Barack Obama | Election 2008 | Hillary Clinton | John McCain | Maryland | News | Virginia | Washington DC

Obama and McCain Sweep Potomac Primaries: VA, MD, DC

Obama_madison

Barack Obama resoundingly defeated Hillary Clinton in yesterday's Potomac primary.

The WaPo reports: "On a day when there was huge turnout in the area, the senator from Illinois won Virginia with about 64 percent of the vote. In Maryland, where the polls were kept open an additional 90 minutes because of bad weather, he was winning with about 60 percent to Clinton's 37 percent. He was headed for an even bigger win in the District, where he was attracting about 75 percent of the vote. The lopsided wins mean Obama will emerge with a clear majority of the 168 pledged delegates at stake in the area, as well as a widening lead overall among the more than 65 percent of pledged delegates who have now been accounted for nationally. When superdelegates are added to the calculations, Obama and Clinton are still in a highly competitive race, but Obama has seized the overall lead."

road.jpg The importance of Texas and Ohio for Clinton has become strikingly clear. The question is, can she stop the momentum?

road.jpg Some are asking whether a pledged delegate win for Clinton is no longer a real possibility?

road.jpg Clinton was criticized for refusing to congratulate Obama on his wins...

road.jpg Obama has a campaign-within-a-campaign targeting the superdelegates.

According to CNN this morning, Obama's delegate count is at 1215 while Clinton's is at 1190. John McCain's stands at 812 to Mike Huckabee's 217.

McCain had a tougher time against his last remaining challenger, but pulled out wins in all three primaries.

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. So this election is coming down to who scares me the least! I have to choose between insane McCain and a Jimmy Carter want-to-be Obama? Not to mention another four years of Clintons and Bushs if she pulls off the super delegates! WOW...what an election year. All this and we still have totally ineffective Nancy Pelosi and her boy toy "puppet" Harry Reid. Who says that America is on the decline?

    Either way, this is only going to go bad for this country. With any hope, the next president will only serve ONE term and we can get back on track. Not that W has the country in the right direction either. I am just totally disgruntled with ALL OF THEM!

    But Obama? Lets look back in history. Carter ran on change and was a "nice guy". We got Iranian hostages, became an international joke in the Middle East and elsewhere, the economy was faltering, foreclosures were up and interest rates hit 19%! Any of this sound familiar? Obama wants to freeze interest rates for 7 years and Pelosi will let him. Hell she would take over private industry if we would let her. Not good....NOT GOOD!

    Posted by: RB | Feb 13, 2008 9:09:32 AM


  2. That report from Fineman says it all to me. The Clinton camp are all but throwing up their hands and praying for a miracle.

    Posted by: Miles | Feb 13, 2008 9:10:15 AM


  3. Yepp miles

    The Fineman report is intresting.

    BUT the miracle won't be the superdelegates.

    The NYT had a few already pledged Hillary SDs saying they were all basicaly chikens and will change and follow the leader of the pledged delegate count. The main reason being that the vast majority of SDs are elected officials that will not cut their own throats by going against the majority of voters.

    The miracle of Michigan and Fl isn't going to go her way since it appears that Michigan will agree to redo a caucus election since the DNC has offered to help fund it and they didn't have all candidates on the ballot. They really have no leg to stand on since the ballot didn't have all the candidates on the ballot. The question is how much of a penalty will michigan recieve for the do over. Only 1/2 its regular delegate numbers or 2/3

    Fl logisticaly can't do a redo so late in the season. It is 2-3 times larger than the largest caucus state population wise and has never done a caucus before. Imagine all those blue haired retirees screwing up worse than they did in 2000.

    Even with FL, Hillary needs to get over 60%+ total votes in all the remaining elections. A practical impossibility unless Obama eats a puppy on live television.

    Posted by: Jimmyboyo | Feb 13, 2008 9:32:36 AM


  4. sorry

    I misquoted the number needed

    Acording to this site, as of this moment barring any other large victories by obama

    http://www.obamaiswinning.com/

    Hillary needs 56% of the remaining state delegates

    Posted by: Jimmyboyo | Feb 13, 2008 9:40:28 AM


  5. I'm delighted by Obama's win. The voters recognize that we need candidates that can work across the aisle. This is why McCain is winning on the Rep side and Obama on the Dem side. Voters are rejecting the candidates they view to be diehard partisans. Clinton is too polarizing a figure -- also, I just can't stand the thought of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton.

    An Obama-McCain match up in the general election will be extraordinary.

    Posted by: Anonymous | Feb 13, 2008 9:57:15 AM


  6. I think what is now becoming obvious (and using her husbands words) is that Hillary's campaign was the one that was a "fairy tale", all "smoke and mirrors." She somehow was able to run on the idea that she was the vetted candidate, the tough one who was a master politician and the best to take on the relentless Republican machine in the general election. In truth, she never really experience running against a tough candidate. Guliana dropped out of the NY senate race because of health reasons, and RIck Lazio was such a junior candidate that it was no match against the Clinton name. Obama had everything working against him-- nobody really thought he had a chance. And as soon as he started winning, Hillary's campaign crumbled. All smoke and mirrors. Thank God this happened now and not later this year as the Democratic candidate against John McCain.

    Posted by: Rob | Feb 13, 2008 10:49:05 AM


  7. I know you're busy pulling all this stuff together, Andy, but you unintentionally mistrepresented the facts as reported in the article you linked to with your caption "criticized for refusing to congratulate Obama on his wins." CNN merely wrote, "failed to." Your caption suggests that she was asked to but responded by refusing. HUGE difference.

    And the Daily Kos article you linked to begins with a long quote from the same article you linked to yesterday by the NY Times hack with a documented history of over-the-top hit pieces about Sen. Clinton as well as a documented history of plain erroneous reporting. Even the Columbia Review of Journalism has condemned him for misquoting John Kerry in the 2004 campaign thus giving ammunition to the Republicans to smear Kerry over something he never said. The once great NY Times would once have demanded that their writers not repeat such reckless reporting that affects the outcome of elections, but this one has more than once since then, including falsely claiming that Sen. Clinton lied about having seen Martin Luther King, Jr., in person. Paul Krugman calls this "the Clinton Rules" wherein the media can say anything they want about them and get away with it, such as participating in the Swift Boating of them as racists.

    As for the subject itself, it's not even news. Commentators were saying the night of Super Tuesday that the contests between then and Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania were unlikely to be won by Sen. Clinton but that those crucial states could be and must be.

    As for Super Delegates, reporter Gwen Ifill mentioned Sunday on Meet the Press that it's a bit disingenous of Obama to simultaneously be saying that they should just affirm whoever has won the popular vote at that point AND be wooing them to vote for him in any case.

    And, Jimmy, I disagree. At this point, Obama could FUCK a puppy on live television and his supporters and the media would just comment on how happy the puppy looked.

    What I'm wondering is if the same thing could grind Sen. Clinton's campaign to a sudden halt before those three states as it did John Edwards' campaign earlier—money.

    Posted by: Michael Bedwell | Feb 13, 2008 11:02:57 AM


  8. I have voted straight Democrat over the last 19 years and this year I changed to Republican due to the DNC's threat not to count my vote in Florida. Since it appears that it may be a McCain-Obama match up. I will be voting for McCain since I believe the Gay issue is not big this year. I am more concerned about keeping the Bush Tax cuts; some privitization of Social Security and expansion of domestic oil production and nuclear power. Obama is on the other side of all of these issues.

    Posted by: Brett | Feb 13, 2008 11:09:02 AM


  9. People are such fucking sheep. "Oh, Obama won a primary, I'd better get with the winner and vote for him too." Morons.

    Posted by: scott | Feb 13, 2008 11:10:02 AM


  10. No, Rob, the big change was not Obama's first win but his campaign's successful Swift Boating of the Clintons as racists. Overnight the huge majority that Sen. Clinton had over him in states like South Carolina reversed. [you can look it up if you don't remember both the spread and all the "why doesn't Obama appeal to black voters" articles before then]

    Obama's message didn't change. He didn't suddenly become "blacker." The wagons circled, just as they did, ironically, around gay black civil rights icon Bayard Rustin in 1963. The Big 6 black civil rights leaders had argued against his organizing the Great March on Washington because he was gay; six years even before Stonewall the black community was certainly no more supportive of gays than they are now; but then a proven racist [unlike the Clintons] Strom Thurmond tried to stop the March by attacking Rustin on the floor of the Senate as a degenerate, Communist, etc., and the wagons circled.

    Same thing in the last couple of months which led to more wins by Obama [again South Carolina is the textbook example with more than 50% of voters in the last primary blacks, most of whom supported Clinton just three months before] ipso facto "momentum."

    Of course, portions of other groups have always supported him more, but THAT was the change—the Obama Swift Boat Campaign.

    Posted by: Michael Bedwell | Feb 13, 2008 11:14:11 AM


  11. Brett then talk to your state party leaders about accepting the redo.

    The irony is that if you guys had just waited till the previously agreed upon date then you guys could have/ would have been the kingmakers/queenmakers you fantasize yourselfs to be. NOW would have been the perfect time (previously agreed upon) for FL to stand out as it was trying to do instead of screwing itself. ALL of the FL dem party leaders did this to you guys!

    When Michigan officialy does agree to their redo, FL will have less feet to stand on. Though FL is very different from Michigan. Michigan which didn't have all the candidates on the ballot is a must redo.

    Michael

    LOL on your puppy comment.

    As an obama supporter, I would never comment on how happy a pup looked if he F'd it on tv. I would change my vote split quick.

    Any BD/SM pup boys need to stop fantasizing, we aren't talking about you human pups but rather canine pups.

    The SD's should and most will vote according to their respective district or state majority vote. That means Kerry and Kenedy should vote Hillary. To do oherwise is political suicide for elected officials who are SD's

    Posted by: jimmyboyo | Feb 13, 2008 11:26:01 AM


  12. PS Brett

    I question your claim about being a dem

    "some privitization of Social Security and expansion of domestic oil production and nuclear power"

    Those are 100% repub platforms.

    Dem platforms are NO privatization of SS, investment in alt energy, etc.

    You kind of blow your whole claim.

    I claim that you are instead a log cabin repub just trying to stir up trouble between dems and would support whatever repoub candidate was their choice.

    Posted by: Jimmyboyo | Feb 13, 2008 11:28:58 AM


  13. Woo hoo Obama, lets keep her on the ropes and her lame exuses how these votes don't matter! So GOP of her!

    Posted by: Sebastian | Feb 13, 2008 1:18:32 PM


  14. "Obama Swift Boat Campaign"??? Where do you make this stuff up? Its like you live inside your own little fantasy world, where Hillary is Madonna in Evita, and Michael Bedwell is dreaming of the day when he can can stand outside the White House and listen to Hillary sing to the nation. Oh, please.
    Obama has proven that he is the one who has run a fair campaign, while Hillary and her husband tried so hard to make this about race. While Hillary kept writing off losses as states that don't count because they were caucus states, or red states, or small states, or states that were too black, Obama was the candidate who believed that all states mattered.

    Posted by: rob | Feb 13, 2008 1:18:33 PM


  15. No, Rob [short for "Robot for Obama"], I live in a world where details matter such as the fact that the most obvious explanation for black support for Sen. Clinton turning upside down virtually overnight—when Obama had offered no new details on any proposals that might uniquely appeal to African-Americans—was so many believing the lies spread by members of Obama's campaign staff that the Clinton's are racist.

    It is exactly analagous to the "Swift Boating" of John Kerry when Bushnics lied about his service in Vietnam and smeared him sufficiently to cost him the election—"coupled with the media and Internet blitz surrounding [it], are largely credited with crippling Kerry's message in the final months of the campaign." - Fox TV, which I don't need to point out was hardly a Kerry supporter.

    Fair campaign? My flabby ass!

    “Obama Plays the Race Card. Jesse Jackson, Jr., set it up on MSNBC the morning after Mr. Obama's surprising loss in New Hampshire [saying Sen. Clinton’s] ‘tears also have to be analyzed. They have to be looked at very, very carefully in light of Katrina, in light of other things that Mrs. Clinton did not cry for, particularly as we head to South Carolina where 45% of African-Americans who participate in the Democratic contest, and they see real hope in Barack Obama’.

    What it reveals is the signs of abject desperation by Mr. Obama and his campaign, which is obviously hoping to inflame African Americans in South Carolina in order to push him across the finish line to victory. Because after the New Hampshire loss, Obama is now under real pressure and simply has to win in South Carolina. The loss in New Hampshire knocked them back into a defensive crouch and they're going overtly negative on the one issue that is sure to inflame everyone: race. Obviously, they think it's an ace for them so they're going to hit that emotional card and hit it hard.” – Taylor Marsh, Jan. 11, 2008

    “Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign has prepared a detailed memo listing various instances in which it perceived Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign to have deliberately played the race card in the Democratic primary. The memo, which was obtained by the Huffington Post and has been made public elsewhere, is believed to have been given to an activist and contains mostly excerpts from different media reports. It lists the contact info and name of Obama's South Carolina press secretary, Amaya Smith. The document provides an indication that, in private, the Obama campaign is seeking to capitalize on the view - and push the narrative - that the Clintons are using race-related issues for political leverage. In public, the Obama campaign has denied that they are trying to propagate such a perception, noting that the document never was sent to the press. - Huffington Post, Jan. 12, 2008


    Posted by: Michael Bedwell | Feb 13, 2008 2:46:15 PM


  16. What the Clintons have done recently, is unknowingly pull back the curtain and reveal their true selves, their ruthless ambition and utter lack of genuine loyalty.

    Hillary's current strategy of dismissing states she doesn't win, is both foolish, short sighted and very telling. First it's the caucus states "Obama only attracts the wealthy who don't need to work and can afford to take the time to caucus" and then dismissing primary states (where Obama won EVERY single demographic last night) as unimportant. Her strategy of releasing statements before a primary or caucus saying that this isn't a state they expect to win, in order to lower expectations, is bizarre and reminiscent of Guiliani's fatal campaign flaw.

    Obama is carrying states - by a TWO TO ONE margin over Clinton - that the Clinton camp considered a lock only weeks ago.

    I have resisted joining the commentary until this time, but I have to say how proud I am that American democrats and independents, far from being sheep, are engaging in politics, attending rallies in record numbers (and sheep don't tend to take the considerable time and effort to attend a political speech unless there's something that inspires them to do so) and voting in record numbers to ensure that the next four to eight years of American leadership represent what WE WANT and BELIEVE in rather than what we are TOLD WE SHOULD WANT OR SETTLE FOR.

    I, personally, want to be inspired by leadership, not merely led, and engaged to participate. Obama's community organizing background is very much on display in his campaign. It's a vibrant, energized movement for genuine change. Clinton is wasting what little money she has left on Obama attack ads about debates. Same old tactics = same old results - cynicism in the electorate. The Obama campaign stays resolutely on the positive, on a new breed of campaigning - strength, optimism and genuine ideas.

    It might not read like it, but I was literally undecided until some point in January. I took the time to get to know both candidates platforms and agendas, along with their personal style. then I sat with my gut instinct. The final decision was pretty clear.

    Time to STAND UP FOR CHANGE!

    Posted by: Danmac | Feb 13, 2008 2:54:29 PM


  17. Hey Rob,
    Why don't you articulate WITH FACTS, NOT OPINION, exactly how the Clintons tried so hard to make this about race?

    Were Barack and Michelle Obama playing the race and sex card by pointing out Hillary's lead among white women?

    Posted by: daniel | Feb 13, 2008 4:00:09 PM


  18. Actually, DANMAC, the Obama sign, which first appeared [along with the pre-existing "Change We Can Believe In" sign] in South Carolina, nudge nudge wink wink, simply reads "Stand For Change" and is, I grant you, one of the most subtle but slyly brilliant slogans I remember being used in a campaign.

    You might not know it, but, trust us, countless black voters in South Carolina, knew that "Stand" is the title of gospel gay basher Donnie McClurkin's Grammy-winning song. And the highlight of the October South Carolina concert Obama starred him in. That is if you don't count the moment when he screeched to the black crowd, "GOD DELIVERED ME FROM HOMOSEXUALITY!!!"

    Please cite ONE objective source that proves your ludicrous claim that his recent wins are all states, "the Clinton camp considered a lock only weeks ago."

    Oh, we all "want" to "believe" in "leadership," but where do you SEE leadership in Obama OR Clinton for that matter at the moment. Political campaigns aren't about that; they're about promising it, among other things. And that check is always "in the mail" until they're in office and you can demand they cash it.

    So far the main account Obama is writing his checks on is Personality. He's running as Elvis when any objective close look proves he's running on EMPTY! Why has Obama given so few press conferences in which he's taken questions? Why has Obama taken so few questions on the road from voters not hand-selected by his staff? Why has he agreed to so few debates?

    BECAUSE he knows that those "genuine ideas" that have made your tits hard don't stand up too well to genuine challenge. More pages stolen from the Bush/Rove Playbook.

    "The Obama campaign stays resolutely on the positive"? PUH-leeeze, Mary! You can seriously claim to have studied both campaigns and write that. See details, quotes, dates, references above of their Race Swift Boating of Sen. Clinton.

    People who refuse to see that are worse than sheep. They're adult humans who have been willingly lobotomized by Dr. Obama and his surgical team after having been assimilated by the Obama Borg.

    Ultimately, your comments are nothing more than another example of the phenomenon written about a few days ago in the NYT by Paul Krugman:

    "What's particularly saddening is the way many Obama supporters seem happy with the application of 'Clinton rules'-the term a number of observers use for the way pundits and some news organizations treat any action or statement by the Clintons, no matter how innocuous, as proof of evil intent."

    Posted by: Michael Bedwell | Feb 13, 2008 4:06:48 PM


  19. Michael,
    You are at it again. Making up a big "swift boat" plot, when there is a much simpler explanation. Prior to Iowa and NH, most people across the country (and in SC, but I'll get to that) didn't believe in the electability of Obama. They didn't think he could win and many (in the national survey's) didn't know him.

    When Obama won Iowa on Jan 3 (in a very white state), all of a sudden those in SC started to take notice. The african americans saw that a black man could win states and could get white votes. Yes Obama didn't change his message going into SC, because he didn't have to. The change was in the belief that now a black man could win. That was the shift. You should know better, it wasn't a big shadow plot, it was people beginning to know him and see the possibility. A much easier and true explanation.

    Also, up to that point, SC voters didn't want to abandon Clinton, the "likely" nominee. Now that they realized they had a feasible choice, they looked closer and decided.

    Stop making it an evil plot to take down clinton with race. The clinton's are the ones who kept bringing race into it, not obama. He has tried to avoid it, otherwise he alienates all the other non-black voters. Very clear. The clinton's were trying to box him into that and he broke out. Sorry. Rovian tactics by the Clinton's are no longer in Vogue.

    Posted by: Matt R | Feb 13, 2008 5:39:54 PM


  20. Matty, Matty! Don't confuse cheap sci-fi movie knockoffs on TV with reality. Though there is an analogy to the Borg and you've obviously been assimilated by the Obama version of it!

    The Story of Jesus er Barack's Second Coming hadn't even been posted by the time of the South Carolina primary. He'd only won ONE state to Sen. Clinton's two. Hardly proof to enough previously skeptical black voters in SC that he could win it all! And when his head which had grown so huge over winning that one state EXPLODED after he lost in New Hampshire after all the Obama Girls er fawning media assured him that the wicked old witch was really, really dead, he couldn't beat her on substance so he pulled the one thing out of his pocket better than a huge We Love You Elvis bag of money—Ye Olde Race Card. [After inadequately playing that card in gambling capital Nevada where he trumpeted LOSING by 6 points—"I got the most delegates! I got the most delegates!"—while spending the week crying about voter disenfranchisement.]

    What did her tearing up in New Hampshire have to do with RACE? Nothing, of course, but Obama national cochair Jesse Jackson, Jr., linked the two in the race rocket he fired at her the next morning when pollster and pundits were still picking the pieces of their burst crystal balls off the floor:
    "They have to be looked at very, very carefully in light of Katrina, in light of other things that Mrs. Clinton did not cry for, particularly as we head to South Carolina where 45% of African-Americans who participate in the Democratic contest, and they see real hope in Barack Obama."
    I'm sorry. Does someone remember seeing Barack in a boat on Bourbon Street rescuing blacks in New Orleans? Did Anderson Cooper and Sean Penn distract all the TV camera crews from covering another one of his miracles? I have a prediction: if Obama isn't given the nomination regardless of the total of "free" and superdelegate votes, like Bush, he'll run crying to the Supreme Court.

    Posted by: Michael Bedwell | Feb 13, 2008 7:07:18 PM


  21. I live in Austin. I've officially decided to vote Obama.

    Posted by: astonedtemple | Feb 13, 2008 9:31:15 PM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Brady Quinn in Alleged Anti-Gay New Years Eve Incident« «