Maine Democratic Caucuses
By Jamie Saturday Feb 09, 2008 4:01pmAnother day, more election madness. Today it's Maine with a total of 24 delegates up for grabs. Here is the tracker for today's race.
[election 54]
Obviously, Clinton's poor showing this weekend has caused a shake-up in her campaign. They've announced that campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle is stepping down and be replaced by longtime Clinton operative Maggie Williams.
John Amato: Let's go Huckaboom!
Mike Huckabee is challenging the results of the Washington state Republican caucuses, his campaign announced Sunday, after accusing the state party chairman of calling the election for John McCain before all the votes were counted.
Login or Register to post comments.
HRC has 2 delegates to 0 for Obama? Hmm
looks like obama may win maine
but we'll see
It looks like the Maine Dems are evenly split over whether they want President Obama or President McCain.
you mean only going to be about 4000 voters? Can someone explain?
If our votes actually mattered... it would appear as though Wisconsin's vote is going to count.
John @ 4:
The weather. Blizzard here.
rduke @ 5:
Hell, even Oregon's vote may count, and we are Obama country. That's if the Democratic establishment doesn't try to pull something rotten.
Obama - higher higher!
go go Obama!
Hillary can have her super delegates, the people have chosen Obama
Why, you're all a bunch of Hillary bashers!
tears welling up
Is this New Math?
Obama, Barack 962 57% 0
Clinton, Hillary 702 42%2
Uncommitted, 15 1% 0
it isn't a matter of being a hillary basher, it is a matter of the people choosing obama.
This is turning into a HUGE WIN For HILLARY!
Her Bellweather state! As Maine goes, so goes the Nation?
Oh, wait, now they have her loosing by double digits...
Well, it's all those black voters...Didn't Jesse Jackson win Maine?
(SNARK!)
I can't see where anything will change if Hillary is the nominee . I'm hoping Obama can pull this off with a clear victory
momly @ 11:
remember, obama lost nh, but won in the delegate count
the dems have this wierd way of doing things
and this sucker is going to the convention floor....howard dean be damned
frankly, if we have a bunch of dem superdelegates that don't respect the will of the majority of democrats i don't need this party. why bother voting if our voice doesn't matter. you can't hump your base day in and day out and then abuse us when we don't vote your way.
i hope the voters in maine scream loudly about their voices not being heard by the delegates. if this country is going to sit back and let them fuck with the election results, well what the hell is the point?
Perhaps those are 2 superdelegates who have pledged to HRC?
John @ 4:
Those aren't votes, those are delegate pledges, which are based on turnout and votes and county size, and about 8 other variables from what I understand. I'd post a link to how it's done, but I can't find one.
New Math, not. Relax everyone, ABC and Drudge are showing 0 delegates for both. Someone must have hit the wrong key at C & L.
Yeah, Super Delegates.
In my state, both Cantwell and Murray pledged MONTHS ago for Hillary.
Obama won my state by over 2 to 1.
I wrote them both letters, telling them, if Obama goes into the convention
with a lead from the States elected and caucused delegates, and THEY
are among the Party Insiders who throw it to Obama, expect a visit.
I stop by their office everytime I'm in DC, and I usually can schedule
it around their little "meet with the consituants" meetings.
As Rickie said to Lucy "They got some 'Splaining' to do....
Yes.
rduke @ 5:
I live in Milwaukee and Hillary is not really competing here either. She's scheduled to make a campaign stop, but Obama has been running TV and radio ads here since Super Tuesday and he's going to stop in Madison Tuesday night. He hasn't scheduled a stop in Milwaukee yet.
Wisconsin is a weird state, but right now its trending towards Obama. Madison is all college kids who have been organizing for Obama since November or December. Milwaukee is a college educated crowd and 39% percent Black, but the Black vote only accounted for 6% of the vote in 2004. Hispanics are like 13% of the population but they only accounted for 3% of the vote in 2004. Women turn out heavily in Wisconsin, but Obama has more than closed that gap and won women in Nebraska. Plus Obama comes from Chicago which is only 90 miles away from Milwaukee. For some, voting for him would be the closest thing to voting for a candidate out of our own state.
If Obama sweeps this weekend and wins on Tuesday, unless he has a Howard Dean or Bill Clinton in SC moment, I'd expect him to win Wisconsin by at least 15 points.
GO BARACK!
Bye bye Billary!
Rduke - So to answer your question, yes, Wisconsin should matter but it won't since Hillary won't put up much of a fight. She's going to play the low expectations game for the rest of the month and blame caucuses and the media and then use Ohio and Texas as a firewall.
If she was smart, she'd plant her flag in Wisconsin where she would have a fighting chance if she actually chose to fight. I don't see how you can forfeit for an entire month and try to turn it on in March.
Mister Anderson @ 26:
Exactly, this is Rudy strategy all over again. Crazy.
o-MOB-a!!!
(Sorry, though you'd like a preview of what the media will be reporting in September.)
B.O. supporters, you would make PT Barnum proud.
Jo @ 6:
thus, old ladies (roughly 90.7% of hillary support) have to stay home.
#15 What we really don't know is precisely what occurred in New Hampshire. After all, Silvestro who owns the "chain of custody" of the hackable Opti-Scan machines in New Hampshire (81%) probably rigged that percentage of machines. After all blackbox voting was able to hack into this fool's software within 10 minutes to get to the memory card. That's right....the same machines we're using in November. Holding "chain of custody" guarantees that he and he alone programs all 81% of these opti-scanners and when taken to court, he refused to permit anyone to examine his machines.
Let's face it - although Hillary is a likeable, knowledgeable, articulate candidate, the skeletons in the clinton closet when outed will look like a house of horrors. Their skeletons, when outed by the reichwing, will make the swiftboating of John Kerry resemble child's play.
This is the candidate which the Rethugs want. They're already working on the incriminating ads to swiftboat Hillary Clinton who will be an even easier target than Kerry.
This is why Hillary won New Hampshire. It was rigged for Hillary to win New Hampshire by Silvestro and the GOP. If she wouldn't have won New Hampshire, she'd be all but cleaned up by now. And she certainly wouldn't have had the gravitas to win California if she hadn't won NH.
When one factors in those early states where John Edwards got a decent percentage of the vote, one realizes that his votes would almost surely have gone to Obama which may have put him ahead of Clinton in those states. Florida was a ridiculous "no contest" and what galls me is that the Dem candidates (yes, even Hillary) had an agreement among themselves NOT to campaign in Florida because of what was going on. Hillary broke her promise and was seen campaigning in Florida the day before the florida voters went to the polls. We've had enough lies in govenment to last us a lifetime. Hillary lied and campaigned despite the promise she made not to. Is this the kind of character flaw we desire AGAIN in our President? I think not - that is, if we are to resurrect ourselves before it's too late.
She claims that she is the candidate with "experience" - huh? What experience? Through osmosis and sleeping with Bill and residing in the white house? Is this experience? What political experience has she? Besides, if this so-called "experience" was so special, shouldn't she, ABOVE ALL OTHERS, have had inside information about Iraq so she wouldn't be as easily duped by Bush's lies than others who did not reside on Penna. Avenue? Hillary wants it both ways but the logic simply doesn't compute.
Besides, she hedged her bets on Iran and lost. She thought it was a "slam dunk" to invade Iran with all of the Bush lies and propaganda by the media so she aligned herself with what she judged to be the "winning side"....enter the NIE report and that decision can now be classified as classic misjudgment on her part.
I'm sorry but when our kids lives are on the line, I want someone in there who is now duped by moronic lies and whose judgment is not impaired. Hillary's judgment history is one of total impairment.
uncle joe mccarthy @ 15:
I keep being reminded of the MSM's reporting of the final 2000 Florida re-count. Even though the results clearly stated that, if all the votes were counted correctly, Gore won Florida, every newspaper and broadcast outlet reported the results in the most confusing manner possible: if the counties Gore challenged were accurately re-counted then result A; if the counties Bush challenged were accurately re-counted, then result B; if only the counties where the previous solar eclipse was observable were accurately re-counted, then result C; etc. The total and clear result was buried in the coverage in every media outlet I read or watched.
I'm well reasonably educated; I read multiple newspapers daily and try to stay informed. Yet I was completely at a loss in understanding the MSM's coverage of Super Tuesday.
I don't think it was accidental.
loubie @ 28:
Is it just me, or do Hillary supporters have more excuses for her losing so many states and delegates than Bush has for invading Iraq?
1. The media hates Hillary Clinton.
2. Caucuses are un-Democratic and depress the vote which helps Obama.
3. Blacks support their own.
4. Obama supporters are a bunch of lazy, moron kids who won't show up in November.
5. Obama supporters are a mob of "hope mongers" who will lose the election for the Democrats in November.
Am I missing anything?
loubie @ 28:
Yep. While the candidate has the audacity to hope, the fanatics just have the audacity to gloat.
Mister Anderson @ 32:
Yes. You are obviously a misogynist and part of the vast right wing conspiracy. Oh, and you hate freedom.
;-)
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Juan_Williams_calls_out_Fox_analysts_0210....
I kind of, like, agree with this....
"Peggy Noonan, who wrote some of Reagan's best speeches, is the right wing's Maureen Dowd: Irish, beautiful, witty, subtle and dangerous," Seaton notes. "In today's Wall Street Journal, she joins such arch-conservative pundits as George Will and David Brooks in praising Barack Obama and favoring him for the Democratic nomination."
According to the expatriate blogger, "I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to smell a rat here."
"It is this simple: in recent decades the Clintons are the only Democrats that win elections against Republicans... They don't want to ever face them again, no more complicated than that," Seaton blogs.
Mister Anderson @ 32:
I'm sure there are more excuses in Hillary's bag of tricks. She seems to have all the answers, doesn't she? And, when she's really put in a corner, she cries. I'm surprised she's not stamping her feet and pulling her hair as well. This is not what this country needs right now; we've had 7 years of lies and excuses. This administration of smoke & mirrors needs to end and we definitely don't need a John McBush or a Billary Clinton to continue them. Their "heyday" is well behind them. It's the dawn of a new day - of a new world - of a new time. It's time to yield the power to our youth who, unlike us who betrayed them, will rise above our level of hypocrisy and begin speaking Truth to Power.
For the disgusting skinny on the sad state of our voting system, visit www.blackboxvoting.org or www.bradblog.com. It's appalling what's going on. Anything other than hand-counted paper ballots will be (and has been in 2000 and 2004) hacked rendering our vote worthless. Voting is our ONLY voice at this point. Our constitution has been used as toilet paper and our civil liberties have been trashed. Demand hand counted paper ballots.
BTW, IMPEACH BUSH AND CHENEY FOR WAR CRIMES NOW!!
momly @ 11:
Maine has 10 superdelegates, I think. 2 already pledged, but can be changed.
Is this right, Mainenites?
Oh yeah, I forgot to add those two to the the list of excuses Clinton supporters use to why she loses so many states and pledged delegates.
1. The media hates Hillary Clinton.
2. Caucuses are un-Democratic and depress the vote which helps Obama.
3. Blacks support their own.
4. Obama supporters are a bunch of lazy, moron kids who won’t show up in November.
5. Obama supporters are a mob of “hope mongers” who will lose the election for the Democrats in November.
6. If you don't support Hillary Clinton then you hate women.
7. Republicans want Obama to win so they can swiftboat him in November by reminding everyone he's Black and his middle name is Hussein.
Mister Anderson @ 32:
Yeah, that the last two having nothing to do with the primaries and that the last one is the only one connected to the post to which you replied.
So, let me think of three Obama supporters' arguments:
1. It's all rigged
Oh, yeah, I guess that just about covers it.
Regarding the news that Patti Solis Doyleis stepping down as the campaign manager for Hillary Clinton, FOX "News" had a special ALERT!!!!!
Here is the youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmRhftiLCOM
In essence, they are saying that the Clinton Campaign took a "hit" today because Patty Solis Doyle resigned (not fired), and that the reason that she might have left was because all paid staffers are not being paid...which the Clinton campaign says is not true.
Yet another reason for Clinton to NOT debate on FOX.
Please, someone point out the difference between Hillery's and Liebermen's voting record?
Mister Anderson @ 38:
Number six makes no sense with regard to your original question, and as for number seven, please refer to post #30:
"This is the candidate which the Rethugs want. They’re already working on the incriminating ads to swiftboat Hillary Clinton who will be an even easier target than Kerry."
"BOWIE, Md. (AP) - Former President Clinton said Sunday that having to choose between his wife and Sen. Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination is a God-given dilemma.
Clinton, who visited black churches in the District of Columbia and Maryland, said he understands black people's desire to finally elect one of their own as president. "
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080210/D8UNKN600.html
Dear Bill, We Now Know Who You Are. You May Shut Up Now.
No dilemna here.
Ryan From Portland (and any other Obama supporters crowing in a similarly tasteless fashion):
As a fellow Obama supporter, can I ask you to do me and our preferred candidate the favor of knocking off the rotten, gloating cracks about Clinton supporters? You sound like Chris Matthews. Moreover, you do nothing but make people want to vote for Clinton, but really, the sounding like Matthews part should be what shames you the most.
I thought it interesting that Clinton's campaign paid her back a couple of days later, but didn't announce that the staffers would be paid. Giving herself back 5 mil was more important than paying the folks helping her?!
Seems telling...
Mr. Stoopid @ 44:
Thank you. I'm embarrassed to be associated with these guys. We're supposed to be better than the repugs.
The apportioned vote and super delegates were put in to prevent an unsavory from sweeping to a populous win before they could control it. God forbid a popular charismatic win instead of a solid lobotomized party apparatchik like say Dukakis. What if said outsider actually won and threw us all out??
this whole election f-in stinks.
Clinton people hate obama people
obama people hate clinton people
if clinton wins obama supporters say they wont vote
if obama wins clinton supporters say they wont vote
you can only vote if you go to a caucus
let the people vote? thats a joke
i live in WA state mailed in my ballot
and i read sat morning that my vote doesn't count.
my faith in the election process ended today.
good luck to you all.
moondancer @ 47:
No, it was put in to prevent another McGovern being chosen.
I like Obama and will support WHOEVER becomes the candidate...but don't buy into the CW that REPUGS would prefer to have Hillary as the candidate because they know how to beat on her! Just hearing from the few people I know who still operate on "the dark side" the e-mails are rampant NOW discounting Obama (and being bought into by more folks than you'd believe) on the issues of his patriotism/church affiliation/ability so they can arm detractors with info that isn't because he is BLACK!!!!! Wink, wink..... Remember more folks operate on FEAR in this country than worry about blow jobs.....
This is pathetic.
We vote to end the war in 2006. Nothing happens.
Obama is presented to us by the corporate media in concert with chicken-shit progressives as the anti-war
candidate.
Obama said something in 2002 when he was out of the loop.
Did he address any of the anti-war rallies? Did he care that much to put himself out there as against the war - to
ally himself with those putting themselves on the line. No way.
Since he has been in the bubble he has obeyed every command of the hierarchy.
He dumped on Hillary Clinton.
He funds the war.
He votes for the Patriot Act.
He doesn't even mention the war - except to reference his sterling wisdom in 2002.
As many have noted, he is Bush. The guy some schmucks want to hang out with.
I have never seen media manipulation in such full bloom.
I will not be voting. Soon I will not even be able to stomach reading the papers.
This is "1984" refined and streamlined by virtue of the extra 24 years.
Mister Anderson @ 32:
Ya, they are mad at the sheer numbers he is bringing out (face it people...he IS the reason the numbers are so high) because that will hurt the Dems in November if their supporters show up like this...............or something to that effect...LOL
Must every comment thread on the internet devolve into a pissing contest? Maybe everyone should take a deep breath and try not put their own self esteem into the success or failure of their favored candidate. You'd think that this was the super bowl...
Obviously, this is bad news for the Clinton campaign. She needed to stop him here, even if only by a slim win. Americans love a winner (see super bowl reference above). This is about momentum. The more either candidate gathers the harder it is for the other to stop. If Obama holds on here and can take two out of three on Tuesday, then Clinton is in serious trouble.
And don't think that the super delegates aren't watching the momentum too. Most of them are politicians, they know which way the wind is blowing and they want it at their backs. Moreover, close to half of them are sitting Congresspeople, which means that they're seeing each other every day right now. It wouldn't surprise me to see a good many of them come out for one or the other soon...if the momentum looks unstoppable. They have to run for election in November too (many of them) and they do not want this going to the convention any more than most of us.
Remember folks, it's not about Clinton, it's not about Obama. It's about the next generation and the future.
I think you may be overstating the animosity, dw.
I'm an "Obama person," but if Clinton gets the nomination, I'll happily vote for her (OK, maybe it'll be more like happily voting against McCain, but it'll be a vote for Clinton nonetheless).
What's the story with your mail-in ballot not counting?
DJ&Chip @ 43:
bill making it a black thing again????
How sad that in a post about Obama (apparently) winning another state, everyone's just talking about Clinton. Again. I wonder if Obama supporters think about Clinton more than her own supporters? Seriously...they can't even appreciate their victories properly because they're too busy hating on the woman. Not "alright! Here we go!" but "HA!! Take that, Clinton!!"
Whatevs...
Aside from that, does anyone know when the polls closed in Maine? Seems pretty early to be counting, but then again it is Sunday (I think ALL voting should happen in the weekend, preferably Sundays...it's a hassle for people who have to work all day to then go vote). And by that time their kids are getting out from school, and dinner's got to be started on, and maybe they don't have a car, blah blah and so on.
Mr. Stoopid @ 44:
i like chris matthews.
*shrugs*
I hate to rain on your parade. There was a time when America was in a fog, and someone came along and gave inspirational speeches promising better tomorrows. That was----- not Obama---- but Reagan. How did that work out for everyone?
I cannot get into the Obama hysteria. If he wins the Democratic nomination, I'm not sure if I will stay home, vote for everything but the presidential nomination, or maybe write in Goldwater/ Miller. All I know is that I will not vote for Obama.
if the superdelegates decide, the dems will be ruined by a mass exodus from the party of people who will then know they're mere pawns. go ahead sd's. just go ahead.
WayDown @ 51:
Bush was elected because of his family's name and connections as well as a ton of corporate cash. Isn't their some candidate besides Obama who would make a better parallel?
D @ 59:
Your choice. But I have to wonder - what is it you care about that you don't see any difference between McCain and Obama? Is it that you people have, like, one or two issues and couldn't give less of a fuck about the rest? I'm actually curious about the logic that goes into this choice. Is it that you do know McCain would be worse, but will help him out out of protest? Is it that you live in a superblue state and don't feel your nonvote will hurt?
I notice 309,000 registered Democrats in Maine. 2,000 voted for Obama locks it up for him? This has been the pattern - Clinton wins most primaries, but Obama wins the caucuses where a few excited supporters make all the difference. Caucuses are anti-democratic havens for stealing elections from the majority.
Maybe the corporations that have their hands on the levers of power have pissed off enough Americans so that those Americans say, "enough."
Mr. Stoopid @ 55:
Thank you very much, Veritas, for your two fine posts on GOP election fraud in the past eight years. Karl Rove probably has been laughing his head off for the last eight years about how absurdly naive and trusting Democrats and Independents are to continue to allow Republican-controlled corporations to count our votes in secret with special hidden software. Republicans would not put up with the crap of allowing Democratically-controlled corporations count their votes in secret, but Dems and Indies just seem to be masochistic and continue to roll over and play dead in the reverse situation.
Apparently in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania practically all the voting is done on Republican-controlled electronic voting machines... If I lived in Pennsylvania, I would be raising bloody hell about this. Hand-counted paper ballots or electronic Republican fascism... your choice, folks.
VietVet8666 @ 64:
There have been a few surprises that caught the Old School political machine off guard. Obama? Wasn't supposed to be a threat at all. McCain? Wasn't supposed to be a threat at all. BUT. These people aren't stupid. Look, I mean REALLY LOOK at what is left. Do you see change? Honestly?
Go Obama, GO!
In the UK it's always paper ballots - neutral electoral officers - parties representatives watching the vote as the paper is counted
ConcernedCanuck @ 67:
I'll believe in something different once I've seen it for a few years.
John Adjutant @ 63:
M'eh. I don't think Clinton's trying, and that's why she's losing so badly. If you look at the early states she won...Nevada, NH...everyone was saying after NH how she had a really good "ground campaign"..I heard that several times, from BO himself, there was a frenzy of campaigning the last week or so. Then in Nevada, you had people (on the blogs, too) noting how her people were simply better organized, had their shit together, ect. Then she gave up in SC and hasn't really tried since. Does anyone living in Washington, Maine, Louisiana, or Nebraska feel that Obama's been campaigning harder? Maybe she's run out of stamina...or money...or ideas (don't think she was planning for this to last so long).
Jamie - THANKS for keeping us up to date !! It's a neat, simple presentation ..
However, the WordPress (or ??) is not working AGAIN -am trying to post it for 40 minutes ! The 'preview' does NOT save the input text, all randomly TRUNCATED !! 'links' don't work
.
Another lost State, another scapegoat to be blamed by shillary:
Clinton Replaces Campaign Manager
By REUTERS
Published: February 10, 2008
Filed at 5:10 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - White House hopeful Hillary Clinton said on Sunday she has replaced her campaign manager with a long-time aide as she fights a tight race with Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Maggie Williams, a top aide to Clinton when her husband Bill Clinton was president, has taken over from Patti Solis Doyle as campaign manager.
Aides to Clinton, a New York senator who would be the first woman president, played down any notion that the staff change was a signal of trouble for her campaign. (cont)..
Is this woman physically FIT to deal w/pressures of the POTUS office ??!!
shillary's close-up REAL FACE
So, where IS Chelsea to the rescue ?
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 the fights about Clinton BS on this board 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." ""
.
Superdelegates, Back Off
Democratic Party leaders should let VOTERS pick their nominee
If we allow the corrupt SUPERDELEGATES to OVERRIDE the 'PEOPLE's votes, and nominate 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 70 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. The bovine jokes are the more balanced part, really - thanks to ConcernedCanuck ..
VietVet8666 @ 70:
I hear you there. Been there, heard that "change" spiel too many times.
69% of precincts reporting and the split is pretty much the same:
57% Obama 42 % Clinton
http://www.mainedems.org/2008MaineDemocraticCaucusResults.aspx
I am a Banana @ 68:
Damn, Obama has the banana vote locked up.
fiver @ 61:
You should take a look at the list of corporate backers of Obama.
Do you think he collected his 125 Million dollars from Mom and Pop's piggy banks?
Couldn't have happened to a more calculated Beltway Insider.
Strawberrybitch @ 46:
I agree, the Democratic Party is supposed to be better than the Repugs, but everything changed after Iowa.
- As John Edwards pointed out in the debate before New Hampshire, HRC went negative first after she lossed Iowa. She virtually ignored every other Democratic candidate and ran a general election campaign until she lost Iowa.
- All of the candidates pledged not to campaign in Michigan and Florida for breaking DNC rules, now HRC wants their delegates counted because she won them overwhelmingly being that she campaigned in Florida and no other candidate had their name on the ballot in Michigan? How is that not any different than the RNC trying to have California and NY proportioned in national elections?
- Obama is running a transparent campaign. HRC refuses to release her income statements until the national election. Why the secrecy? Where did the $5 million loan come from? Isn't that a repug strategy?
- Mitt Romney lost $30 million to his campaign, HRC made a loan. Why should her new supporters who are giving $25 and $50 out of their paychecks pay back her $5 million loan to herself? Will Bill Clinton discount his $100,000 speaking fees if any one of them ask him to come speak to a church or school in the future?
- Obama proposes that super delegates vote based on the will of the people. Hillary says the rules as written should be followed. Why didn't she follow the rules when it came to Florida and Michigan? Why doesn't she respect the caucus system?
- Obama is campaigning across the nation trying to earn every vote. I believe the only states he forfeited to date were Arkansas and Tennessee (and kept his pledge with Michigan and Florida). She's primarily campaigning in the 10 biggest states and claim they represent the voters of all 50. Why shouldn't the votes of those who live in Alaska, Idaho, Wisconsin, Nebraska, and so on matter if she's just focused on New York, California and Texas and hope to keep it close enough for the super delegates to put her over? How is that any different than the repugs redistricting so many states?
I'm a Obama supporter. I didn't complain when Clinton was stomping Obama in the debates late last year and had built up a 20 point lead across the country. I'm not complaining or making excuses that he has to take on Bill and Hillary. I'm not complaining or making excuses that the Clintons are using their insider advantage to pressure super delegates. I'm not complaining that the Clinton campaign already have built in organizations in Ohio and Pennsylvania. If Obama spreads his message and he loses, then he loses.
I just find it very interesting that ever since Iowa, and ever since Super Tuesday, the inevitable candidate is now claiming to the be underdog and is being VERY selective in what is fair and what is not. Ever since Iowa, she has not run a very respectable campaign and all signs point to the idea she won't respect the voice of the American people if Obama wins more pledged delegates. Then on so many message boards, her supporters go out of their way to tell Obama supporters about how he has all style and not substance and they're gulliable and naive to support him. Like you, I would love to believe that the Democratic Party is better than the repugs.
But for some reason, everything changed after Iowa.....
the bias in the liberal blog world is very disheartening. Hillary was never NEVER expected to win these states.
the empty arrogant no substance Obama gets rave reviews when he wins a bunch of sexist red states as if that matters, as if they'll ever turn blue (and they won't)
but hillary wins big states that are needed in the general election and the media doesn't even blink an eye.
Hillary will likely win Wisconsin and Ohio. She was NEVER expected to win the states in february after super tuesday.
don't any of you ever follow realistic stats? ever? obamanites are acting EXACTLY like the bush sheep we've all laughed at.
this is very sad to watch. obama doesn't deserve to be president much alone have it handed to him.
[deleted - way over the top and please don't use all caps]
LionelB @ 76:
I have suspicions re: Obama and corporate cash; but with HRC the connection is definite and many decades long. Also, the comparison was with Bush, and I specifically brought out the point that he was elected solely on nepotism. Obama doesn't have that problem; he arrived at this point in his career on his own merit.
Anyone notice McCain's hilariously bad showing in Maine?
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#ME
ariuszme @ 79:
But she was EXPECTED to have more delegates and more votes than him by this time, wasn't she? So Obama has won, in that regard. Somewhere he took states that she should have taken.
ariuszme @ 79:
I take it you are a Republican or conservative by your speech?
LionelB @ 76:
Yes Lionel.
But more important:
Do you really think that Obama has any kind of passion for ending the war in Iraq?
I don't. And yet we are being led to feel that he is the anti-war candidate.
Hillary was not only expected to win these states. She was expected to be coronated already. These states were not supposed to even be in play. She never saw Obama coming.
D @ 59:
I agree about the hysteria part, but Reagan and Obama ask(ed) us to hope for completely different things. I'm assuming you're a fellow Clinton supporter, and as such, I'd politely ask that you please reconsider.
[refers to deleted post]
Are you kidding me? No one is going to read that. ALL CAPs hurts the eyes. Also, calm down, for you own sake, man.
ariuszme @ 80:
Mess of very big letters. Caps lock stuck,huh? NOBODY will read your post if it is all in caps no matter how good it makes you feel to yell. But thanks for your anger. Can I ask one little question without you yelling? What's so great about Hillary that you are so angry?
Why is everyone making this so complicated? Seems to me it's a simple sign of Clinton Fatigue. She and her campaign staff should have anticipated this.
From The Field:
Official results from the Maine Democratic Party, with 69 percent of the precincts reporting:
Obama 1503 state delegates
Clinton 1084 state delegates
1st Congressional District:
Obama 685 (6 national convention delegates)
Clinton 434 (3 national convention delegates)
2nd Congressional District:
Obama 818 (4 national convention delegates)
Clinton 650 (3 national convention delegates)
Statewide at-large pledged delegates:
Obama 5
Clinton 3
Total pledged delegates:
Obama 15
Clinton 9
WayDown @ 85:
Point taken.
Strawberrybitch @ 46:
Assuming they are Obama supporters . . .
WayDown @ 85:
Nobody is going to end the Iraqi occupation and nobody will admit to that.
ariuszme @ 79:
Clinton was polling at +15 - 20% in Maine just a week or two ago. She was clearly expected to win here. She had a vast majority of the state's leading Democrats backing her and most of the party insiders.
ConcernedCanuck @ 94:
Oh c'mon now. You and I both know that nobody isn't even running.
RancidVenison @ 96:
That is not true. Mike Gravel is still in the race. ;)
fiver @ 81:
You don't have to just have "suspicions".
You can google the information.
Follow the money. Obama’s presidential campaign has received nearly $5 million dollars from securities and investment firms and $866,000 from commercial banks through October of 2007. Obama’s top contributor so far is Goldman Sachs (provider of $369,078 to Obama), identified by Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) investigators as “a major proponent of privatizing Social Security as well as legislation that would essentially deregulate the investment banking/securities industry.” Eight of Obama’s top twenty election investors are securities and investment firms: Goldman Sachs, Lehman Bros. (number 2 at $229,090), J.P. Morgan Chase and Co. (# 4 at $216,759), Citadel Investment Group (#7 at 4166,608), UBS AG ($146,150), UBS-America ($106,680), Morgan Stanley ($104,421), and Credit Suisse Group ($92,300). The last two firms are also known to be leading privatization advocates (Center for Responsive Politics 2007a).
Meanwhile, Obama’s presidential run has been “assisted” by more than $2 million from the health care sector and nearly $400,000 from the insurance industry through October of 2007 (Center for Responsive Politics 2007b). Obama received $708,000 from medical and insurance interests between 2001 and 2006 (Center for Responsive Politics 2007c). His wife Michelle, a fellow Harvard Law graduate, was until a recently a Vice President for Community and External Affairs at the University of Chicago Hospitals, a position that paid her $273, 618 in 2006 (Sweet 2007).
And Obama’s sixth largest contributor is Exelon, the proud Chicago-based owner and operator of more nuclear power plants than any entity on earth (Center for Responsive Politics 2007a).
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=14448
And this information isn't even up to date.
I also think it is naive to think that Obama arrived at this point in his career based on his own merit.
What is so compelling about his accomplishments as a Senator?
He reminds me of an Elvis impersonator. He speaks in a particular style, with a recognizable phrasing, and
in spite of the fact that he isn't saying anything, people think that he is the real thing.
[refers to deleted post]
Take care, C & L-ers. It's been fun talking with you.
Anybody read up on Clinton's new old campaign manager? Talk about skeletons in the closet. Guess Hillary is going to use what her supporters want. "Remember how great the 90s were under a Clinton"??? It seems really amazing that a campaign that shouts "CHANGE" from the stage, keeps using the same old political hacks that have been around for decades on the political map. Change indeed.
States Obama won with (so far) more than 60% of the vote:
Alaska 75%
Colorado 67%
Georgia 67%
Idaho 79%
Illinois 67%
Kansas 74%
Minnesota 67%
Nebraska 68%
North Dakota 61%
Washington 68%
States Clinton won with (so far) more than 60% of the vote:
Arkansas 70%
LionelB @ 98:
These two are both politicians. How do you think they can even run in an election without corporate support? They can't. The main difference is, do you want someone relatively new on the block with those connections, or somebody with connections to everything you want changed?
"wins a bunch of sexist red states". Oh boy, where to start:
1) the voting in those red states was done among Democrats, who, presumably are not the sexist part of the red state
2) the majority of voters in just about all, if not all, were women
3) if were going to claim that 'ists' are dominating elections, one look at congress or in governorships will tell you that 'racists' hold more sway than 'sexists'
sorry your candidate is losing but watching you squeal is hilarious.
ariuszme @ 79:
hareli @ 93:
hareli, I'm tired of the venom coming from both sides. I wasn't even going to vote in the primary until I found out my vote wouldn't count (weird thinking, I know, but I really was torn between the first female president and the first AA president). Then I had to haul my ass down to a caucus...and I still wasn't sure who I was going to vote for...until...this very young and annoying Obama supporter started verbally man handling the little old lady Hillary supporters, and being the chivalrous person I am, I sided with the sweet little old ladies...and then they nominated me as a delegate...(shit). How do I get myself into these things?
Lionel, they all get corporate donors. That's how the *bleeping* system works. But Obama managed to avoid selling out his principles when it counted, and that's what matters.
I posted this comment above but it got put into moderation I'm guessing because I linked to each state's official results. Here it is w/o the links.
Pretty amazing when you think about it.
Bottom line: the candidates and the electorate knew that Florida was not going to have delegates. Hillary forcing this issue just underscores the desperation.
[refers to deleted post]
[refers to deleted post]
they were national ads run on cable channels...and no, neither he nor the channels had the ability to block those ads
and the only way michigan or florida should be seated is if they redo the primary
had the idiots not messed with the rules, they wouldve been in play
they were counting on hillary running away with it
dummies
Michael Moore: Voting for Hillary Clinton would be "an Immoral Act"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fpaQfS8M_8
Damn. I luv Michael Moore but he could have just endorsed Obama instead of saying that.
LionelB @ 98:
Lionel B,
I've been through Opensecrets over a dozen times now and can't find a single industry where Clinton hasn't raised more corporate cash, often far more than any Republican .
"Following the money" has resulted in turning up Hillary endorsements and fundraisers from the likes of Morgan Chase and NewsCorp. This is on top of a career as a corporate attorney and director of at least three multi-million dollar corporations.
The destination article for the Morgan Chase link is from Fortune Magazine and is entitled "Who is Business Betting On?" The NewsCorp link refers to a fundraiser held by Peter Chernin, COO of NewsCorp, which netted Hillary $850,000.00 in one night.
I may have suspicions re: Obama selling out to Big Business, but with Hillary there is not even a doubt. As far as nepotism, in the past 50 years only George Bush has been a bigger recipient than Hillary.
cnn is reporting that obama has swept maine too
Ryan From Portland @ 29:
Ryan. You are going to remember your nasty remark when you are old and regret that you ever were such an arsehole. Ageist remarks are just as stupid as sexist or racist remarks. You will not realize this until you are on your last legs, bed-ridden, or worse.
I don't ever respond to any all caps post. Hell, I won't even read anything that someone thinks they have to scream about. There ought to be a way to send every comment that has more than 4 capital letters in a row in it straight into moderation so they don't even show up.
How about Huckabee instantly challenging the election results? That's how you should handle these things.
A correction to the front page: 37,361 people's votes have been counted. This smashes all previous Caucus records (in the low 20k's) and the votes are not even all tabulated yet.
http://www.mainedems.org/2008MaineDemocraticCaucusResults.aspx
Why the swing from Clinton to Obama. If all of the networks are willing to contact me and pay me, I will provide them with the answer.
Wow! I thought I stumbled on a rightwing blog. I thought progressive's on the left where differant from repugs. All I read is clinton is this, obama is that, and they are both just like bush. When did the left ever think that the demogratic party was a left progressive party? It is, and always has been a left of center middle of the road party. They will never go far enough to please the progressive left because, thats not what they are. I will vote for any dem over any rightwing repug because, alittle bit is better then nothing. Just keep in mind people that, whoever wins will be picking the next supreme court.
People should reread Mister Anderson's post, really informative about the current situation.
Again, major props to Obama on another victory. At this point, Shillary is going to need either massive help from the oligarchical establishment (aka SuperDelegates) or attempt to seat non-elections such as MI and FL. Both of which would cause such public outcry that the democratic party would never recover.
diamondmc @ 116:
You're completely right. There is no legitimate working class/real left parties in the United States. Go research European politics if you don't believe me. However, as it stands, we must vote for a right-centre party like the Democrats over the Hard-Right fascist party such as the Republicans.
John Adjutant @ 63:
The totals represent precinct caucus delegates, I believe, not votes, per se. In WA, where I caucused yesterday, for example, we had a hundred people in our precinct. Initially, there were about 70 votes for Obama, 20 for Clinton, and 10 undecideds. After the tallies it was determined that our precinct could send 10 delegates to our county convention. After the actual caucus portion, where various people make their pitch for their particular candidate, all the undecideds went to Obama. So in our precinct, Obama got 8 delegates and Clinton got 2, and those are the numbers that the precincts report up to the congressional districts and media outlets. Maine is probably reporting results the same way, so the "votes" numbers will look remarkably low, but rest assured turnout is very high.
John Adjutant @ 63:
Obama has certainly won most of the caucuses, but I beg to differ that Clinton has won most of the primaries. I like the caucus system. Diebold machines are not a factor.
WayDown @ 51:
Nick @ 118:
Having spent some time living in France I agree. It will always be in this country , that you vote for the lesser of evils, untill the left can grow and mature into something real, it will be middle of the road stuff.
I don't think caucuses are an accurate way to run a primary. Too many people are left out. I'd be interested to hear how Hillary does in the Washington primary versus the caucuses. I wish we could take the politics out of our election system. It totally sucks. It would be so nice to have a vote equal a VOTE. Instead of a vote towards a delegate towards another delegate and then later votes that go towards the effing electoral college. And how about those paperless voting machines? Sure glad they got that all fixed in time for the 2008 elections. I don't have much faith in this system AT ALL.
I don't know the population of Maine, but 3,000 is the majority? This is not the real voters......there are thousands and thousands of them. Caucusing is ridiculus! The poor, those at work, etc. are still not getting their vote....and don't try to tell me the Superdelegates know what is best for the middle class.
joanie @ 124:
C&L has it wrong... those arn't the actual number of voters in the caucuses participating those are the state appointed votes that will represent the voters in the caucuses.
And to all those who bad mouth caucuses ... what exactly about it do you not like? the public participation? debate/discussion? or is it just that everyone is to busy they can't take the time to talk about it a little more? how many of you have actually participated in a caucus? I have... not that i'm for or against them they are just different methods, but each method represents something good and something bad. (uninformed voters or voters only voting on name recognition can be just as bad as low turn out)... but nothing about it is undemocratic like some have hinted
LionelB @ 121:
I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you're a Hillary supporter.
Some of you are a bunch of whiners! No wonder repugs tend to win most of the time as they all think alike, but dems can never agree on the same things which is our downfall. Too smart for your own good at times.
Both Hilary and Obama have their faults, but you're not looking at the big picture. Obama has a better chance at grabbing some moderate/liberal republican votes than Hilary does. This means less votes for McCain which is the goal right now. If Hilary is on the ballet in November, who do you think these moderate/liberal republican voters will go for? The goal is to get a Democrat in the Whitehouse... Can't wait to see the responses on this.
justabill @ 105:
Still, the super delegates and the Democratic Party establishment will circle the wagons and anoint Hillary the nominee.
Just a bit confused by the graphic. There were 4049 absentee ballots cast and counted. A ported 27,000 people actually showed up. But your graphic shows a tenth that in total votes with 90% reporting.
Karl Rove in charge of counting over there?
Okay - did some checking. It's NOT votes you're reporting, it's delegates to the state convention who are committed to one candidate or the other.
In the 2006 Maine primary 40,314 Democrats voted
So far in this Caucus with 91% of precinct reporting (and the largest ones still outstanding) there have been 39,640 individual votes cast.
This Caucus is well on it's way to having the participation exceed the vote totals in the last democratic primary.
yellow dog @ 131:
The results in C&L's post are being fed from the CNN site and update every few minutes.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#ME
WayDown @ 51:
Well said, especially the parts I highlighted. This is the thing I don't get when people say Obama is a much better candidate than Hillary. Since he has been in the Senate, he has done everything that Hillary has done. Their votes are virtually identical. They are one in the same. As far as being truly progressive, they both are...when compared to Republicans. Regarding progressive policy, health care is important to me, and Hillary's plan is the only universal form of it being presented. I'm not buying that he is the candidate of change just because he says he is.
ConcernedCanuck @ 84:
No. He's upset because Obama is not an Israeli ass kisser like Lieberman and Hillary. Obama has the audacity to put America first. How dare he not call for an invasion of Iran just because Israel finds it compelling? Ever wonder why Hillary won NY, NJ, CA and FL? but lost their other states, especially the northern states where there are no, shall we, say, "Israeli sympathizers"?
Strawberrybitch @ 104:
What does an Obama supporter have anything to do with what Obama stands for? Are you telling me that Ron Paul doesn't have some nut jobs who like him? What about Bush? Or Hillary? It's not like those candidates fathered those supporters so that a logical connection can be made between their behavior and what the candidate stands for.
If someone is convinced in their choice and knows that his/her choice is sound and true then idiots like that kid shouldn't cause them to change their minds so easily.
Bob Loblaw @ 128:
I think we do not need to waste our time trying to figure out who is more likely to be able to beat the Republican. We did that in 2004 and ended up with John Kerry and look where that got us. You can try to figure that six ways from Sunday and still pick a loser.
We need to just vote for the one we like the best and think will do the best job and let the chips fall.
SassySandy @ 137:
You're probably right SassySandy... the bickering here is just so frustrating. I need to stop reading these comments, they're driving me nuts!
Here are some very interesting numbers we should all like:
Total votes cast
Maine Republican Caucus: 5,431
Maine Democratic Caucus: 39,640 (91% of precincts reporting)
Jonah @ 135:
huh? there are many jews who are still angry at hillary for hugging and kissing mrs arafat.
many jews are buying into the obama is a muslim email (sad but true)
hillary won ny cuz she is the favorite daughter...she won many jewish votes because she has finagled lots of fed monies for jewish areas and townships
she won cali because she and her campaign pushed early voting
obama has met with aipac and has made statements of support towards israel
i dont see much difference in either when it comes to the middle east
WashStateBlue @ 21:
I agree with you! I'm from Washington too and I want to know if they're interested in the will of their consituants or if they'll stick to Hillary. I'm going to start writing letters about this tomorrow. In fact, I'm wondering if someone can find and post a list of ALL the super delegates so we can begin asking this question now.
memyself @ 139:
That's fantastic but it is Maine we're talking about.
Even more amazing was what happened in many of the so-called red states. For example:
Kansas
Total votes cast
Kansas Republican Caucus: 19,133
Kansas Democratic Caucus: 36,695 (100% of precincts reporting)
South Carolina
Total votes cast
South Carolina Republican Caucus: 442,918
South Carolina Democratic Caucus: 530,322 (100% of precincts reporting)
my next book title: From Osama to Obama...The Bush Years, End of an Error.
WayDown @51 said, "We voted to end the war in 2006"
You may have voted hoping to end the war, but none of us voted to end the war. We voted to put people into office, hoping that they would end the war. The Democratic Party, however, was concerned only with picking up 6 seats in order to establish a thin majority.
There was no referendum on the war. There was no mandate to end the war.
The "progressive" movement (which appears to spend most of its energy moving around in circles) decided to try and take over the Democratic Party, rather than build a new party. Did no one think far enough ahead to realize that the DNC establishment might have other ideas?
And now there is a candidate (and i'm not a supporter of either) who has the ability to bring a lot of new people into the party, and perhaps insert some new blood...and this candidate just isn't good enough.
Here's what you need to do: stop whining about how federal politicians aren't responsive enough to your desires and start working for real politics that you can believe in at the local level. See, its a feeder chain. People start out local and move up the ladder until they get to this level. By the time they get to the federal level, nobody is going to be squeaky clean or ideologically pure. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington was a movie...and Mr. Smith never faced election anyhow.
When it comes to your school board and your city council and even your state representatives, you do have the power to put the right kind of people in office...but of course you have to go out and talk to your neighbors and convince those extra couple hundred people who only bother to vote when its Reps, Sens, and Presidents. Fill up those offices with real progressives and watch what happens. If they succeed, they'll move up the political ladder...and up...and up...and up.
Christ, America, we can all sit around bitching about how nobody is good enough for us, or we can stand up, get out, and change things. But there's no such thing as miracles in politics. And if you want someone elected who agrees with you 100% you'll have to start with making sure that at least a plurality of the voters agrees with you 100%.
I'm beginning to wonder if 7 straight years of having nothing to do but gnash our teeth and cry from the wilderness has reduced far too many of us to a state of being incapable of anything else. Of course, we could have spent the last seven years trying to change things, but goodness, that would have taken some effort. Fixing these messes is not someone else's job. It is our job. Assuming that someone else will/can/should do it is what got us all in this god forsaken mess in the first place.
And i really, really wish that if people are going to complain about the electoral system of this country, they would at least learn how it all works before complaining. Caucuses report delegates. Washington is not having a Democratic primary. If it's too much damned trouble to take time out of your day (it should be a state holiday) to go actually talk to your neighbors, debate the candidates' positions, and vote...do you even deserve to vote?
Freedom, as they say, is not free. The cost is a well informed and involved electorate.
Site monitor, delete if you think i've gone over the top...i understand...i just needed to vent.
A Republican accusing the Republicans of election fraud.
This is rich.
BabushkaBlue @ 141:
sadly, my state NY went to Clinton. Not sure what Schumer is doing nor Hinchey..
actually they are both down for clinton.
http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/superdelegate-list.html
LionelB @ 98:
Thanks for your investigation. I always suspected that there was something Too good to be true, about the way he was raising MONEY.
You are telling us what THE MEDIA should be telling us. They are not DOING so because they want us "Hopers" to pick him.
rend @ 147:
Whoa! And there's the list of super delegates. Thanks! I hope there is a groundswell of folks - maybe started by us? - who will begin emailing these super delegates reminding them that we're watching and hope they'll pay attention to the popular vote.
Obama is change folks
Login or Register to post comments.