*** Official Barack Obama FBG campaign headquarters *** (1 Viewer)

[jonessed]

I swear some of you have lost all sense of objectivity. Denying an entire state a voice in the process of nominating a presidential candidate is a big deal. That doesn't mean the delegates should be reinstated, but it still disenfranchises those people.

See, this is where you are losing me.If the state party decided to move the "primary" back to December, so that it would be the very first state (or November or October), and the National Party stripped the delegates, who's "fault" would it be? Would it be the National Party's fault, or the State's?Similarly, who has "disenfranchised" the voters here? The National Party, or the State Party?The State party knew that it would lose delegates if it moved up the primary. It then proceeded to move up the primary, and then lost delegates. Who's fault is it, again?

The state party. Athough I think the national party shares some of the blame. It's not like the people got to decide on whether or not their votes would count. The got screwed by the bureaucracy

 

[Sweet J]

Right. They weren't allowed because of party rules. The same party rules that say the delegates won't count.Glad we could find some common ground.

I agree that they shouldn't count, and it'd be horrible if they did, but I fear that the dems won't want to be remembered for "disenfranchising" the entire state of florida, especially after the 2000 vote.I don't know what will happen, but it's certainly a dicey issue.

It will be.It shouldn't be, but it will be. If the votes don't count, then those who voted will claim to be disenfranchised, and Hillary will step up to fight for them because she needs those votes. But if the votes do count, then those who chose not to vote in what they were told was a meaningless vote will be disenfranchised. Hillary won't step up to fight for them because she doesn't know how they would vote given another chance. So either way Florida voters are being disenfrachised, so let's nip the whole "it's a disenfranchise issue" in the bud, mmmkay. Only one thing will make Florida an issue.... and that's whether or not Hillary needs those votes. She has no other reason than that to stand up and fight for those voters.

Is a simple re-vote for Florida and Michigan a possibility? Or would that make too much sense?

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

For my fellow Obamians, let's assume the worst for a moment and see Hillary taking the nomination. Not by some BS superdelegate count or the inclusion of Fla and Michigan, but totally above board and by the popular vote.Would you want Obama as VP on the ticket?

Nope. Stay in the Senate and build your record for 2012, because if Hillary is nominated we'll likely be doing all of this again in 4 years.

 

[Death Bytes]

I don't have anything positive to say about her either.

The sad thing here is that Obama does have a pretty good track record. He's been in public service accountable to voters for longer than hillary has. He's run a great campaign against one of the strongest candidates with the most connections, best name recognition in the race. He's done well in the senate, did well in Ill, has community organizing experience. It's not as though he's a college graduate fresh out of school.He has experience making judgement calls, and on one of the biggest calls of our time, he was right when the vast majority of leaders was wrong.He has experience putting the right people around him who are capable of leading, as evidenced by the successes of his campaign.He has good judgment and ability to draw top advisers to his campaign, advisers who previously worked for clinton and who are respected.He has the ability to inspire the public, to draw them together around common purposes, to bridge the gaps between the far left and the middle, and he does so in a way that doesn't demonize the other side but instead treats them with respect.He has many characteristics that would be great for a president to have, and he has the vision to lead us into a new washington.People are so caught up on experience that they seem to forget that not all experience is good, and a past track record isn't indicative of future performance necessarily. Especially not for a job as demanding and different from EVERY other job as the president. Bush had experience, cheney did too, rumsfeld...where'd that get them? Where'd that get the country?He's experienced enough to be a leader, and he's exceptional enough to be a great leader.

But I guess those things are nothing more than what your average 7th grade teacher can do.

 

[culdeus]

For my fellow Obamians, let's assume the worst for a moment and see Hillary taking the nomination. Not by some BS superdelegate count or the inclusion of Fla and Michigan, but totally above board and by the popular vote.Would you want Obama as VP on the ticket?

Assuming that she won "fair and square"? (although it is almost too late for that).hhhhhm. No, I would not want Obama on the ticket. I would be disappointed if he sullied himself by associating with her, and her policies. I'd rather he waited for the next time.

exactly.He's young and hasn't had a HWEEEEEEEEEEEEEWAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWW moment.

 

[Death Bytes]

For my fellow Obamians, let's assume the worst for a moment and see Hillary taking the nomination. Not by some BS superdelegate count or the inclusion of Fla and Michigan, but totally above board and by the popular vote.Would you want Obama as VP on the ticket?

Wouldn't matter at that point. If Hillary's going to be the president, I'm voting for the republican.

 

[Sammy3469]

Right. They weren't allowed because of party rules. The same party rules that say the delegates won't count.Glad we could find some common ground.

I agree that they shouldn't count, and it'd be horrible if they did, but I fear that the dems won't want to be remembered for "disenfranchising" the entire state of florida, especially after the 2000 vote.I don't know what will happen, but it's certainly a dicey issue.

It will be.It shouldn't be, but it will be. If the votes don't count, then those who voted will claim to be disenfranchised, and Hillary will step up to fight for them because she needs those votes. But if the votes do count, then those who chose not to vote in what they were told was a meaningless vote will be disenfranchised. Hillary won't step up to fight for them because she doesn't know how they would vote given another chance. So either way Florida voters are being disenfrachised, so let's nip the whole "it's a disenfranchise issue" in the bud, mmmkay. Only one thing will make Florida an issue.... and that's whether or not Hillary needs those votes. She has no other reason than that to stand up and fight for those voters.

Is a simple re-vote for Florida and Michigan a possibility? Or would that make too much sense?

I've heard one possible scenario is that the Dem party could tell those two states to caucus in July/Aug. No clue if it could actually happen though on such short notice.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

I swear some of you have lost all sense of objectivity. Denying an entire state a voice in the process of nominating a presidential candidate is a big deal. That doesn't mean the delegates should be reinstated, but it still disenfranchises those people.

See, this is where you are losing me.If the state party decided to move the "primary" back to December, so that it would be the very first state (or November or October), and the National Party stripped the delegates, who's "fault" would it be? Would it be the National Party's fault, or the State's?Similarly, who has "disenfranchised" the voters here? The National Party, or the State Party?The State party knew that it would lose delegates if it moved up the primary. It then proceeded to move up the primary, and then lost delegates. Who's fault is it, again?

The state party. Athough I think the national party shares some of the blame. It's not like the people got to decide on whether or not their votes would count. The got screwed by the bureaucracy

If Michigan and Fla had scheduled their primaries dead last, the people would be just as "disenfranchised".

 

[urbanhack]

For my fellow Obamians, let's assume the worst for a moment and see Hillary taking the nomination. Not by some BS superdelegate count or the inclusion of Fla and Michigan, but totally above board and by the popular vote.Would you want Obama as VP on the ticket?

Assuming that she won "fair and square"? (although it is almost too late for that).hhhhhm. No, I would not want Obama on the ticket. I would be disappointed if he sullied himself by associating with her, and her policies. I'd rather he waited for the next time.

I would not want him on the ticket. I'd like for him to forge his own political career instead of getting wrapped up in the Clinton Political Machine™.

 

[Death Bytes]

Right. They weren't allowed because of party rules. The same party rules that say the delegates won't count.Glad we could find some common ground.

I agree that they shouldn't count, and it'd be horrible if they did, but I fear that the dems won't want to be remembered for "disenfranchising" the entire state of florida, especially after the 2000 vote.I don't know what will happen, but it's certainly a dicey issue.

It will be.It shouldn't be, but it will be. If the votes don't count, then those who voted will claim to be disenfranchised, and Hillary will step up to fight for them because she needs those votes. But if the votes do count, then those who chose not to vote in what they were told was a meaningless vote will be disenfranchised. Hillary won't step up to fight for them because she doesn't know how they would vote given another chance. So either way Florida voters are being disenfrachised, so let's nip the whole "it's a disenfranchise issue" in the bud, mmmkay. Only one thing will make Florida an issue.... and that's whether or not Hillary needs those votes. She has no other reason than that to stand up and fight for those voters.

Is a simple re-vote for Florida and Michigan a possibility? Or would that make too much sense?

If they are allowed to campaign there, that makes sense to me. But Hillary has a lot to lose for every day Obama's allowed to campaign, so if this re-vote could happen, I'd see her trying to control it as much as possible.

 

[culdeus]

I swear some of you have lost all sense of objectivity. Denying an entire state a voice in the process of nominating a presidential candidate is a big deal. That doesn't mean the delegates should be reinstated, but it still disenfranchises those people.

See, this is where you are losing me.If the state party decided to move the "primary" back to December, so that it would be the very first state (or November or October), and the National Party stripped the delegates, who's "fault" would it be? Would it be the National Party's fault, or the State's?Similarly, who has "disenfranchised" the voters here? The National Party, or the State Party?The State party knew that it would lose delegates if it moved up the primary. It then proceeded to move up the primary, and then lost delegates. Who's fault is it, again?

The state party. Athough I think the national party shares some of the blame. It's not like the people got to decide on whether or not their votes would count. The got screwed by the bureaucracy

If Michigan and Fla had scheduled their primaries dead last, the people would be just as "disenfranchised".

Putting an outlook reminder to bump this during the convention when it's a

 

[Homer J Simpson]

For my fellow Obamians, let's assume the worst for a moment and see Hillary taking the nomination. Not by some BS superdelegate count or the inclusion of Fla and Michigan, but totally above board and by the popular vote.Would you want Obama as VP on the ticket?

No.His appeal is as a leader of a movement, not as an administrative puppet. In that administration, Hillary would be the figurehead wielding the power and what change could Obama really enact as VP? It'd be like MLK being the assistant to Al Sharpton or Jessie Jackson in a movement for black rights. Obama's voice, vision and inspiration won't do much good as second in command, and the scars of a clinton presidency would likely taint any future political aspirations he has. I just don't want to see him squandered as a second in command.

Glad to see I'm not the only one. I think it would be a horrible decision on his part.

 

[jonessed]

I swear some of you have lost all sense of objectivity. Denying an entire state a voice in the process of nominating a presidential candidate is a big deal. That doesn't mean the delegates should be reinstated, but it still disenfranchises those people.

See, this is where you are losing me.If the state party decided to move the "primary" back to December, so that it would be the very first state (or November or October), and the National Party stripped the delegates, who's "fault" would it be? Would it be the National Party's fault, or the State's?Similarly, who has "disenfranchised" the voters here? The National Party, or the State Party?The State party knew that it would lose delegates if it moved up the primary. It then proceeded to move up the primary, and then lost delegates. Who's fault is it, again?

The state party. Athough I think the national party shares some of the blame. It's not like the people got to decide on whether or not their votes would count. The got screwed by the bureaucracy

If Michigan and Fla had scheduled their primaries dead last, the people would be just as "disenfranchised".

Why? A lot of pundits seem to think this is going to come down to the wire. Do you think it's already decided?

 

[Homer J Simpson]

I swear some of you have lost all sense of objectivity. Denying an entire state a voice in the process of nominating a presidential candidate is a big deal. That doesn't mean the delegates should be reinstated, but it still disenfranchises those people.

See, this is where you are losing me.If the state party decided to move the "primary" back to December, so that it would be the very first state (or November or October), and the National Party stripped the delegates, who's "fault" would it be? Would it be the National Party's fault, or the State's?

Similarly, who has "disenfranchised" the voters here? The National Party, or the State Party?

The State party knew that it would lose delegates if it moved up the primary. It then proceeded to move up the primary, and then lost delegates. Who's fault is it, again?

The state party. Athough I think the national party shares some of the blame. It's not like the people got to decide on whether or not their votes would count. The got screwed by the bureaucracy

If Michigan and Fla had scheduled their primaries dead last, the people would be just as "disenfranchised".

Putting an outlook reminder to bump this during the convention when it's a

I should have put an asterisk to point out that my scenario would be true in almost every case since the primary system came into its current form.But what fun is a message board without hyperbole?

 

[glock]

I'm surprised all these Obama supporters refuse to vote Hillary. Is that even if he is VP? How big of a supporter are you if you wouldn't support him for VP?

I wouldn't vote for Hillary if Obama was her VP. I don't like her, I don't think she'll take the country in a new direction, I think she'll just perpetuate the division that existed during the bush and clinton years, and usher in more of the same in washington. Why would I vote for someone who while being a very capable person, would not change the political climate in washington one iota?

How is Obama going to change the political climate? His Senate record is about as party line as they come.

First, admit that Hillary won't change the political climate. Her style of politics is embedded in the politics of the past few administrations. Slash and burn, do whatever it takes politics where the other side is demonized and you forcefully push on with your goals. She'll bring Bill back to the white house, which will be a point of contention for republicans who will be just waiting for him to slip up. All of the clinton's baggage will be the stuff of talk shows again, newspaper articles, and animosity that has remained largeley dormant for a decade will seep back out into the public again.Obama offers a fresh new face. He offers the ability to bring people from all walks of life together, and inspire them to a greater cause. This isn't just mushy, pie in the sky crap, it has real ramifications. He brings in more independents and republicans than Hillary ever could. He brings over reasonable minded people and doesn't demonize the other side. He's basically galvanized a new form of politics, where cordiality reigns supreme. The past debate was played on HIS home ground, not clintons, as if it were her home turf, many more allegations and swipes would've been delivered, just like her Rezko comments in the previous debate.

Obama has shown on the campaign trail that he can elevate the dialogue. He's a black man but his campaign isn't about race, it's about a movement. He gets a lot of the black vote but he doesn't focus on that. He gets a lot of the youth vote but doesn't focus on that. He focuses on the idea that he's leading a movement, a fresh movement, a movement that is bringing in people from all walks of life, and he's got the charm to pull it off.

When he gets into office, he will bring his excellent judgement abilities, as shown by his opposition to the war from the start IN ADDITION TO his ability to select excellent people for positions, as evidenced by how amazingly run his campaign has been. Imagine, this is a guy that put together a campaign organization that is competing with Hillary clinton's..the most entrenched political family outside of the kennedy's. I mean, this shows excellent judgement and ability to choose capable people to surround himself with. He has shown ability to bridge gaps between people on issues, and he doesn't enter the white house on day one with a decades worth of animosity in his overnight bag.

So the difference between how they would be as presidents is huge to me. Fresh start, Obama, more of the same, Clinton.

Awesome post.I think you nailed how I feel about the "experience" thing. It's all about judgement, and ability to surround oneself with talented people. His campaign has proven this. I like his Mitt Romney dig the other night when someone believed the country needed a "CEO President" like Romeny, and Obama offered he didn't think Romney has gotten a good return on his investment and that he'd gladly compare his campaign to his. Obama has built this campaign from the ground up in about a year and has more cash than Billary and is in a dead heat with them. That in itself speaks volumes about his ability and in my mind that trumps longevity in Washington argument. The dude has skillz.

The dude has people skills. I know his political ideology is even farther left than Hillary (as his voting record is evidence of that), but his people skills massively trump Hillary's. This country is so divided today that the last thing we need is someone in the White House who would cause even more division. It isn't political ideology that will fix the division. It's people skills. We need a president that can show us that when we respectfully disagree we can still accomplish positive results overall, because we've pretty much proven that when we disrespectfully disagree we accomplish nothing. His political ideology isn't why I will vote for him. It's his people skills. And he will be the first democrat I will have ever voted for. No one that the republicans nominate is going to make me change that plan. The only thing that can change that is if Hillary gets the dem nomination.

I couldn't have said it better myself. I am in the exact same situation and agree on all counts.

Right. So why don't we just put a 7th grade English teacher in office? The job this guy is applying for requires a bit more than people skills. Your post makes me fear for the future of this country. People skills? Peolpe skills? How about direction, honor, dignity, leadership, A PROVEN TRACK RECORD!!!!! The only thing your guy has proven is that he is a politician.

And what has Hillary proven if not that? What's her track recoprd again? Oh yeah voted for the Iraq war and now admits she didn't actually read the reports she was given. Voted for a flag burning amendment to the constitution even though that has already been shot down by the Supreme Court. Slept in the White House. And has been accountable to voters for less years than Obama. Where's all this great track record that favors her so much?

NCCommish = ownage

 

[trader jake]

adonis is owning in this thread

 

[snitwitch]

From politico.com:

Five reasons Hillary should be worried

By: Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen

February 6, 2008 02:39 PM EST

Hillary Clinton survived a Super Tuesday scare. But there are five big reasons the former first lady should be spooked by the current trajectory of the campaign.

Longtime Clinton friends say she recognizes the peril in careening between near-death primary night experiences and small-bore victories.

Although the friends did not have details, they believe she may go ahead with the campaign shake-up she had been planning just before her surprise victory in New Hampshire.

Her team is girding for trench warfare, telling reporters that the nomination will not be decided until at least the Pennsylvania primary on April 22, if then.

Clinton aides told reporters on a conference call today that the Democratic Party’s complex delegate allocation rules mean that neither candidate is likely to take a sizable lead in the foreseeable future.

While Clinton’s campaign gloated about having the most total delegates for the cycle so far, her staff nevertheless recognizes that Super Tuesday was no triumph. Here’s why:

1. She lost the delegate derby. Pure and simple, this is a war to win delegates, one that might not be decided until this summer’s Democratic convention.

And when the smoke cleared this morning, it appeared that Barack Obama had ended up with slightly more delegates in the 22 states.

Obama’s campaign says the senator finished ahead by 14 delegates.

With results still coming in, Clinton’s campaign says the candidates finished within five or six delegates of each other. Either way, Super Tuesday was essentially a draw.

Clinton may still hold the edge overall, but Obama is closing in rapidly.

2. She essentially tied Obama in the popular vote. Each won just over 7.3 million votes, a level of parity that was unthinkable as recently as a few weeks ago.

At the time, national polls showed Clinton with a commanding lead — in some cases, by 10 points or more. That dominance is now gone.

One reason is that polls and primary results reveal that the more voters get to know Obama, the more they seem to like him.

This is especially troubling for Clinton since the schedule slows dramatically now and a full month will pass before the next big-state showdown.

All of this allows candidates ample time to introduce themselves to voters in each state — which plays to Obama’s core strengths.



3. She lost more states. Obama carried 14 states, six more than Clinton, and showed appeal in every geographical region.

His win in bellwether Missouri was impressive by nearly every measure, marked by victories among men and women, secular and churchgoing voters, and urban and suburban voters.



4. She lost the January cash war. Money chases momentum, so Obama crushing’s 2-to-1 fundraising victory last month is revealing.

He raised more than $31 million; Clinton raised less than $14 million. The implication is hard to ignore: Democratic activists and donors are flocking to Obama at a pace that could have a profound effect on the race going forward.

5. The calendar is her enemy. Now that more than half the states have weighed in, there is a fairly predictable formula for determining who is most likely to win the upcoming contests.

In caucus states, Obama’s organizational strength shines: He has won seven of eight. Up next are three more caucus states, Washington, Nebraska and Maine.

Obama also runs tremendously well in states with large African-American populations, another promising sign since next Tuesday’s three primaries are in the District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia — all of which have significant percentages of black voters.

Then comes another caucus state, Hawaii, where Obama is viewed as a native son.

The bottom line is that it figures to be another month before Clinton hits a stretch of states — places like Ohio and Pennsylvania — where she will be strongly favored to win.

So it couldn’t any be clearer as to why the supposedly inevitable candidacy is anything but — even when she’s supposedly winning.

 

[adonis]

From politico.com:

Five reasons Hillary should be worried

By: Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen

February 6, 2008 02:39 PM EST

Hillary Clinton survived a Super Tuesday scare. But there are five big reasons the former first lady should be spooked by the current trajectory of the campaign.

Longtime Clinton friends say she recognizes the peril in careening between near-death primary night experiences and small-bore victories.

Although the friends did not have details, they believe she may go ahead with the campaign shake-up she had been planning just before her surprise victory in New Hampshire.

Her team is girding for trench warfare, telling reporters that the nomination will not be decided until at least the Pennsylvania primary on April 22, if then.

Clinton aides told reporters on a conference call today that the Democratic Party’s complex delegate allocation rules mean that neither candidate is likely to take a sizable lead in the foreseeable future.

While Clinton’s campaign gloated about having the most total delegates for the cycle so far, her staff nevertheless recognizes that Super Tuesday was no triumph. Here’s why:

1. She lost the delegate derby. Pure and simple, this is a war to win delegates, one that might not be decided until this summer’s Democratic convention.

And when the smoke cleared this morning, it appeared that Barack Obama had ended up with slightly more delegates in the 22 states.

Obama’s campaign says the senator finished ahead by 14 delegates.

With results still coming in, Clinton’s campaign says the candidates finished within five or six delegates of each other. Either way, Super Tuesday was essentially a draw.

Clinton may still hold the edge overall, but Obama is closing in rapidly.

2. She essentially tied Obama in the popular vote. Each won just over 7.3 million votes, a level of parity that was unthinkable as recently as a few weeks ago.

At the time, national polls showed Clinton with a commanding lead — in some cases, by 10 points or more. That dominance is now gone.

One reason is that polls and primary results reveal that the more voters get to know Obama, the more they seem to like him.

This is especially troubling for Clinton since the schedule slows dramatically now and a full month will pass before the next big-state showdown.

All of this allows candidates ample time to introduce themselves to voters in each state — which plays to Obama’s core strengths.



3. She lost more states. Obama carried 14 states, six more than Clinton, and showed appeal in every geographical region.

His win in bellwether Missouri was impressive by nearly every measure, marked by victories among men and women, secular and churchgoing voters, and urban and suburban voters.



4. She lost the January cash war. Money chases momentum, so Obama crushing’s 2-to-1 fundraising victory last month is revealing.

He raised more than $31 million; Clinton raised less than $14 million. The implication is hard to ignore: Democratic activists and donors are flocking to Obama at a pace that could have a profound effect on the race going forward.

5. The calendar is her enemy. Now that more than half the states have weighed in, there is a fairly predictable formula for determining who is most likely to win the upcoming contests.

In caucus states, Obama’s organizational strength shines: He has won seven of eight. Up next are three more caucus states, Washington, Nebraska and Maine.

Obama also runs tremendously well in states with large African-American populations, another promising sign since next Tuesday’s three primaries are in the District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia — all of which have significant percentages of black voters.

Then comes another caucus state, Hawaii, where Obama is viewed as a native son.

The bottom line is that it figures to be another month before Clinton hits a stretch of states — places like Ohio and Pennsylvania — where she will be strongly favored to win.

So it couldn’t any be clearer as to why the supposedly inevitable candidacy is anything but — even when she’s supposedly winning.

Excellent points

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

From politico.com:

Five reasons Hillary should be worried

By: Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen

February 6, 2008 02:39 PM EST

Hillary Clinton survived a Super Tuesday scare. But there are five big reasons the former first lady should be spooked by the current trajectory of the campaign.

Longtime Clinton friends say she recognizes the peril in careening between near-death primary night experiences and small-bore victories.

Although the friends did not have details, they believe she may go ahead with the campaign shake-up she had been planning just before her surprise victory in New Hampshire.

Her team is girding for trench warfare, telling reporters that the nomination will not be decided until at least the Pennsylvania primary on April 22, if then.

Clinton aides told reporters on a conference call today that the Democratic Party’s complex delegate allocation rules mean that neither candidate is likely to take a sizable lead in the foreseeable future.

While Clinton’s campaign gloated about having the most total delegates for the cycle so far, her staff nevertheless recognizes that Super Tuesday was no triumph. Here’s why:

1. She lost the delegate derby. Pure and simple, this is a war to win delegates, one that might not be decided until this summer’s Democratic convention.

And when the smoke cleared this morning, it appeared that Barack Obama had ended up with slightly more delegates in the 22 states.

Obama’s campaign says the senator finished ahead by 14 delegates.

With results still coming in, Clinton’s campaign says the candidates finished within five or six delegates of each other. Either way, Super Tuesday was essentially a draw.

Clinton may still hold the edge overall, but Obama is closing in rapidly.

2. She essentially tied Obama in the popular vote. Each won just over 7.3 million votes, a level of parity that was unthinkable as recently as a few weeks ago.

At the time, national polls showed Clinton with a commanding lead — in some cases, by 10 points or more. That dominance is now gone.

One reason is that polls and primary results reveal that the more voters get to know Obama, the more they seem to like him.

This is especially troubling for Clinton since the schedule slows dramatically now and a full month will pass before the next big-state showdown.

All of this allows candidates ample time to introduce themselves to voters in each state — which plays to Obama’s core strengths.



3. She lost more states. Obama carried 14 states, six more than Clinton, and showed appeal in every geographical region.

His win in bellwether Missouri was impressive by nearly every measure, marked by victories among men and women, secular and churchgoing voters, and urban and suburban voters.



4. She lost the January cash war. Money chases momentum, so Obama crushing’s 2-to-1 fundraising victory last month is revealing.

He raised more than $31 million; Clinton raised less than $14 million. The implication is hard to ignore: Democratic activists and donors are flocking to Obama at a pace that could have a profound effect on the race going forward.

5. The calendar is her enemy. Now that more than half the states have weighed in, there is a fairly predictable formula for determining who is most likely to win the upcoming contests.

In caucus states, Obama’s organizational strength shines: He has won seven of eight. Up next are three more caucus states, Washington, Nebraska and Maine.

Obama also runs tremendously well in states with large African-American populations, another promising sign since next Tuesday’s three primaries are in the District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia — all of which have significant percentages of black voters.

Then comes another caucus state, Hawaii, where Obama is viewed as a native son.

The bottom line is that it figures to be another month before Clinton hits a stretch of states — places like Ohio and Pennsylvania — where she will be strongly favored to win.

So it couldn’t any be clearer as to why the supposedly inevitable candidacy is anything but — even when she’s supposedly winning.

Excellent points

I'm cautiously optimistic.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Hey! What the hell was this doing on Page 2?

 

[snitwitch]

rumors going around that Hillary is self-funding now.

Confirmed.Was this part of the 10 million dollar January? If so she's in bad shape.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

I mailed in my registration today to change from a 10 year Independent to a Democrat so that I can vote in the April 22 PA primary for Obama.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

rumors going around that Hillary is self-funding now.

Confirmed.Was this part of the 10 million dollar January? If so she's in bad shape.

This is part of why she is pressing for more debates, she needs free air time.

 

[Tremendous Upside]

rumors going around that Hillary is self-funding now.

Confirmed.Was this part of the 10 million dollar January? If so she's in bad shape.

Late Update: Wolfson confirms to me that the $13.5 million that Hillary raised in January does not include this $5 million.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

rumors going around that Hillary is self-funding now.

Confirmed.Was this part of the 10 million dollar January? If so she's in bad shape.

This is part of why she is pressing for more debates, she needs free air time.

Obama needs to play this right though, as he doesnt want to appear afraid of her either.

 

[Kleck.]

I mailed in my registration today to change from a 10 year Independent to a Democrat so that I can vote in the April 22 PA primary for Obama.

In PA you have to pre-register with a party to vote in the primary? I've never heard of this, are there a lot of states that do this?

 

[Sammy3469]

So Hillary loaned herself 5 million in Jan

"ouch"

 

[culdeus]

I mailed in my registration today to change from a 10 year Independent to a Democrat so that I can vote in the April 22 PA primary for Obama.

In PA you have to pre-register with a party to vote in the primary? I've never heard of this, are there a lot of states that do this?

It's an outdated thing to try to prevent people from voting in two primaries or more. There are technological solutions to such a problem now, but old ways die hard.

 

[Tremendous Upside]

So Hillary loaned herself 5 million in Jan"ouch"

I loaned myself $5 bucks to get some pizza for lunch

 

[Homer J Simpson]

I mailed in my registration today to change from a 10 year Independent to a Democrat so that I can vote in the April 22 PA primary for Obama.

 

[Sammy3469]

So Hillary loaned herself 5 million in Jan"ouch"

I loaned myself $5 bucks to get some pizza for lunch

at least you spent it much better...that means she only raised 8 million in Jan.She's challenging her donors to raise 3 million in the next 3 days

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

I mailed in my registration today to change from a 10 year Independent to a Democrat so that I can vote in the April 22 PA primary for Obama.

In PA you have to pre-register with a party to vote in the primary? I've never heard of this, are there a lot of states that do this?

In PA you must be registered to vote 30 days prior to the election. also, PA is a closed primary so as an (I) I couldnt participate.

 

[adonis]

So Hillary loaned herself 5 million in Jan"ouch"

I loaned myself $5 bucks to get some pizza for lunch

at least you spent it much better...that means she only raised 8 million in Jan.She's challenging her donors to raise 3 million in the next 3 days

It's said that the 13.5 million didn't include the 5 million.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

So Hillary loaned herself 5 million in Jan"ouch"

I loaned myself $5 bucks to get some pizza for lunch

at least you spent it much better...that means she only raised 8 million in Jan.She's challenging her donors to raise 3 million in the next 3 days

The 5 million was on top of the 13.

 

[shining path]

So Hillary loaned herself 5 million in Jan"ouch"

I loaned myself $5 bucks to get some pizza for lunch

She's challenging her donors to raise 3 million in the next 3 days

Let me just get out my checkbook...Oh wait, I can't stand her.

 

[adonis]

So Hillary loaned herself 5 million in Jan

"ouch"

I loaned myself $5 bucks to get some pizza for lunch

She's challenging her donors to raise 3 million in the next 3 days

Let me just get out my checkbook...Oh wait, I can't stand her.

I'd donate -$50 to her campaign because I care, that much.

 

[Sammy3469]

So Hillary loaned herself 5 million in Jan"ouch"

I loaned myself $5 bucks to get some pizza for lunch

at least you spent it much better...that means she only raised 8 million in Jan.She's challenging her donors to raise 3 million in the next 3 days

The 5 million was on top of the 13.

which makes it even worse if her cash on hand is really as low as people believe.

 

[Poppa]

So Hillary loaned herself 5 million in Jan

"ouch"

This is a candidacy in biiiiig trouble...

 

[Sammy3469]

So Hillary loaned herself 5 million in Jan

"ouch"

This is a candidacy in biiiiig trouble...

and that's exactly how its going to be spun over the next few days.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

From an article that Pinequick posted in another thread.

At a news conference on the morning after Super Tuesday, Obama offered some pointed advice to members of Congress and other party leaders who will attend the national convention this summer as delegates not chosen in primaries or caucuses. He said that if he winds up winning more delegates in voting than the former first lady, they "would have to think long and hard about how they approach the nomination when the people they claim to represent have said, 'Obama's our guy,'" he said.

I WILL BURN #### DOWN!!!

 

[adonis]

From an article that Pinequick posted in another thread.

At a news conference on the morning after Super Tuesday, Obama offered some pointed advice to members of Congress and other party leaders who will attend the national convention this summer as delegates not chosen in primaries or caucuses. He said that if he winds up winning more delegates in voting than the former first lady, they "would have to think long and hard about how they approach the nomination when the people they claim to represent have said, 'Obama's our guy,'" he said.

I WILL BURN #### DOWN!!!

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

On a side note, I think we begin to have the very real possiblity of hearing endorsements from either John Edwards or Bill Richardson, or both.

After MA last night I refuse to get excited about another endorsement in this election.

 

[LHUCKS]

From an article that Pinequick posted in another thread.

At a news conference on the morning after Super Tuesday, Obama offered some pointed advice to members of Congress and other party leaders who will attend the national convention this summer as delegates not chosen in primaries or caucuses. He said that if he winds up winning more delegates in voting than the former first lady, they "would have to think long and hard about how they approach the nomination when the people they claim to represent have said, 'Obama's our guy,'" he said.

I WILL BURN #### DOWN!!!

And I'll bring the blowtorch!!

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Nice response. If you want to throw out insults and then when they get thrown back at you, feel free not to stop by the thread anymore.

He's not worth my time. I shouldn't have responded to his idiotic post in the first place. He was just fishing.

That's rich.

 

[The_Man]

Endorsements don't mean crap. In Maryland, the Governor and one Senator endorse Hillary, the other Senator hasn't endorsed. And Obama is going to beat her by 10-15 points here.

I laugh at the Governor. I used to really like him -- he is young, JFK-ish, and thinks of himself as a change-oriented politican. But he's also so blindly ambitious and self-serving that he hopped on the Clinton bandwagon early, maybe to set himself up with some plum position in Hillary's administration. Now, Hillary is stumbling, is going to get whipped in Maryland, and he's on the record opposing the young, change-oriented candidate who has earned all the Kennedys' support. I will be very interested to see how much he campaigns on her behalf this week -- not much at all, is my guess.

For you Wire fans, Carcetti is 100 percent based on the former Baltimore Mayor, now Governor.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Just heard this....Rush Limbaugh, "If Obama gets the nomination, we are doomed."Context was that the R's can't beat him.

Now that's an endorsement I can get excited about. When Rush is saying that, you know you're candidate is on the right track.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

The DNC isn't a governmental entity. At best, it is quasi-governmental. Theoretically, they should be allowed to choose their nominee through a "Who's Hottest" Poll.

They don't?

 

[adonis]

On a side note, I think we begin to have the very real possiblity of hearing endorsements from either John Edwards or Bill Richardson, or both.

After MA last night I refuse to get excited about another endorsement in this election.

Even edwards or richardson, what about Gore?Maybe it won't matter that much in general election, but certainly it's a momentum sign and I think it might affect the super delegates? No idea, but we need all the support we can get.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

For my fellow Obamians, let's assume the worst for a moment and see Hillary taking the nomination. Not by some BS superdelegate count or the inclusion of Fla and Michigan, but totally above board and by the popular vote.Would you want Obama as VP on the ticket?

No.

 

[culdeus]

What if the Rs decide their nomination is set and throw their weight behind HRC?

They have to fear Obama more than her right? They proved they can throw an election in exactly this way (see: WV).