« When Republicans Attack (Each Other) | Home | GOP House Candidate: "Sometimes A Leader Has To Step Forward" To Spread Abortion Story About Opponent »
Clinton Camp: Obama Shouldn't Get Away With Writing Off West Virginia Loss
With Hillary Clinton simultaneously expected to win big today in West Virginia but lose overall for the nomination, the campaign has sent out a memo insisting that Barack Obama shouldn't be allowed to set low expectations here.
"Given the attempts by our opponent and some in the media to declare this race over, any significant increase in voter turnout, coupled with a decisive Clinton victory, would send a strong message that Democrats remain excited and energized by Hillary's candidacy."
Full memo after the jump.
To: Interested Parties
From: Clinton Campaign
Date: Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Re: Why West Virginia Matters
With a record turnout expected in today's primary, West Virginia Democrats will make clear who they believe is the strongest candidate to take on Sen. McCain in the Fall.
The Mountain State is used to picking winners. Every nominee has carried the state's primary since 1976, and no Democrat has won the White House without winning West Virginia since 1916.
Democrats carried West Virginia in 1992 and 1996, but lost the state--and the White House--in 2000 and 2004. Hillary has predicted victory against Sen. McCain in West Virginia based on the strength of her economic message.
Given the attempts by our opponent and some in the media to declare this race over, any significant increase in voter turnout, coupled with a decisive Clinton victory, would send a strong message that Democrats remain excited and energized by Hillary's candidacy.
In the face of grim poll numbers, the Obama campaign has attempted to dismiss today's outcome despite the fact that Sen. Obama has outspent us on advertising, has more staff in the state, and more than double the number of offices.
He has also benefited from the support of the most high-profile endorsers in West Virginia--Sen. Jay Rockefeller and Congressman Nick Rahall. By every measure, the Obama campaign has waged an aggressive campaign in the Mountain State.
Despite being the so-called "presumptive nominee" and benefiting from these advantages, Sen. Obama has been unable to close a significant gap in the polls.
Sen. Clinton has already won Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida and Michigan. With a win in West Virginia, Sen. Clinton will have once again proven her greater ability to win in the key swing states.
Advertisement

Yawn....
May 13, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does she mean "he shouldn't be allowed to write off WV" the same way SHE has written off the 30+ states she has lost?
May 13, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's see, FL, MI, WV, KY, all written off.
PA and OH, ignored.
NY and CA being worked on
by the media (ranting hate rhetoric on AA radios
here in NYC, plus NYT vacuous propagandizing).
Like forcing a running star to carry a 200
pound weight, because to be as good as she is
just plain hurt's a guy's ego.
And yet, he still can't beat her.
May 13, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
You seem to have missed the point: He CAN'T beat her OR McCain in the states that really matter. He can ONLY beat her in states that he can't and won't carry this fall. His entire candidacy is a fraud and a house of cards waiting to crash to the ground.
May 13, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is that your head?
May 13, 2008 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Poblano's analysis seems to indicate otherwise. What analysis are you relying on to make that sweeping statement?
May 13, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, actually, there are numerous pollsters saying that he does better overall in a state-by-state basis nationwide against McCain than Clinton does, as they each have their strengths and weaknesses. Obama will expand democratic victories into new territory this year, which is something that Clinton cannot do.
May 13, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yea right. The real miracle is how people like you have gotten away with spouting this sort ludicrous nonsense.
"Don't look behind the curtain folks, at what a lousy candidate Obama really is in the states that really matter. Just keep listening to what a remarkably transformative candidate he really is, and believe in all the remarkable things he's going to do for our country."
Translation: Just drink the Kool Aid and shut up.
May 13, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again I ask, what polling do you have to put up against the polling on Poblano's site? Where are your numbers coming from?
May 13, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dueling monkeys- kinda a metaphore for the current state of the race :-)
May 13, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
All the polls show Obama doing much worse than Clinton in critical states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, and West Virginia. And that's just the people who will admit to voting along racial lines. It will be much worse once McCain/Rove get through with him.
May 13, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
If this was an election for President of the United states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida and West Virginia, you might have a point. As usual, though, the only states that count are the ones Clinton wins. Pay no attention to those other 46 states.
May 13, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
You sound as gooffy as your picture. The simple fact is that the ability to win states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida and West Virginia IS more important for a Democratic candidate than winning states like South Carolina and Montana because of the electoral college and the relative Democratic strength in those states. Though it is very clear to me that you won't understand that until the fall election proves it to you.
May 13, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
One problem with you're scenario. Hillary Clinton CAN'T win Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida and West Virginia. Know why?
SHE WON'T BE ON THE BALLOT.
Get over it.
May 13, 2008 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
The fact that you're so determined to lost the upcoming general election is not necessarily an argument in your favor.
May 13, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which polls? Poblano, at www.fivethirtyeight.com has done an analysis of HRC vs McCain and Obama vs McCain. Where are your numbers?
May 13, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like all good monkeys, he's simply tossing scat loaded with Innuendo and Smoke to see what sticks. He has no numbers.
Let me revise that. He has no numbers that don't show his party soaking in a warm bloodbath in November unless they can manage to somehow sow enough discord amongst Dem ranks heading into November to scuttle turnout, given they're well aware at this stage of the game they won't be running against Senator Clinton.
May 13, 2008 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
And we've heard time and time again from Clinton supporters like you how things are going to turn out. How Obama was going to get his ass kicked.
Hasn't happened. What makes you think your crystal ball is good on this one? Particularly when the people who have done deep analysis don't agree with you.
Screaming about it without any facts to back it up, isn't going to convince Obama supporters and isn't going to convince super delegates. So, frankly it doesn't matter what you think.
May 13, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
That Obama is going to lose West Virginia and Kentucky in a blowout is a fact.
That he lost Pennsylvania is a fact.
That he lost Ohio is a fact.
That he lost Florida is a fact.
That he lost Michigan is a fact.
That he Lost California is a fact.
That he lost New Jersey is a fact.
That he lost Massachusetts is a fact.
That he lost Indiana is a fact.
That he has lost every big and important swing state that a Democrat must carry in the fall is a fact.
That all these facts don't matter to you in the least is a fact.
That you are delusional in that you completely discount the most important facts about this primary is also a fact.
May 13, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
That Clinton is losing the nomination is a fact.
May 13, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately for you, the subject under discussion is electability.
May 13, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, electability!
The same argument that led to Kerry being the nominee!
May 13, 2008 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're on the verge of hysteria, little monkey.
There's no one to convince here, so settle down. You've got just a few weeks left of watching your candidate's campaign slowly ebb away. Enjoy it while it lasts.
May 13, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not worrying about my candidate as much as I'm worrying about my country. Hillary will survive for another four years. The country may not.
May 13, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Hillary will survive for another four years. The country may not."
Wow. Strong words.
Sounds like you should logically become a strong, motivated Obama supporter ASAP then, doesn't it?
...or do you want McCain to bring us eight more years of McBush?!
May 13, 2008 10:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not logical to jump off a cliff just because all the lemmings around you are jumping off a cliff.
May 13, 2008 11:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like Missouri? Oh, right - if it's not a "swing state" by your definition, then it doesn't count.
That she lost over 30 states is more of a indicator of where this race stands. You don't like Obama - we get it. But he's going to be the nominee, unless Clinton wants to alienate a huge portion of Democratic voters, specifically African-Americans and young voters. If you think those people are just automatically going to vote for Clinton were she to wrest this nomination away in some feat of magic, you need your tiny little head examined. (Hey, I'm just going by the photo.)
May 13, 2008 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great point! Have you taken a look at the polls from Missouri recently? After Revernd wright occured he tanked big time and is recovering slightly but still losing to McCain 47-41. Hillary is doing better 53-43.
http://www.pollster.com/08-MO-Pres-GE-MvO.php
May 13, 2008 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
For pity's sake, that is just not true. Look at those trendlines. His decline in MO started well before the Wright story broke. If anything, the emergence of the Wright story corresponds with the point at which his support began to recover. There is no doubt but that Clinton does better than Obama in head-to-head polls in Missouri, so that point is quite sound. I do not understand, however, why you will insist on trying to make this into a story about Wright when plainly the data are not compatible with the interpretation you are offering.
May 13, 2008 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure Oregon doesn't count but the polls say he ahead there by 15 to 20%. Hillary has had just one blowout and that was Arkansas. Obama has blown out Hillary by 25 to 50 pts about 10 times (SC, GA, MS, CO, WY, HA, ID, UT, LA, MD, VA, DC, Il,NB, MN). I know, they don't count because Hillary said they don't.
May 13, 2008 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Given that Barack Obama is your party's presumptive nominee, why do you feel compelled to say he hasn't got a chance?
I mean, the American people decided that they didn't want the alternative, so why are you doing the Republican's job nowadays?
May 13, 2008 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's such a lousy candidate that he's ahead of Clinton and on the verge of sealing the deal. What an amateur!
May 13, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I never said that Obama stole the election. I've always said that he bought it.
May 13, 2008 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
BOUGHT it? Wow. A Clinton supporter wants to talk about another candidate buying an election? She had a $10M advantage at the start of the campaign! It's not Obama's fault her campaign was run horribly.
May 13, 2008 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bought it? Um... hello?! Clinton had a *HUGE* headstart in fundraising from wealthy donors.
He won because *WE* fought and personally invested ourselves in his campaign, and because the American people believed he was the best candidate to change the failing dynamics of American politics, towards integrity and actually getting things done for a change.
May 13, 2008 10:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're spewing the same conjecture that you're accusing Obama supporters of.
I envy the life you lead, to be as naive as the early morning dew is fresh and so blissfully unaware of your own hypocrisy and foolishness.
I will give you credit for balls, however. It takes a serious amount of nerve to expose yourself as rube the the public, day after day after day.
May 13, 2008 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
rstephen:
Being a poor loser, because he wants Republicans to win in '08!
May 13, 2008 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you see some crazy fool walking off the edge of a cliff because they think they can fly, what do you do? Do you keep screaming at them to stop before it's too late, even though they seem determined to do it? Or do you just sit back and enjoy the show?
People like you seem to expect me to jump off the cliff with you. But suicide is against my religion.
May 13, 2008 11:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Only Clinton wins the states that count."
"Clinton only counts the states she wins."
You decide.
May 13, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're one smart monkey...
and you're EXACTLY right!!!
May 13, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Black sheep and monkeys for Hillary... that's gotta be excellent news!
May 13, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
What she's trying to say is that only large states count unless they're named Illinois, Missouri and North Carolina.
And small states don't count unless they're named West Virginia and Kentucky.
And voters don't matter unless they're white.
And caucuses shouldn't count, but primaries where the candidates agreed in advance not to campaign and to take their names off the ballot should count.
And the sun rises in the west and sets in the east.
And if you repeat a lie often enough, everyone will accept is as the truth.
May 13, 2008 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can Obama's campaign and supporters, now that he in on course for winning the party's nomination, write off West Virginia as a bit too rural, too rustbelt, too uneducated, and too racially and politically slanted for it to justify going all out there? Can we concentrate on the general election instead of worrying about what Hillary does?
Yes we can.
May 13, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whatever. Hillary wrote off South Carolina and Louisiana as too Black. So save it.
May 13, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right. Obama has a better chance of carrying South Carolina and Louisiana this fall than he does carrying Pennsylvania or Ohio.
May 13, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Certainly West Virginia. What is your point, other than to be a pain in the ass?
May 13, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
That IS my point.
May 13, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can Obama lose every state that really matters and give McCain the biggest upset victory since Truman beat Dewey?
Yes we can.
May 13, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did the general election happen already? Was there some new information that actually correlates primary victories with general election state wins?
Talk about being beholden to the "talking points memo"...sheesh.
May 13, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
There certainly is a correlation between primary votes and votes in the general election. You can take all the polls you want and twist them any way that you like. It doesn't mean anything. All that matter is what individual voter actually DO when they come out and vote on election day. And the best indication of what voters are going to DO this November is what the voters in those states have already DONE in the primary. And if you don't understand that, you don't understand anything.
May 13, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Typical Clintonspeak. No polls, results or knowledge means anything unless it bears out the thesis you present. I can't wait until this madness is over with.
Well, shit. Then I guess I'm just an idiot. Seeing as you presented so many facts to back up your argument. Sheesh.
May 13, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Last I checked, those votes in the primary were for the Democratic nomination, which mean most of those voters will vote for the party. Except for the ones that can't let go of the dream.
May 13, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Last I checked, those votes in the primary were for the Democratic nomination, which mean most of those voters will vote for the party. Except for the ones that can't let go of the dream.
May 13, 2008 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
The fact that a majority of Democrats in those states still want another candidate, in spite of the fact that Team Obama has been claiming for months now that they already have the nomination sewed up, should tell you something about the relative strength of his candidacy not only among Democrats, but among Independents who will be much harder to win over.
May 13, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm an Independent. He had me at "Not Clinton."
May 13, 2008 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL!
May 13, 2008 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am a Republican. He had me at "not Clinton" as well.
May 13, 2008 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
And the fact that a majority of democrats in MN, MO, CT, WI, WA, CO and IL wanted another candidate despite months of Clinton claiming that she had it sewed up should tell us something about her candidacy. There is no denying that each candidate draws heated opposition from certain segments of the party, but I am not clear why the opposition to Obama (who is, after all, winning the popular vote) should count for more than the opposition to Clinton. Both have strengths and both have liabilities, but evidently Obama's strenghts trump Clintons, because Obama has beaten her.
May 13, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
It isn't Obama's strengths that have beaten her, it's his race, his money, and the fact that he seems new and different. And though those things may seem like strengths in the primary, they will either not matter (money) or become a liability (race & inexperience) in the general election.
May 13, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ahhhh...Bad Monkey.
You pulled the race card. You just undermined what little credibility you might have been floating here.
Despite your considerable verbiage, what you're arguing here is that Obama is kicking Hillary's ass, because he's Black. You just went from being an empassioned, but slightly misguided Hillary supporter to a grasping, deliberately misleading troll.
Bad Monkey.
May 13, 2008 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anytime you mention that Obama is receiving the votes of 94% of blacks and 100% of guilty white liberals, primarily because he is black, the alarm sounds and Team Obama pulls the race card out of their sleeve by pointing out that these are facts that can never be pointed out without making you a racist.
Voting for a candidate because he is black = a good thing
Pointing out that there are many more white people who are going to vote for McCain only because he is white = a naughty and racist thing
May 13, 2008 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
But that is the point. Obama can indeed win those states, but more importantly can win states Clinton can't which make OH, PA, FL not the make or break wins. It makes the GOP play defense in states they normally can ignore to try and win OH, PA, FL.
The electoral map changes with Obama where we have a cushion nad make it so that OH, FL and PA are NOT make or break states.
May 13, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you believe that Obama can carry South Carolina and Montana, you can convince yourself of anything. There is no reasoning with people so caught up in their own crazy hubris.
May 13, 2008 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Says the person caught up in their own crazy hubris.
May 13, 2008 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Says the person without a comeback of his own.
May 13, 2008 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
But you want a McCain Presidency, don't you? I mean, there's really no meaningful difference between McCain and Clinton. Both are committed to unending war in Iraq; both will devote their Presidencies to maintaining our system of terror, exploitation and global dominance (what is generally called 'Democracy' in the MSM). Where is there a difference.
See, you make it sound as though something will be at stake if Clinton is the nominee. Isn't the goal of proto-fascists such as yourself to have two fundamentally interchangeable candidates, thus insuring stability for all (for all who count, anyway)?
May 13, 2008 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
HELL NO I DON'T WANT MCCAIN. Which is why I'm hoping my party comes to its senses before noninating a kamikaze candidate. Your lies about Hillary's positions is an insult to her and her supporters who I am assuming Oama will want in the fall. We are not warmongering Republicans. We are democrats who care about universal healthcare and the problems of the middle class and foreclosures, etc etc. All thing I believe Hillary speaks to much more strongly than Obama. Not republican ideals at all.
May 13, 2008 9:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
HELL NO I DON'T WANT MCCAIN. Which is why I'm hoping my party comes to its senses before noninating a kamikaze candidate. Your lies about Hillary's positions is an insult to her and her supporters who I am assuming Oama will want in the fall. We are not warmongering Republicans. We are democrats who care about universal healthcare and the problems of the middle class and foreclosures, etc etc. All thing I believe Hillary speaks to much more strongly than Obama. Not republican ideals at all.
May 13, 2008 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely we can.
The situation today is the equivalent of a basketball game where one team is ahead of the other by 25 points with two minutes to play. The team that's losing can run off 10 straight points to close out the game and lose by 15. Maybe that makes them feel good about themselves. But it doesn't change the fact that they lost. It doesn't change the fact that most of the fans left the building to beat the traffic. And they would never have the gumption to claim that they actually won the game.
But that's what Hillary's trying to do -- claim victory when all she's doing is scoring points in garbage time after the outcome is already known to the world.
May 13, 2008 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
All that Hillary is trying to do is save you from yourselves. But you're too wrapped up in delusions and misogyny to see it.
May 13, 2008 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
And there's the other sign of the weakling's ploy. He's playing the sexist card.
I expected more of you, little monkey.
Tsk, tsk.
May 13, 2008 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're killing me...thanks for the laughs!
May 13, 2008 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
The trolls are keeping this place hopping today, aren't they?:)
May 13, 2008 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
What misogyny? Her gender has nothing to do with it. In my opinion, Hillary will be the worst president America has ever had, and ever will.
Thank God neither will be the case.
May 13, 2008 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pot calling the kettle black
Name me one thing I've written anywhere that's misogynistic. Every criticism I have made of her has nothing to do with her gender and everything to do with the content of her character.
May 13, 2008 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Hillary is owned by the Kazakhs"
May 13, 2008 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
????
May 14, 2008 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
She needs to give it to freak up; I am starting to dislike the witch more and more, and the STUPID people who are buying her BULL SH*T. IF it were up to that witch, LA, MD, VA, DC, ME, MS et al. would have been long forgotten since super Tuesday, Feb 05. She can only fool the idiots of America with that. Unfortunately for us, it appears a vast majority of Americans are idiots. Who would have thunk?
May 13, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
"freak" "witch" "STUPID" "BULL SH*T" "idiots" = misogyny
May 13, 2008 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, don't forget me! Don't forget me! I'm still here, people! Hillary is still here! Don't ignore me!!!!! STOP IGNORNING ME!!!!
Hillary once again trying to make people remember she still exists - declaring West Virginia the most important state - just like she said Ohio was...PA was...NH was...TX was...this is really getting old!
May 13, 2008 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh dear, she's getting that hysterical tone:
"I will NOT be ignored!"
May 13, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
MMMMM smells like boiled rabbit.
May 13, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Getting a little nervous?
Relax. He already won!
May 13, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
"You Will Respect My Authoritah!"
Let's hope she doesn't go cooking Barack any Chilli.
May 13, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess Missouri and Wisconsin have always been in the bag then?
May 13, 2008 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
FL & MI? They're delusional.
May 13, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does this mean Hillary doesn't care for the rights of Obama voters in Michigan?
I think that is pretty small of her campaign managers, TO SIMPLY DISREGARD, WITH SUCH A CASUALLY INCOMPLETE REFERENCE, the 700,000 to 1 million Michigan voters who did not get to cast their ballots for Obama?
Pretty selective democracy going on here.
Really, what bout the Michigan Obama voters? Why does Hillary's campaign refuse to acknowledge that little anomoly in their "truncated democracy" strategy.
I bet she wishes she could ignore Iowa and Carolina, and all the other states' Obama voters. She sure seems willing to disrespect their votes in Michigan.
"Democracy, MY way!" with a photo of Hillary pointing her finger at some sucker in the crowd, now there's her new logo and bumpersticker!
They may as well say "pull my finger!"
That's obviously Hillary's new strategy, "the good ole' girl," which apparently works well in some inherently prejudiced states like West Virginia.
May 13, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
She really, really, needs to stop including MI and FL. According to what I read by Simon Rosenberg, who probably knows better than most of us, the super delegates, especially the DNC types, are extremely unhappy with the idea that they will likely have to count them in any form or fashion. She's just rubbing salt in the wound.
May 13, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Relax. He already won!"
We've known that for a while now.
May 13, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pish! Posh!
May 13, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
MEMO TO THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN:
no one cares what you "think" anymore.
May 13, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Memo to Eric
We don't care what Clinton camp thinks anymore.
May 13, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Memo to team Obama: If you really cared about winning in November you would care about what other Democrats think. But since you are on a self-righteous ego trip, you don't.
May 13, 2008 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
That really takes the cake. With all the condescending invective you're crapping all over this site, you're accusing others of being self-righteous?
Look, either get back on your meds, or don't. But find another hobby that puts you in fresh air away from the computer for a while. It might do you some good.
May 13, 2008 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't have to conform to your latte-drinking airs of delusional snobbery. If you can't handle the truth, take another Xanax and go bop the downstairs maid.
May 14, 2008 12:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
And if you really cared about what other Democrats think, you wouldn't back a lying, race-baiting shill who most Democrats feel cannot be trusted, and who is hated so much by Republicans that she motivates their base of supporters to come to the polls.
May 14, 2008 3:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
There was a clip yesterday of Shrillary telling a (small) WV crowd that if she wins in their state, the tides have completely turned on Obama and that her nomination is in her grasp.
Just how far is Delusional Island? I wanna go!
May 13, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
why wont they just go away?
May 13, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
She's determined to make that SNL monologue stick to her, isn't she. Sad.
May 13, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Once again, the tide is turning for Hillary.
how many times must a tide turn for Hillary
before we just call her bluff?
how many times must she help John McCain
before we say that we've just had enough?
okay, all apologies to Bob, but really...she's not a fighter, she's turned into a cancer on the party. She can't bow out gracefully, because she has no grace to begin with.
Let's have some fun with Hillary...Fill in your own lyrics to any song you wish. enjoy
May 13, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
The tide keeps turning...
And it's carrying her farther and farther out to sea.
Goodbye, Hillary. It was a good ride while it lasted. Fare thee well...
May 13, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh please. The Clinton campaign has spent so much time telling Obama what he should and shouldn't do. Howard Wolfson seems intent on running for office as the chief of campaign protocol for every election in the country. I sincerely hope he is not absorbed into the Obama-Anyone-but-HRC campaign this fall. Let him work on congressional races some place faraway from big time media!
May 13, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is it just me, or does Howard Wolfson come off like a total dick? Im actually torn between dick and douche bag....supporters of each designation should make their case.
May 13, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Douche bag. All the way.
May 13, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lanny Davis is a dick.
Wolfson is clearly a douche-bag, a la Mark Penn.
May 13, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Totally agree. Honestly, I've always thought that - even when he's been on the side I've been rooting for (I'm an Obama supporter).
However, I'll give him this - he's good in a knife fight against Republicans.
Once we've won the nomination, proxies like him will come in very handy for sticking it to McCain.
May 13, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Davis is a dick and Wolfson is a douche bag, what is McAuliffe?
May 13, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ass-clown.
May 13, 2008 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
ok its settled. Wolfson= douche bag.
Davis is a dick.
Now McCauliffe is trickier. At least he has a twinkle in his eyes and a smile which sort of signals to the viewers "hey, im just doing my job, i dont actually believe this shit either"...which makes me not really hate him. I suppose Ass Clown fits.
Though butt munch or weaselnuts sort of work as well. I say we give him the interim designation of Ass Clown until we finalize.
May 14, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey look at me. I still matter, I'm still important.
Please don't leave me alone!!
From Disgust to Desperation and moving toward Depression- Hillary Clinton 08.
May 13, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Despite the fact that Obama knew the cards were stacked against him in WV, he did spend the money, he did open offices, he did organize volunteers, and he did visit. Obviously, he did not blow the state off as a mere boutique state or some other nonsense.
I think the lady does project too much.
May 13, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
"By every measure, the Obama campaign has waged an aggressive campaign in the Mountain State."
So is he ignoring WV or not ? I am confused
May 13, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, this is coming from the same guy who insisted Obama waged an aggressive campaign in Flordia.
May 13, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
He is ignoring WV by waging an aggressive campaign there.
If you were a Hillary supporter, that sentence would make complete sense. It's a test they put on their applications.
May 13, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great political cartoon of the WV primary:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3148/2482526347_1330cc4a5a.jpg?v=0
May 13, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Devastatingly Hilarious!
May 13, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very funny!! ;)
May 13, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's good. I like this one too -- click the 2nd icon from the left underneath the Myanmar cartoon to get to the Obama/Clinton one (sorry, don't know how to get the particular cartoon's URL):
http://www.startribune.com/galleries/18485284.html
May 13, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very Good!
May 13, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's hilarious
May 13, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
The best cartoon is the fourth one. Obama's racist pastor. I love that one.
May 13, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wright on.
May 13, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thx elonepb. The goofy smile of BO was priceless.
May 13, 2008 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Local gossip is that turnout is pretty low today.
May 13, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm thinking gossip is the best we can do for now. I can't find any news on turnout on the net (not near a TV right now).
May 13, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary's right. Her victory in this one state is a clear indicator that Obama should just chuck his campaign into the toilet and walk away.
Why would he even keep running after the clear rebuke from this one small state which won't vote for a Dem in November anyway?
As WV goes, so goes the country I say.
It is clearly time for the candidate who leads in all indicators to step aside to make way for the candidate who trails in all indicators.
May 13, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
does anyone know the state of voter turnout thus far in WV?
May 13, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just that here in Huntington (right at the corner of OH and KY) it's nothing to write home about. There have been several people who complained about the voting machines (just the usual touch screen mal-adjustment stuff) but the lines have been non-existent.
On another note, though, people from Rep. Rahall's office have mentioned locals are furious that he endorsed Obama and they're voting against him because of it. That might be an interesting metric to look at this evening.
May 13, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess they have to say something, right? I mean, everyone else may not care, but they have to make some kind of argument that they remain relevant.
At the end of the day, though, the math is what is doing the talking here. She's going to pick up +12 in pledged delegates, but he's picked up either 26 or 27 pledged delegates in the last week. Which means, she's FURTHER behind in the delegate count.
May 13, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
So Clinton is the only one allowed to write off losses or declare certain primaries and/or caucuses irrelevant??? This is so much bullshit and no one is buying it anymore. God, the hypocrisy is just mind-blowing.
I agree with MercerReader - the Clinton campaign is in NO condition to be telling Obama how to run his campaign. What a joke!
May 13, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
THIS
May 13, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
IS
May 13, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
GREAT
May 13, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
NEWS!!
May 13, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
FOR HILLARY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
May 13, 2008 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey man! You can't do a solo wave! Quit hoggin' the fun!
May 13, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Awesome!
Now, do it in reverse.
May 13, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
NEW
May 13, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
NOT
May 13, 2008 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
SPARTA
May 13, 2008 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
IS
May 13, 2008 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
GREAT
May 13, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
NEWS
May 13, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes he can!
May 13, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
It could be worse. It reads like spin and doesn't make a cogent argument, but at least it doesn't dig in to Obama.
Despite W.Va, I suspect this will be a net-positive week for Obama in terms of delegates. And McSame can't be happy that Hagee is back in the news.
May 13, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's my party and I'll stay as long as I want to, stay as long as I want to, stay as long as I want to, you would stay too if you had my ego too!
May 13, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Baghdad Bob Terry McAullife Lanny Davis Howard Wolfson is on MSNBC yammering about how when she is the nominee in Nov...and how Obama can't win the 'important states'.
I guess yes, MO & WI & MN & WA & CT & MD & DE & ME & OR & CO & VT are all unimportant states. I guess it is fine for her to skip states but not him.
That said, I do think Obama should have paid a little more attention to WV but in the end it doesn't matter much because I think there are other states that will be easier to turn for bigger gains in Nov. He would have to put in a lot of work for very little gain in WV.
May 13, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, I guess strike through font doesn't work on this site. Howard Wolfson was on MSNBC.
May 13, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Guess only Hillary is allowed to write off states...
the ones she DIDN'T win...
Like South Carolina, which didn't count because of heavy AA population and turnout and as Bill drove the point -- even Jesse Jackson won there, not once, but twice!
Like all the Caucus states, since the *activists* (MoveOn) control those....
Like Illinois, cause you know, it's Obama's home state..
Like the states that border Illinois......
Just count the states with heavy white population with many who are still in Southern Strategy mindset.
Yeah, that's it ---- let's just count the white states that DON'T vote for Obama.
May 13, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is just pathetic. Time to pull the plug on the Hillary life-support machine and put this thing out of its misery.
May 13, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
"put this thing out of its misery" = misogyny
May 13, 2008 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
How could a neuter pronoun (i.e., "it") possibly count as evidence of misogyny?
May 13, 2008 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Monkey taking offense at terminology more commonly associated with Animal Husbandry = Priceless.
May 13, 2008 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sad, isn't she? She promoted her Bosnia tale, too....until forced to accept the facts.
May 13, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm, BB is right. Forget all of Obama's leads...if the redneck racists of WV don't vote for him, I think Obama should just drop and make way for she who the whites only like best!
HAHAHAHAHA - OMG, I barely wrote that with a straight face!
BB, I know you were being sarcastic, so I had to add onto it.
Does anyone know if the racis...oops "voters" of WV are really coming out in record numbers today? CNN said turnout was low so far.
May 13, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
They've lost all leverage to even define the terms of the narrative. Simple as that. The folks at TaylorMarsh and Hillaryis44 have gone from simply whistling past the graveyard, to holding a cocktail party there.
May 13, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Time to turn our focus on Obama versus McCain.
McCain Of The Panderosa.
For a Gas Tax Holiday, but does nothing to enact it.
Acknowledges the reality of Climate Change, but wants to do nothing to halt it.
Against Torture, then is against a ban on Torture.
Against Lobbyists having special influence, but hires the most influential Lobbyists to control his campaign.
Pleads for civility and tolerance, while courting Hate Monger Hagee.
Opposed George W. Bush's $1.35 trillion tax cut for the super rich, but now wants to make it permanent.
Praises the Troops while denying them their hard earned care and rewards.
Folks; please contribute additional examples to the Profiles In Blurage of McCain Of The Panderosa.
The little Maverick who has roamed the range, covering it with cow shite, so that a million Turdblossoms may bloom.
It is time to define the true nature of McPanderer..
May 13, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
nice to see hillary's "new tone" in the campaign...
May 13, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
The latest WV poll shows her losing to McCain by a wide margin in a general election match-up.
Thus ends the Clinton talking points for their West Virginia victory.
May 13, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Any spin from the Clinton camp that includes the line, "we won Michigan" instantly becomes impossible to take seriously.
I truly wonder how many more days Baghdad Terry and Howie will be able to keep this up.
May 13, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
A forfeit is a loss.
Obama chose to forfeit.
He lost.
May 13, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Define "forfeit"?
May 13, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Definition of "forfeit":
Chose to ignore our desperate last-ditch attempt to appear relevant in this primary.
May 13, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
No. A non-sanctioned election doesn't count. Saying you won in practice by yourself in the pre-season doesn't translate into winning an actual game.
Not following the rules disqualifies you. Michigan and Florida disqualified themselves. Obama didn't "forfeit" anything.
May 13, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary Clinton has fewer than half the number of offices in West Virginia than Barack Obama?
Why is she dismissing West Virginia and disrespecting its voters? That's a pretty lame effort considering how important the state is.
May 13, 2008 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Money and campaign ads and # of offices mean far less than actually campaigning in the state, talking to voters etc. She put personal effort in. He just spent $$$.
May 13, 2008 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
any attempt to destroy Senator Obama will backfire and get him more Super Delegates...He got 4 today, and she lost a pledge delegate.
Senator Clinton please be graceful and understands that the war is over. Please surrender, and work for a unified Democratic Party...
May 13, 2008 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the first line of the memo is really funny and ironic. It says:
To: Interested Parties
May 13, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hahaha, excellent point.
May 13, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama the Divider has no qualms about ignoring and disenfranchising voters who won't join the cult.
Clinton supporters will have to, in the terse words of Michelle the Dragon Lady, "think about" whether they can support Obama.
Right now I can't.
May 13, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
cult- whew!!!
May 13, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Glad it's all about you.
May 13, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
C'mon, Fogu, you know you drink the Kool Aid.
For someone who protests so much, you sure do hang around us an awful lot.
May 13, 2008 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you want to hear what the Clinton campaign is really thinking, fogu, check out this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6Lstkiexhc
May 13, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Michelle the Dragon Lady? Oh very classy.
Also, proof that Clintonites suffer from Stockholm Syndrome. This is exactly the kind of language that was used to attack Hillary Clinton when she became first lady.
May 13, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're missing the obvious here. These trolls *are* the very same people who attacked Clinton, or rather ideological descendants. Their "undercover" cred should be quite apparent as soon as Senator Clinton is out of the race and they become increasingly "concerned" about Obama's chances against the Brave and Virtuous McCain. Run back through the last few threads, or even the last few weeks' threads - it's hiding in plain sight.
(love the Veruca avatar, btw - cheers)
May 13, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point, and I know I should ignore them, but some days, I just can't resist.
May 13, 2008 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Completely understand - my own sockpuppet came into being purely to have some fun at their expense ;)
Just wanted to share the Rosetta Stone as it were as your comment provided a stellar angle.
May 13, 2008 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Enough of these fucking trolls.
May 13, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another hillary oldie hit...I'm just a soul who's intentions are good, oh lord, please don't let me be misunderstood!
May 13, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
They had the famous Friedman Unit, now we have the Wolfson Corner, which is turned at every available moment.
May 13, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are so many turns in that room it makes a circle.
May 13, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd go with tesseract. The picture at Wikipedia will give you the idea.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesseract
May 13, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whenever Wolfson or one of her minions talk these days, its sounds a lot like the way adults sound in a Peanuts special to me. "Whaa whamp wha whawhm whah whaw whawhmph."
May 13, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Allow me to formall invite Hillary Clinton and her entire campaign to shut the f*ck up. Her spin is so laughably bad, it is getting embarassing.
She has no shame. She has no class. She has no moral compass. She has no credibility!
It's over... stop spouting your garbage or you'll pay for it in the end.
I am so happy to see the end of this 18 year Clinton nightmare of threats, lies, deception, and trash.
American already paid the dry cleaning bill for Bill's DNA stain in the White House. That payment? Bush's 8 years in office.
I'm not paying THAT bill again!
May 13, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds like Wolfie and Lanny are unhappy with Obama's latching on to Bill aiming for 80% WV turnout and responding "We'll take him at his word."
Why? Clinton's camp sure liked Obama's "tie breaker" comment about Indiana last week. Fair is fair.
May 13, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Once again, Hillary moves the goalposts to make it look like she has the advantage. Forget everything else ... it's all about West Virginia! She who has the John Denver vote, has the White House!
May 13, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wait! So now candidates aren't allowed to write off ANY small states? Interesting....
Seriously folks, try not to get too worked up about a press release. Few, if any, campaign press releases (from any candidate) bear even a remote resemblance to reality. Personally, I tend to view these memos as science fiction releases.
May 13, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just watch him (in your rear view mirror), sweety.
May 13, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
They won Michigan?
They won Michigan!?
!!!!!!
May 13, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Beat the hell out of that Sen. Uncommitted!
May 13, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
"America's problems are too real to leave them to an imaginary politician!"
May 13, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
See, they can say shit like that now, 'cuz no one's really listening.
May 13, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah.
I'm sorry Hillary, were you saying something??
May 13, 2008 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aka - do as I say, not as I do.
May 13, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
A paragraph-by-paragraph breakdown:
"With a record turnout expected in today's primary, West Virginia Democrats will make clear who they believe is the strongest candidate to take on Sen. McCain in the Fall."
-->Or who is the whitest of the two Democrats running.
"The Mountain State is used to picking winners. Every nominee has carried the state's primary since 1976, and no Democrat has won the White House without winning West Virginia since 1916."
-->Correlation does not imply causation.
"Democrats carried West Virginia in 1992 and 1996, but lost the state--and the White House--in 2000 and 2004. Hillary has predicted victory against Sen. McCain in West Virginia based on the strength of her economic message."
-->But she has not predicted victory against Obama, because it would be largely based on the color of her skin.
"Given the attempts by our opponent and some in the media to declare this race over, any significant increase in voter turnout, coupled with a decisive Clinton victory, would send a strong message that Democrats remain excited and energized by Hillary's candidacy."
-->Note the lack of any quantifier before "Democrats". So... at least 2 remain excited.
"In the face of grim poll numbers, the Obama campaign has attempted to dismiss today's outcome despite the fact that Sen. Obama has outspent us on advertising, has more staff in the state, and more than double the number of offices."
-->No mention of the fact that Obama's insurmountable lead means he can afford a loss here.
"He has also benefited from the support of the most high-profile endorsers in West Virginia--Sen. Jay Rockefeller and Congressman Nick Rahall. By every measure, the Obama campaign has waged an aggressive campaign in the Mountain State."
-->As stated many times, the real endorsing might comes from mayors and governors, not members of congress. Nobody likes Rockefeller, anyway.
"Despite being the so-called "presumptive nominee" and benefiting from these advantages, Sen. Obama has been unable to close a significant gap in the polls."
-->Gee, I wonder why?
"Sen. Clinton has already won Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida and Michigan. With a win in West Virginia, Sen. Clinton will have once again proven her greater ability to win in the key swing states."
-->No mention of the fact that two of those don't count, and one of those wins was less than 9 percent.
May 13, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
this is the beginning of the end for Obama
/snark
May 13, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, this coming from the person who seems to think Obama winning twice as many states = "neck and neck"
Go away Hillary, you are beyond pathetic.
May 13, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
When I went to lunch the headline on CNN politics was "Clinton win in W. Virginia wont derail Obama". When I got back the same article had been changed to "A Clinton win in W. Virginia could raise doubts."
May 13, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
The media get some of their marching orders from the candidates. "Raising doubts" sells more then "full steam ahead."
May 13, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Memo to the Clinton Camp:
But he will. Sorry, it's a fact.
But something else has caught my attention today:
http://gawker.com/389976/old-white-people-know-the-truth-about-barack-obama?autoplay=true
This clip worries me. Not about West Virginia, but about some people who just don't get it. This video and the Washington Post article are just early signals of the fiercest battle to come: Racism, ignorance and resentment. But I'm optimistic.
May 13, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
The funniest thing about that post is the comments. There are a few very, very funny people on that site (my personal favorite: "Kennedy did the smart thing and simply bought the state. How can one campaign among these people?")
Seriously, there is a segment (very small, I hope) who will never be convinced and who will not vote for Obama in the fall. Thankfully, there are a hell of a lot of new Democrats being registered as we speak by the Obama campaign (his Vote for Change registration campaign is in full swing), voters who will neutralize these poor misguided souls.
May 13, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I rather enjoyed:
I heard that the name "Barack" is Spanish for "octopus" and that Obama's mother named him that because he has suckers all over his body that allows him to crawl up buildings so that he can look through the windows and hiss at pot-plants. It's also widely-known that he was born during a full moon and has a birthmark shaped like an owl on his stomach because his father ate too much fruit the night before conception thinking that over-consumption of naturally sourced vitamins would ensure his child would grow up vertically, as opposed to his daughter who lives at an acute angle even in high winds.
If you count the number of fingers on Octopus Obama's right hand and multiply it by the number of moons around Jupiter your phone rings ten minutes later.
May 13, 2008 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not that they don't get it....it's that they don't WANT to get it.
Some people are just looking for an excuse to justify their own prejudices - so they latch on to the muslim thing or Rev. Wright or Michelle Obama misspeaking. I'm afraid there's little to be done about those types of people. They just make it all that much more important that Obama win in November.
May 13, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Almost heaven, West Virginia
Blue ridge mountains
Hillary Clinton-
Her message is sold there
changing like the leaves
yet the tide's still not turning
and she's drowning in the sea
Country roads, take her home
To the senate, where she belongs
West Virginia, Chelsea's momma
Take her home, country roads
All her lies gathered round her
Bill's lady, no stranger to fiction
Bosnia & NAFTA, Pant Suits stacked high
She's campaigning for McCain
Brings teardrops in my eye
May 13, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmmm. And here, I thought, according to Howie, that it was all about the delegates.
Wasn't that what he said in January?
Or am I being too literal?
May 13, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Somebody please put her out of her misery.
May 13, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has a problem with Reagan Democrats. If he doesn't put Hillary on the ticket, and he doesn't even put a woman on the ticket, McCain will take Ohio and Pennsylvania and win.
May 13, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Check out this nice analysis, Otto:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/05/black-youth-and-latino-turnout-and.html
The analyses on this site have been surprisingly accurate throughout the primary.
May 13, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
REAL CLEAR POLITICS ELECTION 2008
Democrats Obama-Clinton Spread
Total Delegates 1874 - 1698 Obama + 176
Super Delegates 283 - 272 Obama + 11
Pledged Delegates 1591 - 1426 Obama + 165
May 13, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a Texan, I'd like to welcome West Virginia to the select list of the states that matter. (I mean, I voted for the guy in this race, but I still like being considered of some importance.) And now that West Virginia is going for Hillary, I guess that cements the fact that it does, indeed, matter. Well done.
May 13, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you caucus? 'Cause if you caucused, you lose your mattering privileges.
May 13, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since hitherto all (or even most) Reagan Democrats have been women (and vice versa).
May 13, 2008 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's starting. This will make no difference long term of course, but we'll have to put up with the MSM's amnesia, forget that everybody KNEW this was going to happen, put last week's Obama Inevitability on ice for a while, and endure another week of "Can She Still Win?", especially after Kentucky.
How boringly predictable...
May 13, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dems can't win w/out W.Va.
Listen up ... !!
Obama keeps saying dem party will be unified. NO WAY. We will not Vote for Obama. Hillary supporters are pissed and they will vote for mcCain or stay home. Obama may as well shut up promising what he can't deliver.
Hillary would be a sure thing. Obama 's gonna lose the Dems election putting McCain in office.
May 13, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you black sheep. Word Taken, now retire.
May 13, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not a big fan of your civil liberties then?
May 13, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I find it rather ironic that the "Hillary Feminists" would purposely put the least feminist-friendly candidate, McCain, in office. Have you even LOOKED at McCain's record, RaeK?
May 13, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
ABC/WaPo Poll, 5/12
Obama 51%
McCain 44%
Rae, honey, just because you hear voices it doesn't make you a "we."
May 13, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, and "no senator has won the presidency since 1960" which proves that neither Obama, nor Clinton, nor McCain, can win this fall. Even though one of them will.
May 13, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
It sure sounds like YOU'RE the one who's gonna put McCain in office.
May 13, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're pissed! So you will stay home or vote for McCain....
So glad you have political principles that you;re voting on.
May 13, 2008 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
"When I went to lunch the headline on CNN politics was "Clinton win in W. Virginia wont derail Obama". When I got back the same article had been changed to 'A Clinton win in W. Virginia could raise doubts.' ".
Yeah, that's what I'm talking about. The one thing the media CANNOT RESIST is a cliche...
May 13, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
On a side note, that article on TheHill.com where they asked the 97 senators not running for the presidency whether they'd want to be VP is great. Most of the responses are "they'd never ask me to do it", "I hate cutting ribbons", or "Uh, I guess if they asked me, sure."
May 13, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Otto...
Did you notice the real clear politics polls average that shows OBAMA up by 5 in Pennsylvania?
Obama doesn't need Clinton. She would damage his case in WI, CO, IA, VA, SC, NC, ND, SD, OR, and WA.
If he picks up some of those states, he won't need Ohio.
This memo for the Clintons shows that they don't care if they hurt Obama.
HELL NO TO A CLINTON VP. HELL NO!!!
May 13, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Waiting for the line: "Objects in your mirror may be closer than they appear."
May 13, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm new at this..didn't know where else to post this...just read at yahoo news about the senate voting to halt shipments of oil into the reserves..did anyone else hear hillary say she would approve drilling in Alaska wildlife refuge? I think it was in WV, not sure, but she said it.I was surprised to hear her say it and more surprised that nobody has mentioned it. Anyone else hear it?
May 13, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Earth to RaeK: I will vote for either Democrat this fall. To stay home is to endorse a continuation of Republican policies. I agree with you that West Virginia is important, but if Hillary backers pissed now then just think how pissed they'll be when the Supreme Court is 7-2 or 8-1 and we're all over the barrel. This has been a hard-fought campaign, but when it's over (and I'll give you the fact that something could happen) then it's time to come together.
You simply must swallow your pride and vote for our country. Again, I'm sorry this has been such a bruising race, but do you think Obama expects kid gloves from the Republicans? He'll win or lose based on who he is, and we're all interested to see how it will turn out.
One last thing, RaeK: I can't help but think that the Republicans know they've driven this country into a ditch in the last 8 years. They're hoping nobody will notice, but they know better. Still, there would be one way to putting Hillary at the top of the ticket is Karl Rove's wet dream come true. Instantly, those people will have some reason to hate. And vote.
May 13, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
No Democrat has ever been elected president without being able to win boarder states like West Virginia and Kentucky. To simply ignore this fact is yet another example of the shallow hubris known as Team Obama. But pride goeth before the fall, and I'd hate to be standing close by when his swaggering candidacy crashes to earth this November.
May 13, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
How have they done by not being able to win Iowa and Wisconsin? We can play that game all day. No sitting Senator from Illinois has ever been elected President. No former first lady has ever been elected President.
Yawn. I'm already bored with this.
May 13, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wisconsin hasn't gone Republican in 50 years, and to equate Iowa with Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, Michigan, California, West Virginia and Kentucky combined is another example of how delusional you are.
May 13, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wisconsin had the closest margin of victory of any state in the 2004 general election. That pretty much defines "swing state". Save it. Just because it hasn't been Republican in 50 years doesn't mean that it's not close enough to be concerned.
May 13, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Incorrect. Swing state means a state has actually swung both ways, and California has swung Republican more often than Wisconsin.
May 13, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
BFD.
JFK won without KY, OH or CA.
Point?
May 13, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kennedy also carried almost all the states of the deep south plus West Virginia, something which Obama will never do. You can't lose in the big and important swing states without making it up somewhere else. That's why they are critical.
May 13, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's over.
The Supers are cascading toward Obama.
Shrillary has lost.
Now let's move on and beat McCain.
May 13, 2008 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Obama team has been touting his inevitability for months now, and he's still losing critical state elections. Let us know when he's gotten the majority of votes at Denver in August. Until then, stop telling us to shut up because he's on the nominee in your imagination. And he's only the president in your dreams.
May 13, 2008 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wisconsin voted R in 1960, 1968, 1972, 1980, and 1984. In the other years it voted D. Hmmm. Sounds like a swing state!!
May 13, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now that's not fair! Stop confusing rstephen with facts!
May 14, 2008 1:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Didn't Al Gore lose W. VA? He actually was elected President before the Supreme Court gave it to W.
May 13, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Boarder States?
Snowboarders? Or Surfboarders?
May 13, 2008 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
What else can the Clinton campaign say at this point?
They got nuthin'.
May 13, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Could it be that Obama is less concerned because he is competing in states most other Democrats can't touch?
Arrogant is thinking that running the same race as Gore and Kerry ran ...and expecting a different outcome is NUTS. (Hillary)
Obama will run a 50 state campaign in the fall..and keep McCain running all over the country.
I can't wait to see McCain have to spend time and money in KS, TX, OK, GA, NC, SC, ND, SD... HEAVEN!
May 13, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously. Let's run similar campaigns to Gore and Kerry because that worked out how, for us?
A lot of things have never happened before. No candidate has ever received donations from 1.5 freaking million people. Should we ignore that?
(Answer, from Clinton supporters: of course you should, because Clinton didn't do it, and therefore, it doesn't count).
May 13, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
The candidate of Change can not have Hillary on the ticket.
It would make a mockery out of the entire thrust of his campaign.
That is why Hillary will not be picked for the VP slot.
May 13, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
You seem to have missed the point: He CAN'T beat her OR McCain in the states that really matter. He can ONLY beat her in states that he can't carry this fall. His entire candidacy is a fraud and a house of cards just waiting to crash to the ground.
May 13, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, 32 states and hundreds of superdelegates exercising their independent judgment have all missed the point ... It's so sad, really. They're so delusional. Who will talk some sense into them?
rstephen, maybe you can arrange a quick conference call and try to reason with them!
May 13, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's pointless to try and reason with them or with you. I quite understand that. When you join a personality cult you're in it for the whole ride. When you drink the Kool Aid the taste is sweet. But when you find yourself in agony on election night, let your last thought be that I told you so.
May 13, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I think my last thought on election night will be getting drunk and going into the ballot box with my wife, if you catch my drift ... But thanks for playing.
What parting gifts do we have for the contestants today, Johnny?
May 13, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I don't catch your drift. But you and your wife might as well fornicate into a ballot box since you voted for Obama.
May 13, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh... husbands and wives can't fornicate with one another. The definition of fornication is consensual sexual intercourse between two persons not married to each other.
Comforting to know your grasp of the English language is similar to your grasp of math. Idjit.
May 13, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
That may be your definition, but it's not the definition of the Holy Catholic Church.
May 13, 2008 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wrong! You gonna argue with the Pope?
"2353 Fornication is carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman."
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm
For mis-stating Catholic dogma, you have been excommunicated. Thanks for playing.
May 13, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh now you're just making stuff up.
From CatholicCulture.org and Fr. John Hardon's Modern Catholic Dictionary
FORNICATION: An act of sexual intercourse between a man and a woman who are not validly married, although they are free to marry. It is by its nature gravely sinful. (Etym. Latin fornicatio, fornication; from fornix, a vault, arch, brothel.)
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church: Fornication is carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman.
I may be a proud fornicator living in sin these days, but I did have four years of Catholic school. And you're still an idjit.
May 13, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
St. Augustine: "This disease of concupiscence is what the apostle refers to, when, speaking to married believers, he says: "This is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication: that every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour; not in the disease of desire, even as the Gentiles which know not God." The married believer, therefore, must not only not use another man’s vessel, which is what they do who lust after others’ wives; but he must know that even his own vessel is not to be possessed in the disease of carnal concupiscence."
St Augustine:
From "On Marriage and Concupiscence"
For Roman Catholics, and sex which is to merely fulfill your lust rather than for the express purpose of conceiving children is considered fornication and a sin, even if it is with your wife. That's why birth control is considered a sin, since it removes the possibility of conceiving a child.
May 13, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
You must be a blast at parties.
Now I know why Clinton won the Catholic vote...
May 13, 2008 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brilliant line (and I don't mean that sarcastically). Education is a good thing.
May 13, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fuck personality. I've looked at the math. He can win this. He can win states like Colorado where Clinton won't even show her face.
Believe me, the Obama campaign has done the math. That's why they're kicking Clinton's ass. They understood that the goal for the primary was delegates, and they formulated a plan to get them. The also understand that the general election is about the electoral college, and they have a plan for that, too.
May 13, 2008 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a potty mouth you have. I'd hate to be standing next to you when your ludicrous delusions meet reality this November.
May 13, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sometimes, the only appropriate response to absurdity is profanity.
May 13, 2008 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink