Certification in CA

It seems that the final vote count in California is more favorable to Barack Obama than were the results on February 5. Sufficiently more favorable in delegate terms, it seems, to make up the lost ground from last week's primaries. Once Mississippi and Wyoming have voted, I expect Obama's delegate lead will be bigger than ever, with fewer-than-ever delegates left in play.

UPDATE: Early indications are of massive turnout and a big Obama win in Wyoming. It has, however, already been established that Idaho and North Dakota don't count, so why should Wyoming?

Comments

Sinbad would be very pleased to hear this!

Seriously, we'll see how it goes in the next couple states and if Obama can succeed in going on the offensive while not sinking to Hillary's (abysmal) low tactics AND while continuing to focus on issues that actually matter.

Posted by Ruth | March 8, 2008 2:30 PM

I saw this yesterday and continue to wonder why the heck all the talking heads have not mentioned any of this. For that matter, why are the talking heads not talking about ANYTHING that really matters to the public? It seems they are all so stuck in the horse race and ripping whichever candidate they've decided that day is *down* that they can't see the forest for the trees.

Thank god for the internet. I just wonder how we can get the internet on the tee and vee so the average joe can take advantage of all the information there.

Posted by G Davis | March 8, 2008 2:30 PM

Just to underline how the momentum is swinging back . . . they tracked down one of the sleeping kids from the 3am ad (voting age now), and she's voting for Obama:

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/report_girl_safe_and_asleep_in.php

Posted by southpaw | March 8, 2008 2:33 PM

I heard on NPR yesterday that, when the delegate counting is finished in Texas, Obama will have won. Like G. Davis, I wonder why we haven't been hearing more about this. It doesn't do to go for hearing "Hillary won the two big states" and then, a week later, hear, "Well, not quite."

Posted by THS | March 8, 2008 2:34 PM

why the heck all the talking heads have not mentioned any of this.
The media wants the contest to continue, it's better for the ratings. Plus Buchanan, Scarborough and others enjoy the spectacle as Clinton rips the party in to.

Posted by bjd | March 8, 2008 2:38 PM

G. Davis & THS:
Because Texas doesn't count. It won't vote Democratic in the GE so who cares. Obama can't win the big blue states(All Hillary's whiny arguments, remember). I'll turn the snark off now.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | March 8, 2008 2:40 PM

Sinbad would be very pleased to hear this!

What is that, a joke at my expense?

Look, Sinbad's been getting a bad rap lately. Yes, I went to Kosovo with Sheryl Crow and Hillary. Yes we rocked it out for the troops. And may I say that yes, I certainly did bring the funny. So where's the love? All I hear are jokes about the fact that Hillary arrived with me, and that we were only there for a day. So what? The funny knows no time limits. The funny just is.

Look, the fact of the matter is this: Sinbad is pissed. Finally I get my name back in the news and I'm sitting here asking myself: where is the love? I've been trying for ten years to get back in the spotlight, and now that people are starting to look into the fact that Hillary isn't being as truthful about foreign policy experience as she lets on, the press is SITTING ON IT!! What's the deal! Give Sinbad some love! Throw me a BONE here!

Look, facts are facts. So let's take a good hard look at them. Fact 1: Sinbad risked his neck in Kosovo. Fact 2: Sinbad saved his best jokes for the troops. Fact 3: Sinbad got a kick-ass haircut just for the occasion. Fact 4: Sinbad wore his best Karl Kani shirt. Those are just FACTS.

So, PLEASE. Let's finally see some reporting about Hillary's trip to Kosovo. What did it entail? What was Sheryl Crow's responsibility? And most importantly:

DID I OR DID I NOT BRING THE COMIC RELIEF!

Sinbad out.

Posted by Sinbad | March 8, 2008 2:42 PM

This may not matter if Obama's supporters continue to behave as they have done in the past few weeks. They are really eroding support for Obama amongst the supers.

The reason the Powers and Gooley incidents hurt Obama is that they demonstrate inexperience in handling the media and they chip away at his central claim of being a new kind of politician.

It is really hard for people to beleive that Obama can bring the country together when his supporters are attacking fellow Democrats as monsters - and the supporters on the blogs are saying far worse.

Obamania was always likely to burst. Now it has burst Obama supporters really have to stop appearing to think that they are entitled to the nomination.

The race is still close, the best Obama can achieve is a narrow lead in pledged delegates, and that only with the Florida and Michigan delegations excluded entirely.

A do-over in Florida is now inevitable. It is only a matter of soft money and there is no shortage of that. Michigan is more of a problem because of their open primaries. But there will probably be a do-over there as well.

Whining about the rules being the rules is just making Obama look like a whiner. The DNC has always said that there could be a do-over and the rules have always allowed the convention to over-rule any decision by the rules committee or the DNC.

Posted by PHB | March 8, 2008 2:42 PM

THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!!! FOR HILLARY!!!!

Posted by idiotic | March 8, 2008 2:44 PM

I'm still not sure why Virginia, Missouri, Wisconsin, Maryland, and Connecticut don't count.

Brian
http://www.politicalinaction.com

Posted by brian | March 8, 2008 2:45 PM

Once Mississippi and Wyoming have voted, I expect Obama's delegate lead will be bigger than ever, with fewer-than-ever delegates left in play.

Yeah, but after Mississippi the schedule gets awfully Hillary-friendly.

Posted by Jasper | March 8, 2008 2:47 PM

Interesting that despite the powerful opposition Senator Obama faces from the existing order, he still manages to inspire thousands of Americans in the most conservative parts of the country to "roll the dice" on a new face, just as he inspired all of these powerful votes of confidence:

http://acropolisreview.com/2008/02/endorsements-of-barack-obama.html

Posted by TC | March 8, 2008 2:48 PM

Let's get to the real issues: Why does Sinbad refer to himself in the third person?

Posted by Jemand von Niemand | March 8, 2008 2:55 PM

Yeah, but after Mississippi the schedule gets awfully Hillary-friendly.
Yes it does, but it's like playing golf - we're on the back 9 and one player is 20 strokes back.

Posted by bjd | March 8, 2008 2:57 PM

Sinbad does that when Sinbad is angry!

Posted by Sinba | March 8, 2008 2:57 PM

Jasper, you mean, as in North Carolina and Indiana, where Obama is ahead in the polls? Sorry, but I don't see why you think Monsters Inc is really going anywhere. She barely has an advantage among superdelegates any more, her firewalls don't help her - and all the signs are that Michigan is tied in the polls, which usually means a solid win for Obama, given what a wretched manager and campaigner Clinton is. Sorry, but if you keep spinning like this, you'll just sink into the earth and vanish. Kinda like Hillary Republican Clinton, really...

Posted by morzer | March 8, 2008 2:58 PM

Yeah, but after Mississippi the schedule gets awfully Hillary-friendly.

Not so much. I expect her to narrowly take PA, but that's followed by NC (which Obama will take) and IN (which is unclear).

Then Nebraska (advantage Obama) and WV (probably Clinton).

Then Oregon (Obama) and Kentucky (probably Clinton).

I don't see any blowouts here, but I also don't see any way for Clinton to erase the very substantial lead Obama now has -- not even with MI and FL.

Posted by Ted | March 8, 2008 3:01 PM

Yeah, but after Mississippi the schedule gets awfully Hillary-friendly.

Yeah, there are a lot of redneck dumbfucks in places like Pa, Ky, Wv, and Ind. Keep hopin' there, Jasper. Maybe Hillary's new slogan for those states should be Git-R-Done.

Here in NC she's going to get her droopy ass kicked.

Posted by Jay | March 8, 2008 3:02 PM

hey, Matt. personal question.

how come Ambinder gets weekends off and you and Sullivan don't? do you have to like, get him coffee and stuff too? because that would suck.

Posted by BA | March 8, 2008 3:03 PM

Yeah, but after Mississippi the schedule gets awfully Hillary-friendly.

Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Kentucky certainly favor her. But North Carolina (the next highest number of delegates) seems like ideal Obama country, Indiana is next to his home state, South Dakota and Montana are more of those plains/mountain states where he's done so well, and if Oregon trends like Washington then Obama should do well there too.

Not to say that Obama can afford to rest on his laurels--he still has to worry about Clinton trying to seat Florida and Michigan against the rules or appealing to the superdelegates. But Clinton's chances to win back pledged delegates get worse with every contest.

I suppose it says a lot about Clinton's last month
that being favored in only half the remaining states is awfully friendly to her. But what does it say that she's worked almost all the territory that's most favorable to her, and she's still losing?

Posted by Marc | March 8, 2008 3:04 PM

I understand that the AP reported the other day that neither Clinton nor Obama can become the Democratic Party nominee now without the support of superdelegates.

It's also the case that - contrary to some of what we've been hearing about superdelegates - they are not obligated or even obliged by the letter or spirit of Democratic Party rules to passively reflect the popular will of Democratic primary voters in their state: they're free to vote for whoever they wish.

This suggests - obviously I guess - that not only are there no rules against wooing superdelegates it would probably be crazy for both camps not to.

Posted by Linus | March 8, 2008 3:04 PM

PHB, Smartest comment evah!

Posted by Lanny Davis | March 8, 2008 3:05 PM

+3

Obama's emerging from Wyoming 8-5 in delegates including the add-on delegate he'll get at the state convention. Clinton only got +4 on Tuesday, so that's nearly erased even before Mississippi.

Posted by phil | March 8, 2008 3:07 PM

I disagree about how the schedule gets "Hillary-friendly" after MS. Obama will probably win SD, IN, NC, OR, and MT. HRC would only be favored in WV and KY. And I wouldn't concede PA just yet.

Posted by AndyJackson | March 8, 2008 3:08 PM

Am I the only one who thinks an Obama-Clinton ticket is a very good idea?

At any rate, after PA, Obama should take most of the remaining states except for WV, KY, and PR. Indiana is a toss-up, I think.

Posted by Abby | March 8, 2008 3:09 PM

I seriously doubt any superdelegates care about who has more ill-mannered supporters online. I would, however, ask my fellow Obama supporters to try to keep things either as serious criticism or tongue-in-cheek snark. Whenever someone gets really negative and vicious about Hillary, it just makes everyone feel gross and it helps her. Among other things, I know my support for Obama has only grown as I see Clinton & her supporters tear into him.

One of the big reasons to support Obama -- he makes people feel good about politics, about the Country, and about events. Liberalism and progressive economic and foreign policy flourish where people have hope for the future and feel good about their neighbors and the world.

One of the disappointments with Clinton -- she seems to do best when she's attacking, smearing, or criticizing Obama (and, to some degree, leftist positions). It's one of the reasons I doubt she can be as successful a President as Obama could be. On this point -- Powers' comment was obviously a mistake, but I honestly don't know how anyone can think the following: (1) It's truly horrible when an academic, highly respected adviser to a candidate gets emotional and uses a harsh criticism in an interview and then retracts it and resigns. (2) It's totally acceptable for a candidate to keep saying that her Democratic opponent is simply incapable of being commander-in-chief because he hasn't passed some indefinable threshold but of course the Republican candidate has passed that threshold. Personally, I don't think any of the supers following things over the last week is thinking to themselves -- well, Obama is really tearing the party apart.

But, to return to my request, when we get too vicious and harsh on Clinton supporters, we're not living up to the best we can achieve. We're not inspiring or building the positive feelings necessary. We're not helping the party, the movement, or our candidate.

None of this means a little humor doesn't belong in the blogosphere, but we should try to show some of the gentle and healing spirit of solidarity. At the end of the day, turning the other cheek is a lot more powerful than slapping the other person back. Please note -- turning the other cheek means not adopting the tactics of the opponent, but it doesn't mean compromising or backing down.

Posted by MDtoMN | March 8, 2008 3:09 PM

we're on the back 9 and one player is 20 strokes back.

Gotta love those golf analogies. Here's one for you: while it's not the 2000 US Open just yet, Barack's working on the Tiger thing. I see Hillary as the Rory Sabbatini of this election. A talented but unscrupulous loudmouth who few care for.

Posted by Jay | March 8, 2008 3:10 PM

PBH - you really ought to try a healthy diet, rich in facts and fiber, rather than the gaseous, cholesterol-laden muck the Clintons keep spoonfeeding you. You'll find it improves your life, your social standing and your bowels all at once. Oh, and btw, Hillary just got whipped in Wyoming. Have a nice afternoon.

Posted by morzer | March 8, 2008 3:14 PM

Well if Obama is going to go on a victory tour in Europe as some reports suggest I'd certainly cede Pennsylvania.

Posted by Tim | March 8, 2008 3:15 PM

Linus,

There has never really been any taboo against wooing superdelegates. Both candidates have had the support of superdelegates since before the first contest and the numbers has gone up and down since then.

The argument, proposeed by much of the 'sphere, is that the role of the superdelegates should be to reflect and reinforce the will of the voters rather than subvert it. The danger is, if the superdelegates overturn the will of the people and leader in pledged delegates, that half (or more) of the party would opt-out of the election, vote for the Republican candidate or even stage an ugly '68-esque protest.

Posted by ben | March 8, 2008 3:16 PM

Jay, surely HRC is much closer to John Daly? A blubbery, ringrusty loser, with ties to Hooters and a disatrous marriage?

Posted by maraschion | March 8, 2008 3:18 PM

Hillary's big week just keeps getting bigger. A gain of 4 delegates on Tuesday's vote that will probably be matched by Obama in Wyoming today. Obama picks up 8 in the CA certification. AND...Obama has picked up 10 SDs to Hillary's 4.
http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/superdelegate-list.html

To recap: in Hillary's "firewall" week, she looks to be down 8 PDs and 6 SDs. And the number of available delegates dropped by about 400.

Is there any possibility this is not over?

Posted by calling all toasters | March 8, 2008 3:21 PM

HRC = Fuzzy Zeller?

Posted by ben | March 8, 2008 3:23 PM

http://jackandjillpolitics.blogspot.com/

Hi Matt

more and more anectotal evidence of why Sen Clinton may have won Texas (Ohio too)

Posted by alison | March 8, 2008 3:24 PM

Jay, surely HRC is much closer to John Daly?

No doubt Daly is a screw up royale, but he still maintains a certain aw shucks humility that endears him to the masses no matter how many times he falls off the wagon or divorces he goes through. Sabbatini on the other hand is an immensely arrogant prick who basically doesn't give a crap about anyone but himself. His peers know him to be talented, but his Machiavellian ways and no apologies selfishness make him incredibly unpopular on Tour. The parallels to Hillary and others inside her campaign are obvious.

Posted by Jay | March 8, 2008 3:28 PM

alison,

By "won" do you mean "lost in pledged delegates"?

Posted by ben | March 8, 2008 3:29 PM

"they are not obligated or even obliged by the letter or spirit of Democratic Party rules to passively reflect the popular will of Democratic primary voters"

Not at all. It's just a form of political suicide. If the pubs had nominated huckabee or Thompson, the very-pissed-off Obamaniacs would have had no place to go but Hillary. But that didn't happen.

Now with "maverick" McCain as the nominee, they do. The republicans will be pointing out, correctly, that the democratic party isn't at all democratic but is instead an oligarchy run on behalf of the corrupt Clintons. It will be a very compelling narrative to independents and much of the democratic party.

Posted by Helter | March 8, 2008 3:30 PM

one of HRC's campaign tactics i hate the most is not competing in certain states. Kerry did something similar to this with southern states in 2004--basically, not bother to make an effort.

i know resources (time, money, effort) are not infinite, but that seems like a thoroughly un-american way to become president--to tell all the citizens out there who might've voted for "you're not worth the bother."

i don't think Obama has this wrapped up, delegate lead or no, but its instructive that his campaigning--hard--in each and every state paid his enormous dividends, and not just in the hard numbers.

Posted by rob! | March 8, 2008 3:42 PM

In this thread, we have had someone claim that Obama's supporters are immature. To which I say: Taylor Marsh, MyDD, and Hillaryis44.

We've heard that superdelegates won't vote for Obama because of online supporters. To which I ask: are you fucking kidding me?

The best, however, was this: "Whining about the rules being the rules is just making Obama look like a whiner"

Yes, because bending the rules after-the-fact is somehow not whining. I ask again, where were Hillary's calls to "HEAR THE VOICES OF FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN" before the primaries? In fact, she's on the record saying the exact opposite. Is there any doubt- any whatsoever- that Clinton would probably be threatening a lawsuit if the tables were turned?

Next, idiotic is without a doubt the best poster on this blog.

Finally, Monsters, Inc. is the greatest name for the Clinton campaign I have heard yet. Good work, morzer.

Posted by Monster | March 8, 2008 3:42 PM

Of course any state that is overwhelmingly white and overwhelmingly votes for the black guy doesn't count. That should be obvious to everyone who has spent any time following this race. Beside's it's all because Obama's cousin Dick Cheney is from Wyoming. Family ties.

Posted by Scott | March 8, 2008 3:47 PM

i really think "Monsters Inc." as a new name for the HRC campaign needs to spread across the internet, like right now.

thanks Ms. Power!

Posted by monsters, inc. | March 8, 2008 3:50 PM

It has, however, already been established that Idaho and North Dakota don't count, so why should Wyoming?

Indeed.

Plus, it's a caucus, so it doesn't count x 2.

Posted by Blue Texan | March 8, 2008 3:50 PM

Jay, I grant you that Daly does have more likeable moments, although there is a certain Clintonian aspect to his faded charm. I am mildly tempted to connect HRC to Michelle Wie (though naturally without the eyecandy factor). You know, wins some beauty contests, definitely not liked by others, has a string of excuses for losing (bad wrist, bad course, bad daddy, bad Bill.. well, not the last), fires coaches, advisers... Yes, the more I think of it, the more HRC is Michelle Wie!
Monster and Monster Inc - thank you for the good words. it is unfair on monsters to link them to HRC a la Monsters Inc, but I think that the cap fits. Now, the question really should be, who is which monster?

Posted by morzer | March 8, 2008 3:56 PM

I have to be careful not to beother to read comments by Obama supporters or I will simply stop supporting Obama. The idea seems to be to trash Clinton, which only makes me more sympathetic to her. Let's have some hateful name calling, but all this is doing is hurting Obama.

With enough hate-mongering by Obama supporters, I could wind up not voting for him in November. I advise stopping, but I know you will not stop.

Posted by Jennifer | March 8, 2008 3:57 PM

And of course, the clinching argument - HRC rhymes with Wie! *s*

Posted by morzer | March 8, 2008 3:58 PM

Jennifer:

That really hurts Sinbad. Sinbad knows from solving the refugee crisis in Kosovo with Hillary that both sides need to take time to understand where the other side is coming from.

Posted by Sinbad | March 8, 2008 3:59 PM

Hillary Clinton lost Crucial Tuesday, March 4, 2008.

She lost delegates, won a brief headline, and will start on next week in worse hole than 7 days ago.

Hillary netted +4 pledged delegates from all of RI, VT, OH, and TX.

But whoops. On the very same day, CA certified, and gave Obama a net swing of + delegates.

And so, for this week, Obama picked up another 3 pledged delegates.

Today in WY, he gets even more.

Hillary Clinton is a loser. She's a political knucklehead. She looks like a wet dog, chasing down cars and who later chomps on tasteless biscuits and thinks they're the best things she's ever tasted.

I can't wait to see the final meltdown when she finally gets run out of this race.

THat time is drawing near.

Posted by Jared | March 8, 2008 4:00 PM

I have to be careful not to read comments by Clinton supporters or I will simply stop taking Clinton seriously. The idea seems to be to trash their own intelligence, which only makes me more unable to take her seriously. Let's have some serious Democratic talk, since all this is doing is hurting Clinton.

With enough piffle-mongering by Clinton supporters, I could wind up not taking her seriously in November. I advise stopping, but I know you will not stop

Posted by zilifant | March 8, 2008 4:04 PM

Jennifer: Taylor Marsh, Hillaryis44, etc. You're taking a sample of like, 12 Obama voters.

More importantly: Of all the dumb reasons not to vote for someone, "I didn't like what some of his supporters said online!" has got to be way up there.

Posted by Obama | March 8, 2008 4:06 PM

Jennifer: Taylor Marsh, Hillaryis44, etc. You're taking a sample of like, 12 Obama voters.

More importantly: Of all the dumb reasons not to vote for someone, "I didn't like what some of his supporters said online!" has got to be way up there.

Posted by Monster | March 8, 2008 4:06 PM

MdtoMn: Good points. The vitriol against Clinton can be a bit over the top, but can we still be mean to Petey?

Alison: Limbaugh almost certainly moved some numbers in Texas, though it's hard to adequately poll the state to find out the true numbers of sabotage Republicans.

Helter: Agreed. If Clinton emerges from some bloody coup involving overturning Obama's pledged delegate lead, McCain can convincingly maneuver to the middle (on the environment, taxes, health care), steal some of Obama's themes (anti-corruption), and feed into Obamans' resentment by suggesting that Hillary will do anything to win. Wingers will be amped to vote against Clinton no matter what, and McCain will peel off a lot of Obama supporters. I can't see how Hillary gets up to even 46% in this scenario. Against someone like Thompson, Romney or Huckabee, Obama supporters would have had nowhere to go.

Basically Clinton's boxed in: unless Obama self-destructs, if she wins, she'll pasted in the general.

Posted by Ryan W. | March 8, 2008 4:07 PM

Yeah, I supported the first comment with "Obama" accidentally typed in, so I hit "Stop" and changed the name. Little did I know that it would annoyingly double-post. Bite me.

Posted by Monster | March 8, 2008 4:09 PM

Sinbad understands that emotions are running high. Sinbad saw the same thing in 1996 when he solved the refugee crisis in Kosovo.

What Sinbad DOESN'T understand is why Sinbad gets NO LOVE from the MSM. Hillary Clinton tells you she has foreign policy experience, including a one-day trip to Kosovo with me, Sinbad, and you ignore this story!

When will you put Sinbad up on the front page for solving the refugee crisis? Throw Sinbad a bone here!

Posted by Sinbad | March 8, 2008 4:09 PM

I can see the Wie comparison for sure... a couple of lucky wins, and then totally fell off the radar. Hopefully the Hillary Monster will do the same.

Posted by jason c | March 8, 2008 4:11 PM

MDtoMN writes: "...when we get too vicious and harsh on Clinton supporters, we're not living up to the best we can achieve. We're not inspiring or building the positive feelings necessary. We're not helping the party, the movement, or our candidate."

The important thing is that Obama doesn't take the low road; I see no reason why Obama supporters shouldn't do his dirty work for him by highlighting Clinton's hypocrisies. Also, there is nothing dirty about pointing out that Hillary Clinton did not bring peace to Northern Ireland, has no foreign policy experience to speak of (aside, perhaps, from giving speeches in foreign countries), has not released her tax forms or her papers as first lady, appears to have herself contacted the Canadians to assure them to take her NAFTA rhetoric with "a grain of salt," etc., etc.

I agree that, as Brooks noted in his NYT column the other day, Obama cannot beat Clinton in the knife fight she is trying to draw him into. But that doesn't mean his supporters can't fight back.

Posted by Situationville | March 8, 2008 4:13 PM

What sort of verb is that: Wyoming?

I Wyome, you Wyome, he or she Wyomes.

Funny language they got out west.

Posted by lampwick | March 8, 2008 4:20 PM

After next week. Will we see any big SD's endorse Obama. Where is Biden, why is he sitting in the fence.
They should declare now or forever remain in ignamy.

Posted by Kelly Pierce | March 8, 2008 4:20 PM

Jared: Obama's site now projects that Clinton takes + 6 out of Super Tuesday II. That number, of course, will be canceled out by Obama's wins in Wyoming and Mississippi.

Situationville: Obama supporters should throw the proverbial kitchen sink at Clinton, including details concerning her avarice, secrecy, financial dealings, exaggerations of experience, etc. Bloggers should comprise a key Obama battalion in the primary wars, if only because Obama can't do the dirty work himself.

However, overly personal attacks, such as random name-calling and mockery of her looks, are counterproductive. Generally, Obama supporters on and off line should avoid crossing the line on *tone*, while going hard at her on everything else.

Posted by Ryan W. | March 8, 2008 4:29 PM

Situationville -- I fully support serious criticism or humorous snark. In correct tone, everything you just mentioned could provide a basis for either. For example, I agree that Clinton is unfairly fluffing her resume to try to create a false distinction between herself and Obama on foreign policy experience. Further, I personally don't appreciate that tactic because it means she isn't distinguishing herself on real issues and policy positions. I also think a good humorist could write a funny bit with the material -- for example, a job interviewer asking an applicant about lines on their resume and watching the person slowly backtrack on their ludicrous claims.

But, in an earlier thread, a commenter (who is often quite funny) compared Clinton unfavorably to "shit". I think that is likely to be counter-productive (people are welcome to disagree with me). When I read it, I didn't think more poorly of Clinton. I just felt disgusted with the entire process, and politics, and everything.

This is just my 2 cents -- maybe I'm a wilting flower or overly sensitive -- but I think when we use attacks that are too vicious, we do damage to our own side. It's hard to draw the line, and I'm no expert. But, I would suggest that the Obama supporters on this site have maybe crossed it a little more than they need to recently.

One closing observation -- I think Clinton supporters are likely to see completely legitimate snark and critique as unfair and cruel. That's the nature of competitive primaries. My concern is less upsetting strong Clinton supporters (inevitable, to some degree), but either (1) upsetting people on the fence or (2) making Clinton supporters so angry they can't vote for Obama in November. I think we can upset them without making (most of) them utterly depressed.

Posted by MDtoMN | March 8, 2008 4:32 PM

Jared: Obama's site now projects that Clinton takes + 6 out of Super Tuesday II. That number, of course, will be canceled out by Obama's wins in Wyoming and Mississippi.

The number was already cancelled out, on Tuesday, when California certified their vote, and a net +8 swing of delegates accrued to Obama after calculations showed he had more votes in myriad CDs.

So whether HRC netted +4, +5, or +6 from Crucial Tuesday, she lost all those on the very same day, when Calif. came in.

Posted by Jared | March 8, 2008 4:34 PM

ben
i think we are on the same side

Sen Clinton got more popular votes but lost Texas in the pledged delgates (primary + caucus)

The article I posted stakes a good claim that the popular vote was not for Sen Clinton's candidacy but more mischief from "rush" republicans voting for sen clinton as their way of voting for sen mccain--

they cite evidence on the ground as well as Obama's caucus sweep

It isn't that the Hillary voters didn't come out for the caucus at 7pm because they were "working" it's that many of the Hillary "voters" from the day were republicans and wouldn't "show their face" at their neighborhood caucus at night as everyone knew what they would be up to

The point being the media is not covering this as a major reason Hillary "won" the populat vote
Yes a pyrric victory in terms of pledged delegates - but she is taking bragging rights she may not have earned from the popular vote

thx

Posted by alison | March 8, 2008 4:37 PM

MDtoMN, I thought morzer said that the Clintons were unlike shit because shit had a use? Hardly seems like end of the world stuff to me.Hey, the guy didn't denigrate shit, just pointed out that it is useful stuff.

Posted by pixiedustconsortium | March 8, 2008 4:44 PM

Another reason I prefer Obama:

"When the Sentencing Commission voted in November to lower sentencing guidelines for crack-related crimes, and bring them closer to sentences for powder cocaine, Obama favored applying the new terms retroactively to current prisoners, while Clinton opposed it, saying the change should affect only future cases. The commission voted for retroactivity in December, allowing 19,500 federal inmates to ask judges for sentence reductions, about two years in most cases.

Clinton has also questioned Obama's proposal to scrap some of the more than 170 federal mandatory-minimum laws, which require judges to impose specified prison sentences, most commonly for drug crimes."

This is a real issue affecting 1,000s of people with sentences that strike me as far too high. We spend a lot of money keeping people in prison, we lose economic growth because those people aren't working, and we damage our communities. Finally, I just don't see the crack/cocaine distinction as fair.

Clinton seems less concerned about these things, and that worries me. It takes a lot of guts to push back on "law & order" politics, but we really need to think about the costs and injustices of our current approach to drug crimes.

Posted by MDtoMN | March 8, 2008 4:46 PM

The tide has done anything but turn in favor of Hillary Clinton. Hillary and her crew worked the State of Texas like banshees for decades, yet on the eve of March 4, 2008 had no clear expectation of a victory. Hillary barely squeaked the popular vote. Barack Obama did very well considering. And plenty of candidates have won Ohio, but lost the general election. "As Ohio goes so goes the nation" ... I don’t think so. According to Hillary herself, Ohioans are basically unemployed. The tide instead has ebbed for Hillary.

Hillary Clinton never intimates that she's not a monster; she'll never deny that. Hillary just called Barack Obama's hand and he folded. Barack might have called Hillary's bluff: so Hillary, are you saying that you're not in fact a monster? Monster in this sense: inhumanly cruel or wicked person. Barack chose to lose a staffer instead. Let Hillary gloat and strut, let her deny that she is not in fact an inhumanly cruel or wicked person; let Hillary deny that she’s a monster: http://theseedsof9-11.com

Posted by Peggy McGilligan | March 8, 2008 4:47 PM

I think much of Clinton's strategy on law and legal issues is the discredited "tough as Republicans" approach. It works badly, damages communities, and has little to do with real-world needs, as opposed to Washington spinparties.

Posted by sheilaf | March 8, 2008 4:49 PM

I don't think it was the end of the world, and I think he (or she?) is really funny and clever a lot of the time. I'm simply admitting that I, personally, would prefer we tried a slightly higher tone on the edges. But, I've expressed my preference, and I'll try to turn my attention back to the important issue -- explaining why people should prefer Obama over Clinton.

Posted by MDtoMN | March 8, 2008 4:51 PM

I think Clinton has a tendency to be weak on the less conspicuous issues, because she is so compromised by the "must appease the Republicans" idea. She really hates taking any sort of strong liberal position, and will back off it in a second once the media throws a few Republican criticisms her way.

Posted by jilldavis | March 8, 2008 4:52 PM

Sinbad is an intrinsically funny name.

Posted by Waldo Wainthrop | March 8, 2008 4:55 PM

I completely agree Sheilaf. This "tough as Republicans" approach appears in both the foreign policy and criminal law context. It's just two variants on the same disastrous spin. And, it's why the "commander-in-chief" thing really ticked me off. Basically, Clinton is suggesting that Obama is unfit because he hasn't adopted this "tough as Republicans" approach. That worries me immensely, because it suggests that she really hasn't learned any larger lesson from Iraq. Seeing that it carries over to the criminal law context just highlights how much it's become a part of her political world view.

Posted by MDtoMN | March 8, 2008 4:57 PM

Sinbad,

What did Hillary think of your genie pants when you were solving the Kosovo refugee crisis that one day? There is also a rumor that you did some behind the scenes peace negotiating in N. Ireland with Hillary. Is this true? And finally Sinbad, if you want people to take your diplomacy more seriously, you have to stop speaking of yourself in the third person. It diminishes all that you and Hillary accomplished in the Balkans.

Posted by jay | March 8, 2008 4:57 PM

In the interests of general harmony, I renounce and deject.. no.. debounce and reflect.. ok, try again.... I debone and respect...

Anyway, I hereby withdraw any and all comparisons between Clinton, Hillary Rodham (R-lite New York) and any and all fertilizers, bodily substances or fluids and in sum, anything which contributes to growth. It was very very wrong of me, and I shall never, never, never do it again.

Posted by morzer | March 8, 2008 4:59 PM

Heads Up: CNN is now running a piece on the girl who was featured asleep, in HRC's "3am Ad." As others have mentioned, she is now 18 (the photos are 8 years old, from a stock photo agency), and is a huge Obama supporter.

Ooops. But it gets worse for Hillary, vis a vis the newscycle.

Seems this young woman is highly articulate, is a precinct captain for the Oregon Primary, and--get this--said it would be wonderful if she and Obama could make a counter-ad together.

You can say this is fluffy stuff. And you would be right. But the public loves fluffy stuff.

There's more coming on this, I can guarantee you.

Posted by Vikodan Vinny | March 8, 2008 5:00 PM

Also in the interests of general harmony, I'll concede that I'm not very funny and probably am partly motivated by jealously towards those who are. But, even though that might tend to make me sympathetic towards Clinton, I have managed to recognize that it would be best if our chosen candidate had a skill set I lack.

Posted by MDtoMN | March 8, 2008 5:05 PM

MDtoMN, the worst thing about the spin, from a political angle, is that no-one buys the "Tough as a Republican but less so" approach. It never enthuses Democrats, and serious Republicans treat it with amused disdain. It just doesn't fly, and does leave our candidates looking weak and insincere.

Posted by Sheilaf | March 8, 2008 5:06 PM

In an earlier thread I compared Senator Clinton to a rutabaga.

I stand by my remark.

Posted by southpaw | March 8, 2008 5:07 PM

Sinbad thinks you don't know what you're talking about! Speaking in the third person is PRECISELY how Sinbad solved the refugee crisis in Kosovo!

Give Sinbad a little more LOVE than that!

Posted by Sinbad | March 8, 2008 5:09 PM

Hey MDtoMN, making fun of Clinton is easy - you just have to repeat what she says, but in a rational atmosphere among people who think about the world. I guarantee you, it gets laughs every time.

Posted by jacinth | March 8, 2008 5:09 PM

southpaw, that was very wrong of you! Don't you have any sensitivity to how the poor rutabaga feels? Please, denounce and reject your unkind remarks. Shame on you, southpaw!

MDtoMN, does that mean you forgive me? *s*

Posted by morzer | March 8, 2008 5:12 PM

I suspect that we shall soon hear demands for the rutabaga to be fired from southpaw's campaign.....

Posted by maraschion | March 8, 2008 5:15 PM

Morzer -- You coined "Monsters, Inc." -- I'm not worthy to forgive, much less condemn. Seriously, I plan on using that in an upcoming conversation. I suspect I might lose a friend, but it might be worth it.

Posted by MDtoMN | March 8, 2008 5:24 PM

MDtoMN, I appreciate the compliment, and your sense of when to refrain from the quip. Maybe I should start writing my own blog... I think Monsters Inc. might just go viral *s*. Wish I knew someone who could make Youtube vids though.. I have such a lovely script for one.

Posted by morzer | March 8, 2008 5:32 PM

Every democrat please please read this article.

It shows with Obama how we can win the Midwest and the Western States and create a new majority for a generation.

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do;jse ssionid=9147B7FC91D3501EC22A52220F30BBE8 ?diaryId=4422v

Posted by Kelly Pierce | March 8, 2008 6:03 PM

Obama Supporters

The biggest mystery of this campaign is Obama's message of change and hope and the hatefulness of his supporters on the Web. When I read these posts, I feel like it's the Middle Ages. The divisiveness of your remarks reinforces why Hillary should be President. What type of hope are any of you bringing if Obama wins? It sounds like payback time. Cyberbullies Rule!

You have one thing right. It will be an uphill battle for Hillary to catch up with delegates. Hillary's supporters are pushing hard to have FL and MI seated.

In November, the map favors Hillary. In these red states, Republicans are going to win. "The big swing-states" are the ones that matter." Matt Lewis of Townhall.com wrote an article about this on March 1. According to Lewis, "Hillary has been endorsed by the Democratic governors of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Ohio." It is their belief that Hillary will win their states and not Obama.

One more thing about a caucus, it is a process that favors someone with a lot of time and energy. The elderly and other groups are shut out.

Posted by EWard | March 8, 2008 6:48 PM

If you would actually read comments, the disrespect is aimed solely towards the Clinton campaign, which is very much anti-hope and very much pro-doing whatever it takes to win (including, but not limited to, blatantly lying and aligning yourself with the Republican candidate to hurt your Democratic opponent). They'll get respect when they deserve it.

Also, you apparently put more faith in endorsements than actual voters, because polls show Obama having a much better chance in November. It was on this very site.

Posted by Monster | March 8, 2008 7:02 PM

It was a near split in delegates in Wyoming. Don't know what you're talking about with "massive turnout of Obama," unless you're just reporting half of the story.

This, after your naive post about why Sam Power was fired (for monster, rather than undermining everything Obama stands for with Iraq -- remember, "a politician who says what he means and means what he says"?)

You seem angry. That's not change you can believe in.

Posted by Peter Cav | March 8, 2008 7:18 PM

It was a near split in delegates in Wyoming.

172 to 126 (at DKos's last count) is a 'near split'? Only in the Hillary-based community, I guess.

Posted by ntr Fausto Carmona | March 8, 2008 7:25 PM

"It was a near split in delegates in Wyoming. Don't know what you're talking about with "massive turnout of Obama," unless you're just reporting half of the story."

Because a 19 point Obama victory is small right? And the delegates from Wyoming don't count. With the certification from CA and the Wyoming win, Hillary has not managed to gain any ground on Obama.

Posted by JordanT | March 8, 2008 7:25 PM

Eward -- current polling shows Obama leading in Michigan and Ohio, losing Pennsylvania, and Clinton leading in Pennsylvania and Ohio, losing Michigan.

I suspect either one will win all three of those states. I personally think Obama has an advantage because he solidly wins many of our midwestern and west coast swing states (WI, IA, MN, WA, OR), whereas Clinton will have to work harder to win them.

Further, Obama currently polls better in California and Nevada than Clinton, as Clinton polls better in Georgia and Alabama than Obama -- primaries are often not indicative of the general electorate of a State.

As for the elderly -- I'm skeptical that caucuses really are so discriminatory on the basis of age. My limited experience with local parties in a caucus state is that the elderly and retired are disproportionately involved. I fully believe that caucuses are discriminatory on the basis of involvement, intensity, health, and education -- but I would want to see some real evidence of age before I buy that argument.

More importantly -- Some of us have serious misgivings about Senator Clinton because of her votes and expressed views on foreign policy. Quite simply, she takes a more "hawkish" and more "aggressive" approach to foreign policy than Senator Obama -- her posture reminds me of the DC consensus in favor of "toughness". Speaking for myself, I find these differences on foreign policy to be the most significant and disconcerting. Senator Clinton has not convinced me to vote for her on the merits. Notably, her supporters rarely attempt to make an affirmative case. When they do, they often suggest that she has different views than the ones she has expressed through her votes and expressed opinion. I do not find that comforting.

Posted by MDtoMN | March 8, 2008 7:30 PM

Chris Matthews on Obama, just now on MSNBC:

"How important is the fact that he keeps winning states?"

I'm willing to entertain the idea that the media's language has at times been unfair to Hillary Clinton. But at some point, you have to acknowledge that they are conceptually through the looking glass for her.

And that, I think, is what lies at the root of some Obama supporters' anger. Our guy ran a positive campaign that blew the gears of the old-school Democratic campaign. He attracted thousands of new, young voters to the polls and to the party. And in doing so, he built an insurmountable pledged delegate lead and is steadily aggregating a sizeable pool of superdelegates. Barack Obama is the presumptive nominee, or he would be if he were facing any other candidate.

But Hillary is somehow immune to rational analysis. It's as if the Clintons figured out that if they:

(a) are hideously negative to the point of endorsing the opposite party's nominee and

(b) pretend like they themselves are in a position to presume to pick a VP and

(c) assert that Hillary is a hardened military commander who also "brought peace" to Northern Ireland and

(d) act deeply offended at how horribly negative Obama's campaign is and

(e) wonder loudly whether Obama's tough enough to really go negative . . .

. . . then reporters will be so overwhelmed by the sheer volume and magnitude of the falsehoods that they'll be too shell-shocked to call shenanigans on the whole thing. For the media, so far, that strategy seems to have worked.

But it hasn't worked on me, and the brazenness of it does make me mad. So I do try use this tiny little megaphone I have in Matt Yglesias's comment sections to call SHENANIGANS on the whole thing.

From my reading of the numbers, Hillary Clinton has as much chance as a rutabaga to win the Democratic party nomination and she cannot be the next president in any case. What she can do is (a) leave the race or (b) divide the party and cripple our nominee. It's in her interest to do the latter, and if no one blows the whistle on her . . . she will. Now, if you came to the same conclusions I do, wouldn't you be mad about the situation?

Posted by southpaw | March 8, 2008 7:45 PM

I would like to 2nd southpaw's call of SHENANIGANS which I believe makes it official, though, it's been awhile since I've seen South Park.

The Clinton talking point that frustrates me the most is how it's not about the delegates it's about the "voters". I'm just guessing since I wasn't there, but I'm fairly certain at the initial Clinton meeting over her run for the Presidency they didn't sit down and say "okay, this is about winning enough delegates to get the nomination, but we think delegates are weird so instead we're going to go for the popular vote in a few big states and stake our claim there". I'd have a lot more respect for the Clinton campaign if they just played straight and didn't complain so much when things don't go their way.

Posted by tom.a | March 8, 2008 7:52 PM

PHB,

And you know that from your close relationship from many supers?

Really, this is just laughable special pleading from a Monster supporter. Now, I can construct what I consider to be a much more plausible narrative about what the Supers are thinking*, but you know what? I don't know, you don't know, none of us know. Except the supers themselves, and their intimates. What little we know from reporting from conversations with the supers suggests that they will go with the the candidate with more pledged delegates, which is Obama. But if your Monster does manage to keep Obama on his heels for the next two months, wins PA in a landslide, and does better than expected in other states, that could change. Or maybe the media reports are bogus, who knows?

But you know what, I almost hope you are right. I WANT to see the sick Democratic party put out of its misery so something better may take its place. And I'm sure that the disaster of a McCain presidency, following the demise of the Democratic party, will bring that about.

*I mean, to the extent that your mind reading is correct to the extent that the supers are going to be influenced by the "nastiness" of a candidates supporters (and my guess is that most of them have better things to do than read blog comment sections), even a dedicated Monster lover has to concede that there has been some of that flowing from the Monster camp.

Posted by LarryM | March 8, 2008 7:59 PM

Worry not, Southpaw. All your points are well taken, and, I am down with them--as are many others.

But let me tell you something.

What has really hurt Hillary Clinton is in fact this constant coddling, which stubbornly insists that we conceptualize her as the front-runner, who will be the eventual Nominee--no matter what the voters decide.

This in fact has been very damaging for her--because it means she has spent the bulk of the campaign not living up to expectations. Worse, I think the candidate herself and the reptiles around her believe this stuff. They really, really believe it.

She's getting set up here for a dissapointing result, in PA.

While the MSNBC segment that just finished revealed that the panel did not take the question Matthews was asking--it was a sign that the "Ohio Honeymoon" is ending. (as predicted).

Hillary is about to have a bad week.

Posted by Jared | March 8, 2008 8:00 PM

Certainly a lot more people in Wyoming voted for Obama than Clinton, but the news agencies are reporting that the national pledged delegate split from WY is only 7-5, so only +2 for Obama. Oh well... on Tuesday Hillary got the headlines but barely made a dent in the delegate race, and today Obama got the headlines but only made a small dent in the delegate race. CNN says it's 7-4 with the last delegate not yet determined, though, so maybe it will come out 8-4 after all.

Neither CNN nor CBSNews are reporting the certified delegate count from California, though. And both are incomplete on Texas.

Posted by Adam Villani | March 8, 2008 8:05 PM