Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Election 2008

It's Not Over. Clinton Runs Ahead, But Obama Remains Strong

By Steven Rosenfeld, AlterNet. Posted February 6, 2008.


Hillary Clinton is winning in big blue states, while Barack Obama is winning across red-state America.
Advertisement

Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., remains the frontrunner in the Democratic presidential contest, even though Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., won more states on Super Tuesday, when 22 states held Democratic primaries and caucuses.

While the vote count is not yet final in some states, notably California, Clinton won strong victories in many large states, such as New York, New Jersey, Arizona, and Massachusetts -- and she was leading in the early returns in California. She also won Arkansas, Oklahoma and Tennessee. All told, Clinton won in eight states.

In contrast, Obama won 13 states, according to his campaign, including most Western states holding caucuses. Those states are Alaska, Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota and Utah.

Various news organizations have different estimates of the delegate count, but Clinton is clearly ahead in these scenarios. The New York Times said Clinton has 656 delegates compared to 558 for Obama. The Washington Post, whose estimate does not include super-delegates -- party officials and other Democratic luminaries who comprise about 21 percent of all delegates -- said Clinton has 412 delegates compared to 381 for Obama.

The Obama campaign said on Tuesday night that it leads Clinton by 43 delegates -- not counting California -- with 677 delegates, compared to Clinton's 634 delegates. That estimate includes super delegates.

A more objective appraisal will not emerge for several days, however, until California's results are known and all the state tallies are analyzed.

Thus, while Super Tuesday appears to have moved both parties closer to picking candidates, it seems that voters -- particularly Democrats -- can look forward to more campaigning, debates and voting in long-ignored states, making the eventual nominee the result of the most informed and participatory process in decades.

Both Democratic candidates saw positives in Super Tuesday's outcome, although the Obama campaign may have been working a bit harder than the Clinton campaign to spin the results in its favor.

"The polls are just closing in California, and the votes are still being counted in cities and towns across America," said Barack Obama, addressing supporters in Chicago. "But there is one thing on this February night that we do not need the results to know. Our time has come."

"Tonight is your night. Tonight is America's night," said Hillary Clinton, addressing her supporters in New York. "In record numbers, people voted not just to make history, but to remake America."

While election officials will certify vote totals and party officials will parse the results and award delegates in coming days, the bottom line is that the contest may take a month or more before the nominee is chosen.

In fact, on Monday, Clinton campaign strategist Mark Penn suggested that the nominee might not be selected until early March, when Ohio and Texas vote.

"There are a lot of states that are good for her," Penn said, citing Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas as Clinton strongholds, which hold their nominating contests on March 4, April 22 and March 4, respectively. "Those are large states with a lot of delegates."


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: super tuesday, presidential primary, democratic primary, obama, hillary, hillary clinton

Steven Rosenfeld is a senior fellow at Alternet.org and co-author of "What Happened in Ohio: A Documentary Record of Theft and Fraud in the 2004 Election," with Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman (The New Press, 2006).

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Election 2008! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
define "winning in red states"
Posted by: wwittman on Feb 6, 2008 12:05 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
so he's "winning" in "red states"

winning DEMOCRATIC primaries in red states.

McCain "won" New York.

Think McCain is going to carry New York in the GENERAL ELECTION?

same thing with Obama.

Winning a Democratic primary in a red state does not in ANY way imply he's going to carry that state in a general election.
Only that Democrats in a Republican state preferred him to Clinton

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: define "winning in red states" Posted by: SENILEBIKER
» RE: define "winning in red states" Posted by: wonkywriter
Uh, what?!
Posted by: Markson on Feb 6, 2008 12:37 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hillary also won decidedly in red states as well (OK, TN, AK; if Clinton fatigue/hate is truly apparent, he should've done better in AK). Also both of them are running in Democratic primaries.

The pro-Obama spin on this site has been unbelievable lately. Get a grip, people. If he can't withstand basic facts or legitimate criticism now how they hell will he win in November? The polls he's running now are the best he can possibly due considering how the corporate media and Kennedy, Daschle machines are backing him. And yet he's still not trouncing Hillary Clinton of all people!

If he can't crush her now with all this advantage, he has no chance in November, especially once the media finally decides to apply some level of scrutiny to him. That doesn't even include the inevitable smears that will be targeting him by the right.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Oh, shut up.... Posted by: Nebris
» ty, skoog5600 Posted by: johnclark
» RE: Uh, what?! Posted by: gazooks
» Unfortunately... Posted by: skoog5600
» RE: Uh, what?! Posted by: jmooney
» RE: Uh, what?! Posted by: foreverhope
» Swift Boaters Posted by: Sparks56
» Clinton's form of Swift Boating Posted by: foreverhope
It looks to me
Posted by: Sissy on Feb 6, 2008 4:13 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
like we're getting a "little testy" here folks. We need to lighten up, we have another 8 months to go and anything can happen. Just keep in mind somewhat, ANY of the remaining democratic candidates will be better than what we have presently endured for the last 8 years and the concern I have is that we wrest the power finally from the criminally incompetant administration and all of the minions thereof, and try and solve the horiffic mess they are leaving us with.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: It looks to me Posted by: left_libertarian
» Amen to this comment Posted by: skoog5600
» Amen to this comment Posted by: skoog5600
» RE: Amen to this comment Posted by: johnclark
» RE: Amen to this comment Posted by: skoog5600
» RE: It looks to me Posted by: nochicagoboys
» What is even more disturbing Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» What is different... Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» RE: It looks to me Posted by: Bibsi
» RE: It looks to me Posted by: mandy
» RE: It looks to me Posted by: andrushka
» A poseur Posted by: jmooney
Hillary cannot win
Posted by: citizenme on Feb 6, 2008 5:34 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I personally don't know of a single person that has voted for her, nor do I know a single person that will vote for her if she comes from the democratic camp.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hillary cannot win Posted by: bbfmail
» RE: Hillary cannot win Posted by: kiowa
» RE: Hillary cannot win Posted by: nebgirl
» RE: Hillary cannot win Posted by: Bibsi
» RE: Hillary cannot win Posted by: jmc
» RE: Hillary cannot win Posted by: Longdream
Farce, Farce, Farce.
Posted by: douglashoyt on Feb 6, 2008 5:41 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The media has controlled the process, put up "its" candidates, and given the voter the result.

McCain will win the general election against H. Clinton.

e.g. the ruling elite win and the public looses again.

Americans don't deserve a peoples government, they deserve a monarch and slavery.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Doom & Gloom Posted by: Sissy
» RE: Farce, Farce, Farce. Posted by: nochicagoboys
» Correct. And nobody even sees Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» RE: Correct. And nobody even sees Posted by: nochicagoboys
» RE: Troll, troll, troll..... Posted by: johngary66
» RE: Farce, Farce, Farce. Posted by: willymack
» RE: Farce, Farce, Farce. Posted by: luckypuck
Real debates
Posted by: mike1997 on Feb 6, 2008 5:59 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I hear the Hillary is calling for 4 more "debates" in the next four weeks. I have an idea. Why not have real debates instead of joint news conferences. There is a system of debates called the Lincoln-Douglas debate format. It is set up for one on one debates and has been used and tested for years in both American colleges and high schools. They could take turns being the first speaker so that is equal and the time limits are equal as well. The best part is there would be no press needed except to roll cameras! You could set up 4 different topics that would be debated, a different one each week. For example: Week 1 Health care. Week 2 Iraq. Week 3 The Economy Week 4 Social Security. If they used the standard time limits the whole thing takes about 45-50 minutes.

Why not? Aren't we all getting sick of the phony "debates" we see now? Why not do the real thing?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: real debates Posted by: frank69
» RE: eal debates Posted by: willymack
» RE: real debates Posted by: mike1997
The media called California for Hillary with only 17% precincts reporting
Posted by: veggiegrrrl on Feb 6, 2008 6:35 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The media called California for Hillary with only 17% precincts reporting. We need a new system. One person, one vote,no delegates. No media leaks until all votes are counted.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: AGREE Posted by: Sissy
No way McCain, filthy tongue
Posted by: GPFrank on Feb 6, 2008 6:47 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I had once written once that if Hillary is the Dem. candidate I would vote for McCain. But no way
will I vote for McCain after learning about his insult to Hillary and Bill's daughter which I won't even repeat. I cannot see any excuse for remarks disrespecting women, whether from war trauma or inebriation. McCain already has inhaled too much the filthy culture of the Republican elite in Washington. I can't imagine Bill or Hillary saying anything of the sort about anybody,
whatever their pecadillos.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Thoroughly Agre Posted by: Sissy
» RE: Thoroughly Agre Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: You are Correct Posted by: Sissy
» RE: No way McCain, filthy tongue Posted by: drmflorida
Stop hatin'.....
Posted by: Fencerider on Feb 6, 2008 6:53 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My God.... "I hate Hillary...I hate Barack.... I hate the war-mongering USA...." All you people can fuck off. We are supposedly on the same team here folks. When will you petty people realize we are not eachothers' enemy? Save that vitrialic non-sense for the GOP, you'll need it. Just agree that whichever Dem wins, you'll back them. Yes you will, 'cause you know 4-8 more years of Hillary, or better yet, a chance for Obama means we shift paradigms from fear and confusion, to hope and optimism. As far as the I hate the US person goes, what the hell is your problem? When the going gets tough, you bail out? What are you, too weak to handle a challenge? You are seemingly blaming the US foreign policy/gov't debacle on we citizens. Look, I didn't vote for this BS the last two elections, why should I bear this burden? America is broken, but not shattered. No need to bash a great country just b/c it's "rulers" are corrupt.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» That makes me feel Posted by: steven w
» RE: That makes me feel Posted by: Fencerider
» RE: Stop hatin'..... Posted by: willymack
» But the people Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» RE: But the people Posted by: nochicagoboys
» RE: Stop hatin'..... Posted by: Longdream
Use The Strengths
Posted by: Southern Gal on Feb 6, 2008 7:19 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How about an Obama/Clinton or a Clinton/Obama ticket to maximize both of their strengths? Then put John Edwards in as the real deal Attorney General to clean up the Justice Department. My concern is the Congress. We need to keep Democratic majorities in Congress.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Use The Strengths Posted by: rinpochet
» RE: Use The Strengths Posted by: nochicagoboys
» RE: Use The Strengths Posted by: luckypuck
Clinton Leads?
Posted by: PJAW on Feb 6, 2008 7:38 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The title of this article is ridiculous. There is no "leader" at this point, and to assign that title to anyone is at best misguided, and possibly prejudicial.

This selection process has been reduced to "feelings", as in which candidate makes you feel better, about yourself and the future of your country. For a short time, for some of us, it was about issues, back before Kucinich and others were marginalized and ridiculed completely out of the process. So, if all we have left are "feelings", I'm going with Obama. Certainly both Clinton and Obama represent a change for the better from the lawn jockey of a President that the corporate elite have jammed down our throats for the past 8 years (counting the 2000 campaign), but Obama (at least for me and millions of others), inspires hope that we will be able to once again participate in the creation of "America", whatever that might ultimately be. Clinton represents a return to the past. Sure, it may be a past that seems better than the most recent 7 years, but I think it's time to think more about the future.

So, Go Hillary! (and take Bill with you)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Clinton Leads? Posted by: PJAW
Whichever side wins
Posted by: Thucy on Feb 6, 2008 7:53 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm hoping the DNC has set up or will soon set up a "war room" operation that confronts the right wing BS being spewn under the radar about the both of them. You know the kind of crap I mean. The "Hillary Clinton ordered the death of Vince Foster" "the Clintons ran a secret airstrip in Arkansas to import cocaine" BS so prevalent among 700 Clubbers and the like, and the "Obama is a radical Muslim who will swear the oath of office on a Koran" nonsense that seems to be popping up everywhere in the right wing echo chamber. It is in the interests of both candidates that this nonsense be confronted and countered now, wherever possible. It may not be possible to stop this crap, but we should at least try to minimize it's impact.

As for both campaigns, while it's perfectly legitimate to question and even attack a candidate's votes, past statements (when not distorted), policies, etc., neither side should EVER allow to pass, let alone indulge in or spread, that kind of nonsense. Whoever wins the nomination, the "swiftboating" we're about to see will make what Kerry and Dukakis went through look like a picnic. I'm hoping Howard Dean and the DNC are gearing up for this, no matter which way the nomination finally goes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is a decisive moment for the Demos.
Posted by: Sojourner on Feb 6, 2008 7:59 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Will Hillary and Barack tear at each other between now and the convention? Or will they and their Demo advisors come up with some way to bring us all together?

We shall see before the convention whether the Demos know how to win. More than Hillary or Barack, we need a candidate who can win. We need advisors who know how to get the job done.

Sure, we can expect to hear a lot more pretty words. But the fact is we have a deadlock with two excellent leaders. It kinda resembles the deadlock in Washington. Now is the time for them to show their stuff. Whoever can pull off a political solution to this political problem deserves our support.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I hope you are both correct. Posted by: Sojourner
An opening.
Posted by: chorton on Feb 6, 2008 8:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So Hillary is still a bit ahead, perhaps with some help from Diebolt. (It's amazing how much more accurate exit polls were before 2000!) But Obama has the momentum. and could still pull this out in spite of the Super-Delegates.

If so we need to know that what we are winning is not a commitment to peace, but an opening for peace. Obama, like the rest of the surviving candidates (except for Ron Paul and Gravel), is committed to maintaining US military domination of the planet, but he is making some pro-peace statements he can perhaps be held to, and he may be more responsive to pressure from the people.

We need to keep up the "street pressure" for peace now, after the nomination is settled, and on the new President. We need to find new and innovative ways of doing so. Anti-war sentiment at 70%, but the anti-war movement is nearly invisible from Main St. Some way must be found to draw the millions into action and force media attention.

One crisis we could face soon: if Bush starts a war with Iran, and he could, can we stop Obama from jumping onto the war bandwagon?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

telling
Posted by: andrewstromotich on Feb 6, 2008 8:21 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
BARAK:
"The polls are just closing in California, and the votes are still being counted in cities and towns across America," said Barack Obama, addressing supporters in Chicago. "But there is one thing on this February night that we do not need the results to know. Our time has come."

CLINTON:
"Tonight is your night. Tonight is America's night," said Hillary Clinton, addressing her supporters in New York. "In record numbers, people voted not just to make history, but to remake America."

ONE CANDIDATE IS STRICKTLY TALKING ABOUT THEMSELVES, THE OTHER IS TALKING ABOUT A REVIVAL OF AN ELECTORAL PROCESS THAT WILL REDEFINE THE COUNTRY.

HUH. TO ME CLINTON SOUNDS LIKE THE NATURAL LEADER, THE LEADER OF 'MEN', WHILE OBAMA SOUNDS LIKE THE LEADER OF HIS CONSTITUANTS.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: telling Posted by:
» RE: telling Posted by: militaryhater
» RE: telling Posted by: Longdream
» RE: telling Posted by: Ahimsa
» RE: telling Posted by: andrewstromotich
» RE: telling Posted by: nochicagoboys
» RE: telling Posted by: nochicagoboys
» RE: telling Posted by: andrewstromotich
» RE: telling Posted by: nochicagoboys
Go America
Posted by: Smo on Feb 6, 2008 8:30 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hillary, Obama who cares? Well it seems everyone does, but what really matters is that voting -and what happens to this country- suddenly made a huge jump forward in the minds of all Americans. I am in awe that people still care what happens to us and our liberties/rights. It’s been so long. Too long. Cheers to America.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why are my anti- Democratic Party comments not being printed?
Posted by: logansafi on Feb 6, 2008 8:51 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Apparently, alternet is now censuring people who think that the horse race is nonsense? Why is that?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Latinos overwhelmingly support Hillay
Posted by: cjohnson44 on Feb 6, 2008 8:54 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and will not accept a black for president.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Do you have another term Posted by: WhuThe?!?
ELECTIONS, MARDI GRAS, NY GIANTS, WALL ST. TANKED
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Feb 6, 2008 8:59 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What a day. I can't remeber the last time I stayed up to watch election results. Record turnouts was the best news in a long time. So, we do care after all. The country seemed to come alive yesterday. It felt good. The Media can no longer predict what the voters will do. They just have to wait to find out. They'll have to get over it. Thanks to all the candidates for knocking themselves out. ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's All About the Electoral College
Posted by: mcartri on Feb 6, 2008 9:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Only a few states will determine the next president. Yes, McCain will win Utah, and either Barack or Hillary would easily win Illinois. It's not about the sure things, it's about those few states that could go either way. We should be discussing which Dem has a better chance in the swing states. If McCain is best defeated by a nominee who shows strength with Independents and Republican moderates, then Obama is the best choice. I want the Democratic candidate to be the strongest in the swing states. I cannot see a Clinton/Obama ticket as reality. My opinion is an Obama/Webb ticket is the strongest the Dems can run against John War Forever McCain. I'm open to arguments that Hillary is the best choice to win the swing states.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Who knows?
Posted by: logansafi on Feb 6, 2008 9:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No, I was not using profanity. I don't know why I got that screen saying that the comment was not accepted for the article, since what I wrote immediately in response to that was? Alternet has never moderated anything I have written before off screen and that is to the good credit of their web site.

CommonDreams, on the other hand, has done so, and it had to do with simply not liking the political content of what was written, and nothing to do with any profanity or such.

They push Al Gore all the time there and Al Gore is not a hero of mine, so suffice it to say that they just yanked me offline for not speaking kindly about the guy and the DP in general.

So, alternet, I apologize to you for starting off this thread.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Who knows? Posted by: drmflorida
» RE: Who knows? Posted by: Thucy
» I'll report it Posted by: Joshua Holland
I think I've finally figured out what it is about Obama....
Posted by: sallythewally on Feb 6, 2008 9:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He is like a Rorschach test; both the very progressive folks and the "moderate" - i.e., conservative folks see what they want in him. He talks like he's so far to the left, but he also talks like he's going to give the "moderates" and "disaffected Republicans" what they want.

He can't really bring them both in - the people who deeply care what's going to happen to those young boys on the streets and the people who want those young boys to pull themselves up by their bootstraps will not be pleased by the same policies. That's why he stays vague.

Hillary does put her policies right out there, in detail. We can decide what we think of them. She isn't going to promise everyone what they want. Here she is: take her or leave her.

By the way, I think the fact that the Republicans are going on so loudly about how they want Hillary to be the nominee shows (in their reverse psychology) may mean they really want to run against Obama. This worries me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

OPRAH NATION...
Posted by: form516 on Feb 6, 2008 9:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I just can't embrace the notion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: OPRAH NATION... Posted by: militaryhater
A Different Perspective
Posted by: pkbutrfli on Feb 6, 2008 9:45 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I experienced and noticed a couple of things last night.

An elderly lady and her daughter showed up to the caucus and asked if they could watch. I wondered why they didn't want to participate... it turns out they are registered republicans who plan to vote democrat at the general election and can't support anyone in their republican caucus. I let them sit with me and made sure they didn't get counted for anything.

When I got home and started looking at the outcome of each state, two things struck me...

1 - did anyone else notice that the amount of people who participated with the dems was overwhelming compared to the republican participation (tens of thousands of voters compared to just thousands.. forget the percentages for a moment... look at the numbers).

2 - when videos were showed, the dem precincts were packed, the republican precincts looked lonely.... a perfect place to meditate.

Maybe I'm reading too much into these things... But can anyone here tell me how this next election could possibly be stolen?

No matter whether it's Hillary or Barack, it sure seems to me like it'll be a landslide!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A Different Perspective Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: A Different Perspective Posted by: pkbutrfli
» RE: A Different Perspective Posted by: Longdream
It Makes Me Nervous
Posted by: Southern Gal on Feb 6, 2008 10:05 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It makes me nervous that Obama is not getting scrutinized in the same way as Hillary. It brings to mind the media love affair that Bush had when he first campaigned and obtained office. I'm not comparing these two men because there is no comparison. I will fully support Obama if he wins the Democrat nomination. I'm just saying that the alternative media has been less than diligent in their portrayal and examination of Obama.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: It Makes Me Nervous Posted by: militaryhater
» RE: It Makes Me Nervous Posted by: nochicagoboys
» RE: It Makes Me Nervous Posted by: form516
» RE: It Makes Me Nervous Posted by: nochicagoboys
jareilly
Posted by: jareilly on Feb 6, 2008 10:57 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yesterday, the Clinton voters told the rest of the country and more importantly, the world, exactly what the voters told the world in 2004. What they are telling the world about America is that either we don't care about the Iraq War or that we support it. Clinton supported it, campaigned for it, lobbied fellow Dems for the war resolution, then voted and spoke in favor of the war right up until mid-2006. Now she complains vaguely about the "conduct" of the war and promises to keep troops there until 2016. And the Clinton Dems, so far the majority in the biggest turnouts in decades have all told the world that they agree with this!

3900 dead Americans, 20000 wounded, over 600,000 dead Iraqis, a trillion in debt and a growing army of sworn, violent enemies with long memories all around the world with no end in sight, and American imperial aggression is always justified. All so we can put a uterus in the Oval Office. That is what the Clinton voters voted for yesterday. I think the rest of the world hears them, us, Clinton, loud and clear.
If this is the best we can do, then there's no hope for this country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Where are you getting your facts? Posted by: nochicagoboys
» The rest of the world is watching Posted by: Susan Kipping
» RE: Where are you getting your facts? Posted by: nochicagoboys
» How sexist can you be? Posted by: form516
» RE: How sexist can you be? Posted by: jareilly
Clinton: Gateway to Another 4-8 years of Republican Rule
Posted by: cmaroudas on Feb 6, 2008 11:17 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Last night's primary provides further evidence that Obama appeals to moderate Republicans and red state voters. If the choice is between Clinton and McCain, I fear the Democrats may as well start planning McCain's inaugural party. Here's why:

1. The Clinton "Pucker": Republicans hate Hillary Clinton. I am the first the concede that their hatred is based on ignorance and emotive reactions to her rather than any real disagreements about her positions on issues. In addition, progressive Democrats don't like her. I have yet to see a "Any one but Obama 08" sticker. In the last week I have spoke with all my Republican friends and family. Of the 8 I spoke with, three voted for Obama (out-of-state open primaries), three said they would vote for Obama if they were Democrats, and two (both consider themselves conservative Christians) said they are unhappy with their candidates and are looking into Obama. Each added that they could not/would not vote for Clinton. This may be anecdotal but speaks clearly to me. IF Clinton could win the White House over McCain and IF she could get progressive legislation passed over the Republican minority, I would feel differently about her candidacy.

2. The War: The choice between Clinton and McCain on the war is muddled. On the one hand you have McCain who is just fine with policing the world and using as many guns, bombs, and boots as it takes. Clinton voted to authorize the war based on fraudulent intelligence. She could have said "I was duped" and admit her vote was based on lies (like Edwards). In addition, her recent inflammatory vote on Iran tells me that she is yet again going along with the Bush administration's version of intelligence. Fool me once… The choice between Obama and McCain is far clearer. End the war or continue it into perpetuity (ala North Korea). I believe that electing Obama sends a very clear signal to the rest of the world: We are through with the mindset that values an inflammatory, militaristic approach to dealing with the international community.

3. Leadership: I am an ardent feminist who delights in seeing capable women in positions of leadership. However, given Clinton's history battling the Republicans (specifically on healthcare), I doubt kicking down the doors of Congress shouting "I'm baaaack" will earn her much support from a powerful minority. Clinton should be commended on the groundwork she laid for universal healthcare in the 90's, but I don't think she's the one to make it a reality. The Republicans win the perception war on this one. "Hillarycare" is some scary boogie man but the same plan from another candidate is interesting and exciting. My Republican neighbor wanted to vote for Edwards but is scared by Hillary???!!! Edwards is far more progressive than Clinton but she loses the battle because of the "Clinton Pucker". I believe Obama's positions on the issues are more nuanced and attainable in the short term. His leadership style is far more inviting than Clinton's promise to take up her long fight against the Republicans.

I support Barack Obama, MoveOn.org, and the descendants of the 60's leadership who valued peace over For-Profit-War (The Kennedy's, Eisenhower). I voted for John Kerry in 2004, trusting him to run our country, and am moved by his endorsement. We have a chance to be with vanguard rather than the old guard. I hope you will join me.

[