comment #1

BurmaShave says ...

She's become the Rudy of Texas. It's beautiful.

To all in Virginia, Maryland and DC tomorrow: Vote your future, not your fear.

comment #2

mutinyco says ...

For what it's worth, Obama's internal numbers apparently predict a delegate count of 1647 to Clinton's 1580 by the end of the primaries.

comment #3

D.Z. says ...

Burma: Looks like 2/3 of those are in the bag at least. http://www.electoral-vote.com/

comment #4

truefaith says ...

It's interesting how the press comes down hard on Hillary. They did it to her before the New Hampshire primary. And look what happened--Hillary prevailed. The same thing will happen with Texas and Ohio. If Hillary can take California with its Latino population then she should have no trouble taking Texas with an even larger Latino population. She should be able to take Ohio too as she does well in "urban" states, such as New York, New Jersey, Michigan and California. (She lost Illinois because that's Obama's turf.) I wouldn't count Hillary out just yet.

comment #5

astrophore says ...

The problem is the proportional voting. No matter how many states Obama wins, he needs to win by huge margins, which is unlikely. I have a feeling the delegate count stays close, even if Obama starts racking up the states, and it all comes down to the superdelegates. Who knows how they will vote, though the phrase "party hack" does come to mind.

Given how the Democrats have been amazingly consistent on being on the wrong side of every issue since Bush v. Gore (or not having the fortitude to do the right thing), I'm guessing they go with Clinton. Safe, establishment choice.

comment #6

mutinyco says ...

Anybody link to this yet?: http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/a-calumny-a-day-will-keep-hillary-away/?em&ex=1202878800&en=d64337d88c88a273&ei=5087%0A

It's possible it is all just anti-Hillary rhetoric out there. But what kinda worries me is how little serious criticism has come Obama's way. It will come at some point. But is the media waiting for the general election?

Shrug.

comment #7

christian says ...

Curious. Lazy. Question:
Has any dem prez nominee not won new york and california?

comment #8

D.Z. says ...

truefaith: She ain't rural enough to conquer Texas and Ohio.

comment #9

BurmaShave says ...

Even as an Obama supporter I will concede they're laying in wait with meataxes to tear him apart, but none of it could ever be as bad as Hillary's background, because I still dont think most of this country has any idea how much she's close to Bill's scandals.

For instance, Maggie Williams her new Campaign Manager is deep in the Vince Foster "cover-up" situation.

comment #10

ripvanruben says ...

Carter one the nomination without winning California or New York in 1976. Mondale lost California but won New York in 1984.

comment #11

mutinyco says ...

You mentioned the one name that worries me most about Obama: Carter. He got in after Watergate similarly because people wanted change. But he just wasn't suited to Washington. The Dems controlled all the branches, yet he failed to accomplish things because he didn't like the system. He's a decent person who's done a lot as an ex-president, he just wasn't right for the office.

I think if this were a peacetime year like 1992, he'd be a perfect candidate. But this isn't '92. He's got a lot of international issues to deal with (American hatred, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.), plus, he'll have to deal with the recession at home. If he wants to get things done, he'll have to learn to use the system because he won't have the time or resources to do much about it.

My support for Hillary over Obama isn't based on any particular enthusiasm -- just cautious observation. I would think that Hillary with Wesley Clark would be a decent ticket (she's good at domestic policy, he brings military credentials, and Bill can start acting as an international ambassador of sorts). If Obama gets the nomination, he's really going to have to pick a Cheney-like running mate, in the sense of somebody with experience who brings greater credibility to his campaign.

Once again. Shrug.

comment #12

D.Z. says ...

mutiny: "He got in after Watergate similarly because people wanted change. But he just wasn't suited to Washington."

I think it was the other way around.

"The Dems controlled all the branches, yet he failed to accomplish things because he didn't like the system."

He got a peace treaty with Egypt and jump-started an energy policy which would make us less dependent on oil.

"I think if this were a peacetime year like 1992, he'd be a perfect candidate."

That wasn't really a peacetime year, since Somalia was next.

"If he wants to get things done, he'll have to learn to use the system because he won't have the time or resources to do much about it."

Bush failed to use the system, and he's done too much already.

"If Obama gets the nomination, he's really going to have to pick a Cheney-like running mate, in the sense of somebody with experience who brings greater credibility to his campaign."

Cheney never brought credibility to Bush's campaign.

comment #13

mutinyco says ...

D.Z., please stop. You have a tendency to see things more as you ideally see fit than as they functionally are. Every one of your assertions is wrong.

comment #14

Rosebudsthesled says ...

Barack. Barack. Barack. Barack. Barack.

comment #15

BurmaShave says ...

mutiny, at the risk of engaging in blashphemy, there was another man with limited experience, high intelligence, basic decency and a total lack of faith in the government system. He ran during a period of great strife and danger both abroad and at home. Those who ran and railed against him urged 'caution' and 'pragmatism'.

His name was Abraham Lincoln.

comment #16

mutinyco says ...

I don't believe in blasphemy. So long as you hold certain things to be sacred, you're disallowing the investigation of truth which can only be achieved through questioning things.

Caution and pragmatism are pretty good traits, since they add up to patience.

I just think Obama is promising lots of things that I don't believe he'll be able to deliver on. But because people are so taken with his inspiring call for change they're kind of blinding themselves to that reality. Hence, BC's remark about the "Obama Fairy Tale."

He's not going to change the special interest system. And we're not getting out of Iraq. In an ideal world, yes, both would be great things -- I just think that realistically they're nothing more than ideals.

If he gets the nomination, I'll support him. He may be what the country needs right now in terms of a sales person -- I just think Hillary will do a better job of actually getting things done. That's all.

comment #17

BurmaShave says ...

That was an absurdly well reasoned statement. You are dangerous, english.

comment #18

D.Z. says ...

'Hence, BC's remark about the "Obama Fairy Tale."'

Clinton's just jealous that he's no longer considered the charismatic candidate.

"He's not going to change the special interest system."

Perhaps not, but he can at least dampen its influence.

"And we're not getting out of Iraq."

Maybe not, but at least we're not going to expand to Iran with him in charge.

"I just think Hillary will do a better job of actually getting things done."

She didn't get anything done last time, and helped Bush do us over instead.

comment #19

D.Z. says ...

Seriously, though, Obama's gotten further on his own than Hillary's gotten with her husband's name. That says more about him than her.

comment #20

mutinyco says ...

Let's face it though -- as a woman, she needed her husband's name. There are other women senators, but none we ever would've thought of for president.

comment #21

D.Z. says ...

If she was determined enough, she could do it on her own like Obama.

comment #22

mutinyco says ...

Possible. But unlikely. Surveys consistently point to a generalized sexism. It's just the way people view men and women. In one of the links I posted earlier, it talks about how different groups were given the same speech to read -- only one is told it was written by a man, the other by a woman. Everybody likes it when it's by a man, but not when it's by a woman. Things like, when a man cites his accomplishments people are impressed -- but when a woman does the same thing, it's interpreted as bragging. And so on.

comment #23

mutinyco says ...

I once saw on the BBC (I think) a piece where they had a group of men first watch a newscast by a man, and then one by a woman. When the group was questioned afterward about what they'd seen, they could clearly recall everything the man had talked about, but nothing the woman had said. The men had completely zoned out when the woman was talking.

comment #24

Abbey Normal says ...

Mutiny: Thanks for that link. I hope this whole Obama thing works out...God, I hope it works out. Because sometimes I can't shake the feeling that we're all making a huge mistake in dismissing Clinton. Obama is bright and shiny...and untested. Meanwhile, Clinton's tires have been kicked repeatedly, and while she could use a new paint job the clutch is good, the brakes are in shape, and she starts on a dime every time.

comment #25

BurmaShave says ...

Not just a new paint job, but pimped out.

comment #26

Arizona Joe says ...

If Obama wins, I think Edwards will be on the ticket again to win in the south. And to also underscore Obama's theme of change.

Despite her foibles and her husbands faux pas, Princeton's Paul Krugman still prefers Clinton and her healthcare mandates.

Krugman also adds that whether it be Clinton or Obama, all Democrats should unit behind the candidate. Good advice.

John McCain is going to have to pick a VP candidate to rejuvenate his ticket. Condi Rice? No, too Bushie and no elective experience. Romney, nope, lingering slight enmity and the whole Gordon Gecko as a Mormon thing, plus Romney might not want the job.

Huckabee? evangelical, southern, would draw the conservative base, but taking a guy who does not believe in evolution wholeheartedly may push the electorate towards the Democrats. He's Mr. Blandishment.

Joe Lieberman - a dark horse and maybe the guy.

comment #27

le corbeau says ...

there was another man with limited experience, high intelligence, basic decency and a total lack of faith in the government system. He ran during a period of great strife and danger both abroad and at home. Those who ran and railed against him urged 'caution' and 'pragmatism'.

His name was Chester Alan Arthur!

The problem with the Lincoln analogy is that the salient issue of his reelection was the Democrats wanting to abandon a war because they thought it was a botched moral crusade and lacked patience to wait for victory. So you wind up with Kerry as McClellan-- and General Petraeus as Grant. Doesn't really work out that well for your side.

comment #28

Lipstik Music says ...

The meme that Hillary is tested, vetted, experienced would seem to be undermined by the terrible campaign she's run.

- Apparently Doyle didn't know she'd lent herself the money until afterwards.

- Hill didn't know they'd run out of cash after NH because people were afraid to tell her

- They didn't have a post-Super Tuesday strategy (thus no money) because they were convinced that would be the nail in Obama's coffin

- They can't compete in caucuses because .. well, I forgot why but I think it has to do with not being organized enough.

She's had years to prepare for this camapaign, had a huge war chest, and had the entire Democratic machine in every state at her disposal yet, due to inadequate planning and a poorly managed campaign, she's lofting a Hail Mary to Ohio and Texas and hoping that it will save her as NH saved her.

Throughout this process, he has shown himself to be better organized, more competent and a better strategist than she.

And, of course, Hillary authorized and supported the Bush administration on the decisions that led us to these troubled times in the first place. The most obvious repudiation of the experience argument since it hasn't helped her judgment.

Hillary is the Pats. Barack is Eli and the Giants. He just won't go away. And yes, I'm a New Yorker.

comment #29

sardine says ...

I think Hilary has a good chance to win texas. The latino vote...is 2 to 1 for her, right?...How can he win texas...I am not sure either of Pennsylvania....can he win there? Can someone in the know....comment? Ohio...what are his chances of winning there? Burma-shave, I want your opinion. I AM FOR OBAMA!!!

comment #30

Lipstik Music says ...

The problem with Texas is that the calculus for delegates is so complicated she may 'win' the state and still lose the delegate allocation. Then it's a matter of how the press spins it to generate momentum.

He has more of a chance in Ohio. I think they'll likely end up using the time between now and March 4th to double-down on Ohio and see how close they can make it and/or if they can win. If he gets more delegates in Texas (and can tell the story the right way) and is close in Ohio, he may be able to claim victory. If he wins Ohio, it's over.

comment #31

christian says ...

Join us. Join us.

comment #32

Rich S. says ...

christian, wouldn't the more apt analogy be "One of us, Gooble Gobble, Gooble, Gobble, one of us...?"

comment #33

dixiedugan says ...

Let's face it...does it really matter who is in the presidential office next term? It'll take more than four years to work thru the last eight years of mess and ineptitude.

comment #34

mutinyco says ...

The real problem for whoever is elected, is that the GOP has created 3 major long-term commitments for the country: the war, the debt and the conservative court. A series of anchors that aren't letting loose anytime soon...

comment #35

christian says ...

One of us. Gobble. One of us. Gobble...

comment #36

D.Z. says ...

Arizona: I doubt Lieberman would help McCain, since he barely helped Gore; and they'd be considered the "Grumpy Old Men" candidates.

sardine: California is still technically a fluke, as the votes for NM still haven't been confirmed for either candidate. Anyway, I imagine Obama winning in Texas, because of Waco. As for Ohio, they might have it in for her on the out-sourcing.

comment #37

Dave says ...

The real problem for whoever is elected, is that the Democratic Party has created 3 major long-term commitments for the country: Social Security, Medicare, and the culture of entitlement. A series of anchors that aren't letting loose anytime soon...

comment #38

le corbeau says ...

The meme that Hillary is tested, vetted, experienced would seem to be undermined by the terrible campaign she's run....Hill didn't know they'd run out of cash after NH because people were afraid to tell her

Brad DeLong, who worked on Hillarycare, said that was her modus operandi then, and a big part of why that blew up on the launchpad. People would tell her why she was alienating key allies in Congress and they'd get reassigned or frozen out.

Ironically, DeLong himself is now in full suckup mode, saying she's redeeemed herself by running a brilliant campaign. Well, if her campaign has been brilliant, so was Romney's; they both burned through a huge monetary advantage with damn little to show for it. No, I'd say the brilliant campaigns are McCain's and Obama's, both underfunded and under the radar for a time, but legitimately connecting and thus ready and able to raise more money when it really mattered. Hillary's proven she knows how to squander money with little result, which confirms rather than overcomes independents' worst fears about liberal Democrats...

comment #39

Jay T. says ...

I think she will win comfortably and this primary will come down to an essential tie-breaker. Should be interesting...

comment #40

dangovich says ...

The real problem for whoever is elected, is that the Democratic Party has created 3 major long-term commitments for the country: Social Security, Medicare, and the culture of entitlement. A series of anchors that aren't letting loose anytime soon...

Terrible that the wealthiest country in the world should assist its elderly and sick.

And I suppose the war in Iraq is a hot air balloon?

comment #41

christian says ...

Andy Sullivan posted this to reassure Republicans that secretly, Obama is just like them. No hope:

Obama...is a plausible pragmatist. His domestic policy advisers are hardly a radical bunch. One economic adviser, Jeffrey Liebman of Harvard, has coauthored an interesting compromise plan on Social Security that would raise taxes a bit, extend the retirement age a bit, and put a bit of money into personal retirement accounts.

Or look at Obama's tax plan. In addition to new middle-class tax credits, it has a technocratic reform proposal that would make filing many tax returns easier by letting the Internal Revenue Service fill them out in advance. And the economist who devised the plan, the University of Chicago's Austan Goolsbee, is no class warrior on taxes or China basher on trade.

Don't forget, too, that in his book The Audacity of Hope, Obama himself found a few kind words for President Reagan's 1981 tax cuts, which slashed the top marginal rate to 50 percent from 70 percent, saying that the old sky-high rate did "distort investment decisions." Sounds pretty pragmatic.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/02/obama-pragmatis.html

comment #42

Dave says ...

I'll take Andrew Sullivan's advice on what Republicans/conservatives should believe the day after I take yours, Christian :-).

As for taking care of the elderly and sick, I thought that was our job, or that of our families, or that of our local communities, long before it ever got to be the job of some federal agency in Washington.

But hey, I pay taxes, so forget about the elderly and sick, Uncle Sam will take care of them now.

comment #43

christian says ...

"As for taking care of the elderly and sick, I thought that was our job, or that of our families, or that of our local communities..."

Yeah, I was telling that to an elderly sick homeless vet the other day: "I thought somebody else was taking care of y'all."

Thank God, we aren't. Imagine if we did.
The horror.

comment #44

BurmaShave says ...

Jack Kennedy oversaw the largest tax cut in US history. What's your point? Higher taxes have never been a winning issue, even for the rich.

comment #45

christian says ...

Where's John Wayne when you need him?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uf7R2_GWJ2Y

comment #46

truefaith says ...

"You mentioned the one name that worries me most about Obama: Carter. He got in after Watergate similarly because people wanted change. But he just wasn't suited to Washington. The Dems controlled all the branches, yet he failed to accomplish things because he didn't like the system. He's a decent person who's done a lot as an ex-president, he just wasn't right for the office.

I think if this were a peacetime year like 1992, he'd be a perfect candidate. But this isn't '92. He's got a lot of international issues to deal with (American hatred, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.), plus, he'll have to deal with the recession at home. If he wants to get things done, he'll have to learn to use the system because he won't have the time or resources to do much about it."

Just read your posts, mutinyco. I agree with ALL of them. I don't really care for either Hillary or Obama but if I had to choose between the two--I would pick Hillary simply because she would make a better president. Obama seems like a nice guy and everything and would probably make a terrific minister at some church in Illinois--but remember, we are talking about electing a PRESIDENT of the U. S. of A. Someone who is authoritative and aggressive. Obama does not come across as someone like that to me. Hillary does. She seems like a "pushy ol' broad" who other politicians may find more intimidating than Obama. Plus, with her and her husband's contacts, I'm sure she'll put together a much better administration than Obama will and George W. Bush ever did. I don't think she'll hire incompetent people like Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rove, Libby, etc.