Campaign 2008

[Nightwing 0]

At this point, I think I'm going to call Missouri for McCain. They've been talking about how McCain's counties are the only ones left, and his lead is slowly growing. It's not a big one, but looks like it'll stand up with the trends the way they are.

 

And Obama is GAINING on Clinton in Missouri as well. That'd be a great pickup, rounding his total at a dozen so far.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

So my primary vote will actually matter next week, huh? Wasn't expecting that.

[Guest huss]

Obama just jumped ahead by about 4000 in Missouri now.

[JaMarcus Russell's #1 Caucasian Fan 0]

CNN and MSNBC has called California for Clinton. Big win tonight for her. Latinos picked her up in a huge way.

[Nightwing 0]

McCain takes a huge win in Missouri, as well as taking California. Hillary will take California, but Missouri is still up in the air.

 

And Romney is dead on arrival in this one, only taking the Mountain States and Massachusetts.

[Guest Blue Man Czech]

"Frank discussions" tomorrow. He's circling the drain here.

 

So, Hillary staved off Obamania for a night, but she still doesn't have a chance when all is said and done. She doesn't make America want to dream.

[Nightwing 0]

Missouri goes to Obama.

[Nightwing 0]

My opinion: Obama survived the worst attack from the "Liberal Establishment". With New York, California, Massachusetts, and most other big Clinton/Establishment states out of the way, he's still standing and with a ton of money left. Clinton is going to be looking worse and worse.

 

I'd argue McCain has almost put it away, Romney is almost dead, and Huckabee is turning himself into the defacto VP with is wins in the South. Can you feel the Neo-Conservative Talk Radio Establishment crumbling down like a house of cards?

[Lil' Bitch 0]

The main reason Hillary is even getting votes is because people like her husband. And people need to realize that just because he was a good President doesn't mean she will be a good President.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Things are looking really good for Obama. It looks like he will probably come out of Super Tuesday maintaining his lead in pledged delegates. Plus he has Washington, Nebraska, & Maine caucuses coming up Saturday. Look at the way he dominated in caucus states last night. His core of activists should give him big wins in all three.

 

Then next Tuesday he's got DC, Virginina, & Maryland coming up, all of which look good for him.

 

Not to mention that he's swimming in cash a la Scrooge McDuck right now. Clinton has to be sweating right now.

[EricMM 0]

So if that is the case, how long until Hilary starts harping on getting those Florida and Michigan votes counted?

[haws bah gawd 0]

So if that is the case, how long until Hilary starts harping on getting those Florida and Michigan votes counted?

 

I hope we don't have to see a repeat of that ever again. "Some of the voters were confused about who they were voting for".

[Atticus Chaos 0]

From what I've read, most repubulicans are hoping Hillary wins because they're positive McCain or whoever it is can easily beat her. They think sheer loathing will bring out folks in their droves to vote against her.

 

Is Hillary unelectable? I mean, if she can get the nomination , she's obviously not. But even now, I still have trouble picturing her winning the presidency. She's just too contraversial. Despite being a black man with an exotic family tree, Obama is still a lot safer of a figure to most Americans. She's got a lot going for her, money, connections, momentum and a devoted husband that sticks with her out of love and guilt, but I don't know if even she can erase the image everyone has of her. Or even if she wants to rid herself of the ice maiden image.

 

I think it's unfair on Hillary because a lot of the people that dislike her, do so on a personal level. They would rather have a beer with Obama or something like that. However, if the 2000 election proves anything it's that the more likable guy (Bush) isn't always superior to unlikeable, more expereinced and qualified candidate (Gore). And whether or not anyone wants to admit it , there is some underlying sexism going on. Hillary doesn't show any emotion, she's a robot and too distant to be president. She cries, and suddenly she's emotional and that's why women can't be president. Her opponents, with the exception of Romney, were lining up to criticise her the first time she cried saying she couldn't handle the pressure.

 

Hey, I like Obama a lot more than Hillary. But even I can't say his possible presidentcy would be that much better than hers.

[snuffbox 0]

Drudge is now suggesting that the Clintons are spending their own money.

[NoCalMike 0]

I just have a hard time with the concept that Hillary Clinton is the candidate of "change." Sure, she is going to be a change from Bush, but so is every other candidate running. If you are going by rhetoric and voting records alone, Obama represents more change in the supposed "democratic mindset" then Hillary.

[Guest Blue Man Czech]

Well, duh.

 

I could deal with triangulation if I had to, I guess.

[Nightwing 0]

From what I've read, most repubulicans are hoping Hillary wins because they're positive McCain or whoever it is can easily beat her. They think sheer loathing will bring out folks in their droves to vote against her.

 

Is Hillary unelectable? I mean, if she can get the nomination , she's obviously not. But even now, I still have trouble picturing her winning the presidency. She's just too contraversial. Despite being a black man with an exotic family tree, Obama is still a lot safer of a figure to most Americans. She's got a lot going for her, money, connections, momentum and a devoted husband that sticks with her out of love and guilt, but I don't know if even she can erase the image everyone has of her. Or even if she wants to rid herself of the ice maiden image.

 

I think it's unfair on Hillary because a lot of the people that dislike her, do so on a personal level. They would rather have a beer with Obama or something like that. However, if the 2000 election proves anything it's that the more likable guy (Bush) isn't always superior to unlikeable, more expereinced and qualified candidate (Gore). And whether or not anyone wants to admit it , there is some underlying sexism going on. Hillary doesn't show any emotion, she's a robot and too distant to be president. She cries, and suddenly she's emotional and that's why women can't be president. Her opponents, with the exception of Romney, were lining up to criticise her the first time she cried saying she couldn't handle the pressure.

 

Hey, I like Obama a lot more than Hillary. But even I can't say his possible presidentcy would be that much better than hers.

 

It's not underlying sexism. If anything, the other candidate's reaction to crying is consistent to what Nixon did to Ed Muskie years ago; by writing it off, that'd probably be a bit more sexist ("Women are expected to break down."). The problem with her crying for many people is that it came off as a scripted event, and not something natural. At the very least, I can give Ed Muskie that: His crying was an honest reaction to people writing lies about his wife. Hillary's little sniffle didn't feel natural, it felt contrived. Same thing with this week: Oh God, we have her crying again just before Super Tuesday? Just like she did before she won the New Hampshire primary? Yeah, that comes off as contrived. The only reason she's trying to change the whole "Hardass Ice Queen" deal is because she miscalculated: She thought that the hardass Liberal would be the best thing to campaign when the campaign was about "Bush". But the campaign isn't about "Bush", it's about "Change", or "Broader Change". She made a political miscalculation, and she paid for it, just like she did the Iraq vote.

 

People don't want Clinton not because she's a woman, but because she carries more baggage with her than American Airlines does. She's been at the center of numerous scandals during the Clinton Administration, and people still remember them. It doesn't help that she's pulling out all the old dirty tricks along with her husband on the campaign trail. She comes off as manipulative. Hell, I don't take much Michael Moore says to heart, but he calls her out for taking a ton of money from prescription drug and insurance interests. People see her as two-faced, and that's not an unsupported claim.

 

And I'll say right now: A Clinton Presidency would be much worse than Obama. It would continue the political divisiveness that Bush has brought to a fever pitch, and that's something that needs to be avoided. Policy-wise, she is similar to Obama. But when it comes to style and background, she brings in a lot of bad things and little good.

[Guest Blue Man Czech]

And Barack Obama wouldn't be politically divisive? Oh, I forgot, "post-partisanship" means that everyone will fall in line behind the pied piper of the Chicago ghetto.

[Atticus Chaos 0]

From what I've read, most repubulicans are hoping Hillary wins because they're positive McCain or whoever it is can easily beat her. They think sheer loathing will bring out folks in their droves to vote against her.

 

Is Hillary unelectable? I mean, if she can get the nomination , she's obviously not. But even now, I still have trouble picturing her winning the presidency. She's just too contraversial. Despite being a black man with an exotic family tree, Obama is still a lot safer of a figure to most Americans. She's got a lot going for her, money, connections, momentum and a devoted husband that sticks with her out of love and guilt, but I don't know if even she can erase the image everyone has of her. Or even if she wants to rid herself of the ice maiden image.

 

I think it's unfair on Hillary because a lot of the people that dislike her, do so on a personal level. They would rather have a beer with Obama or something like that. However, if the 2000 election proves anything it's that the more likable guy (Bush) isn't always superior to unlikeable, more expereinced and qualified candidate (Gore). And whether or not anyone wants to admit it , there is some underlying sexism going on. Hillary doesn't show any emotion, she's a robot and too distant to be president. She cries, and suddenly she's emotional and that's why women can't be president. Her opponents, with the exception of Romney, were lining up to criticise her the first time she cried saying she couldn't handle the pressure.

 

Hey, I like Obama a lot more than Hillary. But even I can't say his possible presidentcy would be that much better than hers.

 

It's not underlying sexism. If anything, the other candidate's reaction to crying is consistent to what Nixon did to Ed Muskie years ago; by writing it off, that'd probably be a bit more sexist ("Women are expected to break down."). The problem with her crying for many people is that it came off as a scripted event, and not something natural. At the very least, I can give Ed Muskie that: His crying was an honest reaction to people writing lies about his wife. Hillary's little sniffle didn't feel natural, it felt contrived. Same thing with this week: Oh God, we have her crying again just before Super Tuesday? Just like she did before she won the New Hampshire primary? Yeah, that comes off as contrived.

 

I felt the first time came off a genuine moment- she was behind in the polls in NH, all her expectations and hard work seemed to have been for naught, and you could see she was approaching breaking point. I did find the second time contrived though.

 

The only reason she's trying to change the whole "Hardass Ice Queen" deal is because she miscalculated: She thought that the hardass Liberal would be the best thing to campaign when the campaign was about "Bush". But the campaign isn't about "Bush", it's about "Change", or "Broader Change". She made a political miscalculation, and she paid for it, just like she did the Iraq vote.

 

She's not the first politician to control and manipulate her image, is she? You just have to listen to some of Obama's language, particularly in his Iowa victory speech, to know he is totally trying to position himself as an icon in the mold of JFK. How genuine is that? It's not some accident people see him that way. He's been positioned there by his campaign team.

 

 

She's been at the center of numerous scandals during the Clinton Administration, and people still remember them. It doesn't help that she's pulling out all the old dirty tricks along with her husband on the campaign trail.

 

I can't really argue with that. Other than saying people can learn from their mistakes.

 

She comes off as manipulative.

 

Again, who in this race doesn't? Anyone that has ever been president has probably had to do their fair share of scheming to get there. It's not like Hillary is corrupting the wholesome world of American politics.

 

Hell, I don't take much Michael Moore says to heart, but he calls her out for taking a ton of money from prescription drug and insurance interests.

.

 

Obama does that too.

 

And I'll say right now: A Clinton Presidency would be much worse than Obama. It would continue the political divisiveness that Bush has brought to a fever pitch, and that's something that needs to be avoided. Policy-wise, she is similar to Obama. But when it comes to style and background, she brings in a lot of bad things and little good.

 

I think Obama represents a fresh start, more than Hillary does. However, what happens after that? After the fuss and furore of the first few months of his presidency, what if he is all talk, after all?

[Nightwing 0]

And Barack Obama wouldn't be politically divisive? Oh, I forgot, "post-partisanship" means that everyone will fall in line behind the pied piper of the Chicago ghetto.

It's easier to believe that he might be honest about it than Hillary Clinton. With Hillary Clinton, there's no chance it would end. Let's face facts: we might get a political climate that is actually worse than what we have right now. I'll hedge a bet with Obama rather than know I have no chance with Clinton.

 

And Gogo: I understand that politicians manipulate things as such, but there's a line. I didn't find Al Gore to be outright manipulative. I find her to be. Perhaps it's the fact that she seems so blatant at it that irritates me. Along with her campaign tricks... yeah. She rubs me as a person who typifies an era of politics I want to forget.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Obama "won" Super Tuesday, with a slight edge in pledged delegates. He slightly built his lead over Clinton in pledged delegates.

 

 

[Nightwing 0]

Are the official numbers out yet? I've heard a lot of predictions, but I haven't heard any definite numbers. I have to wonder: If Obama wins, will he be the first democratic candidate to ever get out of the primary season without winning New York, Massachusetts, and California? Because that's a pretty crazy feat in and of itself.

[JaMarcus Russell's #1 Caucasian Fan 0]

Well the CNN website as of right now has Clinton at 818 total delegates and Obama at 730 total delgates at this point. Anybody else have any other source of information?

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

No, the official numbers from the networks aren't out yet.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Well the CNN website as of right now has Clinton at 818 total delegates and Obama at 730 total delgates at this point. Anybody else have any other source of information?

 

That is counting superdelegates.

[NoCalMike 0]

And Barack Obama wouldn't be politically divisive? Oh, I forgot, "post-partisanship" means that everyone will fall in line behind the pied piper of the Chicago ghetto.

It's easier to believe that he might be honest about it than Hillary Clinton. With Hillary Clinton, there's no chance it would end. Let's face facts: we might get a political climate that is actually worse than what we have right now. I'll hedge a bet with Obama rather than know I have no chance with Clinton.

 

And Gogo: I understand that politicians manipulate things as such, but there's a line. I didn't find Al Gore to be outright manipulative. I find her to be. Perhaps it's the fact that she seems so blatant at it that irritates me. Along with her campaign tricks... yeah. She rubs me as a person who typifies an era of politics I want to forget.

 

Right. From my perspective the minute Hillary walks into the whitehouse, conservatives are going to immediately go into attack mode and try to give her as much hell as the left gave Bush, just like the opposite happened with Bill Clinton etc etc.....Obama winning the Presidency isn't going to have conservatives suddenly jumping for joy and bi-partisanship, but I don't think it will bring out the same vitriolic hate that a Hillary presidency would.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Im scouting out third parties to vote for, though only one of them so far has decided on a Presidential nominee. Sadly I think I would rather vote for Hillary than him.

 

Of course the only two that I know of that get on ballots here in MD are the Libertarians and the Constitutionalists

[Nightwing 0]

Marvin is pulling a "Coulter".

 

I believe the Republican Party can only benefit from this.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Marvin is pulling a "Coulter".

 

I believe the Republican Party can only benefit from this.

 

If you'll remember, Im still a registered Independent.

 

and at least the Libertarians have a sense of humor:

 

"Following a solid McCain victory in the Super Tuesday primaries, the Libertarian Party has sent Republican headquarters a funeral wreath marking the death of limited-government values within the Republican Party. The wreath was hand-delivered to the D.C. offices of the Republican National Committee. "

[King Kamala 0]

I'm still confused as to how Marvin went from voting for Nader to being Glen Beck's BUTT boy.