Political Punch

Thanks for your insight Yoga.

I have to disagree with you Dave. I think the Clinton campiagn is in trouble. Moreover, I don't see where Mrs. Clinton withstood viscous attacks. For the most part, she has been considered a victim. A victim of Bill running his mouth to much in SC. A victim of her hubands shortcommings while in the oval office. A victim of a well run campaign by Obama. She won by narrow vote in NH after tearing up. There, sympathetic women voters rescued her. With the exception of NY and one other state she wom by very thin margins.

Don't get me wrong, Hillary is a fighter however, it appears at this point in the election she's fighting for mere survival in this race. If the firewall she's building in Texas doens't hold up, you can cancel. Christmas b/c it's over for her. If she wins TX narrowly and looses in PN and OH, its over.

I'll be on the edge of my seat.

She put another nail in her coffin yesterday with her comments about Obama's popularity in caucuses being from "activists" that don't represent the electorate.

Add to that the ever so slight racial slur about Obama winning Louisiana because of the African American vote. Those were very, very stupid comments for her to make before her big push in her so called "firewall" states of Ohio and Texas.

There are alot, I mean alot of people in Texas that don't care for the Clintons at all. She's counting on a big Latino vote to win, but I have a very strong feeling it's not going to work.

She is definitely in trouble. Bill started the ball rolling downhill in South Carolina, problems with her campaign finances, reorganizing her campaign for the second time in literally just weeks (first time after New Hampshire), and this weekend's losses.

We'll see what today brings, but yes she is in trouble. She shouldn't be planning on walking away with our state that's for sure.

My guess is McCain and Obama will do extremely well in Texas. Need I say more.

Davide,

Read the comments of Frank, they really speak to the realities of Obama's recent victories. On one hand, you have respect for Hillary. Then in the next sentence you state how she is despised. Everytime this is brought up, it's a Republican talking point. Obama is the one that they want to run against. Also, if she is such a polarizing candidate, how did she win in CA, MA, NY, NJ, TN, AZ, NH, and AK?

This nomination is going to be a street fight. Obama couldn't have withstood all the vicious attacks that Hillary has. He's basically been given a free ride by the press.

Listen to yourself! Do you think Hillary's supporters are going to line up with Obama, after the beating she has taken from his side? It sounds like, if Obama is the nominee, he is planning to win without us.

There are many voters that are just starting to look at these candidates. I know because I make calls to voters, and a good number are undecided.

Barack Obama burst onto the national political scene with a memorable speech at the 2004 Democratic convention. Anybody that watched this speech realized Barack Obama is a very gifted young man and talented orator. Obama is a Christian (contrary to the small minds attempting to arouse suspicion) from a bi- racial family. His mother is white his father was black. His dad left when he was very young.
We all realize that it takes more than being an intelligent person that is able to inspire people through the spoken word to be an effective President. , So why is it time to elect Barack Obama ?
Barack Obama will unify our country and be a very effective agent for change. He has the ability to garner support from all factions of the American political process. Our country is in the midst of a very critical period. The last thing we need is more political deadlock based on partisan politics. I respect Hillary Clinton as a great American that has accomplished much in her life. The fact is that Hillary Clinton is despised by many Americans and crucified on daily talk shows across this country. They love to point out her personal and political baggage. It is feared that many, formerly apathetic, Republican, ultra-right wing, voters will be motivated to counter her bid. Very frequently, Barack Obama is receiving meaningful endorsements and gleaning support from Republican and Democratic leaders alike.
Many people bring up the " experience" question. They believe that Barack Obama will be President one day but lacks the experience at this time. This is a fallacy. The President of the United States has access to the best minds in the country; experts in every field possible are available to the President .It is obvious that, with all their experience, Chris Dodd and Joe Biden, didn`t fare well in early primaries. They were the most experienced candidates on the stage. The President needs to be able to absorb all the information that he can and make decisions. Judgment is a much more critical attribute. Barack Obama illustrated his judgment when he opposed the war in Iraq. He is not anti -war, he is "anti-dumb war “. Iraq has cost thousands of lives and billions of dollars. We have accomplished nothing and we are struggling and consuming more American assets just to reach a pre war level of peace.

All I keep hearing from the Obama crew is how great a speaker this man is, and how he moves this one and that one to tears. The IMF is already warning the Caribbean islands of the USA recession and to get ready for it. What is Obama's take on all this, what is his take on immigration giving persons drivers license is not a solution, what is his take on AQ, meeting them is not going to stop their kind of madness. He says nothing but "yes we can" that will not put food on the table when things start to fall apart. Yet he is firing up young people to vote, kids that have their parents picking up their college tabs, who in the end if he does not deliver will suffer the most. All this is like playing Russian roulette with the future, and I do hope that people will sit up and think because it sure looks like a lot of us are not thinking of what tomorrow may bring.

Remy

If we have a brokered convention, the Republicans will have the advantage. A divisive primary campaign allows the other party to research, plan, and eventually challenge the crediblity of our candidate. The attacks are relentless. The Democratic races in 1968 and 1980 are good examples of this.

I have read all of the comments. I think the conversation is healthy reguardless of your cannidate of choice. I am a bit confused on an issue, perhaps someone can help me out.

If we have a "brokered convention," who has the advantage? and why?

All of this has been coming down the pike since Iowa. The Landslide victory in Maine was the final chapter in this sad tale of Hillary’s Campaign incompetence. The campaign manager swap, the campaign coffers being empty, and these stories of infighting in Hillaryville are just the “Background” on the real story.

Hillary loses Maine in 20 point landslide. That’s the rub. Let me explain.

It’s now clear that they hand no campaign planed after Super Tuesday, even though in Iowa Mark Penn was saying stuff like, “Its all about the delegates”. Was this just bluster? Didn’t he know it was all about delegates? Or was he banking on a Super Tuesday win?

Team Obama obviously planned a national campaign from day one. After South Carolina Obama’s people fanned out across the country, while Hillary assumed she would blast out of Iowa the winner and march her ass into the white house. In fact, she though she wouldn’t even need to campaign in Iowa (remember that?). This turns to have been a fantasy. Or to say it more plainly, total incompetence.

If you care to look closely, the incompetence is the bi line all over Hillary’s campaign. It has been slipshod and messy since the beginning. It has no message. And no message control, just look at Bill Clinton to understand what I mean.

What is Hillary campaigning for? What are her core beliefs? Why does she want to be president? I keep asking myself that question. And there are no answers forth coming from her campaign. The only thing I can say with confidence about Hillary is she is for woman’s rights, and Health Care. Beyond that… I got no idea what she cares about. That is another mark of her campaign’s incompetence. Look at the clarity of John Edward’s campaign. Even though he never caught fire, he ran a very good stump. Is there any doubt what he stands for?

From Iowa on, every message out of the Clinton Camp has been a garbled reactionary stew devoid of Vision, Leadership or Character. She’s simply been playing catch up with Obama.

In Iowa, “I am the Future Democratic Nominee”. Then oops, “I’ve found my voice”. In Nevada “Culinary Union should not be allowed to vote if they backed Obama!” A bit later, “He only won South Carolina because there are so many black people there.” After that, “Florida and Michigan votes should count because they voted for ME!” On Super Tuesday, she declared that, “Obama is now the Establishment Candidate”. And somewhere along the line Hillary became the candidate for “Change”. Finally her campaign crowed, “We stopped Obama in California”.

~ And then came Maine

I’m not saying this because I want to pile onto Hillary’s unfortunate situation. Her campaign is going down in flames. The next month is going to be painful to watch. I just hope we don’t have to drag her kicking and screaming off the stage at the Democratic Convention, as she flails around trying to rip down the Obama Victory banners.

On the other hand, Obama has run a pitch perfect campaign, probably the best I’ve ever seen. Tight message control, no negative campaigning, cash showing up by the truck load. He took on the Clintons machine, and now it seems clear that he won. To have a campaign that can go national like this, with such ease and sophistication during a primary fight is just unbelievable. This isn’t even the general election for Christ’s sakes!

Hillary on the other hand has been captain on a sinking ship. Pretty strange, since she claims to be the “Experience” candidate. If that where true, this never would have happened.

Joseph,

You are the one that is uninformed about Hillary. In Arkansas, she provided legal aid to the poor, assisted with health care and education issues for children. As first lady, she was an advocate for women's rights around the world, adoption, breast cancer research, veterans with Gulf War Syndrome, health care for children, tackled the drug companies to test drugs for children, and so on.

Hillary has an uphill battle to secure this nomination. However, before you speak about her non accomplishments, you need to have your facts straight.

"The stakes are much to high to hand this election to someone based on charisma."

The mistake you Clinton supporters make again and again is to assume everyone is as ill-informed as you are. I usually don't like education elitism, but since you're calling me naive or a fool who votes based on "charisma", I have to respond. All voter data shows that support for Obama rises with education levels. I promise you that well educated people are not more likely to be suckered in by con-men than less educated people. In fact, it's just the opposite.

Aside from Hillary Clinton's time in the NY senate, her main experience is as first lady and working for a corporate law firm. Let's face it, her husband's name and political network is the only reason Hillary Clinton was the 'inevitable' nominee, and it's the only reason she's still in this race. There are 15 other women in the US senate who worked much harder than Hillary Clinton to get to where they are.

I think the stakes are much to high to hand the nomination to the lesser candidate just because uninformed people are more familiar with her name.

It's true that only a fool would count Clinton out. But that doesn't change the fact that she's run a poor campaign. Before Iowa, her odds to win were about 98%. After Feb. 5th, her odds to win about 50%. After Washinton, Louisiana, Nebraska, and Maine, her odds to win are about 35%. Her strategy was based entirely on a few big states and the fame and political network of Bill Clinton's presidency. It's like she is running to be President of just New York and California. She belittles the electorate in every state she loses by saying they don't reflect the "real electorate". Americans everywhere should be insulted.

Obama, on the other hand, has run a campaign focussed on EVERY state and he has come from near 0% to 70% in 8 weeks. He is running to be President of the entire USA, not just a few big states.

If the way Clinton has run her campaign is any indication, she would make a really poor president.

What I think is I think I love you for this last part:

"Only a fool would say it's over for Sen. Clinton -- she is, in fact, ready to do well in the primaries in three weeks in Ohio and Texas, as well as Pennsylvania. She's a strong fighter, she has a tenacious campaign."

And you're also right, my friend.

If we exclude FL and MI and the superdelgates the delegate count is:

Earned delegates
Clinton - 896
Obama - 925

Obama is ahead by 29.

Clinton gains 42 from Florida giving the total earned delegates lead to Clinton by 13.

There are 30 other Florida delegates that were *awarded* to those that voted for other than Clinton.

Does Obama get those 30 delegates automatically? If not, how do you allocate delegates that chose not to vote for Clinton at the time to Clinton?

If we award those *other* delegates to Obama, he takes back the overall earned delegate lead by 17.

In short, Clinton is raising all this ruckus over 12 delegates...hardly seems worth it, does it?

Of course that assumes the Clintons aren't trying to get all the *other* delegate votes as well as those actually awarded them in the discredited primary.

If that's the case, how do the Clintons justify taking votes that originally didn't vote for them?

The same thing holds true of Michigan. The delegates *awarded* in their discredited primary:

Clinton 81
Other 75

Again, where do these 75 *other* delegates go? They obviously voted against the Clintons as HRC was the only name on the ballot.

Does Obama automatically get those? We don't want to disenfranchise anyone, do we?

To create this much kerfuffle over 18 delegates is fairly desperate, especially under the worst case scenario, Obama still comes out ahead in earned delegates.

Now recall that without FL and MI, Obama led the earned delegate count by 29. The net gain of earned delegates if we add the discredited FL and MI primaries is 18 for Clinton.

Obama still leads earned delegates by 11 under the worst case scenario.

The superdelegates are allowed to change their votes at any time up through the convention, so I don't see a reason to track them yet. They will definately shift to whomever is winning overall, so their totals now are extraneous.

But for the sake of the HilBots here, include them. Clinton leads there 224-132 or a + 92 according to the DNC. Take away the worst case scenario earned delegates lead for Obama of 11 and the Clintons are *ahead* in overall delegate count of 81.

Can Obama win those 81 tomorrow in the Potomac Primary round?

****
The infamous popular vote...

Overall primary vote
Clinton 9,077,984 - 870,303 (FL) - 327,419 (MI) = 7,880,262
Obama 8,662,315 - 575,794 (FL) = 8,086,521

Obama wins the popular vote by 206,259 if we exclude the Florida and Michigan discredited primaries.

If the HilBots want to include the discredited Florida primary popular vote:

Florida popular vote
Clinton 870,303
Obama 575,794
= 294,509

291,100 other Florida primary voters will be disenfranchised if we don't include them somewhere so where do they go?

We know above all the Clintons are worried sick about disenfranchising voters...that's all they've talked about since the close call of NH started their war to include these discredited primaries. So do you think they'll say these poor souls votes should go to the only remaining Dem standing besides the Clintons?

Amended for HilBots popular vote variance:
Clinton 294,509 discredited FL primary
Obama 206,259 real popular vote lead

88,250 Clinton overall lead popular vote once the Clintons get their discredited primaries included again.

Now let's add the Michigan discredited popular vote just to ease the Clintons mind about voter disenfranchisement:

Total vote 592,261
Clinton 327,419
= 264,842 voted for other than Clinton

Again, since we're not disenfranchising, where do those other 264,842 votes go?

Assume for the moment we disenfranchise those *other* votes:

88,250 Clinton lead after their FL votes added
327,419 Michigan votes FOR the Clintons

Total 415,669 Clinton lead if we add only discredited votes FOR the Clintons

291,100 Florida *other than Clinton* votes
264,842 Michigan *other than Clinton* votes
TOTAL 555,942

SO...if the Clintons insist on not disenfranchising FL and MI voters, they actually LOSE 140,273 popular votes.

So let's get serious, shall we? We need to redo the Florida and Michigan primaries AFTER Puerto Rico votes. Since the states pay for primaries, they will have to be caucuses as the party pays for those and the state will not support shelling out 10 million because of party politics.

It's the only fair way to handle those two states and not punish the voters there.

Which makes the REAL numbers as of 2/11:

206,259 real popular vote lead by Obama

29 real delegate vote lead by Obama

81 overall delegate lead by Clinton if you include superdelegates...

Again I ask, can Obama make up those 81 superdelegate votes tomorrow with real delegates from the people?

Speradsheets with predictions of who will win the democratic nomination are all over the blogs. Hillary loses unless something happens with superdelegates, the US territories,the trend changes or the DNC changes rules. If she wins, it will be because she can dramatically change the Obama trend and or the rules change in the middle of the game. Should be a fun three weeks. Mud, drama or both.

Will,

If you are on a forum like this, it is your job to explain Obama's position. Aren't you an advocate for him? You can't just say read his position papers.

I'm disappointed you stated that only a fool would say it's over for Sen. Clinton. Not that you asked, but....

Clinton says "I am absolutely looking to Ohio". Why isn't she looking to Wisconsin? Can someone tell me why Clinton chooses to mention Ohio and not Wisconsin. Why is Ohio considered more winnable than Wisconsin for Clinton?

CUBA 1959... USA 2008... The Messiah and the people’s collective hysteria. Obama will take United States in the same path that Castro took the Cuban people. We are re-living the same messianic madness we experienced in Cuba in January 1959 at the triumph of the Cuban revolution that delivered the Cuban people to the threshold of hell.”

Do you really think he is better becuase a poll says it???
He also was better in CA MA NH NJ AR
and got smashed there.
A poll is some hundred poeple even a thousnad. That hardly reflects the country. If you think poeple concerned with the war and our National security will vote for Obama your nuts. He says he can get clinton voters? I doubt that.
Millions of women who voted for Hillary and are praying for her to win.
If she loses you can bet they vote Mccain. Latino's and women and Catholics were the key to the last two elections. ALL OF THEM HE DOES VERY BAD WITH.
Latino's are swing voters. I also say again, what qualifys him in anyway to handle a war and withdrawal of troops?
Nothing. If he wins, i vote for McCain.
Despite what he says, he won't get her voters.
None of us are willing to throw our future down the drain and the life of those brave young men and women who are fighting. WHo Obama has never met ONCE.
Unlike Hillary.

about florida, Obama ran ads in Florida for 2 weeks.
HE BROKE THE PLEDGE. Not her.
YES Hillary has met with several foriegn leaders. She has been to Iraq on a few different occasions. She fought for womens rights and childrens rights in Beijing, she stood up to their leaders and told them it was cruel and inhumane to murder babies for being born girls. She has traveled to 82 different countries. She has been to Afghanistan several times.
Obama, has never met with a foriegn leader and has no National security experience or foriegn policy. Hillary stumps herself. She does not have to pander with Oprah and the Kennedys.
If he is so for the future why he is he using poeple who have been part of the "broken system" for decades to campaign???? You can say you are going to change things, that will not happen with a fancy speech. His "ethics" bill, was a bill that said who poeple could eat lunch with. WOW, that stops nothing.
He recieved over 250,000 dollars from Exxelon the biggest Nuclear power company in america.
Obama once he was in the senate NEVER voted to oppose the war. This guy is a walking contradiction.
He says poeple do not vote for him because were cynical??? Like it has nothing to do with not wanting to hand our country over to some guy with no experience in anything, being a community organiser does not mean you can lead and change a country. He has taken lobbyist money and in carolina had a pac running ads. Please read between the Glitz. These workers he says he helped in Chicago say he did not do much of anything. Except buy land with Rezko and have his political career funded by the guy.
Poeple can dog the clintons fact of the matter is, they have done more positive things for this country and around the world than any pundit or critics ever will. That is why Blue collar voters go for her. We are in reality. What happens next matters to us. We are not priveleged to make it through more bad days. I am not stuck in a fantasy where everyone plays nice and thinks your god becuase gifted writers pen your speeches. Obama supporters think they are going to unite the country? How do you do that by bad mouthing poeple for believing in someone other than him????