Saturday Primaries - NE, LA, WA, KS
By Jamie Friday Feb 08, 2008 11:00pmThere are a few races going on today. We have Democratic caucuses in Nebraska, Republican caucuses in Kansas, primaries in Louisiana and caucuses in Washington state. Since the Democratic side is the only race really going on now, here is the delegate breakdown:
Nebraska - 24
Washington - 78
Louisiana - 56
And here is the tracker for all the races
[election 53]
Let us know if you see anything happening.
Update: John Amato: Go Huckabee. Let's order Mike one hundred Jack LaLanne juicers from Target to get him to stay in the race. The Huckster is doing really well in Washington and Louisiana at this point after winning KS. Wahoooo!
James Dobson reiterated on Hannity & Colmes a little while ago just how much he can't stand McCain.
It looks like the voters of WA are seeing through McCain's phoniness at the CPAC convention and still have Huckaboom in the lead..
Geraldo is mumbling and bumbling and stumbling---trying to run election coverage for FOX and said that the Dem primary is divided by race alone. That's FOX's story and they're sticking to it...
Login or Register to post comments.
Obama should wrap up all states.
Based on my experience at a caucus in the Seattle burbs (my first ever) it will be a good day for Obama-rama here in Washington state -- my precinct had almost (but not quite) 2-1 in favor of 'Yes we can'! And it was a HUGE turnout -- good thing the fire-marshall wasn't there.
mccain gets embarrassed in the first post-super tuesday event. can't be happy about the optics of losing 2:1 when everyone has all but anointed him as the GOP nominee.
maybe time to help keep the repubs fighting-- flood huckabee with $10 donations....
Obama is going to win seattle by a landslide, and probably eastern WA as well (as if that counts). I was a reluctant obama supporter, my precinct had 71 to 25 in favor of obama.
The Plain Dealer endorses Obama.
CNN Article: Why Obama does better than Clinton against McCain
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/08/20008.matchups.schneider/index.html
Basically it comes down to Clinton has higher negatives than McCain and Obama and Clinton struggles with Independents and Men against McCain. Right now, HRC only lead McCain by 3 nationally, Obama leads by 8.
god bless the seattle liberals...what a great city, should be a good day for obama. however, the asian community loves them some clinton. they don't like change a whole lot, culturally.
And so the fiasco continues...........Jeebus
Washington state
Thousands of ballots have already been thrown out in Washington, according to the AP:
Thousands of ballots being cast in Washington's presidential preference primary are invalid because voters aren't signing a ballot oath identifying themselves as a Democrat or a Republican, Secretary of State Sam Reed said Friday.
Colbert's plan is working according to plan. Huckabee blazing through.. like a match of air hockey
What's the matter with Kansas? I thought they were leaving their religious-right loony-toon reputation behind.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#KS
The Retardlicans had barely half as many show up today (a weekend day w/ beautiful weather) as did the Dems on Tues night in which many (myself incl) stood outside for hours in shitty weather - sleet - and 60% of theirs supported a loser theocrat. Only 24% supported who will be their nominee.
Kansas, the blue state.
sweet sweet schadenfreude
I just got back from a WA state caucus. Within our precinct, it was a tie between the two candidates with 4 undecided. After our discussion, 2 of the undecided changed to HRC. So we went about our business, filling out what needed to be filled out and the caucus chair came up and said he was from our precinct but he didn't sign up because he was too busy. Someone in our precinct spoke up and pointed out that it was past the deadline to sign up but the chairman insisted that we start over and do a recount and hold our discussions all over again. Then he identified himself as an Obama supporter. At that point, one of the two remaining undecideds said, "I think I've made up my mind, I'm voting for Hillary...".The caucus chairman then realized that his apparent attempt to disrupt our precinct vote was causing the undecideds to go for Hillary and he stalked off.
I think the Cleveland Plain Dealer's endorsement sums it up best to why I switched from Clinton to Obama:
Obama's frequent talk of hope strikes some people as naive. It leads others to question his toughness. But Obama understands something his critics do not: Change requires vision and optimism, shared sacrifice and mutual trust. Hope can sustain those elements; a presidency defined by political tactics cannot.
Hillary Clinton is an exceptionally bright and accomplished woman. Only a fool could dispute that. It would be nice if Obama's policy proposals were as meaty as those she has put forward. It's no wonder she wants Democrats to see this race as a choice between resumes.
But in a campaign where history matters, she carries an inordinate amount of baggage. Who wants to relive the soap operas of the 1990s?
Bill Clinton says his wife excelled at "making positive changes in other people's lives." Consider that construction. Then listen as Obama talks of bringing people together to change their own lives.
America needs a fresh start. Barack Obama is the Democrat to provide it."
liberalista @ 13:
Your story is compelling and we say the same reports in all the other caucus states. Obama supporters using pressure and deceit. This is why he wins caucases but not primaries.
The Christo-fascist wins Kansas. Now there's a shocker.
Anyone hear how Hillary is trying to get David Schuster fired? She's okay appearing on Faux, where they say things ten times worse. And she's okay with the weasels in the senate screwing America blind. But not even an apology by and a suspension for Shuster are enough when an improper word was used to describe trying to subvert the representative process through cozying up to super-delegates.
I don't think it's a matter of whether either Dem candidate can beat St. John. It's pretty clear that with the 2-to-1 turnout that the Dems are having at their votes vs the Republican'ts is evidence enough. But my personal take on this is that Sen Clinton (much to her credit, don't get me wrong) riles up so much of the reich wing base that they will pull out everything short of a sniper to knock her off her feet, and with Sen Obama it's not even a contest. Give this guy the forum and the future to speak of and he will knock every last of those elephantine chickenhawks right off their red-state asses, no questions asked.
porkchop @ 18:
Possibly what you say is right but... Talk is cheap. Do we want a fight to win with Hillary and then 4-8 years of progress or do we want less of a fight (although I think that is fantasy) and 4 years of another Jimmy Carter with a sure Romney win in 2012?
ConcernedCanuck @ 9:
And still more.............
BATON ROUGE, LA -- The Obama campaign submitted an urgent request for assistance to the Secretary of State’s Division of Elections today, after receiving widespread reports from Democrats across Louisiana who reported that they were not allowed to vote because their party affiliation had been switched. Hundreds of Louisiana democrats went to the polls to vote in today’s presidential primary and found that they were now on registration lists as Independent or Unaffiliated voters.
I live in a suburb of Seattle and Obama did very well here. There was a big turn out and 4 delegates to 1 in my area went to Obama. I hope this holds true across the state.
I also attempted to go to the Obama rally but was turned away after the Key Arena was filled to capacity and I wasn't even late (17,000 got in I believe, 3,000 turned away.
DemocratLoyalist @ 19:
I think Hillary can win, and I think if she takes the nomination she will win, and I'd do my one-person-part to make it happen. Will you promise the same for Barack if the tide turns?
At our Seattle caucus precinct - voting was 96 for Obama : 25 for Clinton
Obama people were pretty obvious - Clinton people were silent and invisible.
Four years ago, they said 41 people showed up,
and this year about 125 ! ! Precinct has about 720 registered voters.
Wow........some states really don't care
Reuters
Campaigns battle to motivate voters in Louisiana
Commentators said turnout in Louisiana was likely to be between 10 and 15 percent of the electorate at best. Even so, the vote mattered especially for Clinton and Obama because 66 delegates to the National Convention were at stake and the candidates were in a close race to amass the 2,025 needed to win the nomination.
"People will have something really important to do like rearranging their sock drawer. People are going to find anything to do that's more important than voting," said Bernie Pinsonat, a pollster with Southern Media and Opinion, based in Baton Rouge.
Polling commissioner Ella Creely, sitting in an empty voting station, said: "People don't understand the importance of this (primary) election. They are mainly concerned about the one in November. The ones who have voted are the same old faithful ones."
Um, why is MSNBC showing their "Hillary" Doc rather than covering tonight's results? It even looks like they inserted it over the scheduled documentary "Unlocking the Past".
They couldn't find anyone to cover the results?
Ah, they're making ammends for Shuster's not-so-off-the-mark comments. LAME.
porkchop @ 22:
Yes. I would get behind him if he is the nominee. I will not be pleased about it, I will feel like I did in 2004 but you bet, to vote out the republicans I will be in line to vote when the polls open in November.
My precinct voted 5 to 1 for Obama. It was very orderly and people are excited.
Otay @ 17:
Generating sympathy worked for her in New Hampshire. She's going back to that well.
The irony is Shuster is probably the most anti-Bush mainstream journalist after Olberman. Meanwhile, the Today Show has Ann "John Edwards is a faggot" Colter on as a regular guest.
DemocratLoyalist @ 26:
Kerry voted for the war too...
65% Obama - 34% Clinton in Washington State with 24% reporting so far....
Mister Anderson @ 29:
Good Information..
My precinct in Washington State voted 19-12 for Obama.
I was elected a delegate. :)
it seems the media is ignoring the contests today - even though washington has had a HUGE turnout and the results show obama up huge
i feel like obama is being ripped off tonight as they are ignoring these important primaries
Ryan @ 25:
My bad: They're covering now, but Shuster's treatment by MSNBC and his colleagues is still lame.
I've been wondering about the current media narrative of "the Democrats had better stop squabbling & pick 1 or the other or it will give McCain the advantage for as long as they don't." That's the common sense i keep hearing but...
1. Both Clinton & Obama now know who his/her opponent will be while McCain can't yet be sure which of these candidates that has been receiving more votes in their loses that he's getting in his wins he will have to face. (knowing is half the battle, remember?)
2. For however long there isn't a nominee the right-wing slime machine will either have to hold it's fire or expand twice the resources to attack both candidates.
So the Democratic party is united, they just haven't made a final decision on their nominee while the Republican's have a nominee but many party members would rather he wasn't.
I'd say there's no real hurry.
zippy@344
Hey could anyone from Crooks and Liars figure out why if Hillary claims of “experience” are legit, why she hides her documents/communications during the 8 frickin years she was in office. Its been 5 months since this issue was raised and nothing has come of it….Whats she hiding?
_________________________________________________________________________________________
If she is able to restore America to her husband's economic, optimism, and confidence we had in the 90's...what a fuck your comment got to do with anything. You're are dwelling in petty little crap. If you really want to get busy in that area, then get busy and start looking at the last seven last years in this country, Bub! There you have plenty to be busy.
Says: Hey could anyone from Crooks and Liars figure out why if Hillary claims of “experience” are legit, why she hides her documents/communications during the 8 frickin years she was in office. Its been 5 months since this issue was raised and nothing has come of it….Whats she hiding?
Has the fact that he has to have his ideas vetted through congress and the senate ever occured to you. Come on people, THINK. Nothing can be accomplished without us putting our minds together. That’s how we used to do it.
Ryan From Portland @ 351:
Don't you know you're either with us or against us!!!.. Cause lord knows republicans aren't people or our fellow americans..
Hell I can't even decide on one method to mock Danny's post @ 340 properly....
Ron @ 361:
Sometimes we just called it, "COMMON SENSE."
Ok, I really just have to say that I despise the whole "change" message. Anyone who knows one cent about politics and our government understands that it was set-up for gridlock--please read the Federalist papers and the Constitution for reference. A politician that comes along taunting the argument that they will bring together people is feeding to those who are ignorant to the way our government works. I really believe that if Obama is elected he will disappoint a lot of those who voted for him because he failed on his primary message. Then again, however, the American public has an average memory span of a week--"Oh yeah, what reality show is out next?", pathetic! You can say it's "change" from the "dynasty" but the last time I checked Hillary is her own self and can think for her self. In addition, it is a reality that the elected representatives of America are overwhelmingly and will almost always will be the fringe wealthy. It is a fact that you must come to understand and live with. The same goes for lobbyists--to say that a legislator should read each bill before them is unrealistic. While I do not agree that lobbyists should give out the funds they do, they offer crucial advice on matters that a typical legislator may not have the experience or knowledge in. Really, understand politics and the real world of the Hill and you will come to realize how much of a sham Obama's message actually is.
CNN election coverage was the best out of the 3 cable networks. Lots of detail, lots of different analysis. (probably a little overdone but whatever)
FOX's election coverage was really really bad. I flipped over a couple times and it was just Geraldo and his mustache. Might as well have had the guy who is not steve doocy do election coverage.
Ya know what I REALLY appreciate? The spin that the Clinton campaign puts out after thse defeats. Tonight on CNN (or was it MSNBC) I heard something to the affect of "Well, we expected to lose Washington state because of Barack's support in Seattle" and "Well, we expected to lose Nebraska because it was one of those caucus states" and "Well, we expected to lose Louisiana because of the heavy black population there". LOL.
You know what we're going to be hearing Tuesday night? Can you guess? Yep - "Well, we expected to lose Maryland because of the heavy black population there" and something like "Well, we expected to lose Virginia because Barack invested there so heavily". Eventually there's not going to be any more states left and they won't have to come up with any more excuses.
FreedomOfInformationAct @ 248:
Not yet she (Billary) still have millions of dollars to be had. Media giants are not finished bilking every dollars they can get out of the candidates during election season. It's a "futures" stock game. many in wall street are betting billary. Mainstreet are reaping millions from the runners in the interim............AT the END it is the vote that will determine. Being President comes at a lucrative PRICE.
Ruthless would wage the shirt off their back the opportunity to pay deibold to hack the election.
Keep an eye on the "super-delegates". Watch for who they will vote for. If their candidate wins the nominee; THAT will give you a clue of....the kind of "CHANGE" we can expect.
Roark77 @ 346:
Roark, have you any experience with Habitat? If you did you wouldn't be making those claims, especially in this housing market. Food banks have volunteer slots as do other charitable organizations but we're talking about millions of additional kids, mounting every year, year after year of contracted commitments. Please do the math. If the program was actually viable the math would have already been available, go figure.
How many applicants?
How many committed slots for volunteers?
How much will it cost to subsidize the program, including organization, transportation, mileage, clothing, tools, accountability? Have you ever been involved in organizing volunteers? If you had you would have made that argument first. The Obama electorate has a lot of energy and no thought, no numbers, no questions, no real substance. But I could be wrong. Like him I suspect it's all air. One pin pick from McCain and the Hope balloon will burst.
Reverend Obama is not the man for the job, maybe he could be an ambassador to Disneyland. Those kids down there like dreams too.
It's nice to see the Clinton War Room works on weekends. Clinton's are going to get dirty no doubt about it. Their posters are hitting the boards hard tonight with the same threads on the "proven" leadership of Hillary. The Clinton's will fight even if it rips the Party to shreds. Hillary has had the mind set since 1998 that she's going to be president no matter what. That's why they went to New York because it was an easy seat(carpetbagger). She won against Lazio (who I know and is nice guy but I won't vote for him) but no one else knew except in Islip and Suffolk County. The only reason he ran the death march was because he's a loyal party man and that's why he became a Congressman in the first place unseating the out of touch ego Tom Downey. Remember it was going to be Rudy but this was pre 911 Rudy who was politically damage goods with his scandals, cancer, and Donna Hanover. As one politico told me Rudy could be elected dog catcher of Staten Island before 911.
They ran Hillary in New York because next to Mass it was the safest seat, pro-Bill, Wall Street made a killing under Bill, APAC , Democratic machine and the Times were happy with Clintons. I saw that race up close and I'll tell you Hill's not a great campaigner, she gotten better but I read these stories about how "great" she was in Upstate well that's just part of the overall President strategy to make her look like a "uniter not divider", she wasn't that effective Upstate. Her people went to Dem strong hold and got out the vote and Lazio's lack of name recognition, Bill's popularity, and Gore on the ticket helped her win 2000.
Hillary Clinton has been running for President for ten years. Her people have been planning the ground game, the fund raising, the hype, women's vote, and trying to line up endorsement for ten years but they missed one thing, she's not a great campaigner, Bill's a great campaigner. she's at best a scrapper but put her up against Obama (who yes lacks her policy wonk experience,and who is on the par with Bill as campaigner. Like Bill inspires people) is having a much more difficult time winning the nomination. To point I think they knew she was not as strong as Bill on the stump. So they perpetuated the myth of inevitability. The hype around Hillary was she was unbeatable, it was all hype... enough that early voters believed it but once they really started to look at her they started to peal away especially when they had a alternative in Obama. For Obama to close a perceived 20 point gap in three weeks is truly remarkable against a candidate who's been running 10 years.
This campaign is going to get dirty because the Clinton's have their backs against the wall .We're seeing it to night. You saw only a little bit of it in S.C. They screwed Kerry in 2004 even though Bill was stumping for Kerry they cut a deal with Rove...who remembers White House picture ceremony, no one looked like adversaries there ( OK little logical speculation, same speculation that she's ready on day one).because they wanted an open race in 2008 and her policies couldn't be that contrasted against Bush on the war which she voted for and economy as a barometer of politics was consisted "good" (Dot House). She wants to run on domestic issues not the war. Economy stupid.
Please don't write about how her wonderful 2006 campaign in in NY which she won by almost 30 points against a stiff ,who no one knew, a tried, split NY Repuke party and a big Dem wave year. Hillary is a great behind the scenes politico, great on policy, knows where the "bodies are buried", a viper, and an attack dog. Put her on the stump...she not a front person, she embodies both her negatives and positives that's why the Repukes want run against her...She is not a great campaigner and the only way she can win is by driving up Obama's negatives. Here comes his past...drugs, relationships, everything the Repukes threw at Bill in 1992 the Clintons will throw at Obama (expect the draft dogging). It's going to get nasty especially if Obama keeps winning this week.
Obama is a "rock star" who doesn't have all the answers, is not second coming of JFK and is inexperienced but so was FDR and Reagan but they worked the "bully pulpit" in times of need, inspired and gave people hope. In the end that what a President does the most inspires...rallies people (hopefully for good) because there are so many actors involved in government(iron triangle) that if don't inspire the masses to change, change will not come because of self interest. Hillary doesn't inspire. There was another person who was great at legislation, great at policy, got more bills through Congress then FDR, who was ready on day one...that was LBJ. When as the last time anyone talk highly about LBJ?
Yikes, from reading these comments, you'd think I was the only person in the world who likes both Clinton and Obama. And I do like both of them. A lot. So much that I'm still not sure who to vote for when my primary rolls around (though considering it's May 20 -- boo for late Oregon primary -- I hope it's a moot point by then. I don't want this to drag on this long). I am leaning slightly towards Obama; my aunt worked for his Senate campaign and enthusiastically shills him on the family at every opportunity, but mostly I'm leaning toward him because I think he'll be a more difficult target for the Republicans to strike at. It's not Hillary's fault, not her fault at all, which makes it a more difficult decision, but she has been demonized since Day One in 1992 as a woman who doesn't know her place. From there, she's been called shrill, bitchy, a shrew. Lady Macbeth. It's completely unfair and appalling in my opinion, especially since I really like her and I always have, but it's been ongoing for so damn long that even some liberals buy into her being crooked or evil in some way.
So at this moment, I'd cast my vote for Obama, but I'd feel guilty for voting against Hillary because she's been attacked and maligned for so many year by no fault of her own.
But I'd feel a hell of a lot more guilty if a vote I cast led to another Republican in the White House. Idealistically? I'd love to see Hillary stick it to the machine that's been tormenting her all this time. I even think she might just have better ideas. But practically, I want to win. I really, really want to win. Up to three Supreme Court justices are on the line with this election, and my uterus is very concerned.
The Doughy Pantload was Hilarious on Bill Maher Friday night...and a hilarious serious discussion of George W. Bush featuring Matt Dowd and the aforementioned Goldberg. P.J. O'Rourke is up to his 30-yr. old act as usual....and Amy Holmes keeps drinking the colored water.
Nate F @ 364:
You're not looking deep enough. The message of change from the Obama camp refers to a change of personnel. I.E. how many people would like to close the chapter on the last 20+ years of Bush/Clinton politics. The 'change' dynamic Obama it touting is really code for: Change from Clinton. Its why Clinton sounds silly when she claims to be for change too. In the unspoken context that change has taken in this election, its impossible to be the change candidate since she in her person represents the change from.
And regardless of where you stand, for a lot of people the idea of no bushes or clintons in the whitehouse is very appealing.
P.S. Yes I'm aware that the clinton part of the divisive politics of the past is the fault of the right-wing but that doesn't mean its not there. (nor does it mean they wont do the same to Obama)
Go Huckabee? Watch what you wish for, Huckabee could win and become the President. He is the most dangerous man in the race, this 1/2 witt believes GOD wants him to be President. If he wins he will truely believe all he does is GOD's will and he will destroy whats left of America and religion.
The thing that is making me sick is the superdelegates. I mean can we have a goddamn election where the vote matters?
IF one dem candidate wins the majority of the delegates from the primaries, yet the other candidate wins the nomination due to superdelegates I'm staying home in disgust.
Mister Anderson @ 7:
The only thing about this is that Obama's negatives will change once the general election starts. This is the great unknown that more than a few dems are not considering.
Aaron @ 366:
By that time, however, she may have won the most important ones. It's nice to win a lot of states (and good for the campaign, certainly) but we all know this a delegate count.
Tarro @ 373:
huckabee could never win.....
repubs aren't voting for him, they're giving mccain the finger
if he could win a national election against either clinton or obama, then we deserve the armegeddon that would likely ensue....
Aaron @ 239:
Democratic presidential hopeful, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., wipes her eye as she listens to a disabled U.S. veteran in the audience tell his story during a campaign stop at The City of Lewiston Memorial Armory in Lewiston, Maine., Saturday, Feb. 9, 2008.
(AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)
Oh she is..........again........nice
ConcernedCanuck @ 378:
Makes me like her more.
zippy @ 344:
Hey, mister..... MISTER...... umm......... FIRST LADY ISN'T AN "OFFICE" THAT SHE WAS IN, it is an honorary title given to the wife of the president. And her experience is that of a left-oriented lawyer in a high power law firm, dealing in mostly labor and child care issues. Oh, fuck it, I give up explaining why there are clouds in the sky to republican dolts.
It's official: Obama/Webb '08!
EXCUSE ME...
With all due respect to C&L and the other 380 posters, why do you continually go off topic and ignore the fact that Obama only won LA because the BLACK people voted for a BLACK man??
Oh, and don't even get me started on why Obama also won the Virgin Islands!
NE, WA, KA AL ID, CO, and all those other places don't count because ..well....because..probably ...BLACKNESS...and ASIANS...only.. because ..Latinos don't like the cold.. and the women stayed home...and those damn wealthy yuppies..and well ...we always knew something was wrong with Kansas anyway, didn't we.
"A man’s memory may almost become the art of continually varying and misrepresenting his past, according to his interest in the present."
— George Santayana, American philosopher (1863-1952)
hazmaq @ 382:
a wail, posted by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing
What was the delegate count in all this? Most of these were caucauses. In other words, caucuses are often like the popular vote, but the delegates like the electoral vote, and it's the latter that determines the winner.
Obama may be closing in on Hillary's delegate count, may've even passed it yesterday, but it's waaaay too early to be saying she needs to withdraw. Using that standard Obama should've withdrawn after Super Tuesday.
ConcernedCanuck @ 378:
Aaron: thanks for continued reality check !
ConcernedCanuck: and, thanks for the jokes (bovine, and else ;) - pple seem to have lost all and any sense of humor (if they ever had any..)..the greatest joke: chelsea, the beautiful .. The last thing they should be discussing is the looks of ANY of the Clintons - why bring a freak show to everyone's attention? None of them ANY looker, evah!! I guess b/c there is nothing to say abt issues.
Is this woman physically FIT to deal w/pressures of the POTUS office ??!!
shillary's close-up REAL FACE
After 3 yrs, in 2006, Chelsea left McKinsey (w/100K + salary), and went to "work" for more money at Avenue Capital, a hedge fund run by Marc Lasry, shillary's co-owner. It seems only fitting that sHillary, a Goldwater Republican in her youth, has a daughter who is "employed" by a hedge fund - who whines for her 'poor' mother. These ARE the FACTS. Way to go, Chelsea!
Just these fights about Clinton BS show why shillary as preznit would be a disaster - the whole nation would again be entangled in constant fight abt these Arkansas fishmongers, while the country, and world went sinking further .. Not to forget, WHO would be donating to the US when shillary's miss-run economy (just like her campaign) cannot get any more handouts from the chinks ??! Her crocodile tears on TeeVee wouldn't do much.
As a vocal and early Edwards supporter, I think w/Obama we might have a chance - depending who his VeeP would be. Webb is much too parochial !! If Edwards would agree, it would be a winning ticket, and issues so VITAL for our nation not lost.
This is where we are heading:
Next Up for the Democrats: Civil War
He is so right - these pompous clinton-Hallmark shows are SO yesterday, such pathetic BS !!! And, no REAL ISSUES in sight... shillary is divisive, the GOP is salivating to run against her, she has more baggage than Paris Hilton on vacation
Obama likened Clinton’s health care mandate proposal to eliminating homelessness by requiring everyone buy a house. shillary's solution: PAYOLA to her corpo-owners ! From you and me, to corpo-whores !!
Clinton health plan may mean tapping pay
By CHARLES BABINGTON, Associated Press Writer Sun Feb 3, 11:40 AM ET
WASHINGTON - Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday she might be willing to garnish the wages of workers who refuse to buy health insurance to achieve coverage for all Americans.
The New York senator has criticized presidential rival Barack Obama for pushing a health plan that would not require universal coverage. Clinton has not always specified the enforcement measures she would embrace, but when pressed on ABC's "This Week," she said: "I think there are a number of mechanisms" that are possible, including "going after people's wages, automatic enrollment." ""
.
If we allow the corrupt SUPERDELEGATES to OVERRIDE the 'PEOPLE's votes, and nomintae shillary, we deserve what we get.
It is pitiful that there are hundreds of posts on the threads w/ total bullshit PR re:Clinton (crocodile tears and all), but only 69 on the really important thread on Big Brother, w/ super links by several posters re:boosh DETAILED plans for the martial law vs. his Directive 51. So, the bovine jokes are the more balanced part, really .. Thanks !
DemocratLoyalist @ 238:
He has a voting record. It stinks. Like Hillary's. For the war. Check. For continued funding of the war. Check. For the patriot act. Check. For renewal of the patriot act. Check. Both candidates have sucky voting records. Hillary already promised and then failed to fix healthcare. So I already know she can promise to do it and blow it off. Maybe Obama will actually follow through.
Plus, I have a metabolic condition that makes health insurance unobtainable at reasonable cost. So I don't have it. Hillary mandating that I have to buy health insurance from the same people who demand insane rates for people of my condition gives me the creeps. The only one with a good plan was Kucinich - but I don't get to vote for him (although I did send him a lot of money).
The no-fault insurance for your body. If you can't afford it it will be provided. If you can afford it you pay. Obama's plan will, at some point, require a person to be accountable for non-payment, Hillary's system requires everyone to be accounted for. One of the 15 million uncovered under Obama's plan who requires medical service will either be charged or be allowed to freeload whether that person can afford insurance or not. Hillary's plan establishes the individuals capacity to buy insurance from jumpstreet, so at the time of need the service provider knows how they will recover the cost. Understand that the 15 million is an estimate, the actual number of uninsured moving in and out of his system will never be known. Emergency care will still be mandatory, so the hospitals and providers will continue to support a system that doesn't address the issue under Obama's plan.
Again, not unlike the $4000.00 volunteer program he presents, it's not complete. This was the point I tried to make to RON. He wants to paint Hillary as an actor and Obama as a sincere individual but, in the light of these to points I have to concluded that sincerity is in the plan and not in the rhetoric.
I wonder if there's some correlation between the day of the week and the outcome of the primary. Hm... if it weren't for Super Tuesday, I would say that Clinton tends to get picked on Tuesdays and Obama on Saturdays and Sundays (when people are happier and more optimistic and relaxed, and thinking more clearly!) but he kicked some ass on Super Tuesday and upset my whole theory.
Obama is the projected Winner in Nebraksa with almost 70% of the vote with 73% reporting!
BREAKING NEWS: NBC News says Obama wins Nebraska caucus
This is kind of like the Orthodox Christmas that falls on January 6th.
After the big zeitgeist of the Western Christmas of December 25th, who cares?
Is zeitgeist any relation to poltergeist?
What is going on? Why are the internet sites of MSNBC and CNN NOT showing results?
Speaking of turnout...
My precinct had four voters total in 2004. Four! This time, over 30, and the entire school, which had about 10 or 12 precincts voting, had at least 300. And only a few young voters, given that my neighborhood has an older population. I can't imagine the turnout in the more younger parts of this city.
OBAMA!!! Thank You.
DemocratLoyalist @ 26:
I wouldn't be pleased if there is any way a half-hearted effort by any Democratic loyalist to wrest democracy's sword from the hands of the warlords (to paraphrase RW).
I wish Obama would demand that the super-delegates make an agreement to vote in line with their fellow delegates.
obama expected to win Washington too, will hilary be smart enough to know when she's licked and bow out graciously?
If not, she could cause the party to fragment and lose to mccain in November, remember that clintonites, the bushies guy will win if you fight too much amongst yourselves.
GOP Kansas Caucus Won by The Wizard of Odd
just ask yourself, can YOU afford another four or eight years of neocons?
I can't.
FreedomOfInformationAct @ 43:
Can't see it. Will be interesting though.
JeffS @ 31:
Congrats! On both counts :)
porkchop @ 47:
Agreed.
totally off topic #37: "zeit" = "time" "geist" = "spirit"
"polter" = "noisy"
so "zeitgeist" becomes "spirit of the times" while "poltergeist" becomes "noisy ghost"
it was time 4 a li'l German lesson that'll get lost in the flow
My precinct in Eastern Washigton went heavily for Clinton.
Latte Liberals go for Obama. Traditional Democrats for Clinton.
67% for Obama.....32% for Clinton in Washington with 30% reporting.
If Louisiana has a low turn out, and so far they are saying higher income voters are participating, it may be another blow out.
One thing that the media hasn't covered is Barak's margin of victory in these contests. To me, that means he's bringing "NEW VOTERS" into the process. Hillary seems like she has reached her ceiling so she has no where to go but down. Obama is bringing in new voters which he can rely upon in the national election. I don't believe this new bloc of voters that is giving Obama these blow out victories will follow Hillary to the general.
budda @ 32:
I get that same feeling, but it's still early, wait till the numbers come in. Though I am surprised that no one has mentioned the turn out at Obama's rally here yesterday. He had the Key Arena fuller than I have ever seen it. It holds 17k, there were probably about 18 packed in there and about 2-3 thousand outside. It was amazing.
Today he is absolutely blowing Hillary away in the caucuses. Our precinct when 56-15 for Obama; that ended up being 7-1 in delegates. The building was packed and from everyone, even the obviously out numbered Clinton supporters, the mood was just purely joyful.
liberalista @ 13:
sounds fishy
GOBAMA!!!!!!!!!!!!!
can't msnbc find someone besides pat buchanan .didn't he run for president and lose now he wants to decide who we vote for.
Huckleberry won Kansas.
Wasn't that the state that rewrote the definition of science so that supernatural phenomena could be considered science as well?
Big shocker.
"yes we can!"
"fired up, ready to go"
"Go Bama"
"audacity of hope"
...just reading the slogans off all my election 2008 buttons
Den @ 56:
maybe this is a rejection of mccain moreso than an endorsement of huck
let's keep huck alive, send the guy money.....
the more embarassing defeat headlines for mccain, the better....
https://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Contribute.Home
Hillary Clinton would be dead in the water without the Hispanic vote.
My Bellingham WA precinct was attended overwhelmingly by very young first-time caucus goers. They elected all delegates for Obama, except one for uncommitted.
Huck doesn't need to be a master scam artist to get the Kansas GOP nod.
CalGeorge @ 59:
Surprisingly she has energy, enthusiasm and drive. Obama acts to much like a suit.
70+% Obama, 21% Clinton for 36th NOC2 in Seattle...
The bottom line is Hillary really wants to be President. Thats a definite plus. I'll need to really consider that.
So Obama Takes Washington and Nebraska, as per CNN
train kept a rollin' all night long
My precinct went 190 sign-ins for Obama, with 13 for Clinton, and 1 "undecided." This was Bellingham, WA (242). Result was 13 Obama delegates and 1 HRC. Only reason she got one was when the "undecided" had to switch so that would happen.
We had some interesting things going on. The State Democratic Party website (wa-democrats.org) caucus locater was overwhelmed and non-functioning. If you entered "wa-democrats.com" you were hijacked to the GOP website! You have to give them credit for knowing all the tricks! Did they also jam the caucus locater?
This was a huge turnout, way more folks that 2004, and was clearly an Obama rout.
I hope to persuade some of our "superdelegates" to reconsider their pressured support for HRC!
They must listen to the majority who want change!
YES WE CAN!!!
ConcernedCanuck @ 46:
Why should she? She will get delegates tonight and probably the lion share in Texas and Ohio. Will Obama then bow out realizing he is licked?
L.A. Confidential @ 63:
It's just that the people voting really don't want her to be president. That's a definite minus.
i think she is potentially an excellent vp though...
Hmm would Hillary pick Mark Warner?
I'm guessing Obama would pick Bayh.
Looks like the Clinton Family Soap Opera with the latest Chelsea episode didn't play in Nebraska and Washington.
nin-mofo @ 68:
bayh-- now that would be a sure way to kill the momentum.... sheesh, i hope not... only a couple notches better than lieberman
nin-mofo @ 68:
I think Warner would make a top-shelf VP pick for either candidate. Of course St. McCain would need a hard-nosed but appealing conservative for his ticket. I hear Kitty Harris ain't too busy :)
lopaloo102 @ 67:
Anything but a Bush! The master scam artists.
i honestly understand some of the fear regarding the huckster, but he may be one of the few true christians in all the repug party
go check out what he did in his state
he really showed true christian values as a governor in regards to using tax monies to benefit the poor
thats why the repugs (except for social conservatives) hate him too
i dont want him as prez...but he isnt an evil guy
Where Are The Obama Media Cheerleaders
This is strange and unlike the usual unlimited amount of "Barack Obama is moving in on Hillary Clinton" media sections. From MSNBC or CNN, there is a very predictable line of anti-Clinton comments associated with each states primary. Lets face it, the media hates Clinton. However, this lack of one sided conservative rooted commentary for today's primaries and caucuses posses a interesting question.
Maybe the lack of critical analysis is due to an assured Obama victor, or maybe it is not. From what I have scene within the media, they would not pass up an opportunity to play up a possible negative on Clinton. No, this means one thing: The polls, in this case inside polls, show Clinton is ahead. If she wins, the media will brush off these elections so quickly, you would think it never happened.
It is so obvious to me the conservative media wants Obama to win the Democratic nomination. If they deny this, ask the Republicans to tell you why do they spend every breathing moment trashing Clinton. This amounts to millions of dollars in indirect free advertising that favors Obama. Sometimes, I can't tell where the sensation about Obama is a product of the media's negative association compared to Clinton or if there is truly a new inspiring political message the masses have not heard before. I do know the media's influence in very controversial and should be examined for possible oversight measures. I don't want the conservative media influencing who I vote for.
Joseph
Otay @ 17:
Do you have a link to evidence, or are you just starting a rumor? If she is leaning on MSNBC to fire Shuster, I would have a problem with her. And if MSNBC folded, I would have a problem with them. As far as I'm concerned, and I know many people will agree with me, Shuster said something in poor taste and was punished, and it is now water under the proverbial bridge. We should all move forward, and focus on the future of this country, and not on what a reporter said.
i don't think either needs to bow out. Obama just needs to keep winning. I don't buy the media and DLC angle that it is bad to have this election draw out. I think it gives the candidates a chance to hone there message on a state by state basis. Plus, it doesn't let McCain know who he is running against until later in the game. He is going to be sitting around waiting, speaking in empty platitudes while the Dems take up the news cycle.
As far as these races, good news for Obama supporters. Lets see how the delegate count breaks out. I will start feeling a lot more comfortable when his delegate lead surpasses Clinton's super-delegate lead. When/if that happens, the tone out of the Hillary camp and the DLC will be very interesting.
DemocratLoyalist @ 66:
Why would Obama be licked if he's leading the delegate count and leading the States won? Have you seen the map of his states won? It literally stretches across the country with one state connected to the other. She takes New York, California, and Texas and all of a sudden my vote in Wisconsin shouldn't count?
That's the recipe to collapse the Democratic Party. What the Democrats are failing to realize that these HUGE turnouts you're getting are from first-time voters and Independents. We (myself included) is NOT loyal to your party. So we have no problem sitting out in November or voting for McCain if the Democratic doesn't listen to the people but to the Super delegates.
So if you don't our votes lightly, you do so at your peril.
The United States of America is a failed experiment.
Someone needs to figure out what comes next.
*so if you take out votes lightly...
Joseph @ 74:
I think the cons are trying to decide if a Black President or Woman President will strike more terror and fear into the hearts of dimwits and rally them to storm the polls in overwhelming numbers right now.
Kind of touch and go. Playing it from both sides.
VietVet8666 @ 78:
The Long Emergency
VietVet8666 @ 78:
Worldwide corporate fascism.
VietVet8666 @ 78:
I for one refuse to surrender this experiment to a label such as failure based on the whim of anyone who thinks they can sum up the experience in a handful of spiteful words.
More needs to be done, and it sure as hell takes a lot more than fatalism to accomplish it.
Get out of the way.
Obaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaamania!!
uncle joe mccarthy @ 73:
It depends on what you think of someone wanting to change the constitution to disallow gay marriage and abortion -- to impose his personal beliefs as unchangeable law on the rest of us. Or someone who lets a rapist go because the rapist could not have been guilty if the victim was a Clinton relative.
And besides, evil is not the only reason for rejecting a candidate. Ignorance and poor judgment are also important.
Joseph @ 74:
where they've always been-- in your head.....:-)
seriously, Obama is winning more states across the board.
Okay, New York, California and New Jersey are populous, but the truth is that Barack is taking more states overall.
The Super Delegates better not spoil this or else it will prove that politics is BS
Mister Anderson @ 77:
That map is impressive. Sadly though Obama is winning in states that won't go blue in a general election so essentially that is a meaningless endorsement. Hillary is doing well in swing states that will move our direction in a general election.
Also these caucus votes suck. So few people decide the fate of the candidates leaving out the vast majority of voters. We have seen this before, remember that popular vote thing in 2000?
DemocratLoyalist @ 66:
Clintons don't lose, even when they lose. Guess the "Media is picking on my daughter oh woe is me" strategy didn't work like the faux crying did. What's next? She gonna toss the pantsuits and wear cocktail dresses?
Possible VP candidates? I don't think it really matters that much for Clinton, unless she picks Edwards or Obama to "unite" the party. Whoever she picks, she will remain the center of the story (unless its Obama, who will also get attention). Obama might try to pick someone who can blunt a charge of inexperience (Clark, Dodd), someone who can unite the party (Edwards, Richardson), someone who has experience administering a government (one of the Dem governors) or a person to help with the Hispanic vote (Richardson). I don't think he picks Hillary at all. Too many negatives.
I think McCain is going to pick Huck, and they both already know this. McCain wants to sure up the South and evangelicals. McCain has all but ignored Huckabee even though he remains the only Repub in the race, and Huck is doing his country-wide get to know you tour right now. They rarely say bad things about one another, and they both attacked Romney with complete viciousness.
Obama/Edwards (or Richardson) v. McCain/Huckabee
Hey get the facts Obama even admitted when he first went to D.C. for his hazing-orientation as a Freshman Senator one of the first things he thought was good god what in the hell have I gotten myself into now?
What swing states did Hillary win? Not flaming, just not sure what you are referring too.
Hope the herds have done their homework and aren't just voting on fear, insecurity, and emotion.
The tracker is either slow or inspired by FOX.
Here's Washington for you
http://www.khq.com/Global/story.asp?S=7847796
btw.. nowhere did Ron Paul say he was dropping out, not so long as he has more support from active service and actual people donating than any other candidate. Or so he's said. With a record like his, I doubt he's going to drop out.
I keep hearing this crap. You need to take a look at the states McCain is winning. States he won't win in the general election.
DemocratLoyalist @ 88:
DL @ 90:
I think St. John isn't going with Huck. Have you seen who is with him the last few press conferences? John Warner. I'd put my money on that horse to show (but not to win)
And then the bastion of feminist ideal goes with a message-annuling anthem like "American Girl"
I lol'd
DL @ 92:
Arkansas.
That's likely to stay being the whole list unless she takes Ohio.
Mister Anderson @ 14:
and lots of fresh grocerys
porkchop,
john warner is 80 years old
he's been in dc, wallowing at the pig trough, for over 40 years, enriching himself and his repub buddies
that would be a disastrous choice for mccain....
he'd magnify mccain's greatest liabilities, underscore the reasons neither should be president
lopaloo;
I didn't suggest it would make any sense. :)
DemocratLoyalist @ 88:
calling all toasters @ 98:
pfffff she was first lady of Bill's governorship there.. pick another
fil @ 103:
That's my point.
Obama-Edwards '08
Imagine America led by this duo.
Can't she just quit? Having such a fortune, she seems to yearn only for power now. Clinton may claim that she knows how to fix this country, but she has some nerve, as if there were no other talented people who might qualify to be the president of the United States. An ego-centric, power-hungry cu, woman.
I'm an Edwards cultist by the way.
DemocratLoyalist @ 88:
Mister Anderson @ 77:
DemocratLoyalist @ 66:
ConcernedCanuck @ 46:
Why should she? She will get delegates tonight and probably the lion share in Texas and Ohio. Will Obama then bow out realizing he is licked?
Name one swing state that Hillary has won? Arizona? Nevada? You don’t think John McCain won’t carry Arizona? You don’t think John McCain can peel off the Hispanic vote since he’s a Southwestern senator that’s for amnesty?
Name one state Hillary has won that Obama can’t win? He won Missouri. He’s going to win Wisconsin. He’s favored to win in Virginia. He’s going to be strong in Ohio.
Last week, Clinton supporters were saying it was the media’s fault. Now they’re saying it’s the caucus fault. Are you kidding me? Bill Clinton is the MOST famous living politician in the entire world. Hillary has been campaigning for President since 1992. No one heard of Barak four years ago. Clinton alone was able to go on all five Sunday morning news shows a few months ago. Any and every media outlet said that this contest wouldn’t go beyond Super Tuesday because she was leading Barak by 20 points EVERYWHERE a month ago. She was even winning among Blacks until Bill went crazy in South Carolina.
The reality is that the campaign of inevitably for HRC is over and it’s no one’s fault but her own. The people are speaking with their money and their votes. I highly encourage the Democratic party to listen.
fil @ 87:
The goal is not to win more states, it is to win more delegates. Just like in a general election, the goal is not to win the most states, but to get more electoral votes. In both cases, the most populous states have the most significance because the election is weighted. If you want to make a case for Obama, make the case that he has the most delegates. A Clinton supporter would counter saying that she is leading from a popular vote perspective. Before today, she was ahead in the popular vote by about 50,000. This can be spun either way, but the only important thing right now is delegates/super delegates.
As an aside, we have to remember that states like California and New York will go to the democratic candidate regardless of who it is, while some of the other states will go to the republican regardless of who it is. Winning a state now doesn't guarantee that the state will be won in the general election.
Ruthless People @ 16:
Correction: Kansas Republicans voted for the Chisto-facist. Kansas Democrats (the one that elected or Dem Govenor and a Congressman in 2006) voted for Obama in a landside. I wouldn't be suprised if Kansas went to Obama in the general election (assuming he's the canidate).
VietVet8666 @ 78:
If by that you mean our government, I totally agree. Our form of democracy just doesn't work. Politically, the U.S. is a joke, we don't have or deserve the respect of other nations. Color me a cynic/pessimist, but when I vote I do not expect it to matter or be counted. I guess I vote hoping that one day it will make a difference.
VietVet8666 @ 78:
"...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...
The fix is right there.
Just because the apples are rotten, doesn't mean the tree is a lost cause. It's time to bring about a new season, and with it, new apples.
I really feel we need Obama to take the Nom for the Dems. My reasons are that Hillary has won in the big states, but these are the states that would vote Democrat regardless of who the delegate is. Obama can states that Hillary could never win.
I also feel that America won't vote for an old fart like McCain and choose a charismatic figure like Obama. Hillary is a speaker who appeals to the Democratic faithful, but Obama is a speaker that can lift up America and get America working together.
I also think that the talking heads in the media want to downplay the successes of Obama, by repeating the talking points of the HRC campaign.
These are the talkingpoints right off the HRC Press releases, but are repeated as the gospel by CNN and MSNBC.
1. Hillary didn't expect to do well there anyways.
2. Obama does well in Caucus states.
3. These are small states that don't matter.
4. Obama is now the mainstream candidate and Hillary is the underdog. (yep, this one really cracks me up)
5. Hillary is the candidate that can stand up to the Right wing slime machine, because she has been doing it all her life.
6. The Obama supporter are fanatical nuts, that may not even show up to vote in November, it just a fad for them.
james @ 105:
That is essentially Obama's message. He can bring hope to the country, and unite everyone, and nobody else can. Does he have some nerve too, or do you just want to spout Hillary Hate?
Kay @ 107:
50,000 is squat. I wouldn't count on that to last long.
VietVet8666 @ 78:
obama
you are giving up a man too soon.
Ron @ 113:
I agree, it isn't a big deal in the long run. My point was to say that who has the most states or the most votes doesn't matter. The only thing that does now is the delegate count.
Chris K @ 2:
This was the story in our rural county as well!! Hooray!!
Kay @ 115:
We discussed the super delagates at the caucus in Wa. and with the 5-1 ratio in my precinct, we are pretty confident. Obama had 36 votes, Clinton 5 and 1 uncommitted.
Mister Anderson @ 106:
I think Obama has caught the MSM and the Democratic Party off guard and by total surprise. No matter how they spin it, Hillary is not, has not, and never will be the underdog no matter how much they let her play the ol' victim card. It isn't washing the way it was supposed to. She was supposed to get the sympathy vote for putting up with a womanizing hubby...hasn't worked. She was supposed to get the entire female population of the US to rise up and say it's time for a strong woman. Well, maybe it is time, but not this woman so it seems. She cried or attempted to. Worked a bit, but not enough. She campaigned and said "NOBODY touch or speak to my daughter" and her daughter ended up campaigning for her, and contacting superdelegates to try and sway their vote, and SO FAR that hasn't really worked out too well either. What the heck can the next political card be? She gonna show up in a cocktail dress and show the REAL woman HRC? Seems the public is cynical. Just enough that she doesn't have a cake-walk. Apparently, repeating a lie over and over isn't quite working the way it did for Bush. Guess the "35 years" experience isn't fooling as many as it was expected to.
I'm sorry, Obama had 26 votes, Clinton 5 and 1 uncommitted.
Login or Register to post comments.