Barack Obama | Election 2008 | Hawaii | Hillary Clinton | John McCain | News | Wisconsin

Obama Scores Decisive Win Over Clinton in Wisconsin and Hawaii

Ohio and Texas now loom as must-win states for the Clinton campaign as Obama's momentum appeared to surge into the Wisconsin and Hawaii primaries, which brought him his 10th consecutive win. Obama took 58% of the vote in Wisconsin to Clinton's 41% and 76% in Hawaii to Clinton's 24%. Obama now has a nearly 100 delegate lead (Obama 1355, Clinton 1261).

The NYT reports: "Mrs. Clinton wasted no time in signaling that she would now take a tougher line against Mr. Obama — a recognition, her advisers said, that she must act to alter the course of the campaign and define Mr. Obama on her terms. In a speech in Ohio shortly after the polls closed in Wisconsin, she alluded to what her campaign considers Mr. Obama’s lack of experience, and his support for a health insurance plan that would not initially seek to cover all Americans. 'This is the choice we face: One of us is ready to be commander in chief in a dangerous world,' Mrs. Clinton said in the remarks, which she also planned to expand upon in a speech in New York City on Wednesday. 'One of us has faced serious Republican opposition in the past — and one of us is ready to do it again.' Mrs. Clinton did not mention the Wisconsin results; she did, however, call Mr. Obama to congratulate him on the victory."

Above, Obama's remarks following his win in Wisconsin. Below, Clinton addresses her supporters after the Wisconsin defeat. Below, right, John McCain takes Wisconsin. McCain took 55% of the vote in Wisconsin, over Mike Huckabee's 37%.

Detailed primary results for Wisconsin here.
Detailed Hawaii results here.

According to a Reuters/Zogby poll released today, Obama has opened up a 14-point lead over Clinton among national voters.

(clips courtest talking points memo)

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. For Bill Clinton's comments on the role of experience in a Presidential candidate look to his response in a debate when he was running. Go to youtube and search for "Bill Clinton experience". BC sounds like a commercial for Obama. And now we get the real HRC: the mean, vindictive woman who throws things when someone does not agree with her.

    Posted by: rudy | Feb 20, 2008 8:34:13 AM


  2. Ahh Obama. Hope without details.

    Posted by: Matt | Feb 20, 2008 8:53:27 AM


  3. Ahh Hillary. Shrill without details.

    Posted by: yoshi | Feb 20, 2008 8:55:12 AM


  4. Go Obama! The voters have finally figured it out -- Obama is a perfect storm of intelligence, charisma, and character. I think people are also tired of 16 years of Bushes and Clintons and want to move on.

    Watch out for the Clinton dirty-tricks machine to kick in as they grow desparate.

    Posted by: Anonymous | Feb 20, 2008 9:02:03 AM


  5. Obama is a left wing liberal who will, like the two predecessors this party chose to nominate LOSE because America is not interested in liberal ideology. You might as well have Ted Kennedy running in terms of policy.

    As for the video noted above about Bill Clinton, if you actually watch the video he says it experience is important, but it isn't everything. And let's not compare Bill Clinton's nomination and election with Obama's. Bill Clinton had experience. He had actually run a government before. He also ran away with the nomination after New Hampshire's primary. And let's be serious, the only reason the won the election was because Ross Perot divided off the Republicans who wanted a President to get the country out of economic misfortune and they did not think Bush the first could do it. Bill only garnered about 44% of the actual vote in that election. If Obama gets only 44% of the vote, the Democrats will, for the third time in a row, give the Republicans a victory because they refuse to see that the general population does not believe in the liberal ideology that he Barack Obama represents.

    That all said, he'll of course get my vote because I support his liberal ideology.

    Posted by: Alex | Feb 20, 2008 9:14:58 AM


  6. I really think that people should stop saying what the American people want, with all due respect to Alex. My roomie's conservative fiance says this country wants a leader. I've heard others say in regards to McCain that the country wants someone with younger blood. What those comments reflect is the speaker's uncertainty and ambiguity regarding a certain candidate. Plus, voting for "what the country wants" gainsays Democracy, even if it's already been said against.

    Be that as it may Clinton won because of Perot, but I contend the Perot voters placed their ballots in favor of NOT Bush I; if they didn't want to see Clinton as President they would have voted accordingly. But again, it sucks people do that.

    Don't vote for who will win or who the country wants. Vote for the person you believe should be in office...

    Posted by: justincredible | Feb 20, 2008 9:27:24 AM


  7. Hillary put a curse on her campaign when she told Katie Curic that it was inevitable that she would be the Democratic nominee four months ago. Such an ego never goes rewarded. Up until that interview I was 100% behind her. After that interview I switched to Obama. Apparently I was not the only one.

    Posted by: Phil GRAY | Feb 20, 2008 9:28:44 AM


  8. Go Obama,go!!!!

    Posted by: Sebastian | Feb 20, 2008 9:39:13 AM


  9. Sorry ALEX, but that dog just won't hunt (in the words of Bill). I have a number of conservative friends who are now Obama supporters (a couple of them voted for W. TWICE). Obama is also getting and gaining the support of well known TRADITIONAL conservatives, like Eisenhower's daughter, who have long since felt that their party left them behind when it took a detour down Fundie Boulevard, but who, until now didn't see any good options on the Democratic side.

    I think the fat lady is warming up off stage for her big singing production in two weeks when Obama wins Texas and Ohio.

    I've become more and more sold on Obama, not because of what HE says and how he says it but because of what HILLARY says. Her LOGO interview was the last straw to me.

    I was very happy that Obama, ONCE AGAIN, in his speech last night, specifically mentioned that it was time to stop scapegoating gay people for the problems that America can't fix because it refuses to own up to. When he was listing the problems I was thinking in my head, "yeah, we can't address those problems because too many people spend all their time beating up on gay people and immigrants". Then in his next sentence he said exactly that.

    No doubt left in my mind; Obama is my choice to move America out of the Bush nightmare.

    Posted by: Zeke | Feb 20, 2008 9:56:01 AM


  10. Hopefully in two weeks Barack will have wrapped this up and can start focusing on the general election and McCain.

    Posted by: Roger Newcomb | Feb 20, 2008 10:15:45 AM


  11. Matt

    Go to Obama's website for the details you want. TONS and TONS of details.

    http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

    You wil not be disapointed.

    I am an Obama supporter but Zogby has shown itself to be a horrid pollster. Never trust a poll by zogby. The best pollsters this season are SUSA = survey USA. I would love for the 14% ahead thing to be real, but I doubt it seriously till SUSA says so.

    ZEKE, yes I to heard Obama mention us. It was great. When has a naional political figure said to a Texas crowd that scapegoating gays is not a good thing? I think it might have been a first.

    Posted by: Jimmyboyo | Feb 20, 2008 10:26:00 AM


  12. Yoshi you scolded me once for doing more diservice for Obama than help by what I posted.

    My friend, we need to get away from the "shrillary" stuff. It doesn't help. It especialy doesn't help to start the process of helping hillary supports move over to Obama for the general election against mccain

    Hillary has faults, she is human and we all have faults. Hillary though has many wonderful qualities. Im hoping her good qualities can be utilized as a supreme court justice. She definetly has more backbone than ginzberg and the other more liberal justices and would be an amazing foil to scalia.

    Posted by: Jimmyboyo | Feb 20, 2008 10:31:50 AM


  13. I'm so tired of that Clinton talking point that Obama offers no policy details. As JimmyBoyo so ably pointed out, his website if FULL of details. He constantly encourages people to visit his site for the full scope of his policy proposals. He isn't hiding it from anyone.

    Meanwhile, I will NEVER trust the Clintons. I will never forget Bill signing the DoMA and giving an interview where he claimed he cried while signing it...yet later when I was in North Carolina I heard a Bill Clinton 96 campaign commercial touting the DoMA as a major achievement. As a young gay man coming into self awareness and a young voter trying to figure it out, I will NEVER forget that 'under the bus' feeling.

    Posted by: Ben | Feb 20, 2008 10:48:41 AM


  14. Zeke, Zeke, Zeke. Obama simply pats you lightly on your head again and you wet yourself? What is this, fucking 1978? He repeats yet again [what was that about his lack of originality] the tired, hollow as a chocolate Easter bunny line about not blaming immigrants and gays. What does that CHANGE in ways that improve your life? Does it legalize marriage, even civil unions? How about gay adoption? Does it get you job protection? Does it overturn DADT? Does it stop a third of the billions spent on AIDS being thrown away be going to the religious groups that he so loves? Does it bring Lawerence King back to life? And WHERE was his comment about that murder last night? What a PERFECT, timely opportunity for him to give an object lesson to what scapecoating gays can turn into. But that would be too specific; that would put some REAL responsibility on his listerners to change BEHAVIOR, change LAWS.

    Sen. Clinton didn't adequately dot all the I's and cross all the T's for you in her LOGO interview? Other than the forum than most Dem candidates participated it, has Barack DONE a LOGO interview? Why not? Or, should I ask, why should he when you scream "BANQUET!" whenever he throws you a single crumb.

    QUOTE: "[Deval] Patrick was a political newcomer who swept office on the promise of change in a campaign crafted by the same Svengali, David Axelrod, who created and packaged both of them.

    Both were black and came out of nowhere. Deval, with a prep school education, is perhaps an even more gifted orator than Obama, if you watch the original "Just Words" speech.

    In Massachusetts, a groundswell for change, and promises of change, were not enough for Patrick to produce change. Patrick eventually needed to succeed in the tough, stalemated political system that he was criticizing, and he failed miserably.

    Deval tried to ignore the real world politics that dominated the Massachusetts legislature and quickly became bogged down with rookie mistakes. He squandered the goodwill of the voters and many of them turned against him. Many Democrats regretted their votes for someone they now consider a false prophet.

    The Obama campain tells its supporters not to discuss policy... stick to the inspirational story and promises of change and hope. They are afraid that policy discussions will only bring out enemies.

    Let Obama be what the voters want him to be -- is the theme campaign workers are told to stress." - Blake Fleetwood, Huffington Post.

    Glory Hallelujah! The Smoke & Mirrors Tour keeps marching on!

    Posted by: Michael Bedwell | Feb 20, 2008 11:07:13 AM


  15. Michael

    I look foreword to the day when you become an obamamaniac.

    :-)

    Your passion will be very helpful against bush/cheney 2.0 mccain

    :-)

    Posted by: Jimmyboyo | Feb 20, 2008 12:12:01 PM


  16. There is really very little difference between the policy positions taken by Obama and HRC. If one supports their liberal positions then one would be more likely to see them enacted if Obama were the nominee and elected. HRC v. McCain would present a choice between same ol', same ol' propounded by a woman or by a man. Eighty-three percent of Repub's support HRC as the Dem nominee because she would be very easy for McCain to run against. Do not be fooled by her defense that everything is known about her. Clinton fatigue will likely set in very quickly when the airwaves are saturated with the sorry parade of horribles to which Billary already subjected this country. The choice between Obama and McCain could not be more striking. Youth, stability, and forward-looking versus old, bad tempered, and pining for an America that never was.

    HRC would provoke impregnable gridlock. The Repubs would not let her accomplish anything and she has a penchant for self-immolation. Recall the debacle that was Hillary Health Care. HRC and McCain are also similar in that they will not listen to advisers. They already have all the answers; do not even attempt to present opposing facts. (Where have we seen that movie? GWB anyone?)

    Obama might actually be able to get something on his agenda passed by Congress and signed into law. Perhaps most importantly to me: on day one Obama would significantly change the perception of the United States around the World. The mere fact that a young Black could get elected (and I still have my doubts due to entrenched prejudice but I am hopeful) would be a physical manifestation of The American Dream. My clients in foreign countries are enraptured by the possibility that America could make good on our historical rhetoric. Sometimes really believing and trusting is a source of powerful change for the better.

    Posted by: rudy | Feb 20, 2008 12:32:08 PM


  17. Bedwell, you have done nothing but attempt to pick Obama apart for the past several months. Rarely, if ever, have you bothered to try and make a case for your own candidate.

    Now you're even badmouthing Obama because, though he decried anti-gay bigotry in front of a screaming crowd of tens of thousands in an arena—in fucking Texas!—he failed to mention Lawrence King.

    That's ridiculous, unreasonable, tiresome, and borderline psychotic.

    It is clear at this point that Obama will be the Democratic nominee. Unless you want to further besmirch by association the reputation of your good friend Leonard Matlovich, I sincerely suggest you re-examine your goals in this process and get with the program.

    Posted by: 24play | Feb 20, 2008 12:46:36 PM


  18. This is looking more and more settled. The irony is that all the maneuvers by camp Clinton over the past eight years to move primaries around now seem to be working against them as they cannot gain the needed traction to stop BHO. And to think Leland.com supported HRC for her electability! Expect to hear Clinton supporters call for delays in upcoming primaries or rumbles about voting irregularities. They don't like to lose.

    Posted by: anon | Feb 20, 2008 1:45:09 PM


  19. Once again, 24, you rewrite what Obama actually said. I would have applauded had he actually used the word "bigtory" but he did not. Don't you remember how important he's told us words are? And I agree. But I won't give anyone credit for using words they didn't; for failing to really call anyone to task, to change.

    But I must say that you have stunned even cynical me by stooping to the slime of suggesting that I'd better "get with the program" or risk "besmirch[ing] by association the reputation of" my late close friend Leonard Matlovich. How dare you? If you were anyone to have accomplished, sacrificed, given, suffered anything in your life remotely compared to him you would be writing under a name we might recognize rather than a ridiculous nom de Net like 24play.

    This year marks the 20th anniversary of Leonard's excrutiating death by AIDS. Barely a month before he died by my side he was speaking for gay equality, against antigay BIGOTRY in the pouring rain in Sacramento. A year before that he was arrested protesting in front of the White House. Please be so kind as to take your ruthless hands off my friend's memory, and return to your usual level of illiterate and incoherent demonization of anyone who doesn't bow to your God Obama. Or is threatening me with a firing squad next on your demagogue's list of punishments for those who won't "get with the program"?

    Posted by: Michael Bedwell | Feb 20, 2008 5:25:54 PM


  20. Bedwell,

    Your relentless, hysterical, Obama-slashing posts of the past several months are the Platonic ideal of illiterate and incoherent. Do you think maybe you could, just once, devote a single short sentence to making a case for your own candidate of choice? That might actually qualify as making some meaningful contribution to the discussion here.

    And it's only because I hold your dear departed friend in such esteem that I can only question what he ever saw in you. I don't know what Obama ever did to you to inspire this never-ending flow of irrational vitriol. But I repeat: You're a repulsive embarrassment to Matlovich's memory. Being such a firm believer in guilt by association, you should maybe ponder the harm you do to his memory.

    Posted by: 24play | Feb 20, 2008 5:38:52 PM


  21. It is disheartening to say the least that I have actually read the phrase “get with the program” used to castigate people who have not swallowed the Obama rhetoric hook, line, and sinker. I am 100% willing to vote for him in the general election, but I did not vote for him in the primary and don’t regret my support for Hillary Clinton (and I never liked Bill, by the way).

    The rationale some Obama supporters that I know give (they are in their 30s and 40s) sort of stops at “well, EVERYONE is voting for him, it’s inevitable”, a line of reasoning which smacks of wanting to be liked by all the cool kids at recess—“get with the program, man”. The support of 20-somethings is wonderful but not always based on anything close to a solidly-formed opinion. And I understand that people vote on emotions much of the time, not reason, but let’s then admit that’s what you’re doing. Come out and say, “It just feels right”.

    It certainly is not “cool” to support Hillary Clinton, especially here in DC, where Obama supporters attack her more viciously than any of the Republicans did in the 90s; indeed, they actually use the same arguments, as if they are now valid points because they come from the mouths of Democrats and not Republicans. Well, I don’t agree.

    Posted by: Noll | Feb 20, 2008 9:07:03 PM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Eric Bana Talks Stand-Up Comedy and Kissing 'Tom Cruise' in GQ« «