02/06/2008
Super Tuesday Paints Unclear Picture for Dems, Big Win for McCain
Super Tuesday returns are still coming in, but what is becoming abundantly clear is that, as predicted by many, the Democratic race will go on. On the Republican side, results show John McCain as the clear frontrunner.
UPDATE: Obama claims delegate lead though Dem candidates are virtually tied.
Here are the state-by-state results of voting, which don't necessarily provide the most accurate picture of what happened, as Obama won more states, but Clinton took states with a larger delegate count.
CLINTON: AR, AZ, CA, MA, NY, NJ, OK, TN
OBAMA: AK, AL, CT, CO, DE, GA, ID, IL, KS, MN, MO, ND, UT
HUCKABEE: AL, AR, GA, TN, WV
MCCAIN: AZ, CA, CT, DE, IL, MO, NJ, NY, OK
ROMNEY: CO, MA, MN, MT, ND, UT
As of 7:30 EST, according to CNN, the delegate count for the Democrats stood at Clinton 825, Obama 732, with 2,025 needed to win the nomination.
For the Republicans, John McCain further increased the lead over his rivals, with 615 delegates to Romney's 268, and Huckabee's 169. 1,191 are need to win that nomination.
Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo writes: "If you look at this from the vantage point of two weeks ago, it's a huge win for Obama, since he was trailing in states across the country by a very big margin. From the vantage point of the last couple days, however, it's much less clear. The hype of his momentum just got a bit out ahead of what he was able to pull off. And in that sense there's very mild echo of New Hampshire, though the Clinton campaign is silly to claim some sort of comeback. There were a handful of states which, had he won two or more of them, would have taken him from a delegate tie to a decisive win that would have been Clinton seriously on the defensive. But it didn't happen. Not in New Jersey or Massachusetts and most importantly not in California, which Clinton won decisively. But I think all these competing scenarios make one point clear. The only arguments for one side or the other being a winner here come down to airy and finally meaningless arguments about expectations. And the result tells a different tale. It's about delegates. It's dead even. You've got two well-funded candidates who've demonstrated an ability to power back from defeats. And neither is going anywhere."
Above, Obama and Clinton speak to their supporters. Below, McCain's speech.
Sphere: Related ContentPosted 7:45 AM EST by Andy in Barack Obama, Election 2008, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, News | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
I'll be voting for Obama come March 4, but I congratulate both campaigns for fighting for every last vote... Thus ensuring that everyone's voice is heard.
Posted by: Rick | Feb 6, 2008 8:41:55 AM
Go Hillary!!
Posted by: Shane | Feb 6, 2008 8:59:02 AM
"Conneticutt, Colorado, Delaware, Minnesota, Indiana, N.Dakota, Utah & Kansas"
Hey, Johnny Lane! what's wrong with those white men giving those states to Obama, or what you call him (which I just don't feel like repeating this early in the morning). But when the network anchors said that Obama won a majority of the white male vote in most of the states yesterday--YOU were the first person I thought about. Those white guys out west may have alterior motives for voting for Obama (in states, most of which Democrats will never win in November), but they made sure this Democratic primary contest will go on. How many black people live in Utah--hell, even the players on the Utah Jazz don't live there, do they?
I'm liking them both more each week: Hillary & Barack...and they're both such fine young Americans.
Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Feb 6, 2008 9:24:00 AM
Looks like it might come down to who those unpledged Super Delegates end up voting for. I would guess the majority (as already have) will go for Hillary because they're predominantly elected "establishment" officials who have more allegiance to her and her husband.
What a stunning night for Obama though. Before Iowa he was, what, 27 points BEHIND Clinton nationally. He certainly has something that is appealing to the average American. I'm happy it seems that he can motivate young people and African Americans to vote.
In November I'll vote for whichever person's name has the big D beside it, but it's nice, for now, to feel inspired by a politician. That hasn't happened for me since Harvey Gant ran for the NC Senate against Jesse Helms in the early 90s.
Posted by: JOHN | Feb 6, 2008 9:25:34 AM
Looks like it might come down to who those unpledged Super Delegates end up voting for. I would guess the majority (as already have) will go for Hillary because they're predominantly elected "establishment" officials who have more allegiance to her and her husband.
What a stunning night for Obama though. Before Iowa he was, what, 27 points BEHIND Clinton nationally. He certainly has something that is appealing to the average American. I'm happy it seems that he can motivate young people and African Americans to vote.
In November I'll vote for whichever person's name has the big D beside it, but it's nice, for now, to feel inspired by a politician. That hasn't happened for me since Harvey Gant ran for the NC Senate against Jesse Helms in the early 90s.
Posted by: JOHN | Feb 6, 2008 9:26:55 AM
"...ulterior..."
Cain't always spell words the same way I pronounce them with mah new Utah accent.
Hillary & Barack! I'm proud to be a Democrat in UTAH this morning.
Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Feb 6, 2008 9:30:16 AM
Andy your statement that "Clinton took states with a larger delegate count" is very misleading, if not down right wrong. You are saying this in the context of last nights election, which had nothing to do with the superdelegate votes. Obama won 603 delegates compared to Clinton's 590 delegates last night. That's a win for Obama no matter how you try and hide it!
Posted by: Rob | Feb 6, 2008 9:48:48 AM
One thing - all reports I have heard say that Obama has around 2.5 times as much campaign money left, and if that has anything to do with the primaries and caucases as we approach the official nomination, he's well equipped to keep up the fight.
Posted by: Brian in Philly | Feb 6, 2008 9:49:59 AM
the media loves obama. it doesn't matter how good hillary does, they always seem all to happy to cover obama. he'll win based on that factor.
Posted by: J | Feb 6, 2008 10:31:34 AM
well, so much for the much lauded kennedy and kerry endorsements in MA and the kennedy/shriver/oprah campaigning in CA...
still and all, superior candidates the both of them. i can't imagine either losing to the geezer.
Posted by: nic | Feb 6, 2008 10:43:15 AM
Its clear to me, HRC is not going to win the WH in 2008, too much baggage, too divisive, too negative, and real people see right through her fakeness, and she offers nothing but the same old stuff that DC has had for the past 8 years.
And, McCain is no shoo in either, so, who knows, with Nader wanting to enter the race, he could be the spoiler again to decide who wins.
Posted by: Juan Pablo | Feb 6, 2008 10:43:46 AM
You can TRY to dismiss what I'm about to say simply because I have fully disclosed my preference for Sen. Clinton, but, if you missed the TV network blab fests last night, just check out the print media this morning [I don't have time to give the TV talking heads a second chance]:
Josh Marshall speaks well to the objective end result, but the subjective facts are that we SHOULD be seeing huge headlines this morning essentially asking, "What the Fuck Happened to Obama in California???!!!!"
On Sunday, everyone, including most Obamamaniacs were, were shitting themselves over the latest Field poll that showed Obama only 2% points behind Sen. Clinton:
“San Francisco Chronicle” two days before election:
State poll shows huge gains by Obama, McCain
A startling surge of support for Barack Obama has catapulted the Illinois senator into a virtual tie with Hillary Rodham Clinton in California's Democratic presidential primary, a Field Poll released Saturday shows.
But the Democratic numbers are the shocker. Clinton, a longtime California favorite, saw her once-commanding lead slip to two percentage points, 36 to 34 percent, in the new survey. That's down from the New York senator's 12 percentage point lead in mid-January and a 25 percentage point margin over Obama in October."
Latest numbers I've seen this morning says she beat him by TEN percentage points! Their margin of error of "plus or minus 4.5 percentage points doesn't even explain that. So WHERE are the mea maxima culpa headlines?
Worse still is that, after saying over and over, before, during and after—"California is what means the most"—when it looked like she was TWENTY points ahead, the talking heads virtually yawned. Instead of going, "What the fuck happened to the Obama surge in California."
WHERE were those appropriate responses? Where are those missing headlines this morning even with only a 10 per cent spread?
UP BARACK OBAMA'S ASS—ALONG WITH THE MAINSTREAM [AND MOST GAY] MEDIA'S HEADS!!!!
The final closeness of the total votes nationwide, and the relative closeness in delegate count are beside my point of media bias when, again, the "big story" was supposed to be California and Obama's surge there and Marie Shriver and Barack's mom Oprah and Ms. Latino Vote and Caroline and Stevie Wonder and David Geffen and those 20 gazillio young voters that had papered the entire state with Obama signs blah blah blah.
And let us not forget Massachusetts where the Kennedy mystique, parts of it anyway, proved a mirage.
And did anyone note how often the pinheads, er, pundits trumpeted, "Obama has proved tonight that he can win some Red States for the Democrats!" Excuuuuuuse me? The only way one could conclude that last night if those states were holding 100% "open" primaries meaning that not just independents but REPUBLICANS could vote for him yesterday. WERE there any such states? And the few honest observors are saying that his winning Georgia is meaningless re the general election because then the state will go Republican no matter what [meaning, to be fair, Hillary wouldn't have made it any better either].
So, kids, now's your chance to get even with the media for lying to you. Get even with Sen. Obama for lying to us about being the Most Valuable Player in the Illinois Gay Superbowl when he'd actually abandoned the team, ceaselessly misrepresenting his real position on states' rights, helping Donnie McClurkin sell more gospel CDs and homohate, and those shameless McClurkin-inspired "STAND for Change" signs, and endlessly smilefucking us with the G-word all the way to the bank. And you can do both by contacting any friends or family you have in Texas and Virginia and Maryland and Pennsylvania and Ohio and DC and a few other places and tell them, "Just say No to our being played stupid and vote for Sen. Clinton."
Posted by: Michael Bedwell | Feb 6, 2008 11:16:33 AM
Rob, you still can't read or comprehend so quit posting crap to this site! As of this posting, the delegate count for the Democrats is as follows:
Democrats Needed to Win = 2,025
Candidate Clinton
Pledged 590
Superdels. 193
=====
Total 783
Candidate Obama
Pledged 603
Superdels 106
=====
Total 709
Source: CNN.com
Now, I don't want to hear any diatribe about the status of the Super Delegates. This race has a long way to go. And the Democratic Party will throw its weight to the candidate which it thinks can win in November. And that candidate is Hillary Clinton, not Obama. If Obama is the Democratic nominee, people will turn out in record numbers to make sure he is not elected.
Also, Obama has yet to commit to Clinton's debate a week challenge. If he declines or participates he is in trouble.
Hillary has plenty of time to give this bag of hot air a KO punch.
Posted by: Bobby | Feb 6, 2008 11:17:56 AM
What happened to Obama in California? The Clinton race card and the mistrust between blacks and Hispanics, they have played the card quite well, and, its going to blow up as the public is fed with with race baiting and gay bashing, and, want a leader who can heal, not continue to divide as she has shown she is. They have run one of the sleaziest race baiting campaigns since Nixon with his Southern Strategy, something so many of her supporters seem to be blind to in the rush to banish, and insult Obama and his supporters. But, that's how HRC works, so, its really no suprise that her loud, shirl over the top supporters here do the same thing.
Posted by: Juan Pablo | Feb 6, 2008 11:25:19 AM
Oh hi Leland--oops, I mean Michael Bedwell
Posted by: NancyClue | Feb 6, 2008 11:31:06 AM
A few months ago, Obama was far behind Clinton in all these states. His showing yesterday was quite an achievement.
Some people seem determined to turn this race ugly again. I hope they don't succeed. Democrats who want to hate each other aren't worth listnening to.
Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Feb 6, 2008 11:38:32 AM
What happened to Obama in California? Obviously people there have some sense. This race is not going to be won or lost on gay issues. There are too many other pressing agendas, namely the war, health care, veterans benefits, education and keeping this country from going into bankruptcy. Few people realize how close we are to the brink of disaster. If any one of our major creditors dumps our debt to raise foreign currency, the dollar is going to be virtually worthless. It is at an all time low right now. Many oil producing nations will only accept Euros or Yen as payment for crude oil shipments. How about the latest report on the readiness of the national guard? Its resources are depleted and it is unable to adequately respond to a homeland disaster. And money won't fix it. The guard personnel are depleted and worn out due to the war.
The people of this country are so complacent and uneducated on the true state of nation it is incomprehensible. Bush should have been impeached long ago. And things are going to deteriorate for more than a year before anything can be done to reverse the tide. That is another $400 billion plus down the drain and the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs to to the current recession.
And any of you who think that Obama has a clue has to how to fix all of this are so far out of touch with reality there is no way to bring you back.
Wake up!
Posted by: Bobby | Feb 6, 2008 11:56:12 AM
Hispanics went out in record numbers in CA to vote against Obama. 30% of the vote was hispanic, and they overwhelmingly went to Obama by 77%. THAT is what happened in CA. Obama won among whites and blacks, but hispanics, asians, and gays went for Hillary.
And Bobby-- you are the one who can't comprehend the numbers. I agree that Hillary had far more Superdelegates prior to last nights election, but to say that Hillary won more delegates last night is clearly WRONG. Last night Obama won more delegates than Hillary... even your numbers show that. Nice try, but sorry, the numbers speak for themselves.
Posted by: Rob | Feb 6, 2008 12:00:15 PM
Is there a way to turn off the Michael Bedwell comments?
Posted by: crispy | Feb 6, 2008 12:06:56 PM
Ugh, Bobby again you just don't have a clue what you're talking about. Its the uneducated voters that Hillary is winning. Obama is winning in those voters who have a higher level of education. And it is Hillary's record, not Obama's, that has consistently more aligned with this disastrous president than his.
Posted by: Rob | Feb 6, 2008 12:16:59 PM
Rob, you are smoking the same crack that Obama and his "followers" are using. God, I would hate to be this stupid.
Posted by: Bobby | Feb 6, 2008 12:28:46 PM
Yeah, I guess when you lose the argument based on facts, you're forced to fall back on silly name calling.
Posted by: Rob | Feb 6, 2008 12:32:47 PM
Hillary is asking for week by week debates because she no longer has the money to compete with Obama across the country.
In the California exit polls, gays went 2-1 for Hillary. It's amazing to me that we vote for someone who only mentions our issues when she's talking to us (Barack talks about us all the time, including in front of religious audiences), and who campaigns on her husband's record of signing DOMA and Don't Ask Don't Tell.
Posted by: T-Rock | Feb 6, 2008 12:38:09 PM
Thanks Rob, the more I read of the Hillary brigade, the more likely it will make me vote for McCain just to make sure she isn't the winner as she is not qualified, and, her dirty deeds so far in the race shows she has no moral stand to be anything other than another GW Bush, since her tactics so far are just like his in the 2000 race.
Derrick, the only ones making this race "ugly" is Clinton, her man and her followers, they aren't capable of a civil debate, just name calling and other juvenile, petty GOP like tendencies of spewing insults and never being able to address an issue.
Posted by: Sebastian | Feb 6, 2008 1:14:24 PM
Latest data from the “San Francisco Chronicle” which, by the way, endorsed Obama:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/06/BA3IUT6L8.DTL
“Clinton won WITH ALL AGE GROUPS in California, but racked up her biggest margins among voters age 60 or older, winning 53 percent to 30 percent. She even won narrowly with voters ages 18-24 - 52 to 46 percent - a SETBACK FOR THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN, which had counted on turning out young voters in droves.
Obama proved once again his popularity among African-Americans, willing almost 4 out of 5 black votes in California. But Clinton more than compensated by winning among Latinos by a 2-to-1 margin and among Asian-Americans by a 3-to-1 margin.
While THEY RAN JUST ABOUT EVEN AMONG MEN - with Obama holding an 18-point edge among white men - exit polls showed Clinton with a huge 59 percent to 34 percent advantage with women.
Clinton also won among union voters, 54 to 37 percent.
She had a narrow edge, 49 percent to 46 percent, with those who made up their minds in the last three days, but held a 17-point advantage among voters who had decided earlier.
The vote in California also split along class lines. Voters from families making less than $100,000 tilted heavily toward Clinton - 54 percent to 37 percent - while Obama held a narrow edge with those making more than $100,000, 49 percent to 47 percent.
Clinton won overwhelmingly with voters who did not complete high school (82 percent to 15 percent) and had a 2-to-1 edge among those who had graduated from high school. She also won among college graduates, although Obama narrowly outpolled her among those who had pursued post-graduate work, 48 percent to 46 percent.
GAYS AND LESBIANS ALSO BROKE SHARPLY FOR CLINTON, BACKING HER 60 PERCENT TO 25 PERCENT” end quote
The shorthand: despite the slander and lies of Juan and T-Rock, despite the astigmatic misunderstanding of exit poll by Rob, despite all those working Obama's Psychic Hotline—for the second time, Sen. Clinton proved pollsters’ obituaries premature. Blacks and the rich and sexist men voted for the black, rich man. Women voted for a woman but many men, people of all ages, Latinos, Asians, union members, gays, the poor, and less educated AND well-educated also voted for a 60 yr. old, non-Latino, non-Asian, non-union member, non-lesbian [unless you believe Ann Coulter], rich, woman with a law degree.
But, according to Juan, none of those are “real people.”
Posted by: Michael Bedwell | Feb 6, 2008 1:19:30 PM
It appears that while Obama polls well, he polls well among those much less likely to actually vote.
Posted by: anon (gmail.com) | Feb 6, 2008 1:31:55 PM
Do the polsters separate black/Latino/Asian gays from "gays". I wonder. Should they? Why? Why not?
Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Feb 6, 2008 1:34:00 PM
Ladies, ladies.
The elephant in the room in California is the absentee ballots. 3 million ballots were requested, and voting began January 7th. I have yet to see final numbers on how many votes in the Democratic primary were cast before yesterday, but pre-poll estimates were that they could account for 35% to 50% of all votes cast.
The primary results in CA are a snapshot of how the two candidates were doing there OVER THE PAST MONTH. It basically averages Hillary's 20 or 30 point lead a few weeks ago with the neck and neck race in the polls last weekend. If the vote were all held yesterday, you would have seen the finish between Clinton and Obama much closer than the 10 point spread we've got. I think Hillary would have still pulled out the W, but not by much.
Posted by: 24play | Feb 6, 2008 1:37:35 PM
Bedwell, your hatred of Obama is easy to see, but, he is far from the "rich black man" you try to paint him as. HRC is way richer, and, supports the rich a whole lot more as well. She is the female version of John McCain for crying out loud. And, I wonder why the list of her supporters did not include black voters? Not only because of Obama is in the race, but, becuse she and her man insulted them for weeks, so, why would they ever waste a vote for her?
So, save the long winded, terse, shrill, hostile replies for those who care, I for one, find them as lame as HRC and her race baiting, which her followers do with her.
And, people think this woman as divisive, hateful and negative as she and her supporters are can be elected, yeah right.
Posted by: Juan Pablo | Feb 6, 2008 1:40:40 PM
Juan Pablo, obviously some other poster in disguise, what millions of Obama disciples do not realize is that everything Bill Clinton said was the honest truth. Every last word. Again, all of you are just too young, too dumb and have no working knowledge of the facts and history to understand what he has been saying.
Posted by: Bobby | Feb 6, 2008 1:48:40 PM
And, its actually amusing to see how the HRC camp is already trying to win over voters with her alleged "appeal" across all genders, races, with "exit polls," etc, well, winning California and New York won't get her into the White House, she will not win one state in the South, and, that's usually the only way into the WH.
And, it will be a hoot to see the GOP attack machine go after her and the tears flow for votes, NOT.
Bobby, nope, I can read and hear, he insulted them and him, just like his wife's followers here do. Keep it real, she is a race baiter, no amount of insults can twist his and her words. I'll take "dumb" over arrogant, cocky, hateful and rude anyday.
Posted by: Juan Pablo | Feb 6, 2008 1:59:11 PM
Derrick, I'd like to see a far more detailed breakdown, too, and then an objective analysis of the "self-identifed gay/lesbian" factor. For instance, comparing 100 white gay male voters with 100 Latino gay male voters with 100 black gay male voters—which percentage of each do you think would admit that to exit pollsters?
Also I'd like details about the CA male vote if, including all races, H and O were more or less even while he had a large advantage among white men. Are there far fewer black males in CA than I imagine? Etc. etc.
And also, which I'm sure will come soon, the breakdown overall of gay votes in San Francisco county which O apparently won.
Posted by: Michael Bedwell | Feb 6, 2008 2:09:50 PM
Bobby is Johnny Lane.
Posted by: 24play | Feb 6, 2008 2:10:33 PM
Juan Pablo, vote your conscience, and ignore the Hillary fanatics here. They are not as progressive/liberal as they like to think they are, and, if Obama stood on the corner of Castro St and Market in San Francisco, on inauguration day and demanded full marriage and equal rights for all Americans, the same ones here bashing him would still come up with a reason to hate him, just how they are.
Posted by: Sebastian | Feb 6, 2008 2:33:24 PM
Please, Sebastian. You're replying to Juan who insulted Hillary and the people who vote for her as not being "real" and then you turn around and smear them as not being progressive for actual thinking Barack isn't the best candidate for the job. Is that the kind of hope and change Barack keeps talking about?
I swear, I'd like Obama more (I voted him into the Senate, by the way) if most of his fans weren't such pompous self-righteous assholes.
Posted by: Marco | Feb 6, 2008 3:22:34 PM
Marco, can you tell us how you really feel one more time with anyone who does not agree with you, and, I doubt if you voted for Obama, so save that bald face lie. And, I stand by my comment, none of you are progressives nor liberals, especially when it comes to anything about black people around this site. Deal with it since the truth always comes out in these debates where race is a major factor around here.
At last glance, you are free to vote for her, but, have enough sense to realize, not everyone is as impressed or in love with her and her policies.
Posted by: Sebastian | Feb 6, 2008 3:33:06 PM
LOL. Sebastian, I did vote for him in 2004. Choose not to believe that all you want and keep dreaming that anyone who chooses not to vote for Saint Barack isn't a true progressive and has racial issues.
Hilarious. Again, there's that hope and change he keeps talking about in action.
Again, your comment is just proving my point that what Barack truly seems to inspire in many of his followers is self-righteous bullshit and "it's all about me" attitude with a touch of all-around jackassery built in. .
Posted by: Marco | Feb 6, 2008 3:44:25 PM
I think Obama is a bright guy with a lot of potential, but right now most of what I see is hot air, charisma, and elusive abstractions. Change and hope? Isn’t that what Bush offered in place of experience and qualifications? And look where we're at now. And let's be clear, we are where we're at mostly because of Bush's inexperience and lack of planning, not because of his loathsome conservatism. Politicians are all phonies; and they all spout a lot of hot air, but in this race Obama strikes me as the bigger phony. It seems to me that he's playing Messiah, not running for president.
Props to Michael Bedwell, Bobby, and Marco for their clear-headed analysis. Bobby is correct in saying that this country is in huge trouble and no one seems to realize it. We are so close to the edge right now that by this time next year we could be living in the aftermath of a complete financial collapse. But few of these people high off of Obama's hot air seem to be aware of that. Obama doesn't currently have the experience and ability to handle the storm that's brewing.
And these ridiculous overheated comments about race-baiting and every other anti-Clinton fantasy just strike me as silly, mushy-headed, and more than a bit histrionic. But I don't think any of the commenters are going to realize that. They're so far under Obama's sway that they're thinking and acting like cult members. Every time a white person votes for Clinton over Obama, you can't scream that Clinton played the race card.
And regarding abstentee ballots, I have to disagree that the results would have been different if the votes had been cast yesterday. Absentee voters tend to be more deliberate about their choices; they're the kind of people who plan ahead. I vote absentee and I always know who my candidate is, weeks or months before election day.
I think Obama would be a great VP for HRC and then, down the road, a great president. Together the two of them could really whip this country into shape. I'd hoped that he wouldn't get into the race this time because I knew it was too soon. Even if he does win the nomination, he won't win the general election, and that might kill both his and Hillary's chances forever, as well as ensure us another term of Republican rule.
Posted by: Tom K. | Feb 6, 2008 4:29:16 PM
Yeah right, yeah right you voted for him, snicker, snicker. But, I'll be more than happy to remind you and the rest of the HRC crowd of her many, many, many, many shortcomings and how she and her supporters are the worst since Bush with the negative vibes and insults and seldom capable of being adults and gloat when she is trounced in November by McCain, however, without the name calling that you and her camp seem to only be capable of, LOL!
Pettiness and cattiness isn't pretty dude, but, since HRC is that way, its no surprise that her immature "supporters" are as well.
Posted by: Sebastian | Feb 6, 2008 4:31:27 PM
Right now we don't need nor can we afford change. We need someone to fix this country and but her back on track. If anyone thinks Obama is the right person for this job than you are highly delusional.
Cajiva
Posted by: CAJIVA (cajun godiva) | Feb 6, 2008 4:40:38 PM
I think Sebastian needs a mirror.
Sebastian, your posts have all been the epitome of pettiness and cattiness. Are you really that lacking in self-awareness?
"Yeah right, yeah right you voted for him, snicker, snicker.... Pettiness and cattiness isn't pretty dude, but, since HRC is that way, its no surprise that her immature "supporters" are as well."
Posted by: Tom K. | Feb 6, 2008 5:01:46 PM
This debate has been rather interesting. The only thing I'd like to add is that there is NO question that the American mainstream media want Obama to win the Democratic primary. Just read CNN, the NY Times, etc., and you'll see how they begrudgingly admit that Clinton won a state and then add a BUT clarification about Obama and how he offset that win.
It makes sense--the highly educated (journalists) are voting for Obama. It's the "cool" thing to do.
Posted by: jmg | Feb 6, 2008 5:55:54 PM
Both Obama and Hillary supporters on this thread have been petty, catty, and continuously annoying; the Obama supporters are childish to a lesser degree. This is mainly because the Hillary supporters decide to fill up the board with vitrol, leading me to suspect they're just trolls instead of actual supporters of Clinton.
I'm 80% sure Marco, Bedwell, Bobby and some others...
(perhaps these are all one in the same?)
...are trying to push people away from Hillary instead of trying to pull them in.
I want you to look through the threads and read every one having to do with anything connected to Obama and you'll see that its the Hillary supporters acting as if she can do absolutely no wrong. I'm serious about this. If some of you guys want to compare levels of vitrol, pettiness, and cattiness coming off of each supporter, I completely support an examination. I can't go to one political thread on Towleroad without continously reading horrible things, in ridicuously long posts, about Obama. Non of these Hillary-drone supporters seem like they'll vote for Obama either way.
Some people have defended and supported Obama positively without any sly attacks on Clinton and they were met with nasty replies. Check the record.
And I'm supporting Obama. I will be supporting the dem candidate regardless and I do hope they both end up on the same ticket instead of coming out as power-hunger politicians and work together (both of them have inexcusable selfish reasons not to end up on the same ticket.
Show some decency kids. We're all citizens here, and hopefully, we're all Democratic citizens. Lets show the Repugs we have some class, because we do have class.
Posted by: Astonedtemple | Feb 6, 2008 6:14:01 PM
On a BTW note
I believe we should demand these two end up on the same ticket. Seriously, tell your friends who are voting democratic.
DreamTicket 08!
Posted by: Astonedtemple | Feb 6, 2008 6:17:38 PM
my bf and i have quit watching msnbc because of their clear favoritism for obama. cnn is better, but the bias is still there. last night we just checked the poll results online, rather than listening to the pundits put down hillary while pushing for barack. some people seem to think the bias may end up backfiring on their chosen candidate - http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2008/02/is_msnbc_and_al.php
Posted by: eric | Feb 6, 2008 7:07:29 PM
JUAN PABLO,
you can't be latino and have such a scatter-brained, scatter-shot evaluation of politics. the ethnic divide between blacks and latinos has nothing to do with hill and bill. if you'll recall, pro-obama ads were airing on spanish-language radio stations in nevada claiming that hillary had "no respect" for latinos. so, it is not rational to blame one side or the other. the issue is much more complex that that.
the ethnic divide that has become more apparent since latinos became the largest minority in our country is not helped by your heaping scorn on hillary. i know enough to understand that a large part of hispanic culture is made up of the confluence of white and indigenous and african bloods and/or sensibilities. we (whites, blacks, and browns) are not each other's enemies. the sooner we accept this (and that is a point that is not lost on either hillary or obama) the better it will be for all of us.
your simplistic, if not simple-minded, appeal to prejudice is falling more and more on deaf ears. go away mojoncito.
Posted by: nic | Feb 6, 2008 11:08:08 PM
Posted by: Sebastian | Feb 6, 2008 4:31:27 PM
That's hilarious, Sebastian. I can't take you back in time to that 2004 November day I voted for Obama, so you can choose to disregard reality as it seems you're pretty good at it.
And you calling people petty is too rich considering your posts are chock full of what you claim you see in others. No substance, only bile and charges of racism - a weak way to support your candidate of hope.
If you really believe in Obama's message of change, take it to heart first.
Posted by: Marco | Feb 6, 2008 11:29:39 PM
Marco,
Guess used to it. The Obama folks are going to go after McCain and the Republicans in the same way they went after Clinton.
Every argument against Obama will be explained in terms of "Old Man McCain" making a racist comment that's out-of-place for the tolerant 21st century. If you're not with us, you're with the racists.
By the time Obama's surrogates are through with him, he'll look like Bob Dole in 1996.
Posted by: John | Feb 6, 2008 11:52:10 PM
SEBASTIAN,
i wish i could make you look more foolish than what your own words do, but i surrender. alas, i am not that gifted a wordsmith.
Posted by: nic | Feb 7, 2008 4:28:56 AM
Posted by: John | Feb 6, 2008 11:52:10 PM
It's just embarrassing the way some of his supporters and our Lame-Stream media are licking his boots with nary a critical word being said. Clinton cleaned up in the big states and narrowly won the popular vote (I guess we're still waiting on some delegates) and it's treated as a victory for Obama. Some bloggers like Juan Cole are now insisting Obama losing CA by 10 points is no big deal.
The media fix is in. Obama can do no wrong in his eyes and God forbid you mention his war stance as a "fairytale." Look what you get.
But ti's Clinton supporters who are the problem? We're to worry about not offending them? Please.
Posted by: Marco | Feb 7, 2008 11:31:40 AM