight. Obama-maniacs eat your heart out! It was real manic while it lasted. Lets get back to the real-world - age and experience matters... its been REAL!

    I have a strong opinion about this!

  • Katy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Opinionated, while I share your enthusiasm for Clinton I do not share your tone. I've said all along that I will be happy if either candidate wins the primary, I just like Hillary more. Plain and simple. She won two states tonight, Texas is still too close to call. I'm just glad she's hanging in there and showing she's a fighter. I've been unhappy w/the media coverage of the campaign and the tone of most of the Obama supporters I've talked to but I'm not about to gloat, especially when things are so close.

  • (Show?)

    I didn't catch the Clinton quote on McCain but it keeps showing up on every thread. So let's be clear:

    Obama played winner-take-all character sabotage against Clinton starting in 2007. He's made scores and scores of attacks and insinuations that Republicans could use against her (and many that they already had used against her, which he repeated, including a Harry-and-Louise attack campaign against progressive her health care plan).

    Do you think "Bush/Cheney Lite" is really less offensive or less likely to hurt her in the general? Or how about Plouffe saying "Hillary Clinton will do or say anything to win an election"? Or Obama himself saying Hillary would be 'a president whose plans change with the politics of the moment'? Or Obama's campaign saying Benazir Bhutto's assasination was 'yet another manifestation' of Hillary's poor judgment"?

    I could go on and on with all of the winner-take-all, slash-and-burn-Hillary statements that Obama made over the past year, as well as to a letter I wrote to the Obama campaign pleading with them to preserve party unity and stop attacking her on character.

    If it seems to you that the her statement (which I haven't heard yet) is worse than this year full of assaults: that's because you're not a Hillary supporter. But guess what: millions of Democrats are, and after a solid year of friendly fire at Hillary they feel like you do X 1000.

  • Pat Malach (unverified)
    (Show?)

    One thing I haven't heard Obama say is that Hillary is less-qualified than the Republican opponent.

    That's a low that Hillary owns all by herself in this primary.

  • ub (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Go Hillary! (And Nader.) This could be a lock for McCain after all.

  • Harry (unverified)
    (Show?)
    <h2>"Katy and Chris, I'm beginning to wonder if you're one in the same. Admin: can we have an IP check please?"</h2>

    I like that line... I'll be sure and use it again. It is useful and proper for troll discovery.

    Back on topic, I think this is good for Hillary. Good for Democrats. Good for America. And great for Obamster.

  • Harry (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The Harry above is not Harry Wilson (or whatever that Harry imposter's last name is!)

    IP check on aile 4!!!

  • Harry (unverified)
    (Show?)
    <h2>"Go Hillary! (And Nader.) This could be a lock for McCain after all."</h2>

    Not so fast...

    and

    <h2>"Back on topic, I think this is good for Hillary. Good for Democrats. Good for America. And great for Obamster."</h2>

    Here is how.... Bama has had a free pass. He has not been torched by the media, but after a few rounds of realty, he will be a bit more experienced. Here's to a few more rounds in the ring with the Hillster.

  • anon (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Pat, please provide the link to that alleged quote.

    As for who has been negative to whom, give me a break, people. They both have used negatives, and while Obama's have been delivered somewhat more subtly, they are qualitatively no less negative.

    Neither candidate, to date, has run a truly negative ad like we will see aplenty come the general. Let them duke it out, and quit your whining.

  • (Show?)

    Hillary wins Texas. This is indeed a great night, and what a fantastic race. I tell ya it beats the heck out of my first, in 1988. This is much more fun. How great to see such incredible turnout and such a great woman making history.

    Hillary can win. More to come. Go Democrats.

  • mike cd1 (unverified)
    (Show?)

    What a poor showing by the Clinton people here tonight. BCM called you guys out on a valid point and you guys exploded; distracting and trying to avert attention from the point at hand. I'm not for either BO or HRC (I'm still for JE), but HRC and her supporters (as displayed here) seem highly insecure. Why the livid reactions?

  • Opinionated (unverified)
    (Show?)

    All the Obama pundits and maniacs really eat your heart. Hillary is projected as the winner in TX. What a fight. The bitch is the new black - Right on Tina Fey and way to go SNL! Lets not forget she won the popular vote in FL and MI. So all of you on the fence - think, step back and re-evaluate. Age and experience does matter.

  • Katy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    ...because we've been so vilified on blueoregon for so many weeks, and I think at this point we're tired. On a previous post someone wrote "F you Mrs. Clinton" only they didn't write "F" if you know what I mean. I think that set the tone for the day.

  • Pat Malach (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "Pat, please provide the link to that alleged quote."

    Well, anon, I usually don't take requests from people in hiding, but if you say "pretty please with sugar on top" I'll tell you what words to Google.

    “I think that I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. Sen. John McCain has a lifetime of experience that he’d bring to the White House. And Sen. Obama has a speech he gave in 2002.”

  • (Show?)

    mike cd1: are you saying criticizing a 60-year-old woman's looks is proper discourse? Whatever. If I was "insecure" as you say I'd back down. I'm here as a Democrat to cheer for my candidate and will not back down.

    Opinionated, I second what Katy said to an extent - I'm not here to bash or taunt anyone, and I'm not going to allow myself the liberties of language that Tina Fey does because I've seen the language used 100-to-1 in a negative way this campaign season. This thing is going to the convention and our two progressive camps need to start building bridges to one another.

    But I do encourage all Hillary supporters to speak up and not back down when people exaggerate or use questionable tactics like the b* word, comments that only apply to a woman, and general dehumanization. This is not all prompted by this thread by any means, but by months of absorbing these attack patterns all over the blogosphere. It's time to be civil, folks.

  • Pat Malach (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "They both have used negatives, and while Obama's have been delivered somewhat more subtly, they are qualitatively no less negative."

    Hillary Clinton is the only candidate who's said the Republican is more qualified than her Democratic rival.

    That's a HUGE difference to people who's biggest goal is to make sure John "Bomb Iran" McCain doesn't win the White House.

  • pdxatheist (unverified)
    (Show?)

    as a former clintonian who switched to obama after what i considered appalling behavior by the clinton camp in south carolina (that wasn't my only reason, that was just the straw that broke the camel's back,) i sympathize with the plight of clinton supporters on this site.

    the vitriol that pours forth at any mention of support for hillary clinton here is truly astounding; it makes it easy to understand how some pundits completely and utterly misinterpret the strength of obama's campaign as some sort of 'cult of personality.' i felt like any remotely positive reference to hillary meant that i had to defend my right to exist as a human being to some of the 'obamanistas' on this site. unfortunately, i fell victim to that ploy too many times; it's hard to resist defending oneself when you are accused of being an inhuman, idiotic, bloodthirsty warmonger simply because of a show of support for hillary. regardless of who wins the nomination, (and i still think obama will pull it out) it is imperative for us to maintain party unity in the face of the right-wing turd-flinging machine and the ghastly nightmare of a potential mccain white house.

    i have to admit that i was hoping for a knockout blow and an obama victory in ohio and texas tonight, but it doesn't look like it's in the cards; unless texas has been called since i last checked, looks like obama will be lucky if he can squeak out a win in the lone star state.

    although i'm no uber-wonk, as i understand it, the math still doesn't work for clinton. barring some last-minute chicanery by hillary should the contest last til the convention (let's hope it doesn't go that long,) i still think this race is obama's to lose. delegate-wise, it looks like today will probably be more-or-less a draw, which still favors obama. momentum-wise, i think hillary can claim some sort of victory today. it seemed to me like the all-knowing media has been writing her obituary ever since super tuesday. (once again, they spoke too soon). it certainly speaks to her strength of character to continue in the face of long odds and adversity. i have always said that either obama or clinton will be an able and worthy president, and i still hold to that. kudos to hillary. she really clobbered obama in ohio. i don't think there is any viable argument left for her stepping aside just yet; looks like we'll be going on til april 22nd at the earliest.

    sigh. i was hoping for some sort of clarity after today. now that huckabee has dropped his ridiculous joust at the old republican windmill, mccain can finally focus all his energy on the democratic opponent. the silver lining here is he can no longer blithely assume that that candidate will be obama, and it's a lot harder to attempt to define two opponents than just one. it's late, i'm tired, just watched the blazers get their asses kicked (again) so i'll just stop blathering now...

  • BCM (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Drudging up old threads is outside the scope if this discussion. I can't speak to them, but name calling like you described is of a simpleton nature. Regardless, it's dubious of you to bring them up here as a badge of honor when nobody else can testify to their validity.

    The Clinton supporters made a high and mighty argument, vilifying the Obama supporters for not having any 'dignity.' The Clinton camp however has been busy orchestrating a systematic (racist) smear campaign against Obama. I thus see a great deal of hypocrisy in the 'dignity' argument and must object vociferously in kind.

  • jaded (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I have to admit to being pretty depressed by this week’s developments. As a good and loyal D (Carter, Jackson, Dukakis, hell, I even flew on my own dime to Florida to stump for Kerry in 06), I had concluded that I would contribute to and work for the Democratic Party’s nominee, no matter who won. It is likely I will still do so, only now I will likely have to do so reluctantly rather than enthusiastically.

    My reluctance comes from observing Senator Clinton’s campaign make the calculated decision to systematically drag down her Democratic opponent, rather than find ways to advocate and defend her own policies and ideas.

    I concede the point that misogyny is a serious problem in our national psyche and that many of those who defend Senator Obama are guilty of resorting to sexist critiques of Senator Clinton. It’s deplorable and illuminates just how far we have to go for our culture to match our rhetoric.

    That being said, after observing this weeks “kitchen sink” campaign unfold, I can only assume that Senator Clinton’s campaign is more interested in her success than it is in putting a Democrat in the White House. Whether it was the charges of plagiarism, Rezko, Canadian Consuls General or a nuanced defense of Obama’s religious beliefs, Senator Clinton has shown a willingness to tear down her Democratic colleague in order to acquire the nomination.

    And while I’m old and cynical enough to force myself to canvass for a candidate who operates with that ethos, I’m truly saddened by what I can only describe as a missed opportunity.

    I’ve been attending “progressive” and democratic gatherings in Oregon for the last 20 years. In doing so I’ve met most of the party leaders and decision-influencers that are the heart of the current party. They are, for the most part, thoughtful, pragmatic people who care about their community, their party and their country. But they have been in the trenches for so long, many no longer have the spark to inspire and excite our base, much less the general electorate.

    Senator Obama has the potential to change that dynamic. The legions of new, excited voters flocking to his campaign have the potential to change the political makeup of our country for a generation or more. They may have been willing to follow Senator Edwards or Senator Clinton if they believed the campaign was won or lost fair and square.

    Not anymore.

    Assuming Senator Clinton manages to garner the nomination, I have serious doubts these newcomers will be able to put aside their ire and rally around her in the general election. And even if they do, they, and indeed all of us, will have lost something in the process.

  • anon (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Thanks for providing the quote, Pat. It doesn't support your charge, however. Clinton made a joke about Obama not having much experience. At no time did she say Obama was less-qualified to be President than McCain.

    And repeating yourelf over and over again doesn't make it so.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Pat, for once I agree with you. As a woman Hillary's age who knows someone who graduated from Wellesley with her, I was disappointed by that snide remark.

    It is not "negative" (just an expression of opinion) to say "Hillary claims she and McCain have a lifetime of experience, and Obama only has a speech. That sounds like she is saying Obama has never passed any legislation, and has no experience worth mentioning outside of his years in the Senate. She has a right to say that, but I have a right to say 'she lost me with that crack and would need to work hard to win me back if she wants anything more than my vote' ".

    She can be gracious, or she can be snide. Like certain other candidates I have known, there is a positive side and a negative side (aka assets and liabilities) and she won't win over people who aren't staunch Democrats by telling them they shouldn't admire Obama because experience is more important than hope. Does she really think she can win over people in the 12 states in a row that went for Obama with remarks like their state doesn't matter because she has won all the important states ("important" being states she has won)?

  • Pat Malach (unverified)
    (Show?)

    “I think that I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. Sen. John McCain has a lifetime of experience that he’d bring to the White House. And Sen. Obama has a speech he gave in 2002.” --Hillary Clinton

    Spin that anyway you want, anon. It will give me a chance to keep repeating it.

    Better yet, watch the video. That delivery wasn't meant to be humorous. Not even close.

    By the way, I've noticed that even you don't support enough Clinton to use a real name (or even a creative pseudonym). Coward much?

  • Marshall Runkel (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Long time lurker, infrequent commenter...

    You have to be impressed with the Clinton team's political skills. She managed to simultaneously soften her image with effective use of SNL and Comedy Central and hit Obama hard.

    The SNL pieces combined were devasting. I caught myself thinking that if Clinton could be as gracious and engaging as she presented, she could escape from the fundamental misconception that she is some kind of monster. Maybe her negatives are a secret strength, when the country discovers this smart caring person, she will not only get credit for being great, she will also get credit for not being a monster.

    I was disappointed that Obama didn't deliver the knockout blow, because when you choose a team you want to win. The fact that math is on our side isn't making me feel much better.

    Wow, it's March and I'm fascinated. My wife is said it was a good day for democracy which usually means its a good day for Democrats. I'm happy like a sports fan watching two great teams battle it out.

    Thanks for the spot to post election day thoughts (note to self, get a journal).

  • (Show?)

    The only good thing to come out of tonight is that Oregonians' votes in our May primary will actually matter now. But it looks more and more like the convention will be a nightmare of infighting and self-destruction.

    I agree with "jaded" completely--Clinton lost me for good with the antics in South Carolina...and again with the attempts to steal the nomination via the MI and FL delegates...and yet again this week with the scorched earth attacks on Obama. Yeah, I'd suck it up and vote for her in the general, but I'm a party loyalist and most voters just aren't. The electorate is split 50/50 between Rs & Ds and the Ds are split 50/50 (or, at least tonight, 55/45) between Clinton and Obama. But I think that slim majority of Democrats who voted for Clinton tonight represents the only votes she'd get in the general. The word I hear from both centrist "non-affilated" voters and the left-wing party activists is that they will support Obama against McCain, but large numbers of them will not vote for Clinton under any circumstances--they'll go for McCain or third party.

    Sorry Clinton supporters, but every national poll shows the same thing--Obama beats McCain beats Clinton. You know Clinton has seen those polls, too; what do you suppose she knows that no one else does? I do not relish another 4 years of Republican theft and ineptitude, but that's where a Clinton nomination leads. Show me a poll that refutes this, I'd love to see it.

  • Miles (unverified)
    (Show?)

    As a Democrat first and an Obama supporter second, I'm worried. It is impossible for Clinton to beat Obama in pledged delegates, but it is impossible for Obama to win with just pledged delegates. Clinton's in this thing until the convention. Obama may have one more chance for a knock-out blow in Pennsylvania, but that's 7(!) weeks away.

    Yes, one optimistic view is that this keeps the Democrats in the news and pushes McCain to the sidelines. Except that every article in every state will say Obama and Clinton are vying for the nomination "to face John McCain." McCain will remain undefined, and given his moderate reputation that's a bad thing. The pessimistic view is that Obama and Clinton will now spend another $50 - $100 million EACH over the next 7 weeks. At what point do Democratic donors get tapped out? And depending on the tone of the debate so far, it's likely to get very nasty before we have a nominee.

    Fellow Obama supporters who are convinced the math is on our side should also consider this: Governor Rendell (PA) said tonight very matter of factly that this may not be decided "until Michigan and Florida hold their primaries in June." Whether that was wishful thinking or a slip of what the party has in store, late primaries for MI and FL favor Clinton. The millions of Democrats who already voted in those states are angry that their votes don't count, so Clinton has a built-in advantage since she's been "fighting for them."

    Obama needed to put Clinton away tonight. He didn't.

  • Corey (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I don't think that's the correct interpretation Miles. I agree that Obama needed to pull away tonight and did not, I did not hear the Rendell comment, but I find it encouraging. Clinton hasn't been fighting for the votes of Michigan and Florida to truly count, she's been fighting for the faux primaries they held back in January to serve as real primaries. If you recall 40% of Michigan voters chose "unpledged" over Hillary Clinton, that's a stunningly high number and shows that Clinton is not a particularly popular Democrat in that State. If Rendell is correct then that makes me really happy, because it provides an avenue for Florida and Michigan voters to be represented at the convention without rewarding them for breaking Party rules. Over at DailyKos it has been noted that late caucuses or primaries to get delegates admitted to the convention is not unheard of. For Florida and Michigan to hold late primaries and caucuses would be normal, just, and would not necessarily favour Clinton. Add Obama's name to the ballot with a campaign for their delegates (instead of it being unconstested) and its a whole different show, that 40% that voted for "uncommitted" rather than Clinton are probably going to go Obama straight off, and a number of people who are satisfied with both but didn't really get a chance to hear Obama's message at all. Florida was dictated overwhelmingly by name recognition, I don't know what would happen there, Clinton may still win it, or maybe not. Let them have their primaries, their voters deserve it, the intolerable solutions are to not admit them and to admit them as is.

    Obama did need to win at least one of the big States tonight because he can't afford to emerge from Pennsylvania looking like a beaten up campaign that just emerged from the rubble in desperate need of medical attention. Great night for Clinton, I congratulate her, and both Clinton supporters and Obama supporters need to mellow out a little and remember that the opposition is John McCain.

  • (Show?)

    Wow-- am I really the only one who finds tonight's election news from Vermont at least as compelling as all this primary stuff?? You guys should watch more sports to get that horse race itch out of your system!

    Meanwhile, still pretty ashamed for our country over here.

  • (Show?)

    Marshall, just noticed your comment. My thoughts exactly. Didn't realize the "sports metaphor" had already been used, it wasn't meant for you! More for the anonymous bile spewers above who would put a European soccer fans to shame…

  • Bill R. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Hillary got to have a good night but her road to the nomination is now more difficult than before. She may have at best a plus one delegate increase for the night, maybe a net loss when the Tx caucus results are in. Truth is, it was a split decision and she needed to win big in both Tx and OH. She got a big PR boost because of expectations, but that's about it because some next Sat and Tues Obama will win the big in Wy and Miss. The last state to help Hillary is Penn. After that it's downhill. So I suppose the case can be made as the race goes on, and gets uglier that Obama can be "seasoned" by the attacks and learn to throw a punch or two himself, which will ready him for McCain. McCain is going to struggle to be in the limelight, with no money (he's stuck in the public finance system for the time being) and the primary settled. Obama will announce this morning that he has $50 million and maybe 50 more supers committed to him.

  • Daniel Spiro (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Those of you who support Hillary, do you support her campaign tactics? Do you support the idea that she should have equivocated when asked if Obama was a Muslim? Do you support the idea that McCain and Hillary are qualified on national security, but not Obama?

    I have no intention to vote for McCain. I intent to vote for President Obama. But if Hillary is able to seize this, notwithstanding the pledged delegate count, based on slimy campaigning, I'd have no trouble voting for the GOP candidate -- for the first time in my life. And I wouldn't be alone among Democrats either. To vote for Hillary, under the circumstances, would be tantamount to encouraging future Democratic candidates to conduct slimy intra-party battles whenever a truly inspired Democratic candidate presents him/herself.

  • Matthew Sutton (unverified)
    (Show?)

    It was a good night for Hillary, but the delegate count still looks about the same with Obama 100+ ahead.

    Still waiting for the results of the Texas caucus, which should give Obama even more delegates.

    Next up? Missippi and Wyoming where, as usual, Barack's organization has been up and running for some time.

  • Bill R. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Matt: "It was a good night for Hillary, but the delegate count still looks about the same with Obama 100+ ahead."

    The only delegate count that is legitimate is the pledged delegates, and that remains unchanged,a lead 150 plus. The night will prove a wash in that regard. Regarding supers.. for what it's worth, NBC announced last night that the Obama campaign is going to announce today a switch of 50 of them. That's great and will make the supers about even. I would be happy if they just stay out of it until the end and just ratify the winner of the pledged delegates. There is no realistic pathway for Hillary at this point to win with pledged delegates. I still have to think that the supers are not into suicide and won't over-ride the pledged delegate count.

  • Displaced Oregano (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Congratulations Hillary. Congratulations, Barack (for again winning more convention delegates). The sad thing is that these results prove once more the efficacy of negativity. I thought that Hillary was the only Democrat who could lose this race, by uniting the opposition while dividing and demoralizing Democrats. Now I see it's possible for her to lose it for Obama as well, if she keeps hurling dirt from now till the convention, when McCain (who has shown with his embrace of his former enemies on the far right that he values power over principle) will take over, with the happy assistance of the right-wing radio/Fox echo chamber.

    As much as I admire the savvy, intelligence, and electoral success of the Clintons, I think it's fair to say that given the choice between doing what's best for the country (or party) and what's best for the Clintons, they consistently choose the latter. With the albatros of the Iraq occupation hanging around his neck, maybe McCain can still lose in November. Lets hope so.

    Now I have a question for everyone: What's the cause of the emnity among hispanics toward blacks? It's pretty clear that without the latino vote, Hillary would be done. Would a Obama/Richardson ticket overcome it? Why cannot brown and black seem to get along?

  • Bill R. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Last night proves that negativity works, fear and doubt work, and pushing ethnic divides works. When confronted with the racist assertion of one of Hillary's Latino leaders who said she "would never vote for a black man" simply brushed it off,changed the subject.

    Today the Obama campaign will announce their Feb. donations, 50-60 million. And for the most part Obama supporters are calling for a more aggressive campaign. At this juncture I doubt there will be any reticence to using a share of that money to open the closets and let out all of the Clinton skeletons to the light of day. We're in for a pretty nasty and bitter remaining primary season. I guess Hillary decided to open the pandora's box and let loose the dogs of war, so it will be. When you start colorizing your opponents skin to make it darker in TV ads, then a line has been crossed. This from a co-presidency that spoke about racial healing.

  • Opinionated (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Chris, Tina Fey's famous the bitch is the new black was funny and lets have some humor about it. It also had depth - Hillary was being unfairly swept under the Obama wave with "rhetoric" and punditology that made little sense and someone had to step up and make a statement. She did and I guess it worked. With all due respect to the cry-babies in here who complain about negative campaigning by Hillary, there was a need to bring people's attention to weaknesses in Obama and as many of you Obama supporters have clouded your minds with his rhetoric and big words. He has no idea what he will face if he goes against the conservatives, it will be worse.

    I got riled up and started posting when I heard Bill Clinton's ex-campaign manager say on CNN that he is endorsing Obama because he will win and statements like "Hillary can't win because no one likes her". I took a few punches from whiny Obama-mania-losers on here myself for my posts where I voiced my concerns about Obama. One resorted to becoming a spell checker. Hillary supporters need to step up and fight back this bashing. If fighting back is considered negative by these cry-babies so be it.

    I have a strong opinion about this!

  • (Show?)

    This is now a game of rock-scissors-paper renamed Obama-McCain-Clinton: Obama beats McCain beats Clinton...beats Obama. When you play that game, if you KNOW what your opponent is going to play then you choose based on how to win: Obama beats McCain.

    Hillary's supporters are saying it's more important for her to be the Democratic nominee than it is to win in November.

    I had a talk this morning with a co-worker from Texas. His elderly Texan parents voted for W. in 2000 and in 2004. Yesterday they voted for Obama, citing the need to end partisanship and get the country back on track. They also mentioned they would never support Hillary Clinton and would vote for McCain to stop her. People like them are everywhere (see above, Dan Spiro).

    Clinton supporters need to decide what matters.

  • Urban Planning Overlord (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The best news of the night?

    Oregon will get a truly contested primary!

  • pdxatheist (unverified)
    (Show?)

    based on slimy campaigning, I'd have no trouble voting for the GOP candidate --

    who do you think you're teaching a lesson to by selling your country down the river? will you feel proud of your vote for mccain when he goes to war with iran and the slaughter of hundreds of thousands more innocents begins again? will you feel glad that you put hillary in her place when enough conservative activist judges are appointed to the supreme court to finally overturn roe v. wade? when nothing is done to ensure that all americans receive health insurance? when tax cuts for the rich are permanently enshrined and the middle and lower classes left to flounder?

    to those of you suicide voters who love to post your pedantic threats of what you will do if hillary wins the nomination, i say why don't you shit or get off the pot? switch your party affiliation to Republican, because if teaching someone a lesson (see how much good that will do you) is more important than the health and well-being of your fellow americans, you're already a republican anyway, you just don't know it yet.

  • Miles (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Corey, I agree with you that having MI and FL primaries in June will be good for the party, but I don't think it will be good for Obama. Maybe he can eke out a Michigan win, but I'd be very surprised to see him win Florida.

    For those Obama supporters still arguing the inevitability of the math, I think you're missing the symbolic importance of running strong among "traditional" Democrats. Personally, I'm troubled that Obama is not the strongest Democrat in NY, NJ, CA, OH, and TX. Since neither Clinton nor Obama can win with just pledged delegates, they both need superdelegates to push them over the top. If Clinton wins PA, she will have a strong case to make at the convention, delegate math be damned.

  • (Show?)

    As a few others have pointed out, this seven weeks coming up will be a necessary training period for Obama.

    And yep, I'm still of the opinion, based on behavior to date, that there's nothing that Team Clinton will not do to win. It's been Her Turn for the past year, and a few weeks of Obamamania did not lessen her resolve on that point.

    So to Obama some advice:

    Get this NAFTA/Canada thing sorted out before the weekend. If the memo is factual, don't waste any time trying to figure out how the Clinton's organized the Gotcha.

    Obama needs to make a major speech reiterating his long held positions on precisely how NAFTA needs to be modified, reassert his commitment to fairness, and fire the aide that communicated with the Canadians.

    He and his crew then need to decide how exactly they are going to behave in the upcoming Mudwrestling Championships, becasue avoidance and staying above the fray will be flat out impossible, unless they can figure out a way to put Clinton back on defense, and I doubt it's an option.

    One prong of this attack should be the "35 years of experience" meme that Clinton's been trying to push. Like McCain, if she wants to get credit for every good thing that's happened while she was in the room, like say the Yugoslavia success, she'll have to take the blame for ignoring Rwanda, and the pitiful management of the Somalia mess.

    Bottom line? If Barack wants to run with the Big Dogs, he's gotta survive basic training and Hillary's crew are just the kids to provide it.

    We don't need no more Rollover Boys like Gore and Kerry.

  • Bill R. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "the math" happens to be voters. If you tell them to go to hell because the insiders have determined that Clinton does better with Latinos in the SW or blue collar whites in Ohio, then I think you have a problem with symbolism too. It so happens that Obama runs better in some of these big states in face off polls with McCain. I am for a 50 state strategy myself and I'm fed up with this 50per cent plus one losing strategy. Polls I have seen shows Obama running better in Ca and NY, Clintons home state in these faceoffs than Clinton. It was also true in the exit polls from yesterday that Obama was the strongest candidate in the GE according to the majority of voters, including those who voted for Clinton. If the party insiders want to choose the candidate with fewer pledged delegates and steal the nomination, then you're looking at the suicide option. A candidate without legitimacy is dead in the water, and a party that endorses such a thing deserves to die.

  • (Show?)

    First, a comment while wearing my BlueOregon editorial hat: I'm glad you Clintonistas came out to cheer your lady. When we started BlueOregon, we wanted it to be a place where liberals spoke to one another about the issues and candidates they care about. That you have felt shouted down and reluctant to join in the conversation feels a little like a failure to me.

    So congratulations!

  • (Show?)

    Now, wearing my Obama-backer hat, let me ask you something, Chris. Somewhat upthread you wrote:

    Obama played winner-take-all character sabotage against Clinton starting in 2007. He's made scores and scores of attacks and insinuations that Republicans could use against her..

    It is the nature of politics that we ignore the sins of our candidates and accentuate the sins of our foes, so maybe I missed something. But could you point me to a place where these attacks are documented? I just haven't seen it.

  • (Show?)

    Yes, congratulations indeed. I'm supporting Obama, and while I've had some misgivings about how Clinton's running her campaign, there's a lot to like as well. I'm sure those positive qualities, like her policy positions and ability to reach the right people and get things done, are what voters are responding to.

    There's a lot to like about having two excellent Dems on national TV every couple weeks.

  • Bill R. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    On the NAFTA and Canadian Consulate story. Apparently the CBC has issued something of a disclaimer and apology on it. Here's a diary on Daily Kos with some pertinent information. Sounds like there was some collusion with team McCain and the Harper govt. There are calls for Harper's chief of staff who leaded this contrived document to the press. Looks like the Canadians put out a call to both campaigns to get some kind of explanation, but then Harper used it to get Obama. Clinton's camp had contact too, but no leaks, no secret memos etc. Given that Mark Penn is a business partner with McCain's campaign chair I think it's likely that McCain and Clinton did a number on Obama.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/5/112926/0842/300/469572

  • BCM (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Posted by: Daniel Spiro | Mar 5, 2008 5:14:29 AM

    Those of you who support Hillary, do you support her campaign tactics? Do you support the idea that she should have equivocated when asked if Obama was a Muslim? Do you support the idea that McCain and Hillary are qualified on national security, but not Obama?

    <h2>I've been beating that drum on this and Paddy's "Winning and dignity thread.' The Clintonistas are attacking Obama supporters on here for have little 'dignity,' while their national campaign is on loose moral footing for said reasons. They so far have not renounced her tactics, only those of Obama supporters. It's a one way street in Clinton land.</h2>
open discussion

connect with blueoregon