whoop, whoop!
i thought you guys would be bashing her after the big victories yesterday. 
no commentary?
Not to be a naysayer, but the victories really weren’t that big. True, it’s a feather in the cap for her to say “I won Ohio, Texas, and Rhode Island,” but all three of those states (and Vermont, too, I believe) divide up delegates rather than “winner take all.” So . . . Hillary didn’t really pick up that much ground delegate-wise on Obama.
I’d also point out that the projection in Texas is that Obama won the caucuses, which account for 1/3 of the delegates, as well as three of the four biggest population centers (Houston, Dallas-Ft. Worth, and Austin), so he might actually get more delegates, despite Hillary’s win in the popular vote.
So . . . while she can claim the wins, she really needed to win bigger than she did numbers-wise. Talk radio in Austin this morning was talking about an analysis some “expert” did of the numbers, which (allegedly) shows that even if Hillary wins every remaining state, she’ll still wind up 50-60 delegates short of Obama. Not sure if that has any real basis, but it’s food for thought.
That said . . . it was one of the most exciting primary election nights I’ve ever seen in Texas, and I was pleased to see so many people coming out to the polls to take part.
I felt the same way. I can’t believe that there are so many people on the LR that haven’t accepted that she’s going to be the next president.
I like Obama also, but he’s not quite ready for prime time yet. He’ll be a great running mate however. The Dems have an unstoppable ticket with these two.
My $.02 from the GWN.
But… she turned a corner!!!
She has a big uphill battle and to accomplish it, its very possible that she alienates 50% of the democratic party. Here is an analysis from ABC News. http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/03/clinton-wins-ob.html
"ABC News’ current delegate estimate has Obama at 1,555.
That means he would need to win 77% of all the remaining pledged delegates to hit the magic number of 2,024 to secure the nomination. That is highly unlikely due to the proportional delegate allocation rules in the Democratic Party.
Clinton would need to win 94% of all the remaining pledged delegates to hit the magic number of 2,024. (ABC News currently has her at 1449.)
So, clearly they both are going to be relying on superdelegates to secure the nomination. "
But… she turned a corner!!!
No doubt. She’d lost what 10 in a row before taking Rhode Island? If I were on her campaign staff, I’d be trumpeting “momentum” as well.
I’d be interested to see that analysis I heard about on the radio this morning, though. According to that guy, even if she keeps it up, she’ll be short . . . and that includes an accounting for a redux of Florida and the whole super delegat issue. Sounds a bit fishy to me, but I’m going on the third-hand discussion of the analysis by a bunch of talk show hosts on a conservative morning radio talk show, so who knows WHAT they’re talking about.
I can’t believe that there are so many people on the LR that haven’t accepted that she’s going to be the next president.
Belief has little to do with the delegate count.
Quite honestly, I continue to be stunned by the refusal of people to want something different. To want another Clinton or Bush at this stage really makes me think America doesn’t want to change anything.
McCain is Bush light and Clinton is well, another Clinton. I would vote Obama solely on the basis that he opposed the war and represents something different.
I can’t even comprehend why people insist Clinton had all this foreign policy experience just because she was married to a President.
I guess I have been out of the country too long but I fail to see the appeal of another Clinton/Bush.
Maybe if Hillary wins, then takes a second term, we can go for Jeb Bush for 8 more years after that. That would be 4 - Bush, 8 - Clinton, 8- Bush, 8- Clinton, 8 - Bush.
36 Years of Bush/Clintons.
Long live the “but Clinton…” and “but Bush…” slogans.
I can’t even comprehend why people insist Clinton had all this foreign policy experience just because she was married to a President.
I heard a funny comment about Hillary the other day regarding her “experience”. Went something like “How can you trust all her white house experience to be beneficial when she didn’t even know her husband was getting blown in the oval office.” Sure its kind of a low blow, pun intended, but still funny.
C’mon, keep going! By the time Jeb is out of the White House, Chelsea will be in her 40’s, then one of the Bush twins could step in after that- 52 years! Ugh…
Aren’t you being a bit sexist claiming that Hilary’s primary experience was being married to Bill Clinton? She is an extremely accomplished woman in her own right, in terms of both her education and her career - Her Senate experience is far more extensive than Obama’s for example.
Rush Limbaugh put her over the top. he told his viewers to cross the line and vote for her. he thinks she will be easier to beat then Oboma
Aren’t you being a bit sexist claiming that Hilary’s primary experience was being married to Bill Clinton? She is an extremely accomplished woman in her own right, in terms of both her education and her career - Her Senate experience is far more extensive than Obama’s for example.
Specify please?
Am I the only one who does not see this experience she and her supporters talk about?
If the Democrats wanted experience, they should have gone with Biden or Dodd, but nooooo, they had to have a black man or a woman, no white man need apply.
With the clusterfuck Bush has made with the war, I would like to vote Democratic, but they sure are making it hard.
This just pisses me off. A sub head on MSNBC:
“After big night, ex-first lady leaves door open to sharing ticket with rival”
What the f*?? She’s a Senator for crying out loud!!! That is so insulting to put her in the shadow of her husband. She is extremely smart and some say she should have been this active in politics all along but couldn’t because she had to take the back seat to Bill. His political career shouldn’t exclude her from being successful in her own right.
I guarentee she learned quite a bit about foreign and domestic policy while living in the White House. A lot more than Barack knows, that’s for sure.
I’m a precinct delegate for Hillary and can’t wait until the next caucus. I’m going to work darn hard at moving up through the ranks and getting to the Dem. Nat’l Conv. It will be a really interesting one.
Aren’t you being a bit sexist claiming that Hilary’s primary experience was being married to Bill Clinton?
So if I make a comment about Hillary I am sexist, just because she is a woman? I think you missed my point. Do you think Nancy Reagan could be a President based on the fact that she was a first lady?
Oh, and in the interest of political correctness, I think Margaret Thatcher’s husband is not qualified to be Prime Minister of England, does that make me a sexist against men?
She is an extremely accomplished woman in her own right, in terms of both her education and her career.
No doubt she is accomplished but I was talking about foreign policy experience, not experience in a law firm.
I found it quite amusing when Hillary said she had 35 years of experience. If you do the math, she is 60 and 35 years ago she graduated from Yale Law and worked in a law firm, so she is including that in her experience?
I am not arguing that Obama is more or less experienced, I’m just not convinced that her role in a law firm and then as the wife of a President is the strong foreign policy background that her campaign is trumpeting.
Oh, and in the interest of political correctness, I think Margaret Thatcher’s husband is not qualified to be Prime Minister of England, does that make me a sexist against men?
2 minor details;
Denis Thatcher is dead and there’s no such elected office as Prime Minister of England.
carry on…
Denis Thatcher is dead…
Further proving Casey’s point!!
You could be wrong here. I attended a meeting with a very senior member of the Democratic leadership committee. A lot of the top dems think that McCain will have an easier time with Obama than Hilary, just by touting his international / military experience. That is unless Obama picks credible VP candidates like Nunn, Wesley Clark (a Clinton friend, so unlikely) or Jim Jones.
well spoken, and thanks for your response. i find it especially interesting that a white male on here is bitching that a white man is not in the running (for the Dem party) LMAO.
I think it is interesting that you do not count Hillary’s 6 years of Senate experience (where she even served on Armed Services Committee) - that vs. Barack’s 2 years at Senate (serving on Veteran’s Committee).
I am also willing to bet you that Hillary played a far more important role in Bill’s administration than Denis Thatcher or Laura Bush ever did.