Obama wins Wisconsin

[Max Payne]

But that is not why Im posting this, Im posting this cause Ive changed the channel a few times for Big Brother and the Celts game.

But the reason I keep going back is cause I want to see them talk about what is going to happen from here for Clinton, she had a 5 or 10 minute speech that made it on tv.

And every time I go back, Obama is still fucking talking, this guy has been on for close to an hour, I get it man, he is good on the mic, this is what he is winning on, but shit man, an hour?

Every time after a primary, this guy talks and talks, and talks some more. He does this every time.

Thought I vent that, cause Clinton is going to win Ohio and Texas, and hopefully these news channels dont give him that kind of air time, that was millions of bucks of free publicity.

[Grendel]

While Ohio looks to still have a decent spread between the two, things look to be tightening in Texas (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/tx/texas_democratic_primary-312.html), and with his string of big wins the last several weeks, Clinton not only needs to start scoring victories, but scoring them decisively. Anything can happen over the course of the next two weeks.

[Searcher]

Obama/Clinton for prez. That would be a good ticket.

[Lucio Argento]

Although there's only 20 delegates there, it looks like Obama's going to take Hawaii by about a 75%/25% margin as well.

[Dr. Awesome]

The reason his speeches are longer is because he is the big winner and he's making his victory speech and what not and for clinton who wants to hear a losers speech? yeah we were doing all right there at the beginning but then failed oh well maybe next time. Obama took HI big with 76% to 24%. Texas and Ohio will be close and close isn't what clinton needs she needs big victories and gain a delegate lead close victories will only bring her inches closer in a race that only has inches to go

[Grendel]

Obama/Clinton for prez. That would be a good ticket.She'd sooner slit her wrists than be the bottom half of the ticket.

I did like Obama's line:

"I'm not running because I think it's somehow owed to me."

Now he might not have intended it to reference this, but Clinton definitely has a certain sense about her of it being "her turn." I never liked her campaign's rally signs that read, "Ready," for exactly that reason. I think it comes off as arrogant and entitled.

You even get it when they speak: Obama seems to be keeping with the verbiage of "if you elect me..." whereas Hill favors the "When I'm elected/When I'm president," etc.

(Granted, I've hardly proofed all their stump and victory speeches, but that contrast seemed particularly evident last night).

[Max Payne]

She has two weeks, and two debates to stop this.

If she were to win both Texas and Ohio, it puts her back in the game and prolly wins it for her.

Cause she wins the big states, while he is racking up all these votes in mostly small states.

I think she will win both of them, but it will be close.

[steelba]

Obama talks a better game, but i'd vote for either of them over another republican. Basically whoever runs for the dems gets my vote regardless.

[Aurone]

She'd sooner slit her wrists than be the bottom half of the ticket.

I did like Obama's line:

"I'm not running because I think it's somehow owed to me."

Now he might not have intended it to reference this, but Clinton definitely has a certain sense about her of it being "her turn." I never liked her campaign's rally signs that read, "Ready," for exactly that reason. I think it comes off as arrogant and entitled.

You even get it when they speak: Obama seems to be keeping with the verbiage of "if you elect me..." whereas Hill favors the "When I'm elected/When I'm president," etc.

(Granted, I've hardly proofed all their stump and victory speeches, but that contrast seemed particularly evident last night).


If anything, I'd say she's more into this in hopes of earning the title of "First Woman President".

[Grendel]

She has two weeks, and two debates to stop this.

If she were to win both Texas and Ohio, it puts her back in the game and prolly wins it for her.

Cause she wins the big states, while he is racking up all these votes in mostly small states.

I think she will win both of them, but it will be close.The point is, "close" for Clinton isn't going to win anything. Because delegates are proportional, they'd both be adding to their totals, and actually gaining ground on the other at a much lesser rate.

That adds up, not to a win, but to a superdelegate decision at the convention. And, in that case, Obama's "small states" may make him look more appealing. Think about it: if a Dem candidate can't carry NY and CA, he/she's jolly well fucked. Those states are likely to be blue in November no matter what. If Obama makes inroads where Clinton doesn't, however, that might very well push him to the top in the eyes of those party elders. Add to that the factor that a Clinton candidacy may very well elicit a visceral response that will serve to turn out the GOP vote, it may give a lot of those folks pause.

[Max Payne]

There almost even in deligates, and if Clinton is winning all the big ones, this works to her advantage.

Its going to be close all the way to the end, and if she is winning all the big ones, how can Obama ever hope to win those in the real election?

I think he would, but its still worth noting that NY, Florida, Cali, and potentially Ohio and Texas all went against him.

[Grendel]

There almost even in deligates, and if Clinton is winning all the big ones, this works to her advantage.
But because the delegates are divided proportionally, rather than winner-take-all, it's not as big as advantage as it seems.
Its going to be close all the way to the end, and if she is winning all the big ones, how can Obama ever hope to win those in the real election?If you look at the history, fairly easily.

Consider this: The last time a Republican presidential candidate carried California in a general election was 1988. The last time it happened in New York was 1984. Since then, those states reliably tend Democratic (even with a relatively uninspiring candidate such as John Kerry). Barring some unforeseen reversal of that situation--especially difficult to see with a candidate as energized as Obama opposite John "100 Years" McCain--it's a fairly safe bet that Obama wins those states just by being the candidate with the "(D)" after his name.

EDIT: To my first point: WASHINGTON - Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton must win 57 percent of the remaining primary and caucus delegates to erase Barack Obama's lead, a daunting task requiring landslide-sized victories by a struggling presidential candidate.

Obama's victories in Wisconsin and Hawaii on Tuesday — his ninth and 10th in a row — left him with 1,178 pledged delegates won in primaries and caucuses in The Associated Press' count. Clinton has 1,024.

Another 1,025 remain to be awarded, most of them in contests in 14 states, Guam and Puerto Rico. It takes 2,025 to win the nomination.

Further complicating Clinton's challenge, Obama appears particularly well-positioned to win at least one of the remaining states with ease. Mississippi, with a primary on March 11, fits a pattern of Southern states with large black populations that he has won handily, including South Carolina, Alabama, Georgia and Louisiana. (Link) (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080221/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_delegate_deficit)

[Max Payne]

Its all about the media man, right now its going way right to Obama, they are showing a clear biased she cant win the voters without these debates.

It truly is her last stand, and she will win.

If she wins those, she will get more super deligates

[Driden]

I HAVE A DREAM! Just words? 50 cent said it right. Obama is trying too hard trying to be black, act black, using MLK in his speeches? 50 cent said If Obama wins, he'll be assassinated.

Obama is retarded. YES you idiot its just words UNLESS you put them into action.

[Grendel]

Its all about the media man, right now its going way right to Obama, they are showing a clear biased she cant win the voters without these debates.

It truly is her last stand, and she will win.

If she wins those, she will get more super deligatesDon't get me wrong, I never say "never."

But the debates?

There's a lot of "beauty contest" going on in that sort of forum; a lot of "feel." Barring some serious gaffe, is that really the sort of situation you see Clinton getting a decisive leg up on Obama?

As for the superdelegates, how do you figure the debates as being the tipping point for them as opposed to the actual votes?

If those individuals are the deciding factor, debates or no debates, there's going to be a huge amount of pressure to go with whoever gets the lion's share of the pledged delegates to avoid the appearance of thwarting the will of the people and bitterly dividing the party.

[Max Payne]

No, I mean that in the debates, she can bring out in the open his wifes remarks about this country, how he may be flip flopping on public money spending, or the fact that he clearly plagerised a speech this week.

If she can win this debate, in terms of coming out of it with no harm, win both Texas and Ohio, and even Pennslyvania where Independants cant vote, then the super deligates would be free to side with Clinton with no back lash.

To be honest, no matter how this turns out, Its going to be a Clinton/Obama ticket, egos are huge on both sides, but its the only way to keep the spilt democrats voting for the democrat side.

I dont know much about politics, but I always vote Democrat.

Obama has the edge with medicare, I dont think, that you should have to have it if you dont want it, but it should be availible to you if you do want it. That should be a given, why should you HAVE to have it if you can afford it the goverment will make you buy it, on top of that your tax dollars will pay for those who can not afford it.

[Grendel]

No, I mean that in the debates, she can bring out in the open his wifes remarks about this country, how he may be flip flopping on public money spending, or the fact that he clearly plagerised a speech this weekIn addition to how bad it looks to go after family (esp. after Hillary's response to those crappy comments about Chelsea) after Bill O'Reilly responded to the Michelle Obama tempest in a teacup by saying he'd hold off on "a lynching party," (http://mediamatters.org/items/200802200001) I think it's going to be very difficult to use that as a line of attack.

The alleged flip-floping is a possible club she can use, but the fact of the matter is, his campaign's statements to the FEC are part of the public record and the "flip-flop" is a fabrication: On February 1, 2007, the Obama campaign asked the FEC to determine whether if "Senator Obama becomes a candidate, he may provisionally raise funds for the general election but retain the option, upon nomination, of returning these contributions and accepting the public funds for which he would be eligible as the Democratic Party's nominee... the Senator would not, if the law allows, rule out the possibility of a publicly funded campaign if both major parties' nominees eventually decide, or even agree, on this course." [Letter to FEC, 2/1/07]

Spokesman Bill Burton: If The Republican Agreed, Public Financing "Would Be Something We Would Explore." Politico reported, "‘It would be a situation where if the Republican agreed to opt-in to the public financing system, it would be something we would explore,' Burton said." [Politico, 2/27/07]

As for "plagiarism-gate," a month and a half ago Hillary got busted cribbing phrasing (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0108/Hillary_also_fired_up_ready_to_go.html) from Obama, who never said a word about it. It didn't fly when her surrogate floated the accusation last week, and given her own glass house, she raises the issue in debate at her peril.

EDIT:

Bottom line, I don't want to see a "debate" like that from either side. I want to hear about health care, the economy, and the war, not shit-slinging.

[Knight]

Pretty bad when you lose to a Bears fan in Wisconsin.

[RIP]

Obama picked up the teamsters today. This thing is pretty much sewn up.

[Max Payne]

Still dont understand how papers can endorse a canidate, that doesnt seem fair or balanced to me.

[Lucio Argento]

Still dont understand how papers can endorse a canidate, that doesnt seem fair or balanced to me.


Here's a hint: 95% of newspapers aren't fair nor balanced.

[Driden]

Obama offers change you can Xerox!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=iAXIUjN_pZk

[Lucio Argento]

I was so happy that the crowd booed Clinton for that remark. Also, Obama's response was fantastic. "We shouldn't be tearing each other down, we should be building the country up." I felt that it made Clinton look like a name-calling child.

[Grendel]

I was so happy that the crowd booed Clinton for that remark. Also, Obama's response was fantastic. "We shouldn't be tearing each other down, we should be building the country up." I felt that it made Clinton look like a name-calling child.Very much so. I give Obama credit for not diving into the mud with her. As an added bonus, she got busted appropriating her closing remarks in the debate from lines used by John Edwards:Clinton in Debate: "You know, whatever happens, we're going to be fine. You know, we have strong support from our families and our friends. I just hope that we'll be able to say the same thing about the American people. And that's what this election should be about." - Democratic Debate, 2/21/07

John Edwards: "What's not at stake are any of us. All of us are going to be just fine no matter what happens in this election. But what's at stake is whether America is going to be fine." - Democratic Debate, 12/13/07

John Edwards: "I want to say this to everyone: with Elizabeth, with my family, with my friends, with all of you and all of your support, this son of a millworker's gonna be just fine. Our job now is to make certain that America will be fine." - Edwards Speech, 1/30/08 (link) (http://www.americablog.com/2008/02/hillary-plagiarized-her-moving-closing.html)It's pathetic that this is the direction that her campaign has taken, but even worse that in the age of internet-assisted total recall, she thinks she can do the same thing and have no one catch it.

[Lucio Argento]

It's pathetic that this is the direction that her campaign has taken, but even worse that in the age of internet-assisted total recall, she thinks she can do the same thing and have no one catch it.


That's hilarious. I was watching the post-debate last night on CNN and they were saying how she took from John Edwards' speech(es). I don't understand why she would even risk it, not just because of the internet, but because she's calling out Obama for doing the same exact thing.

Had it not been for her final response (which I assume most of the public doesn't know was taken from Edwards), all the talk would've been about how bad she looked and how great Obama looked.

[Searcher]

Looks like somebody got the dates wrong. I wonder what else is misrepresented. In reality, all the candidates say this very thing. "It's not about me".

[bravenewworld1]

garbage.

Burn it all down.