*** Official Barack Obama FBG campaign headquarters *** (3 Viewers)

[NCCommish]

I posted this over in the McCain thread, but any legitimate critiques of him just aren't responded to over there, so I'll re-post it in this much more lively thread (where Tim appears to spend all of his time anyway):

I didn't see it, but I'm reading now that McCain criticized Obama in his speech tonight for wanting to bomb Pakistan, saying that this shows Obama's inexperience. Is that right?

Because if so, does that mean that McCain is saying we shouldn't have made the January 29th strike on Al Qaeda leader Al-Libi?

I think Obama was criticized for saying he'd send ground troops into Pakistan to fight Al Queda.

Huge difference between troops on the ground and an unmanned drone firing missiles.

Not really. It's all unathorized military action in a sovereign nation. BTW I think this is still a bad idea for anyone. I think the recent elections in Pakistan make that clear.

Seriously? You don't think there's a huge difference between invading a country versus lobbing a few missles in?

Only a matter of degree. Would we look the other way if NK just lobbed a few missles?

 

[skol asylum]

I posted this over in the McCain thread, but any legitimate critiques of him just aren't responded to over there, so I'll re-post it in this much more lively thread (where Tim appears to spend all of his time anyway):

I didn't see it, but I'm reading now that McCain criticized Obama in his speech tonight for wanting to bomb Pakistan, saying that this shows Obama's inexperience. Is that right?

Because if so, does that mean that McCain is saying we shouldn't have made the January 29th strike on Al Qaeda leader Al-Libi?

I think Obama was criticized for saying he'd send ground troops into Pakistan to fight Al Queda.

Huge difference between troops on the ground and an unmanned drone firing missiles.

Not really. It's all unathorized military action in a sovereign nation. BTW I think this is still a bad idea for anyone. I think the recent elections in Pakistan make that clear.

Seriously? You don't think there's a huge difference between invading a country versus lobbing a few missles in?

Would the US react differently between being hit from a few missiles or having say 10,000 troops pour across the border into New Mexico to take out a rogue element hanging out there?

 

[BassNBrew]

I posted this over in the McCain thread, but any legitimate critiques of him just aren't responded to over there, so I'll re-post it in this much more lively thread (where Tim appears to spend all of his time anyway):

I didn't see it, but I'm reading now that McCain criticized Obama in his speech tonight for wanting to bomb Pakistan, saying that this shows Obama's inexperience. Is that right?

Because if so, does that mean that McCain is saying we shouldn't have made the January 29th strike on Al Qaeda leader Al-Libi?

I think Obama was criticized for saying he'd send ground troops into Pakistan to fight Al Queda.

Huge difference between troops on the ground and an unmanned drone firing missiles.

Not really. It's all unathorized military action in a sovereign nation. BTW I think this is still a bad idea for anyone. I think the recent elections in Pakistan make that clear.

Seriously? You don't think there's a huge difference between invading a country versus lobbing a few missles in?

Only a matter of degree. Would we look the other way if NK just lobbed a few missles?

Depends on where they lobbed them. Depends on how many campaign contributions president Clinton took from them. Depends on if a Clinton was president.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

I posted this over in the McCain thread, but any legitimate critiques of him just aren't responded to over there, so I'll re-post it in this much more lively thread (where Tim appears to spend all of his time anyway):

I didn't see it, but I'm reading now that McCain criticized Obama in his speech tonight for wanting to bomb Pakistan, saying that this shows Obama's inexperience. Is that right?

Because if so, does that mean that McCain is saying we shouldn't have made the January 29th strike on Al Qaeda leader Al-Libi?

I think Obama was criticized for saying he'd send ground troops into Pakistan to fight Al Queda.

Huge difference between troops on the ground and an unmanned drone firing missiles.

Not really. It's all unathorized military action in a sovereign nation. BTW I think this is still a bad idea for anyone. I think the recent elections in Pakistan make that clear.

Seriously? You don't think there's a huge difference between invading a country versus lobbing a few missles in?

Just to reiterate, Obama never said anything about "invading" Pakistan.

 

[skol asylum]

I posted this over in the McCain thread, but any legitimate critiques of him just aren't responded to over there, so I'll re-post it in this much more lively thread (where Tim appears to spend all of his time anyway):

I didn't see it, but I'm reading now that McCain criticized Obama in his speech tonight for wanting to bomb Pakistan, saying that this shows Obama's inexperience. Is that right?

Because if so, does that mean that McCain is saying we shouldn't have made the January 29th strike on Al Qaeda leader Al-Libi?

I think Obama was criticized for saying he'd send ground troops into Pakistan to fight Al Queda.

Huge difference between troops on the ground and an unmanned drone firing missiles.

Not really. It's all unathorized military action in a sovereign nation. BTW I think this is still a bad idea for anyone. I think the recent elections in Pakistan make that clear.

Seriously? You don't think there's a huge difference between invading a country versus lobbing a few missles in?

Just to reiterate, Obama never said anything about "invading" Pakistan.

I'd like to see any and all Al Qaeda camps in Waziristan taken out via aerial attack with extreme prejudice.

 

[skol asylum]

I posted this over in the McCain thread, but any legitimate critiques of him just aren't responded to over there, so I'll re-post it in this much more lively thread (where Tim appears to spend all of his time anyway):

I didn't see it, but I'm reading now that McCain criticized Obama in his speech tonight for wanting to bomb Pakistan, saying that this shows Obama's inexperience. Is that right?

Because if so, does that mean that McCain is saying we shouldn't have made the January 29th strike on Al Qaeda leader Al-Libi?

I think Obama was criticized for saying he'd send ground troops into Pakistan to fight Al Queda.

Huge difference between troops on the ground and an unmanned drone firing missiles.

Not really. It's all unathorized military action in a sovereign nation. BTW I think this is still a bad idea for anyone. I think the recent elections in Pakistan make that clear.

Seriously? You don't think there's a huge difference between invading a country versus lobbing a few missles in?

Just to reiterate, Obama never said anything about "invading" Pakistan.

Depends on how you define "invade".

 

[Kumerica]

Chris Matthews just crushed some Senator from Texas who couldn;t list one accomplishment os Obamas. Funny and sad.

A state senator. Pretty low class by Matthews in my book. I like his hard-charging style and I have no problem with him making his point about Obama's legislative accomplishment, but he was really abusing that guy who was clearly unprepared.Frankly, this seemed like something Bill O'Reilly would do. Even Matthews' producers told him to cut it out.

That said, this reflects a broader problem in the Obama campaign. They just don't seem to do a good job disseminating talking points. This was the second time Matthews asked an Obama shill about this (the other one was gov. Doyle of Wisconsin a few days ago).

BS. If you're appearing on TV and don't do your homework, you deserve to be undressed.Matthews wasn't making a point about Obama's legislative accomplishments, he was making a point about the Texas Congressman not knowing his ####. If you're going to be on TV, do your ####### homework.

 

[skol asylum]

Hillary getting truly desperate, turns to negative attacks on her own daughter.

 

[The Man Who Met Andy Griffith]

Chris Matthews just crushed some Senator from Texas who couldn;t list one accomplishment os Obamas. Funny and sad.

A state senator. Pretty low class by Matthews in my book. I like his hard-charging style and I have no problem with him making his point about Obama's legislative accomplishment, but he was really abusing that guy who was clearly unprepared.Frankly, this seemed like something Bill O'Reilly would do. Even Matthews' producers told him to cut it out.

That said, this reflects a broader problem in the Obama campaign. They just don't seem to do a good job disseminating talking points. This was the second time Matthews asked an Obama shill about this (the other one was gov. Doyle of Wisconsin a few days ago).

BS. If you're appearing on TV and don't do your homework, you deserve to be undressed.Matthews wasn't making a point about Obama's legislative accomplishments, he was making a point about the Texas Congressman not knowing his ####. If you're going to be on TV, do your ####### homework.

You seem to be making two points.First, that it's always OK to browbeat outmatched guests. My question to you is: do you feel the same way about Bill O'Reilly?

Second, that Chris Matthews was trying to make a point about a state senator who 99% of the viewers have never heard about and don't care about, rather than make a point about Obama. I think that's absurd on its face, especially given (as I mentioned) that he did the same thing to another Obama surrogate a few days ago on the exact same issue--"legislative accomplishments".

 

[D_House]

I don't think McCain should be pulling that card anymore. Looks weak. Go after Obama on the issues, stick to the issues.

This may sound incredibly naive and optimistic on my part, but on my judgment of these two men, the summer and fall campaign may be the cleanest one we've seen in a while, in which America is presented with the contrasting issues and decide who we want. There won't be any Swift Boats, or Willie Hortons, or dirty tricks. There's no Karl Rove or James Carville behind the scenes. Just intelligent debate over the future of this nation. Call me foolish, but I'm really hopeful.

timschochet, for once, I agree with you. That would be wonderful.

 

[bigbottom]

Wow, a freaking landslide in Wisconsin tonight. Amazing.

 

[All Your Base Are Belong To Us]

McCain is already getting the Bob Dole label. Ruh-roh..

 

[skol asylum]

Hawaii, with 8% in....

Obama 77%

Clinton 23%

 

[shining path]

Chris Matthews just crushed some Senator from Texas who couldn;t list one accomplishment os Obamas. Funny and sad.

A state senator.

No kidding. Basically the same thing as a ten year old Downs child.

 

[NCCommish]

Posted this in another thread but it really belongs here:

Exit Polls: Obama Continues To Erode Clinton Base

Sen. Barack Obama continued his strong showing in the Wisconsin primary on Tuesday among voter demographics considered to be Sen. Hillary Clinton's strength.

White voters supported the Illinois Democrat by a margin of 52 percent to 46 percent. And among white women - the crux of Clinton's base - he scored moderately well: 45 percent to 53 percent. Those voters who make less than $30,000 also supported Obama by a tally of 50 percent to 49 percent. Those making between $30,000 and $50,000 supported the Illinois Democrat by a larger margin of 53 percent to 47 percent.

Wisconsin, Obama's campaign noted prior to the election returns, represented fertile ground for the New York Senator. The state is, according to an AP article released on Tuesday evening, "brimming with whites and working class voters who usually support [Clinton]."

Obama also maintained control of the most reliable elements of his electoral base. Seventy-one percent of those voters between 18 and 29 years old supported the Senator, as did 61 percent of those between 30 and 44.

The percentage of black and Latino voters were not registered in the MSNBC exit polls as neither demographic constituted a substantial portion of the electorate. The state is, by some estimations, more than 90 percent white.

Finally, 62 percent of independents and 70 percent of Republicans who voted in the Democratic primary said they supported Obama's candidacy.

Some other interesting tid-bits from the MSNBC exit polls:

Sixty-three percent of Wisconsin Democratic primary voters said that "regardless" of how they voted, they believed that Sen. Obama would be the candidate "most likely to beat the Republican presidential nominee in November."

Eighty-two percent of the voters said they would be satisfied if Obama were to win the nomination regardless of whom they voted. Sixty-eight percent of those voters said they would be satisfied if Clinton won the nomination.

Fifty-three percent of the respondents said they believed Clinton attacked Obama unfairly. Thirty-three percent said Obama attacked unfairly.

Finally, 63 percent of those who participated in the exit poll thought Obama would be the best candidate to beat the Republican presidential nominee in November (presumably Sen. John McCain). The remaining 37 percent said Clinton was best suited for the challenge.

ArticleThose are some impressive numbers.

 

[NCCommish]

Chris Matthews just crushed some Senator from Texas who couldn;t list one accomplishment os Obamas. Funny and sad.

A state senator.

No kidding. Basically the same thing as a ten year old Downs child.

 

[djcolts]

Wow, a freaking landslide in Wisconsin tonight. Amazing.

Yeah, but the Clintons believe the results in Wisconsin means that the negative attacks worked. Yeah, I heard this on MSNBC last night.

 

[cobalt_27]

Hillary getting truly desperate, turns to negative attacks on her own daughter.

That woman and her husband really are a piece of work. GB Chelsea if she clears this mess without flipping into Britney Spears mode.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I posted this over in the McCain thread, but any legitimate critiques of him just aren't responded to over there, so I'll re-post it in this much more lively thread (where Tim appears to spend all of his time anyway):

I didn't see it, but I'm reading now that McCain criticized Obama in his speech tonight for wanting to bomb Pakistan, saying that this shows Obama's inexperience. Is that right?

Because if so, does that mean that McCain is saying we shouldn't have made the January 29th strike on Al Qaeda leader Al-Libi?

I think Obama was criticized for saying he'd send ground troops into Pakistan to fight Al Qaeda.Huge difference between troops on the ground and an unmanned drone firing missiles.

I think the main issue is that it's one thing to make an occasional strike in Pakistan or have special ops forces operating in Pakistan quietly, while it's another thing for the President to openly boast about it in front of a camera.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Hillary getting truly desperate, turns to negative attacks on her own daughter.

Awesome.

 

[The Juggernaut]

McCain is already getting the Bob Dole label. Ruh-roh..

There's some pretty easy parallels to make. Both are old white guys. DC long-timers. War wounded veterans/heros. Facing a young popular opponent.I wonder if he will follow Dole's arc, get beat in the general, and end up like this........

John McCain: Hi there. I may not be able to get my arms up anymore, but thanks to Viagra. I sure can get a different appendage up.I'm John McCain, and Cindy sure as hell approves this message.*thumbup**force grin**cue music*"Vivaaaaaaa Viagra!"

 

[Sammy3469]

so if Obama had lost 10 straight contests, most by large double digit margins, we'd be calling for him to step aside, correct?

Chuck Todd also said this morning that to have any chance of catching Obama in pledged delegates, she'd have to win like 65% of them in places like TX and OH which would equate to something like 70% of the vote.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Well, I thought that maybe if Obama can win one of the big states in two weeks that this might be over. However, it looks like Hillary has started a website that makes the argument that this will not be over until the superdelegates have made their decision, and when Florida and Michigan should be counted. This may drag on to the convention.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Well, I thought that maybe if Obama can win one of the big states in two weeks that this might be over. However, it looks like Hillary has started a website that makes the argument that this will not be over until the superdelegates have made their decision, and when Florida and Michigan should be counted. This may drag on to the convention.

I think we all know what the appropriate response to this is.... queue Homer

 

[suspected]

I posted this over in the McCain thread, but any legitimate critiques of him just aren't responded to over there, so I'll re-post it in this much more lively thread (where Tim appears to spend all of his time anyway):

I didn't see it, but I'm reading now that McCain criticized Obama in his speech tonight for wanting to bomb Pakistan, saying that this shows Obama's inexperience. Is that right?

Because if so, does that mean that McCain is saying we shouldn't have made the January 29th strike on Al Qaeda leader Al-Libi?

McCain is clearly starting his campaign against Obama. He'll probably have a couple themes: (1) liberal views/voting records and 2) inexperience/naivite. It is naive to publicly announce during a campaign a hypothetical scenario where the US would conduct a unilateral military action in another country without approval. Especially in a volatile country with nuclear weapons and an uncertain political future. Especially when you are claiming to be able to "restore the respect" of the United States around the world.

The other McCain reference to Obama was his willingness to "sitting down without pre-conditions or clear purpose with enemies who support terrorists and are intent on destabilizing the world by acquiring nuclear weapons". Clearly this is a reference to Obama's plan for "direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions".

 

[BassNBrew]

Chris Matthews just crushed some Senator from Texas who couldn;t list one accomplishment os Obamas. Funny and sad.

A state senator.

No kidding. Basically the same thing as a ten year old child.

Yes! Yes we can be offensive!

 

[bigbottom]

Well, I thought that maybe if Obama can win one of the big states in two weeks that this might be over. However, it looks like Hillary has started a website that makes the argument that this will not be over until the superdelegates have made their decision, and when Florida and Michigan should be counted. This may drag on to the convention.

She's pulling out all the stops now, which I totally understand. I'm not surprised she's saying that she'll continue to fight. She has to say that. But if she were to lose Texas and/or Ohio and really fall behind in the pledged delegates, let's see what she says. If she really does at that point try to get the superdelegates to thwart the decision of the voters, or worse yet try to get the pledged delegates to switch, she really will become the lowest of the low. Call me crazy, but I don't think she'll do that. For now, I think she's making those arguments to delay superdelegates from flocking to Obama until after all the primaries have been completed. She's doing all she can to keep this a contest so that she can compete in the remaining states.Either that or she really is a ruthless, evil politician who cares only for herself.

 

[djcolts]

There have been 36 contests so far (including FL and MI). Obama won WI with 58% of the vote. Many of us thought it would be a close contest - and the national media was ready to spin a close Hillary loss as a "moral victory."

Well, how many contests has Hillary won at least 58% of the vote? I'll tell you: ONE In Arkansas.

Not in NY. Not in Mass. Not in California. Not even including MI, where she was the only major candidate on the ballot.

So, now all of a sudden, she's going to win 65% of the rest of the vote in the "big states?" Not likely.

 

[bigbottom]

There have been 36 contests so far (including FL and MI). Obama won WI with 58% of the vote. Many of us thought it would be a close contest - and the national media was ready to spin a close Hillary loss as a "moral victory."

Well, how many contests has Hillary won at least 58% of the vote? I'll tell you: ONE In Arkansas.

Not in NY. Not in Mass. Not in California. Not even including MI, where she was the only major candidate on the ballot.

So, now all of a sudden, she's going to win 65% of the rest of the vote in the "big states?" Not likely.

Wow, I didn't realize that. Man, what a bleak outlook for her.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Well, I thought that maybe if Obama can win one of the big states in two weeks that this might be over. However, it looks like Hillary has started a website that makes the argument that this will not be over until the superdelegates have made their decision, and when Florida and Michigan should be counted. This may drag on to the convention.

She's pulling out all the stops now, which I totally understand. I'm not surprised she's saying that she'll continue to fight. She has to say that. But if she were to lose Texas and/or Ohio and really fall behind in the pledged delegates, let's see what she says. If she really does at that point try to get the superdelegates to thwart the decision of the voters, or worse yet try to get the pledged delegates to switch, she really will become the lowest of the low. Call me crazy, but I don't think she'll do that. For now, I think she's making those arguments to delay superdelegates from flocking to Obama until after all the primaries have been completed. She's doing all she can to keep this a contest so that she can compete in the remaining states.Either that or she really is a ruthless, evil politician who cares only for herself.

Here's my fearless prediction of how this plays out. On March 4, Hillary loses Texas. She might lose OH too.

Over the next couple of days, her campaign flails around a bit, making noises about going after superdelegates as well as pledged delegates, re-seating the FL and MI delegates, etc.

During these same few days, most big-wigs in the Democratic party loudly speak up, pointing out that the writing is on the wall and that there's no realistic way for her to get the nomination. They make it clear that as far as they're concerned, Obama is the nominee and the race is over.

Hillary officially drops out on the afternoon Friday, March 7, with all the grace and humility of Bill Belichick.

Or at least that's what I was thinking when I came up with my entry in the "When Does Hillary Drop Out?" thread.

 

[djcolts]

There have been 36 contests so far (including FL and MI). Obama won WI with 58% of the vote. Many of us thought it would be a close contest - and the national media was ready to spin a close Hillary loss as a "moral victory."

Well, how many contests has Hillary won at least 58% of the vote? I'll tell you: ONE In Arkansas.

Not in NY. Not in Mass. Not in California. Not even including MI, where she was the only major candidate on the ballot.

So, now all of a sudden, she's going to win 65% of the rest of the vote in the "big states?" Not likely.

Wow, I didn't realize that. Man, what a bleak outlook for her.

02/19/08 Hawaii Caucus 100 % Obama 76% 0

02/19/08 Wis. Primary 100 % Obama 58% 38

Date State Event Winner Delegates

02/12/08 D.C. Primary Obama 75% 10

02/12/08 Md. Primary Obama 60% 34

02/12/08 Va. Primary Obama 64% 54

02/10/08 Maine Caucus Obama 59% 15

02/09/08 La. Primary Obama 57% 34

02/09/08 Neb. Caucus Obama 68% 16

02/05/08 Ala. Primary Obama 56% 27

02/05/08 Alaska Caucus Obama 74% 9

02/05/08 Ariz. Primary Clinton 50% 31

02/05/08 Ark. Primary Clinton 70% 24

02/05/08 Calif. Primary Clinton 52% 202

02/05/08 Colo. Caucus Obama 67% 19

02/05/08 Conn. Primary Obama 51% 26

02/05/08 Del. Primary Obama 53% 9

02/05/08 Ga. Primary Obama 66% 53

02/05/08 Idaho Caucus Obama 80% 15

02/05/08 Ill. Primary Obama 65% 103

02/05/08 Kan. Caucus Obama 74% 23

02/05/08 Mass. Primary Clinton 56% 55

02/05/08 Minn. Caucus Obama 66% 48

02/05/08 Mo. Primary Obama 49% 36

02/05/08 N.D. Caucus Obama 61% 8

02/05/08 N.J. Primary Clinton 54% 59

02/05/08 N.M. Primary Clinton 49% 14

02/05/08 N.Y. Primary Clinton 57% 138

02/05/08 Okla. Primary Clinton 55% 24

02/05/08 Tenn. Primary Clinton 54% 35

02/05/08 Utah Primary Obama 57% 14

01/29/08 Fla. Primary Clinton 50% 0

01/26/08 S.C. Primary Obama 55% 25

01/19/08 Nev. Caucus Clinton 51% 12

01/15/08 Mich. Primary Clinton 55% 0

01/08/08 N.H. Primary Clinton 39% 9

01/03/08 Iowa Caucus Obama 38% 16

LINK I got this fromEdit to clean it up slightly.

 

[Sammy3469]

Well, I thought that maybe if Obama can win one of the big states in two weeks that this might be over. However, it looks like Hillary has started a website that makes the argument that this will not be over until the superdelegates have made their decision, and when Florida and Michigan should be counted. This may drag on to the convention.

She's pulling out all the stops now, which I totally understand. I'm not surprised she's saying that she'll continue to fight. She has to say that. But if she were to lose Texas and/or Ohio and really fall behind in the pledged delegates, let's see what she says. If she really does at that point try to get the superdelegates to thwart the decision of the voters, or worse yet try to get the pledged delegates to switch, she really will become the lowest of the low. Call me crazy, but I don't think she'll do that. For now, I think she's making those arguments to delay superdelegates from flocking to Obama until after all the primaries have been completed. She's doing all she can to keep this a contest so that she can compete in the remaining states.Either that or she really is a ruthless, evil politician who cares only for herself.

Here's my fearless prediction of how this plays out. On March 4, Hillary loses Texas. She might lose OH too.

Over the next couple of days, her campaign flails around a bit, making noises about going after superdelegates as well as pledged delegates, re-seating the FL and MI delegates, etc.

During these same few days, most big-wigs in the Democratic party loudly speak up, pointing out that the writing is on the wall and that there's no realistic way for her to get the nomination. They make it clear that as far as they're concerned, Obama is the nominee and the race is over.

Hillary officially drops out on the afternoon Friday, March 7, with all the grace and humility of Bill Belichick.

Or at least that's what I was thinking when I came up with my entry in the "When Does Hillary Drop Out?" thread.

I think they'll start this week once everyone realizes she won't be winning more delegates than him in TX no matter what hte overall vote. For all intents this race is done save for a major Obama gaffe.

 

[bigbottom]

Well, I thought that maybe if Obama can win one of the big states in two weeks that this might be over. However, it looks like Hillary has started a website that makes the argument that this will not be over until the superdelegates have made their decision, and when Florida and Michigan should be counted. This may drag on to the convention.

She's pulling out all the stops now, which I totally understand. I'm not surprised she's saying that she'll continue to fight. She has to say that. But if she were to lose Texas and/or Ohio and really fall behind in the pledged delegates, let's see what she says. If she really does at that point try to get the superdelegates to thwart the decision of the voters, or worse yet try to get the pledged delegates to switch, she really will become the lowest of the low. Call me crazy, but I don't think she'll do that. For now, I think she's making those arguments to delay superdelegates from flocking to Obama until after all the primaries have been completed. She's doing all she can to keep this a contest so that she can compete in the remaining states.Either that or she really is a ruthless, evil politician who cares only for herself.

Here's my fearless prediction of how this plays out. On March 4, Hillary loses Texas. She might lose OH too.

Over the next couple of days, her campaign flails around a bit, making noises about going after superdelegates as well as pledged delegates, re-seating the FL and MI delegates, etc.

During these same few days, most big-wigs in the Democratic party loudly speak up, pointing out that the writing is on the wall and that there's no realistic way for her to get the nomination. They make it clear that as far as they're concerned, Obama is the nominee and the race is over.

Hillary officially drops out on the afternoon Friday, March 7, with all the grace and humility of Bill Belichick.

Or at least that's what I was thinking when I came up with my entry in the "When Does Hillary Drop Out?" thread.

That's my thinking as well. I went with mid-day on March 6.

 

[djcolts]

Well, I thought that maybe if Obama can win one of the big states in two weeks that this might be over. However, it looks like Hillary has started a website that makes the argument that this will not be over until the superdelegates have made their decision, and when Florida and Michigan should be counted. This may drag on to the convention.

She's pulling out all the stops now, which I totally understand. I'm not surprised she's saying that she'll continue to fight. She has to say that. But if she were to lose Texas and/or Ohio and really fall behind in the pledged delegates, let's see what she says. If she really does at that point try to get the superdelegates to thwart the decision of the voters, or worse yet try to get the pledged delegates to switch, she really will become the lowest of the low. Call me crazy, but I don't think she'll do that. For now, I think she's making those arguments to delay superdelegates from flocking to Obama until after all the primaries have been completed. She's doing all she can to keep this a contest so that she can compete in the remaining states.Either that or she really is a ruthless, evil politician who cares only for herself.

Here's my fearless prediction of how this plays out. On March 4, Hillary loses Texas. She might lose OH too.

Over the next couple of days, her campaign flails around a bit, making noises about going after superdelegates as well as pledged delegates, re-seating the FL and MI delegates, etc.

During these same few days, most big-wigs in the Democratic party loudly speak up, pointing out that the writing is on the wall and that there's no realistic way for her to get the nomination. They make it clear that as far as they're concerned, Obama is the nominee and the race is over.

Hillary officially drops out on the afternoon Friday, March 7, with all the grace and humility of Bill Belichick.

Or at least that's what I was thinking when I came up with my entry in the "When Does Hillary Drop Out?" thread.

I think they'll start this week once everyone realizes she won't be winning more delegates than him in TX no matter what hte overall vote.

If she squeaks out a popular vote victory in TX and OH, she'll stay in no matter what - even if she's only about even on the night in terms of allocated pledged delegates. She could still make the "she wins the big states" argument - which is about all she has left.

 

[Sammy3469]

Well, I thought that maybe if Obama can win one of the big states in two weeks that this might be over. However, it looks like Hillary has started a website that makes the argument that this will not be over until the superdelegates have made their decision, and when Florida and Michigan should be counted. This may drag on to the convention.

She's pulling out all the stops now, which I totally understand. I'm not surprised she's saying that she'll continue to fight. She has to say that. But if she were to lose Texas and/or Ohio and really fall behind in the pledged delegates, let's see what she says. If she really does at that point try to get the superdelegates to thwart the decision of the voters, or worse yet try to get the pledged delegates to switch, she really will become the lowest of the low. Call me crazy, but I don't think she'll do that. For now, I think she's making those arguments to delay superdelegates from flocking to Obama until after all the primaries have been completed. She's doing all she can to keep this a contest so that she can compete in the remaining states.Either that or she really is a ruthless, evil politician who cares only for herself.

Here's my fearless prediction of how this plays out. On March 4, Hillary loses Texas. She might lose OH too.

Over the next couple of days, her campaign flails around a bit, making noises about going after superdelegates as well as pledged delegates, re-seating the FL and MI delegates, etc.

During these same few days, most big-wigs in the Democratic party loudly speak up, pointing out that the writing is on the wall and that there's no realistic way for her to get the nomination. They make it clear that as far as they're concerned, Obama is the nominee and the race is over.

Hillary officially drops out on the afternoon Friday, March 7, with all the grace and humility of Bill Belichick.

Or at least that's what I was thinking when I came up with my entry in the "When Does Hillary Drop Out?" thread.

I think they'll start this week once everyone realizes she won't be winning more delegates than him in TX no matter what hte overall vote.

If she squeaks out a popular vote victory in TX and OH, she'll stay in no matter what - even if she's only about even on the night in terms of allocated pledged delegates. She could still make the "she wins the big states" argument - which is about all she has left.

Yeah, but the big elephant is that at some point Pelosi et al (ie the superdelegates) are going to say, screw this going to PA in 6 weeks, we'll get behind Obama en masse now and forgo 6 weeks of intra-party squabbling especially since it looks like he has coattails across the country.I should add that the 6 weeks until PA really works against her. There's no way party leaders will let her continue to go negative on Obama over that time and risk alienating hte entire party.

 

[CBusAlex]

Just to reiterate, Obama never said anything about "invading" Pakistan.

Depends on how you define "invade".

To re-reiterate, Obama doesn't say anything in that article about invading Pakistan.

There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaida leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.

 

[Orange Crush]

I posted this over in the McCain thread, but any legitimate critiques of him just aren't responded to over there, so I'll re-post it in this much more lively thread (where Tim appears to spend all of his time anyway):

I didn't see it, but I'm reading now that McCain criticized Obama in his speech tonight for wanting to bomb Pakistan, saying that this shows Obama's inexperience. Is that right?

Because if so, does that mean that McCain is saying we shouldn't have made the January 29th strike on Al Qaeda leader Al-Libi?

McCain is clearly starting his campaign against Obama. He'll probably have a couple themes: (1) liberal views/voting records and 2) inexperience/naivite. It is naive to publicly announce during a campaign a hypothetical scenario where the US would conduct a unilateral military action in another country without approval. Especially in a volatile country with nuclear weapons and an uncertain political future. Especially when you are claiming to be able to "restore the respect" of the United States around the world.

The other McCain reference to Obama was his willingness to "sitting down without pre-conditions or clear purpose with enemies who support terrorists and are intent on destabilizing the world by acquiring nuclear weapons". Clearly this is a reference to Obama's plan for "direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions".

Oh, I see. So McCain wasn't saying that he disagreed with the policy, just that he disagreed with announcing the policy? (Could you provide a quote from his speech saying that? Thanks). You may remember, when Obama made his comment, Pakistan felt enough pressure that they started an offensive against the Taliban elements in Wajiristan two weeks later.And transparency in government is one of Obama's big message points. This is part and parcel with his argument that these kinds of ideas are supposed to be debated in a public forum where the aggregate intelligence of the American people can weigh in. But I guess you're saying that McCain is going to continue the "everything in government is best decided between closed doors, just trust us" mentality of the Bush White House.

Thanks. You've made that much clearer.

 

[aardball44]

and that's why Chris Matthews is the best political analyst/host of our time. If you come on his show with some bull####, he'll embarrass you.Great stuff, even if it wasn't good for my guy.

Tweety is hardly the best anything. Plenty of crap goes right on by on his show. He just doesn't need this guy after this so he goes after him. Get back to me when he does this to a real player he may want back.

Good post. This is definitely my beef with Matthews. He'll beat up on nobodies but always kowtows to the power.

I can't stand the way Tweety will ask a question, then immediately speak over someone else's answer to provide his own answer to his own question. He does it all the time. Rude!I smile every time I see him sitting passively alongside Olbermann, playing a meek and folksy second fiddle to Keith's slick metro anchor position. That's gotta grind his greedy, limelight-seeking gears.

 

[aardball44]

So what's the best guess to what happens with Florida and Michigan?

They are being begged to revote. Personally I think they will get quietly seated at the convention without their delegates counting. Whoever wins will be very concillatory and throw them some rhetorical bones. All will be forgiven while thoughts of Democratic Presidents dance in their heads.

Michigan is a bigger mess because Edwards and Obama weren't on the ballot.

True. I think in the long run the die has been cast. There is no way short of a revote to satisfy everyone the party would have to satisfy to stave off a revolt. Therefore the ruling stands, no delegates for you. Unless they revote.

Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm has stated this week that there will be no revote in Michigan.

 

[adonis]

Well, I thought that maybe if Obama can win one of the big states in two weeks that this might be over. However, it looks like Hillary has started a website that makes the argument that this will not be over until the superdelegates have made their decision, and when Florida and Michigan should be counted. This may drag on to the convention.

She's pulling out all the stops now, which I totally understand. I'm not surprised she's saying that she'll continue to fight. She has to say that. But if she were to lose Texas and/or Ohio and really fall behind in the pledged delegates, let's see what she says. If she really does at that point try to get the superdelegates to thwart the decision of the voters, or worse yet try to get the pledged delegates to switch, she really will become the lowest of the low. Call me crazy, but I don't think she'll do that. For now, I think she's making those arguments to delay superdelegates from flocking to Obama until after all the primaries have been completed. She's doing all she can to keep this a contest so that she can compete in the remaining states.Either that or she really is a ruthless, evil politician who cares only for herself.

She won't tear the DNC down to gain power. She'll do nearly anything to win, but if she goes above and beyond the bounds of propriety, she'll ruin her political future. I think she'll drop out if she loses Texas by any significant delegate count and throw her support behind Obama, especially if it's clear that she's not going to win, which is becoming clearer each election.

She still has a shot at some office, maybe even the presidency, later on depending on the outcome of this election and she won't throw it away here.

 

[adonis]

After winning in WI and Hawaii, Obama will need to make his final push towards Ohio and Texas and he'll need more support and resources to do this.

We have an FBG group set up through which we can contribute. If you haven't given recently or just want to give again, here's the link which is also on the first page:

Here is the link to donate as an FBG, which will be counted as part of our group of supporters. No benefits go to me for setting it up, or to anyone, but it might be cool to see how we as a group can contribute financially to him getting the nomination and eventually the presidency. We're starting out with a goal of raising $1,000 which isn't that much if we each just chip in a little bit. I know I've donated individually, as well as many of you, but in the future, if we all click through this link above, we can track our impact, so donate today and show our support!

We can do our part to keep the momentum going and help give him the financial means to spread his message in the big upcoming elections, that will almost certainly decide the nominee if he can win it.

 

[djcolts]

First Read at MSNBC There is a lot of interesting stuff on here this morning. Here's a couple of tidbits:

*** The Delegate math: After last night’s contests, here’s where things stand: The NBC News Hard Count is Obama 1,168, Clinton 1,018. There are 53 delegates unallocated, including 19 in MD, 10 each in CO and GA, 6 in WI, 4 in HI, and one each in DC, TN, NY and IL. We estimate a conservative 27-26 split here. The Superdelegate Count: Clinton 257 versus Obama 185. That’s a grand total of: Obama 1,355, Clinton 1,276. Counting only the superdelegates he has now, plus his pledged delegates, Obama needs 65% of remaining PLEDGED delegates to hit the magic 2025 number. Reaching that is probably unrealistic, but when you add in the unaffiliated 353 superdelegates (76 of whom are not yet known yet and won't be appointed until April, May and June), his magic percentage number is down to 48%. On the flip side, Clinton needs to win 58% of all remaining pledged delegates simply to get the pledged delegate lead back. Forget 2025. And if you assume Obama wins Vermont, Wyoming, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oregon, Montana, and South Dakota, then the magic percentage number in the states Clinton wins rises to 65% -- SIMPLY TO GET THE PLEDGED DELEGATE LEAD BACK...

See my post earlier on this page about the number of contests where Clinton has gotten at least 58% of the vote.

*** The way to win? The Clinton campaign, meanwhile, has unveiled its own Delegate Hub, a Web site listing “facts and myths” about the Democratic race for delegates. What’s most interesting here is that the campaign moves the 2025 magic number to include Florida and Michigan (thus 2208). And as Harold Ickes tried on Saturday, they want to erase the pledged vs. super distinction. This is the clearest signal yet that the Clinton campaign knows they can’t win as things stand now and need to win this on the perception front.

Hard to win on the perception front when you lose 10 contests in a row, and none of them by even a close margin.

 

[Orange Crush]

I posted this over in the McCain thread, but any legitimate critiques of him just aren't responded to over there, so I'll re-post it in this much more lively thread (where Tim appears to spend all of his time anyway):

I didn't see it, but I'm reading now that McCain criticized Obama in his speech tonight for wanting to bomb Pakistan, saying that this shows Obama's inexperience. Is that right?

Because if so, does that mean that McCain is saying we shouldn't have made the January 29th strike on Al Qaeda leader Al-Libi?

McCain is clearly starting his campaign against Obama. He'll probably have a couple themes: (1) liberal views/voting records and 2) inexperience/naivite. It is naive to publicly announce during a campaign a hypothetical scenario where the US would conduct a unilateral military action in another country without approval. Especially in a volatile country with nuclear weapons and an uncertain political future. Especially when you are claiming to be able to "restore the respect" of the United States around the world.

The other McCain reference to Obama was his willingness to "sitting down without pre-conditions or clear purpose with enemies who support terrorists and are intent on destabilizing the world by acquiring nuclear weapons". Clearly this is a reference to Obama's plan for "direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions".

Oh, I see. So McCain wasn't saying that he disagreed with the policy, just that he disagreed with announcing the policy? (Could you provide a quote from his speech saying that? Thanks). You may remember, when Obama made his comment, Pakistan felt enough pressure that they started an offensive against the Taliban elements in Wajiristan two weeks later.And transparency in government is one of Obama's big message points. This is part and parcel with his argument that these kinds of ideas are supposed to be debated in a public forum where the aggregate intelligence of the American people can weigh in. But I guess you're saying that McCain is going to continue the "everything in government is best decided between closed doors, just trust us" mentality of the Bush White House.

Thanks. You've made that much clearer.

I just have to add a link to this article by Reuel Marc Gerecht I just came across at the New York Times advocating direct and unconditional talks with Iran as the only possible way to deter them from furthering their nuclear program.Gerecht is a former Central Intelligence Agency officer, and is currently a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

 

[culdeus]

Why did HI not have delegates to give?

 

[djcolts]

Why did HI not have delegates to give?

They do, but no one knows the allocation quite yet. I'd estimate that Obama would win 14 and Clinton 6, or maybe 15 and 5.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

There have been 36 contests so far (including FL and MI). Obama won WI with 58% of the vote. Many of us thought it would be a close contest - and the national media was ready to spin a close Hillary loss as a "moral victory."

Well, how many contests has Hillary won at least 58% of the vote? I'll tell you: ONE In Arkansas.

Not in NY. Not in Mass. Not in California. Not even including MI, where she was the only major candidate on the ballot.

So, now all of a sudden, she's going to win 65% of the rest of the vote in the "big states?" Not likely.

basm:

 

[Sammy3469]

Why did HI not have delegates to give?

They do, but no one knows the allocation quite yet. I'd estimate that Obama would win 14 and Clinton 6, or maybe 15 and 5.

I believe that's what Chuck Todd said it would be.

 

[culdeus]

Why did HI not have delegates to give?

They do, but no one knows the allocation quite yet. I'd estimate that Obama would win 14 and Clinton 6, or maybe 15 and 5.

oh, thanks.

 

[timschochet]

Message to Orange Crush: I only just now looked at your posts regarding Obama and Pakistan. I understand what you are trying to say, but the tone of Obama's speech several months ago was that the USA would invade Pakistan to find Bin Laden. This is how the media reported it, and Obama could have corrected them if he felt his words were misunderstood; he didn't. He never used the words "invasion", he was not specific, and yes, you could take the CIA strike and make the argument that this is all he meant. But that's not how it was reported at the time. It's my recollection that Obama was reacting at the time to the criticism he faced over offering to meet with Achmadinejead. I see you are attempting to defend this now as well.

I'm sure that over the months to come, every aspect of Obama's foreign policy (and McCain's) will be picked apart, which is a good thing, and then people can decide which they prefer.

 

[Abraham]

Hillary needs every eligible voter south of San Antonio to show up to get a decisive victory in Texas. The momentum for Obama is so great that Dallas and Houston are likely to be overwhelmingly Obama.