wow - obama came out on top in the delegate count???!!?!?. that is a major. clinton has not succeeded in blunting his obamomentum.
Where do you see that?
Yeah, CNN claims Hillary has 'a handful' more than Obama, and that was the same as what the TV news had this morning. Still mighty impressive for the Obama machine, if you ask me. This is nowhere near over.
Supposedly all the contests for the next few weeks are in Obama-leaning territory. Not that I'm placing any faith in those kinds of predictions anymore.
"Mrs. Clinton won 584 delegates in Tuesday???s vote, bringing her total to 845, according to a count by The Associated Press. Mr. Obama won 569 delegates for a total of 765, The A.P. reported."
Thanks for posting that, very interesting. I think the discrepancies are due to the following: "The Associated Press count of delegates includes projections based on non-binding votes for candidate preference, such as in the Iowa caucuses. On the Democratic side, the A.P. count also includes a tally of unpledged superdelegates that the news organization has independently surveyed."
Most news sources are probably attributing Clinton's lead to the AP count whereas Obama's camp is pointing out that he seemingly holds a lead in pledged delegates.
Supposedly all the contests for the next few weeks are in Obama-leaning territory. Not that I'm placing any faith in those kinds of predictions anymore.
link?
not sure how late you guys were up last night, but how many times in a row can Obama give the same motivational speech? there is no doubt that he is inspiring, but when you are running as a moderate, and against a woman who has a health care plan that makes yours look like it was designed by Rush Limbaugh, then aren't you being a little disingenuous with the whole - lets storm the whitehouse routine?
despite the fact that hillary is the better candidate, i'm almost 50-50 right now on who i think will be better for the country. there is soo much hype around obama right now as the "change" candidate, that the symbolism of his win might instantaneously repair some of the incredible damage that Bush has done over the past 8 years to our global reputation. i think, if we elect obama, the world would immediately see that as a f*ck you to george bush...more so than with hillary. perception means a lot. i'm still riding for hillary, and annoyed with obama labeling himself a progressive, but if he wins, i'm probably just as happy.
Supposedly all the contests for the next few weeks are in Obama-leaning territory. Not that I'm placing any faith in those kinds of predictions anymore.
link?
not sure how late you guys were up last night, but how many times in a row can Obama give the same motivational speech?
vs how many times in a row can hillary give the same dull speech? welcome to politics doofus
there is soo much hype around obama right now as the "change" candidate, that the symbolism of his win might instantaneously repair some of the incredible damage that Bush has done over the past 8 years to our global reputation. i think, if we elect obama, the world would immediately see that as a f*ck you to george bush...more so than with hillary. perception means a lot.
Thanks T*ny, you almost made me spit my coffee out.
dude, thats beer
i'm partially with KVH on this. better health care plan and obama is running a little on empty. BUT, im not alone at the queaziness that the cliton political machine gives me and the fact that bam never did corporate law and actually did public interest work bodes well for his true intentions. ou gotta play middle of the road to get to the big show...but once you get there, you can lean any way you choose (unless you play it safe in order to get reupped for another 4). i could see him surprisingly left of center if he gets in
we'll see. neither of them are stupid. which is more than i can say for the last two terms of commander in chief
Supposedly all the contests for the next few weeks are in Obama-leaning territory. Not that I'm placing any faith in those kinds of predictions anymore.
link?
I don't have a link for you but this is what numerous talking heads were saying last night. And according to them this is the line that the Clinton camp themselves are putting out there. Obviously that is intended to lower expectations so that if she comes in close or actually wins they can claim to have won back the momentum. As I said earlier, I don't put a lot of stock in these kinds of predictions, especially for this contest. The media has probably been more wrong than right in making predictions over the course of the campaign (esp. on the Republican side).
But the big difference - mandates - is something that's politically very difficult to implement. Clinton, in 1993, insisted on mandates and it helped to torpedo her plan. I guarantee you whatever health care plan ends up passing it will not have strong mandates.
We should elect a President that makes health care a priority, but we should be careful about latching too firmly onto policy details - most of these details will be scrubbed a million times before we actually get the final bill.
What's, to me, much more important is electing a President that can finesse that debate and achieve some sort of consensus, and so far IMO that's Obama. Clinton has shown time and again that it's her way or the highway.
Supposedly all the contests for the next few weeks are in Obama-leaning territory. Not that I'm placing any faith in those kinds of predictions anymore.
link?
not sure how late you guys were up last night, but how many times in a row can Obama give the same motivational speech? there is no doubt that he is inspiring, but when you are running as a moderate, and against a woman who has a health care plan that makes yours look like it was designed by Rush Limbaugh, then aren't you being a little disingenuous with the whole - lets storm the whitehouse routine?
despite the fact that hillary is the better candidate, i'm almost 50-50 right now on who i think will be better for the country. there is soo much hype around obama right now as the "change" candidate, that the symbolism of his win might instantaneously repair some of the incredible damage that Bush has done over the past 8 years to our global reputation. i think, if we elect obama, the world would immediately see that as a f*ck you to george bush...more so than with hillary. perception means a lot. i'm still riding for hillary, and annoyed with obama labeling himself a progressive, but if he wins, i'm probably just as happy.
Part of me wants McCain to suffer the aftermath of the Bush terms, but I'm concerned about additional arch-conservative Supreme Court appointees. I think Obama will do better against McCain in the general, but I'm worried about the Jimmy Carter type situation if/when Obama gets to the Whitehouse and tries to 'bring change' to Washington.. At the same, time Obama knows just enough about the good ol' boy DC system to not naively piss off today's Tip O'Neals. We'll see. Despite all this, I'm feeling good about the end of Bush/Cheney--especially knowing Giuliani and Romney are out of the picture (for now).
the fact that bam never did corporate law and actually did public interest work bodes well for his true intentions.
he only worked 3 years as a full time lawyer and it wasn't for a public interest firm - but a plaintiffs firm that did some civil rights work, the same firm that also represented tony rezko. true, he could have gone to a big firm and immediately made more money, but thats not what you do when your planning a political career. in the 3 years he worked, he never tried a single case.
i'm not saying the guy isn't a genius at law - he was editorial of the law review at Harvard! but he didn't graduate and work for community legal services. he worked for a plaintiffs firm and got paid more than if he would have done the opposite, just not nearly as much as he could have made.
Hillary actually did work for a year as a lawyer for the Children's legal defense fund and for a stint as a law professor, but your right that the bulk of her legal career was in the corporate world. she also didn't start out planning a political career, but bringing home the money while her husband went the public service route. do we want to get into the corporate work that Michelle has done?
I feel you. I don't want to overplay the race card but it's hard not to play it, under the circumstances.
they had a latino spokesperson on NPR recently explaining why Clinton was so favored
he denied the racial issue but had no more explanation than hispanics fondly remember when Bill was president. seems weak.
There are lots of good reasons to support Clinton (just ask KVH). You don't have to be racist to support Clinton. I think the bulk of her support comes from name recognition, better organizing inside the Latino community and more endorsements from Latino leaders. I think when we see the break down of Latino voters in New Mexico and Arizona it will be a lot closer.
Perhaps. Explain the 3/4 Asian vote going Clinton's way though.
You have studied (and lived) California Asian racial relations, so I would be very interested in how you explain the 3/4 Asian vote going Clinton's way.
Yeah I read that this morning, which is exactly my point - these strong mandates are not going to be intact come time for (President) Clinton to sign the bill. You can pretty much bet on that.
do we want to get into the corporate work that Michelle has done?
Quick reminder, Michelle's not running for president.
you missed the point. hillary did corporate work while bill was in public service.
are we supposed to infer that Hillary was just helping to "make ends meet" because Bill was selflessly foregoing any renumeration for his tireless efforts on behalf of the downtrodden?
Yeah I read that this morning, which is exactly my point - these strong mandates are not going to be intact come time for (President) Clinton to sign the bill. You can pretty much bet on that.
Yep. There will need to additional GOP Senate seats taken in '10. Just look how these motherfuckers delayed shit since 2006. But they did pass the S-Chip thing. So who knows? Anyways, IMO the priority needs to be leaving Iraq.
Read that yesterday, pure FUD. The NYT's op/ed sections are some of the best places to catch up on pro-Clinton propaganda. He fails to even mention the uber-controversial penalties that Clinton is "mulling" (read: done deal).
Comments
Where do you see that?
Yeah, CNN claims Hillary has 'a handful' more than Obama, and that was the same as what the TV news had this morning. Still mighty impressive for the Obama machine, if you ask me. This is nowhere near over.
He didn't come out on top of the delegate count. Did well but not better than HC
Interesting.
"Mrs. Clinton won 584 delegates in Tuesday???s vote, bringing her total to 845, according to a count by The Associated Press. Mr. Obama won 569 delegates for a total of 765, The A.P. reported."
headed to obama states
and O's got a bigger (war)chest than hillary
Thanks for posting that, very interesting. I think the discrepancies are due to the following:
"The Associated Press count of delegates includes projections based on non-binding votes for candidate preference, such as in the Iowa caucuses. On the Democratic side, the A.P. count also includes a tally of unpledged superdelegates that the news organization has independently surveyed."
Most news sources are probably attributing Clinton's lead to the AP count whereas Obama's camp is pointing out that he seemingly holds a lead in pledged delegates.
Thanks T*ny, you almost made me spit my coffee out.
link?
not sure how late you guys were up last night, but how many times in a row can Obama give the same motivational speech? there is no doubt that he is inspiring, but when you are running as a moderate, and against a woman who has a health care plan that makes yours look like it was designed by Rush Limbaugh, then aren't you being a little disingenuous with the whole - lets storm the whitehouse routine?
despite the fact that hillary is the better candidate, i'm almost 50-50 right now on who i think will be better for the country. there is soo much hype around obama right now as the "change" candidate, that the symbolism of his win might instantaneously repair some of the incredible damage that Bush has done over the past 8 years to our global reputation. i think, if we elect obama, the world would immediately see that as a f*ck you to george bush...more so than with hillary. perception means a lot. i'm still riding for hillary, and annoyed with obama labeling himself a progressive, but if he wins, i'm probably just as happy.
how novel
et tu KVH
dude, thats beer
i'm partially with KVH on this. better health care plan and obama is running a little on empty. BUT, im not alone at the queaziness that the cliton political machine gives me and the fact that bam never did corporate law and actually did public interest work bodes well for his true intentions. ou gotta play middle of the road to get to the big show...but once you get there, you can lean any way you choose (unless you play it safe in order to get reupped for another 4). i could see him surprisingly left of center if he gets in
we'll see.
neither of them are stupid. which is more than i can say for the last two terms of commander in chief
I don't have a link for you but this is what numerous talking heads were saying last night. And according to them this is the line that the Clinton camp themselves are putting out there. Obviously that is intended to lower expectations so that if she comes in close or actually wins they can claim to have won back the momentum. As I said earlier, I don't put a lot of stock in these kinds of predictions, especially for this contest. The media has probably been more wrong than right in making predictions over the course of the campaign (esp. on the Republican side).
Look, this is a given.
But the big difference - mandates - is something that's politically very difficult to implement. Clinton, in 1993, insisted on mandates and it helped to torpedo her plan. I guarantee you whatever health care plan ends up passing it will not have strong mandates.
We should elect a President that makes health care a priority, but we should be careful about latching too firmly onto policy details - most of these details will be scrubbed a million times before we actually get the final bill.
What's, to me, much more important is electing a President that can finesse that debate and achieve some sort of consensus, and so far IMO that's Obama. Clinton has shown time and again that it's her way or the highway.
Part of me wants McCain to suffer the aftermath of the Bush terms, but I'm concerned about additional arch-conservative Supreme Court appointees. I think Obama will do better against McCain in the general, but I'm worried about the Jimmy Carter type situation if/when Obama gets to the Whitehouse and tries to 'bring change' to Washington.. At the same, time Obama knows just enough about the good ol' boy DC system to not naively piss off today's Tip O'Neals. We'll see. Despite all this, I'm feeling good about the end of Bush/Cheney--especially knowing Giuliani and Romney are out of the picture (for now).
he only worked 3 years as a full time lawyer and it wasn't for a public interest firm - but a plaintiffs firm that did some civil rights work, the same firm that also represented tony rezko. true, he could have gone to a big firm and immediately made more money, but thats not what you do when your planning a political career. in the 3 years he worked, he never tried a single case.
i'm not saying the guy isn't a genius at law - he was editorial of the law review at Harvard! but he didn't graduate and work for community legal services. he worked for a plaintiffs firm and got paid more than if he would have done the opposite, just not nearly as much as he could have made.
Hillary actually did work for a year as a lawyer for the Children's legal defense fund and for a stint as a law professor, but your right that the bulk of her legal career was in the corporate world. she also didn't start out planning a political career, but bringing home the money while her husband went the public service route. do we want to get into the corporate work that Michelle has done?
You have studied (and lived) California Asian racial relations, so I would be very interested in how you explain the 3/4 Asian vote going Clinton's way.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/opinion/04krugman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Yeah I read that this morning, which is exactly my point - these strong mandates are not going to be intact come time for (President) Clinton to sign the bill. You can pretty much bet on that.
Quick reminder, Michelle's not running for president.
Barak's other daddy was Asian.
you missed the point. hillary did corporate work while bill was in public service.
are we supposed to infer that Hillary was just helping to "make ends meet" because Bill was selflessly foregoing any renumeration for his tireless efforts on behalf of the downtrodden?
Yep. There will need to additional GOP Senate seats taken in '10. Just look how these motherfuckers delayed shit since 2006. But they did pass the S-Chip thing. So who knows? Anyways, IMO the priority needs to be leaving Iraq.
Read that yesterday, pure FUD. The NYT's op/ed sections are some of the best places to catch up on pro-Clinton propaganda. He fails to even mention the uber-controversial penalties that Clinton is "mulling" (read: done deal).
"I'll be going after people's wages"... yeah, that's gonna work...