« Report: Obama Far Outpaced Hillary In Contributions To Super-Delegates | Home | Obama, On A Roll, Racks Up More Big Labor Support »
Hillary Wins New Mexico!
It's official: Hillary Clinton has been declared the winner of Super Tuesday's New Mexico caucus, after a wait of more than a week while provisional ballots were being counted.
State Democratic Party chairman Brian Colón announced at a press conference today that Hillary received 73,105 votes to Obama's 71,396 votes, a margin of victory of 1,709. Given the close result, the final allocation of the state's 26 pledged delegates is likely to be somewhere around an even 13-13 split.
Late Update: The final delegate count is 14 for Hillary, 12 for Obama.
Advertisement
Yes, I saw it announced live on CNN.
I also saw a breaking report that 18 people were shot at the University of Northern Illinois this afternoon.
February 14, 2008 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just saw on CLTV (Chicago Land Television), five people are now dead.
February 14, 2008 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lis + Star, please stop trying to change the subject. You are taking away Mrs. Clinton's attention. (I am trying desperate to be nice here.) This is her shiny and basking in the glory moment and all you can talk about is dead people? Come on! Typical Alobamacans. Mrs. Clinton is finally ending Mr. Alobama's cheating and cheap tricks up his sleeve phase and for our collective betterment because Mrs. Clinton has the goods. Clintons 2000 and 8!!!
February 14, 2008 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
YAAAAY!!! New Mexico matters!!
But what do I know. I'm from Minnesota, and my opinion is worthless and doesn't count.
February 14, 2008 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
YAAAAY!!! New Mexico matters!!
But what do I know. I'm from Minnesota, and my opinion is worthless and doesn't count.
February 14, 2008 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
But caucuses don't count, do they?
February 14, 2008 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
An even delagate split? Not the biggest win.
February 14, 2008 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does this actually change...anything? Beyond bragging rights? Last I checked Obama was ahead in popular votes, number of states, and number of popular vote-selected delegates...
February 14, 2008 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
FIREWALL!
February 14, 2008 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary's camp finally gets some good news. Sort of a blast from the past actually.
Let's watch her campaign try and milk it even though the delegates are split evenly between she and Obama.
February 14, 2008 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dammit! I rushed as fast as I could to get on with my "thank God we finally know whether New Mexico counts" snark and you guys all beat me to it.
February 14, 2008 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Darn, obama is doomed, doomed I tell you. He lost new mexico. Oh, no. He is doomed. I guess new mexico is now on the significant state list. I can feel the clinton mo coming on after this win.
February 14, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
When is the celebratory press conference scheduled?
February 14, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Regardless of the final tally, NM was a big success for Obama. He wasn't supposed to do that well due to the large Hispanic population.
February 14, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
The good people of New Mexico must be relieved . . . they are significant!
February 14, 2008 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Delegates split 14-12.
February 14, 2008 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Congratulations to Sen Clinton. It was a good fight and she won it honestly. Here's looking forward to more good fights and honest results to come.
February 14, 2008 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a New Mexican I would beg to differ. This was the most poorly run election I have ever seen in my entire adult.
1. A city of 80,000 (Rio Rancho) had one polling place. Las Cruces with a slightly smaller population had eleven. (From 3 PM on it was a four hour wait to vote!)
2. Ballots had NO control numbers on them.
3. After ballots were counted, the numbers were called in by precinct captains. In several outlying rural areas those UNLOCKED ballot boxes spent a quiet cozy evening at the house of the precinct captain (the same captain who called in the vote tallies.)
I could continue, but I think you get my point. In other words, we will never, with any degree of certainty, know that the election was not tampered with. But we do have the reassuring words of the State Party Leaders who completely mismanaged this disaster. The NM rank and file can only hope no shenanigans took place. The Democratic leadership in this state is notorious for screwing up elections. We've had the Secretary of State and County Clerk offices in the larger counties since statehood. The Democratic Party leadership in NM is a laughingstock and a disgrace. I include our Governor in that mess.
But in the end the nomination process marches on to other states where they actually have responsible adult leadership in the Democratic party.
February 14, 2008 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's pretty lousy.
I used to know a guy who worked for the election board programming optical vote machines and he told me the most amazing stories of how ridiculously badly it's run. Ballots not being stored properly, no accounting of where they are, and nobody checking, unskilled people working on the machines, and so on. In fact there was a big scandal at one point when the main elections officer was caught in massive fraud and mismanagement. She had only been outed by a rival candidate, but apparently the process continues.
Some things that seem to happen every election: There is a shortage of ballots in some region, usually wherever the anti-establishment candidate is expected to do well. Presumably becasue it's just too difficult and expensive to print and deliver more ballots than will be needed, becasue they're expensive, being paper and all. In the same district, there will be a shortage of voting stations and polling locations, due to some last minute FUBAR.
It's outrageous the crap that happens due to negligence, at best. It's really not that hard to run a proper election, and make sure you have enough ballots for Chirst sake.
When these screw ups happen, heads should roll. Election officials are well paid and supposed to qualified professionals. When somebody screws up, it should be criminally and civilly prosecuted for negligence.
These hacks like Harris, Brownie and Chertoff should be tarred and feathered, literally.
February 14, 2008 9:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, a lot of political careers were boosted in those types of ways. Just think of JFK in Chicago and "Landslide" Lyndon.
February 14, 2008 10:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
It stinks all around and unless it's cleaned up it just festers and gets worse.
February 14, 2008 10:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was called a caucus, but it was really an election.
February 14, 2008 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
The dirty little secret of this campaign is that this is not true of just NM. A lot of those supposedly "undemocratic" caucuses which have been held so far are undistinguishable from your ordinary primary election. Not all caucuses are run like IA, but it has served a particular propoganda purpose to make out that they are.
February 14, 2008 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
For those of you interested in finding out more about the shooting at NIU, here is a link:
http://www.niu.edu/alert/campus_alert.shtml
I'm afraid the news does not look good according to CNN. 15 casualties, 3-4 head wounds being admitted to the hospital.
Sorry I posted the news here, but I don't know how to add an update to the TPM home page.
February 14, 2008 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
15 CASUALTIES, or wounded? I haven't seen any reports of people confirmed dead, save the gunman.
February 14, 2008 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Casualties are wounded or dead, not just dead.
February 14, 2008 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wasn't sure. Thanks.
February 14, 2008 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, and I apologize. It looks as though most admitted to the hospital are wounded, not killed. I'm happy to be wrong.
Still, it's traumatic to them and to their families and fellow classmates.
Please take a little time in between all the in-fighting to think of these students and their families and friends.
1,2,3...
Okay, on with the in-fighting now.
February 14, 2008 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Five dead according to CLTV.
I live about 23 miles from the campus.
February 14, 2008 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Huh. All those people who don't have jobs and responsibilities and whatnot that are supposedly supporting Obama wound up tiding towards Clinton?
Suddenly, Clinton will LOVE the people who can take the time to caucus...and caucus results are just as meaningful and important as primary results. In fact, more meaningful, given that Obama just cleaned up in three straight primaries. Caucuses are the new primary....
February 14, 2008 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does this mean Obama does not get 10 wins in a row?? Does it break his momentum?
February 14, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, the ten wins in a row refers to wins which have occured post-Super Tues. NM was a super Tues state, so it really does not affect that 10-in-a-row.
February 14, 2008 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's such an obvious falsehood, maybe Clinton's people won't try it. But I think they're getting desperate.
The idea of "claiming" to have broken Obama's winning streak is probably too tempting for them to not give it a try.
February 14, 2008 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
The New Mexico results confirm that the Feb. 5 Super Tuesday primaries were a tie. A tie means it was a loss for the "before-votes-were-cast presumptive" candidate - Senator Clinton.
February 14, 2008 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good- now that Mrs. Clinton has shown she can win a caucus- it's time for MI and FL caucuses, if needed.
Congrats!!!!
February 14, 2008 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
My back of the envelope calculations show that if the current polling holds in TX and OH, Sen. Clinton would approximately even out the popular vote. Don't count your chickens, Obama people (or Clinton people). Those who insist unpledged delegates should follow the popular vote totals may be changing their tune in a month.
February 14, 2008 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
My back of the envelope calculations show that if the current polling holds in TX and OH, Sen. Clinton would approximately even out the popular vote. Don't count your chickens, Obama people (or Clinton people). Those who insist unpledged delegates should follow the popular vote totals may be changing their tune in a month.
February 14, 2008 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you add in the numbers from the caucuses? The gross numbers reported by the media do not include the caucuses, they only refer to primaries. Add in the caucuses and he is way ahead. He would have to lose 60/40 or more in the remaining contests for her to catch up, even including florida and michigan.
That being said, who knows what's going to happen and everyone has to get out and vote. Game on.
February 14, 2008 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
That polling was taking before Obama's massive victories in Virginia, Maryland, and DC.
Another poll out today shows Obama 10 points above Hillary nationally.
Hillary may win Texas and or Ohio, but I doubt she'll win either by more than 5%. After Obama adds his net delegates from Wisconsin and Hawaii next week, a 5% victory in Texas and Ohio would probably leave Hillary with a net disadvantage to her current count.
February 14, 2008 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was just posting on that in Election central. I broke down the numbers.
Basically in her best case likely scenario, she picks up a gain of 80 and is still behind in pledged delegates by about 50.
She's currently behind by about 120, and Obama will probably increase his lead by about 5-10 more by March 4. So, Obama lead (130) - Hillary's potential gain (80) = her still being behind in pledged delegates by about (50).
Which is why the states in May still matter, and why the Super Delegates may matter if they attempt to throw the nomination, which would probably split the party.
February 14, 2008 10:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obviously the party is already split.
February 14, 2008 11:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, it's obviously not split, yet, becasue both candidates are doing all they can to stay unified against the Republicans. Obama has run a clean race and tried to avoid divisiveness, and while Hilalry and Bill keep playing games, they at least claim to be avoiding divisiveness.
But if Hillary stoops to nasty tactics again, or if she uses the Super Delegates to throw the nomination, then yes the party will split. I wouldn't be surprised if there are literally riots if she grabs the nomination by something like the Super Delegates. That would be totally unacceptable to voters and basically a slap in the face for bothering to care about our democracy.
February 15, 2008 8:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
According to your own numbers, kozmik, the party is obviously split. A close race, a virtual tie means "split." Approximately half going for one candidate, half going for the other. Am I missing something here?
February 15, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not that there's any conspiracy here what-so-ever, but I think the number of votes beyond provisional ballots might've been adjusted as well. If you take the numbers announced today and subtract the previously announced totals (http://www.nmdemocrats.org/ht/display/ReleaseDetails/i/1129743) you get 5021 votes for Hillary and 4386 votes for Barack in the post-2/5 counting.
This is despite the fact that a large majority of provisional ballots were cast in counties in which Obama had broad support. Looking at the numbers ahead of time, I doubted Obama would be able to make up the difference, but I was certain he'd get more provisional ballots. I suppose a lot of people might've been under the impression that New Mexico was an open caucus and that they'd disproportionately prefer Obama.
Glad that no one has to take anyone out to breakfast to secure the one delegate that was up for grabs here.
February 14, 2008 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also, the New Mexico delegates will split 14-12 if you look at the results by congressional district. It would have been 13-13 if Obama had gone ahead in the statewide vote.
February 14, 2008 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not going to hold. And you might want to study up on how Texas awards its delegates.
February 14, 2008 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't New Mexico a caucus state? If so, these results don't really matter, espcially since all caucuses are stacked against Mrs. Clinton in Mr. Alobama's favor.
Mrs. Clinton is struggling to keep her campaign afloat against these unfair odds. It's time for Mr. Alobama to come clean and give poor Mrs. Clinton a break. It's Mrs. Clinton's turn and Mr. Alobama is the interlooper and should let her have her just deserts.
Just my two dollars. You go girl!!!
February 14, 2008 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Mr. Alobama"? "Unfair odds"?
And we're supposed to take you seriously?
I see way too much of this childish stuff. Let's be grownups, people.
February 14, 2008 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
i don't know, i think queerbodhi's comment was funny. i mean "interlooper"? say it out loud, it will make you laugh.
February 14, 2008 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oooh! Does that mean that Bill Richardson will follow the will of the people of New Mexico and endorse Hillary?
heh
February 14, 2008 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
SUDDENLY, I really regret that California moved it's primary date from June to February. Who Knew??!!
February 14, 2008 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't count Hillary out just yet. Polls just released in Pennsylvania and Ohio show her with huge leads. I would assume that Texas Democratic Hispanics favor her, too (just like the New Mexican Hispanics did). She's down but not out - at least not yet. That's my read on it at this stage, at least.
February 14, 2008 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
She'll have to win all three of those states by overwhelming margins, which is extremely unlikely. The only battle she can truly win at this point is the PR "momentum" war - she'll likely still be trailing Obama in pledged delegates on April 23.
February 14, 2008 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
So she gains what - one net delegate in the whole thing? Congrats to her, but in the immortal words of Winston Wolf, let's not start...
February 14, 2008 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, I see the update - two net delegates. Every little bit helps, I guess. Still, a strong showing for Obama in a state where he wasn't expected to do as well.
February 14, 2008 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
And please stop with the personal attacks and all, like saying that Mrs. Clinton is fat. That is just plain mean.
February 14, 2008 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
This coming from the guy who calls Barack "Mr. Alobama"? Pot, meet kettle.
February 14, 2008 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can we expect her to still say that caucuses aren't democratic? Or only the ones in New Mexico?
February 14, 2008 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Drats! My map is all wrong now:
http://i27.tinypic.com/egaiie.jpg
February 14, 2008 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
All you Clinton haters are too predictable, I swear you guys must all be drinking from the same cup. How does the kool-aid taste, enjoy your sip, reality doesn't matter.
February 14, 2008 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, you tell them Cool; the Alobomacans will get there little surprise soon enough! Hahahaha
February 14, 2008 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
IF Clinton didn't prove everything bad ever said about her by coming out up front and say straight up she will cheat if she has to to win, I don't think anybody would have nearly as many problems with her.
February 14, 2008 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey! Who said: Ginger Rogers did everything that Fred Astaire did. She just did it backwards and in high heels?
February 14, 2008 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
But Ginger Rodgers didn't wear pants suits. ;-)
February 14, 2008 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess this does indeed mean that New Mexicans represent Americans everywhere, well, the half + 1000 or so that voted for her that is, the other ones are out of touch with America, obviously.
February 14, 2008 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
What the hell does "Alobomacans" mean? Is this an allusion to Alabama? And if so, why? Is this even an insult? It sounds more like a non-sequitur, along the lines of calling someone "question pants" or "cursor lips." Please explain.
February 14, 2008 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, thanks for the exclamation point, you sarcastic little twit.
Try to pretend you care about journalistic objectivity anymore, and that you give the slightest damn whether you try to be even handed to all Democrats.
You "journalists" at TPM are so in the tank for Obama that you've becoming a running joke.
February 14, 2008 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mrs. Clinton deserves and cherishes that exclamation mark! It's about time!!! The big new York media machine hates Mr. and Mrs. Clinton with a deep seat passion fruit and will stop at nothing at trying to stop her and him from their Lego sea.
It's not very funny but the joke is actually on Mr. Alabomacan. Mr. Clinton will see to that. Let us give Mrs. Clinton all the exclamations we can, and Mr. Micah Marshall is helping!!
February 14, 2008 10:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Real amateur hour at TPM, huh?
February 14, 2008 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Woohoo! It's official! She won (past tense) a (2) delegate gain, over a week ago. Now she's only down in pledged delegates by something like 118, and has offset about 1% of Obama's gains since.
Wait for the press release: "Hillary's momentum is back!"
:rolleyes:
February 14, 2008 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
It seems like you're maybe trying to be sarcastic or funny or something Mr. Koz. But I don't think trying to sound funny at Mrs. Clinton's expense is very funny or very considerate. In fact it just shows that you don't like women for whatever reason. Hasn't she had enough? She fought and clawed her way to the top of the new Mexico, only to be poked at by you and your fellow Alobamacans. Shame on you and your petty politics. Give Mrs. Clinton a break because she is doing the best she can and will win everying you just wait and see. Yeah, you go girl!!!
February 14, 2008 9:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure. Pointing out what a phony Hillary is automatically equates to "hating women." Yawn.
Come on, stop trolling. It's lame.
You're not witty or clever. Nor are you helping either candidate or our democracy by trolling that stuff. People, on all sides, including Republicans, need to be dealing with real issues, not voting on these retarded identity politics, or knee jerk responses to identity politics.
That's just poisoning our democracy in the long term which is screwing everybody down the road.
February 14, 2008 10:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh that's really rich like heavy whipping cream coming from you, Mr. Koz. And I'll have you know that trolls are one of Mrs. Clinton's most super supportively suppositive supporters! So we all need to get behind her and wait. You go girl!!!
February 14, 2008 10:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't be sure I'm reading your posts right because one can never know for sure on the internet but if my interpretation of the things you've said on this thread is correct: you're doing brilliant work here and I'm loving it.
February 15, 2008 2:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Chelsea Clinton 2012!!
February 15, 2008 4:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
The lack of objectivity at TPM is sort of becoming a running joke aroung the blogosphere, isn't it? Funny thing is Josh thinks he is objective. But what difference does it make? Things are as they are. I'm not sure Obama can make much of a showing again until NC, and that is going to be discounted. But, what the hell. I'm a Clinton supporter. I thought she'd put him away on Super Tuesday. He has a lot more support than I thought he did. More power to him. The thing that may save him from being humiliated in Texas is the old boy vote. In Louisiana, given the choice between a woman and a bi-racial man, the old boys made a point of voting for Edwards. Being from Texas, I'm just wondering who will get the Aggie vote. Assuming they can figure out how to work the machine.
February 14, 2008 9:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Objective?!? When was the last time you saw someone wanted Mike Huckabee to be president on this site?
February 14, 2008 10:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh don't give me that whining.
If you can point to a rational reason for supporting Hillary, on actual policies and her and Bill's record, then by all means do so. You'd be the first Hillary supporter I've met who can do so.
But frankly the Clinton record sucks unless you think NAFTA, deregulation, ENRON, the dotcom and housing bubble, and regime change in Iraq, were all good ideas. Because the fact is they were all contributed to by Clinton and DLC policies which have always been triangulation between token social liberalism and laissez faire economics.
I'm sick of these Hillary supporters who actually think Clinton is some sort of liberal or progressive. Get real. The Clintons are corporate Democrats and her supporters are some of the most poltically clueless people I've ever met. And yet they have the nerve to claim Hillary is the better candidate, becasue they started backing her when she was supposedly inevitable, and haven't really bothered to ever question why they support her.
Things Hillary supporters typically say:
"She's a woman, and that's also change." i.e. totally shallow understanding of the issues or what kind of real change Obama supporters want.
"The economy was good in the 90s" which of course had absolutely nothing to do with Bill Clinton, and had everything to do with technology coming out of American universities, corporate labs, and garages, since the 60's, which was furthermore a result of quality of life improveemnts from white collar to blue collar which go back to the post WWII era. Bill's actual record on the economy is NAFTA and deregulation, which all hurt our economy tremendously.
I could go on for hours. Suffice to say, all the reasons I've heard for supporting Clintons are just plain ignorant.
February 14, 2008 10:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can tell you guys are getting all twisted out of shape when you don't realize that Qdoba is just screwing around. Let's not lose our unity or our sense of humor, okay? I know the stakes are high, but let's take a deep breath and relax a little...
February 14, 2008 9:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah? How much "unity" do you think these idiots at TPM are doing anything to promote instead of destroy.
Trust me, this kind of amateurish, childish, completely biased treatment of a very large segment of the Democratic Party by these cretins at TPM is not going to be forgotten -- it is now emblazoned in the memories of many, and the day will come when the clowns-that-be at TPM will find to their stupid surprise that what goes around comes around.
February 14, 2008 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just as an example of how TPM is damaging itself, how many Democrats do you think are going to be happy to pitch in to help these morons with the next potential breaking story, given how they've behaved? Who will want to lift a finger to help the further self aggrandizement of these arrogant, insulting twits?
Don't you think we'll find somewhere else to go with anything we might have to offer?
February 14, 2008 11:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whining? Sick of Hillary supporters who? Why do I have the feeling that there are bots on the blog? I could care less if you support Hillary or not. You should at least try to stay relevant. Obama's best hope in Texas is to appeal to the Aggies. Electricity went out in College Station this afternoon, and 200 Aggies were stranded on the escalators for an hour.
February 14, 2008 10:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/14/did-hillary-clinton-reall_n_86674.html?view=print
Some NAFTA reality for the bot to sleep on. Do bots sleep?
February 14, 2008 11:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure Hillary didn't support NAFTA, despite it being the central plank of her husband's economic policy, which he championed, and which was created by her and Bill's economic advisers, the DLC, Third Way and New Dems, for whom the Clintons are the poster children.
Apparently she also doesn't support the war she voted for, the basis for which was laid by Bill's policy of "regime change" in Iraq which he rammed through Congress, and his continuing sanctions which accomplished nothing but killing tens of thousands of Iraqi children through dysentery, and kicking the can down the road until inevitably a militant like GW Bush would invade.
Neither does she support all the deregulation Bill passed which directly benefited her big corporate campaign contributors. For example, energy market and finance deregulation which directly led to the formation of ENRON and their crimes in the 90s, during Bill's term in office, which was also boosted by close Clinton ally Krugman, who accepted $45K pay for ENRON and deregulation boosterism, and who also supported NAFTA, and who now supports the Clintons again.
She doesn't support the internet bubble which was created during the 90's and then unloaded onto pensions and the general public thanks to finance deregulation and relaxed accounting standards which began under Reagan and Bill Clinton continued.
She doesn't support the housing bubble which overlapped the internet bubble, beginning in the late 90's, for all the same reasons, and of course made all the worse under Bush 43.
She doesn't support Greenspan, who served through Bill Clintons and Bush's FED, inflating two bubbles where large financial groups made a killing, and left the public holding the bag.
She also doesn't support "Hillary Care" which was a disaster and killed healthcare reform for 16 years. Though she is running with a plan containing the same fatal problems now.
She doesn't support WalMart, despite sitting on their board while they were notorious for sexual discrimination and harassment, union busting, and labor abuses. For which they are still known and didn't change despite her time on their board. Which was also quite lucrative.
She doesn't support Rose Law Firm, despite being a partner there, where she specialized in women's issues. Just kidding about the women's issues part! She actually specialized in patent litigation at Rose Law. They are Walmart's attorneys, and are the epitome of a corporate establishment law firm, notorious for union busting for over a century, and the oldest firm in the region.
She doesn't support her own self in college, where she was a Goldwater Girl and college Republican.
She doesn't support the political views of her family upbringing, which was very rt wing Republican, emphasizing laissez faire capitalism.
She's got experience. She just doesn't support any of it.
February 15, 2008 8:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
PS - the whole notion you'd accept Hillary didn't support NAFTA, despite it being the central plank of Bill and the DLC's economic policy, and it being the culmination of a lifetime's work employed by corporate players for whom NAFTA was their ultimate wet dream, and despite her continued support from the economists who backed NAFTA..... becasue her biographers said she didn't really support it...
:rolleyes:
Amazing a person can stick their head that deep in the sand.
February 15, 2008 8:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
The polling locations were supplied with voter listings by the secretary of state's office.
Due to mysteriously missing names, 17,000 odd provisional ballots were cast. This means that over 10% of registered democrats were purged from the rolls for no apparent reason.
Because this was a Democrat only caucus (the reason it wasn't called an election) it is unknown if republican voters are similarly purged, but it bears looking into.
In other NM news, Gov. Richardson has grown a beard and moustache since leaving the campaign trail.
Please help generate some national pressure on Bill to find out what the f*** is going on with the voter rolls in NM.
February 15, 2008 1:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary:
Doh! More evidence that hope is not a plan.
February 15, 2008 1:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly.
February 15, 2008 8:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Turnaround for Clinton! Momentum! Momentum!
February 15, 2008 1:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Garfield wrote:
>>> Those who insist unpledged delegates should follow the popular vote totals may be changing their tune in a month.
That is what I respect so much about Sen. Obama's proposing a solution that, while it would support him if the end of the process was right now, is framed in terms of principles - easily defensible principles - that, depending on what happens in the next few months could well be used against him. In other words, he is proposing a 'neutral' standard that makes sense - ahead of time - without assurance that it will favor him. I want a president who will be focused on sane solutions to problems, not arguments based on "the ends justify the means so long as the end is the outcome I want."
In contrast, the position Sen. Clinton is taking on the MI and FL votes is not defensible on principle, just on outcome. I think we all know that if Obama had 'won' those states and was making the argument that they should be included, the person screaming the loudest about "changing the rules in the middle of the game" would be Clinton herself. She might even be willing to admit that -- it's one of those Rovian moves deemed "brilliant" by some.
I continue to be shocked that the Republicans dealt with the 2000 FL vote in the way they did. "There but for the grace of God...." It *could* happen to them someday and didn't they want a workable way to resolve such a problem whenever it arises, not one crafted simply to favor their candidate? I know -- very foolish of me. But I'm still foolish enough to expect more sanity and fairness from Democrats .. and to want more sanity and fairness in our president. (After all, look at the president that other approach 'won' for us.)
February 15, 2008 8:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would like to offer a cheer to New Mexico for being more concerned with counting all the votes than giving out quick results. There's been some joking in various quarters about how long it was taking, but it would be better in both the primaries and the general election if we had more of this.
COUNT EVERY VOTE!
February 15, 2008 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink