Dead heat between Obama and Clinton among white males, behind Edwards.

Obama won 82-17 among African-American voters.

50% of the white vote 29 and under went to Obama.

I think Cali is key. Prior to his win today, Obama was 12 points behind Hillary. If the SC win gives him a bounce and he can get within single digits, I could see him pulling the upset there.

It could happen, but it will be very difficult for him. Hillary is very popular among hispanic voters, and will have the LA Mayor working very hard for her. I agree that targeting the state is very good for him, though. It's his best chance in the big states and if he wins it, it will make up for most of the other states he is likely to lose that day.

He's an impressive guy, that Obama. Say what you want about his politics and his relative inexperience. But he's really impressive, even being able to go toe-to-toe with the Clintons, when by all conventional wisdom he has no business even being in the conversation at all.

Hillary is pissed that this kid is getting in the way of her coronation and I'm sure it's just going to get uglier as things go forward and I think it will fail to serve them well.

But I don't know that Obama and his whole movement will be able to do it. That said, their is something happening and I think the longer he hangs around, the worse it gets for HRC. Especially with Edwards hanging around. It's not like the guy has anything else to do, his whole career has been devoted to running for President the last seven or so years. He might as well hang out and give a speech at the convention in Denver.

Chicago Tribune endorses Obama and while that's not a shock, since it's his "hometown newspaper" of sorts, theirs is interesting because they have a say about his time in the Illinois Senate, too.

If Bill and Hill are Bonnie and Clyde, then Obama is the County Sheriff. This will continue to be great fun to watch.

That's a startlingly good endorsement for an editorial board that's about as right of center as the NYT's editorial board is left of center.

If there is one thing at which the Clintons excel, it is being able to adapt during a campaign. Bill went a bit crazy the last week, and the voters did not like it. He will now remain behind the scenes. And the Clintons have eight days to re-soften Hillary's image. That is like eight weeks to normal people.

I think that she will still win the nomination, though I sure do hope that it is Obama.

Ted Kennedy is about to announce his endorsement of Obama. :cool:

what are the odds Ted gets his name right?

Is that a surprise? I don't really know, but Teddy K. never seemed to be in the Clinton's sphere.

It is because Hillary had seemed to have a monopoly on the Democratic establishment.

I found this an interesting article by Krugman in the NY Times Op-Ed:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/28/op...rugman.html?hp

I think Krugman's dead wrong about policy specifics. You don't win the general by having the best policy, it's all about likability. It would be wise for Obama to present a plan to Congress early in his trem, but arguing the specifics of a health care plan during the general election would be fighting on enemy turf. Obama's strength is his oratory and inspirational message, anything that takes away from that is a mistake IMO.

I think Krugman's problem is that Obama doesn't have a specific policy ready to go (some candidates do have specifics), he'll waste political capital and by the time its ready to be voted on his political honeymoon will be over and they'll miss out on the chance.

But the main thing was that he was harkening back to Clinton in '92, that it wasn't Clinton who looked for partisanship, but that he was slammed by the Republicans from the first day. So, basically, don't expect some sort of lack of partisanship if Obama wins the high office.

Didn't Clinton have to face a GOP-controlled congress? I honestly don't know how congress will shape up (I think the Dems will retain control), but won't this make a big difference?

Not for his first two years, remember. The Republicans didn't take over until January 1995 (after the "Revolution" of 1994). If you recall, Clinton had to push NAFTA through his own party.

And the healthcare bill was with a Dem controlled Congress... but by the time it was introduced, it was year into his presidency and the honeymoon was over. If it was done in the first 100 days, it may have gone through. Which I guess, is Krugman's fear... he wants things to get done (esp universal health care) so he wants whatever candidate to have a plan ready to go, which is why he wants the Dems to focus on campaigning on ideas.

I was 8 when Clinton took office, so my late 80's-to-mid 90's memory is a little blurry. :)

As someone else pointed out, Clinton had a democrat controlled congress after he was elected.

Even so, Vice President Al Gore had to cast the tie-breaking vote in the Deficit Reduction Act of 1993, a bill that raised taxes on the top 2% of taxpayers combined with drastic cuts in government spending. Every single republican congressman and a number of democrats voted against the bill.

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has since recognized the bill as being the major cause of the deficit reduction and eventual surpluses during the 1990s.

Libray of Congress Link

Disagree. I remember Clinton's first State of the Union only because Comedy Central allowed Dennis Miller to commentate throughout the speech. Great stuff. Miller did not give Clinton a hard time, mostly observations about others in the audience that night. Miller concluded by calling Clinton "a good man." Congress was very warm to Clinton that night also. So what changed?

It started to become apparent very soon afterwards that the Clintons (both) had a hard and very partisan agenda and attempted to ram it down everybody's throats. Gays in the military (don't ask, don't tell was the compromise), all U.S. Attorney Generals sacked and replaced by ACLU lawyers (obviously Hillary at work) and finally the Health Care fiasco (closed door meetings with criminal penalties for those going outside the plan once implemented.) It was this high-minded arrogance that brought about the 94 GOP takeover of both houses and the Contract With America.

Obama would probably be a little smarter than that.

Of course you would.


His attempts to have homosexuals serve in the military was so partisan that people on the left and on the right hated it! And of course, we all know how hard left partisan he was when he pushed NAFTA through Congress, which we all know the hard left really wanted.

The left hated it? Don't remember that, remember instead the left outraged that Clinton sold them out on that when he compromised.

NAFTA? The only one who seemed to understand NAFTA was Ross Perot, and its a big reason that he took votes away from Bush Sr., throwing the election over to Clinton with less than 50% of the vote.

NAFTA, btw, makes perfect sense being backed by Clinton when you figure he and she are up to their eyeballs in Dubai lobby money (something like a $10,000,000 contribution to the Clinton Library) and other globalist interests.

It's because Clinton always had a compromise. He didn't go full bore for gays in the military. He advanced the idea so that he could negotiate it downwards. The far left was outraged that he sold them out.


I love how all of this ignores (willfully) the fact that NAFTA was being pushed by the Republicans. That George H.W. Bush signed it, but couldn't get it through Congress at the time, and how Clinton had to get it through the Democrats, with a solid base of Republicans backing the measure.

Btw, Perot got destroyed on NAFTA by Al Gore (who actually understands trade far more than Perot) and you bring up Dubai lobby money like its supposed to bother me.

The 1994 elections were only partially a rebuke to Clinton. Another major factor was the general corruption of the Democratic Congress. The banking scandal, Rostenkowski, etc. caused the Dems to get a very deserved ass kicking. It wasn't all about Clinton.

No, if Clinton selling nuke missle gyroscopes to China so they can hit what they aim for in the U.S. doesn't bother you, then being owned by Dubai wouldn't either. And I use the term 'you' in the broad sense to mean anybody.

Never let facts get in the way of a good slandering, Bubba.

Wasn't it Bush that tried to have the US Ports run by that Dubai company? And walking hand in hand with the Saudi princes? You sure you want to toss those stones at Clinton?

I worked with the committee, led by House Republicans, that investigated that technology transfer to China. With all due respect, your statement on this is wrong.

albionmoonlight, it appears that there are quite a few notable Dems, as well as left-leaning editorialists that are telling Bill to stop acting like Bill Clinton and to STFU.

With 5% of precinicts reporting, Hillary has 54%, Obama 27%, Edwards 16%. Remember that there are no delegates for Florida and nobody campaigned there. Hillary is there tonight though for a victory speech.

Hillary Clinton is the winner of the irrelevant Florida primary!

So...is Claire McCaskill angling for a possible VP pick from Obama should he win the nomination?

I think if he beats Hillary, no way he runs with a man of any kind..so he'll have to narrow his choices down to a woman.

I don't think Senator/Senator tickets work all that well, but...she's one of his early supporters and while she hasn't been in the Senate very long, she seems poised to be somewhere in his cabinet. And Missouri is a swing state.

I just thought about it today, when I saw her on his plane (on TV) heading back to the midwest.

Probably nothing to it, but...it was an interesting idea. Or maybe one of these female governors from the Heartland? I doubt he'd go after someone from the northeast, given that it's unlikely they could deliver anything for him (we're talking a woman again) and out west, I'm not so sure about that, save for one of those crunchy blue dogs from the "libertarian west", but I can't see that working either.

Thoughts?

Hillary's situation would be way different I think if she were picking a running mate, especially with everyone wondering aloud about the technicalities of Bill running with her. Neither of them is that silly to even consider attempting to do that, when they just could just do it de facto once she were to be elected.

Bill Richardson would be the "logical" choice, given his Clinton ties and such, but I don't know if his "street cred" is really as big as the media likes to believe it to be in the "hispanic community". And New Mexico is a western state, to be sure, but given McCain is from out west and Romney is Mormon, the west isn't exactly going to be an area that they can expect to dominate anyway regardless of who'd they get pitted against.

As the race dwindles down, it's all just interesting stuff to ponder.

Agreed.

Question is, does he go with a white woman or maybe a Hispanic woman?
And does he run with one from the middle or does he throw a bone to the (perceived) further left?

I really think Indiana senator Evan Bayh is the likely choice for Hilary's VP if she gets the nominee. He's really high up in her campaign. I also heard from somone I know who heard from someone who knows Bayh's college roommate that Bayh believes he has a really good chance of being the vice president if Hilary is nominated.

bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

He can't go further left. He's already firmly to the left of Hillary. He's willing to work with Republicans, but he's a hope-filled modern liberal idealist. He has to get someone in the vein of Hillary (with personality) to balance him out.

And a white woman has to be the choice. A Hispanic woman is too much ethnicity and I think 'tolerance fatigue' will set it on election day. For better or worse, he has to get someone that the majority of voters can "relate to" because he sure as hell isn't that.

I have a growing suspicion it already has.

Why did they even have this primary?

If we are talking about potential Clinton running mates, lets not forget Wesley Clark, who has been behind Clinton since the beginning of the campaign and is a former general (good on the national security issue).

Yeha, because two people on a ticket from the same state is a good thing...

Does anyone actually consider Hillary Clinton as from Arkansas? Anyone?

Don't forget about Jim Webb - the perfect running mate for either Obama or Clinton.

But I got the suspicion that Edwards is staying in the race to grab as many delegates as he can before the convention hoping neither of the two leaders has a majority, in which case he's got some serious capital, and could trade it for the VP job.

Sorry, I do. First thing I think of with her is WJC's First Lady.

+1

Attorney General.

John Edwards is dropping out of the race...

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

(1) HUGE help to Hillary. Exit polls showed that most of his supporters would have backed her. The whole idea that he and Obama were splitting the "anti-Hillary" vote was absurd. Anyone motivated by anti-Hillary to that extent would have voted for Obama, the candidate with a realistic chance to beat her.

(2) I have no idea why he is doing this now. He seems to like campaigning, and it is not like he has a day-job of any consequence to go back to.

(3) Putting (1) and (2) together, I think that Hillary promised him the moon if he dropped out before Super Tuesday, and he decided that it was the best offer that he would get from either candidate.

(4) And, might I say again, HUGE help for Hillary. Might have just sewn up the nomination for her.

I don't claim to be an expert in politics but everything I have read and heard this morning is saying that the Edwards camp has been talking to the Obama camp for weeks about a deal. They said that there is no way Edwards would endorse Clinton because, they just don't like each other. And to be frankly honest, they are saying the exact opposite of what you are saying.

It's just what I have been hearing. Not sure what is right or not, but I wanted to bring these points up.

Don't let my use of a well organized list and carefully placed HUGE in all caps fool you. I generally have no idea what I am talking about. ;)

My logic sounds good to me. But I've certainly been wrong before.

That makes two of us! :)

And the comments here are a ton more uninformed opinions. More than anyone could ever want: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmi....html#comments

Dang. Edwards was still my choice out of those still left. I knew he didn't have chance, but still disappointing.

I also agree with bsak. I think most "VOTERS" not people since alot of people don't vote or aren't Dems, consider Obama-Edwards to be the the anti-Hillary choice. I think the states of IOWA,NH,SC,is an accurate gauge of the average american voter. I belive even without an endorsement for Obama by Edwards which is very llikely by Super Tuesday this is good for 5-7 points for Obama. Considering a few of the states are pretty tight this is big. Also, I think Barack has done a decent job of expressing his desire to reach out to the Repubs enough to snag alot of the independents and even some mod Repubs.

But haven't exit polls showed the Edwards voters were generally split in their support for Clinton and Obama if Edwards wasn't there?

How so?

In pretty much every speech, he mentions Republicans and "breaking down the divisions" of Washington.

He's painting his as a coalition of those disaffected with "politics as usual" and that theirs is a group that transcends race, gender and politics.

From Joe Klein from this story on CNN.com today:

I am more than willing to be corrected on this, if that is the case. From what I have understood, it was under Clinton that dual tech transfers (both civilian and military use) was moved from Dept. of Defense to under the Treasury's jurisdiction.

As someone that feels NAFTA is actually SHAFTA, and that Fair Trade is good for American workers while Free Trade is what the country-club shafters have given us, I have long ago cut ties with Mr. W.

At this point in the campaign, I think most of the Edwards voters had been whittled down to those who were voting for him, not against someone else. The anti-Hillary crowd had mostly gravitated to Obama already.

As to how those folks may break, Edwards' fire on the stump appealed to the angry part of the Democratic party -- namely my father and my wife. My dad doesn't think Hillary can win, so I expect he will support Obama in the CA primary. When VA votes, I think my wife will go for Hillary. I think the greater split will also be fairly even, with a slight edge to Hillary. From what I've seen of the demographics of Edwards voters, they have skewed more towards her than Obama.

As a voter that is a moderate Republican who 'swings both ways', all of the talk you just mentioned tells me he's really good at being a politician and tells me nothing about whether he'll be a good president. I'm sure that he'll lay out a few more details if/when he secures the nomination and maybe I'll know a bit more about him then. Right now, I don't know anything about him outside of his messages about cats and dogs living in harmony. I'm here to tell him he's living a pipe dream if he thinks that will occur if he becomes president.

Your earlier statement claimed that Clinton sold gyroscope technology to China. There is not even a tiny factual basis for that statement. I refer you to the (unbelievably named) Cox-Dicks report if you want hard details on what happened. You probably can still find it on the internet somewhere.

In a nutshell, in 1996 Loral Space and Commications and Hughes Electronics were using a Chinese rocket to launch their satellite. The rocket went boom. Loral and Huges determined what they believed to be the cause and improperly shared their findings to their Chinese launch partners, which likely enabled the Chinese to make a better rocket.

The NYT picked up on the story in 1998. GOP blowhards at the time, wanting to bash the President, blamed it on the decision of the Clinton Administration to move licensing authority for satellite launches from the Department of State to Commerce (DoD was never in the picture). The decision to move the authority, however, happened later in 1996 -- after the launch accident and tech transfer took place. State had licensed that launch, not Commerce.

I hope this helps.

That is a lot of the reservations I've heard about him from Republicans. They don't know anything about his policies. All they know is "unity", but what exactly does that mean? One thing is for sure, if he tries to push for "lefty" programs, he isn't going to find a lot of unity from the right.

I'm not sure that the Kennedies fawning all over him helped in Republican estimations as well. They usually don't particularly like JFK.

Obama has come out as a social liberal, in favor of raising taxes on "the rich" (ie, anyone making over 75K) and universal health. Hardly a platform that will attract many conservatives. once the debates start between party candidates and all the platitudes go away, I doubt Obama gets much republican support. Still, I think he wins over McCain as republicans may not even show up. And no vote from a republican is as good as a vote for Obama.

Story

Republicans not like JFK? Good grief! If a democrat ran on JFK's platform a good number of Republicans would get on board with him.

Yeah, this one had me puzzled too.. Perhaps its because I grew up in the south where Democrats were often on the conservative side.

Never fear. Jimmy Carter is getting involved. He's "titillated"...............

You mean like increasing the minimum wage and massive increases in federal spending on housing, unemployment, education, and medical care? ;)

Haha...first Ted Kennedy and now this. With friends like these.....

Good stuff, thanks for the correction. Always willing to look at facts. Guess with all the Britney/Paris/Lindsey news to put out by the stalwart media a little thing like the Chinese suddenly being able to nuke us (for reasons different than I first thought) gets some short shrift.

I mean, with all the problems Michigan is having in particular, local Fox News channel 2 Detroit anchor thought we should know that Justin Timberlake was seen kissing someone other than his steady girlfriend in NYC recently. And, I know it was Fox, but I channel surf. Its all like that.

And what is wrong with spending money in those areas? Not enough bombs in our arsenal for ya?

Have you not met any Republicans?

That may be the most awesome sentence ever.

lol:)

Color me skeptical after you shrug off the Bush Dubai Ports thing which totally Pwned you. care to make commentary on that? Perhaps you posted something in the thread way back when it occurred to show your consistency?

The latest poll has Obama within the margin of error in California.

Excuse me? About the only theme I have ever posted on Bush is in regards to him running as a Reagan Conservative and turning out to be a Corporate "Country Clubber." Given the expectations, perhaps the most dissappointing President in my lifetime, but still lightyears better than Billary looming on the horizon.

In fairness to our Republican friends, the port thing was (and is) a massive red herring.

In our country, most ports are public entities, run either by elected commissioners or appointed by elected officials. The ports at which Dubai Ports World (DPW) was seeking to operate terminals were all public facilities.

At the risk of overexplaining this, ports are made up of many terminals, most of which are leased and operated by private entities. Most of these private entities are headquartered overseas -- EU, South Korea, Japan, China, although some are US. This is international trade we are talking about. Foreign countries and companies do need to be involved. DPW is one of these companies and, by and large, a widely respected terminal operator.

At no point in time was there ever a proposal on the table for DPW to operate a US port. Just terminals. The security risks were blown way out of proportion; although terminal operators bear some responsibility for security within the terminals they operate, port authorites, US Customs and Border Protection and the US Coast Guard are responsible for security at US ports and do a pretty good job.

...you can win the Democratic nomination. You can down-play these guys once you achieve the nom, but they will definitely help you with getting to the nom. It is a sign that the democratic political machine is pulling away from Clinton, and that is very good for Obama.

To be fair though, it isn't like Ted Kennedy hasn't been a part of the Democratic political machine (at least in the national party) any time lately. He likes to march to his own beat. The DNC brings him out for conventions, but usually doesn't consult him that much.

That's totally inaccurate. I know for a fact that he is asked to hand select the booze for each of the Democratic fundraisers.

In the next episode of "Bonnie and Clyde vs. the County Sheriff," Bonnie and the Sheriff plan a shootout tonight while Clyde does some 'global gold-digging' of his own! http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us...gewanted=print

Stay tuned!

It begins. Looking at our poll results FOFC called it way before the media. Obama should get the majority of the Edwards crowd, people are either for Clinton or find her to be detestable. Can't wait to see his inauguration.

:)

You do realize that if it ends up being Romney v. Hillary, you will get this smile quoted back to you. In Mockery.

Oh, definitely. I don't think I was being especially wise, either. As I said it was more wishful thinking than anything else.

I wouldn't go that far because 2 days ago Hillary was ahead by a vote. I really do hope Obama pulls it off just because it would be something different. Obama and McCain would be perfect because then I would actually have 2 candidates that I would be willing to vote for rather than having to vote against someone.

Is there any chance that Hilary/Obama selects the other as their running mate? What about Edwards running for VP again? I don't have any real insight except that I would think Hilary would never want to play second fiddle while Obama might. But I thought you guys may actually have some insight or ideas on who might run with either of the canidates.

Hillary/Obama won't happen. Too much personality and well, it's just a bad idea. Edwards has an outside shot, but I seriously doubt he wants to go through the 2nd fiddle thing again and he can't deliver the South making him a really bad choice. Edwards is likely going to be someone's Attorney General of the Dems win.

If you go back a page, you'll see a list of random ideas for VPs we discussed. A few interesting ideas were thrown out there.

Hillary/Obama is possible. Obama/Hillary is not.

I think the most likely running mates are Bill Richardson, Wesley Clark, Evan Bayh, and Jim Webb.

Is there any word on whether or not Mark Warner is going to run for the VA senate spot that John Warner is retiring from?

He could be an interesting VP choice and could certainly put Virginia into play as a swing state.

I'm pretty sure he is running for the Senate.

Oh absolutely. I mean, I was happy to see it get blown out of proportion in the media to discomfort the Administration, but yeah, it was completely a non-issue.


Wow. Unless I'm seriously mistaken, last I heard he was behind by a good margin.


He announced two weeks after John Warner announced he wasn't running for re-election. I think Mark Warner decided not to run for Pres because he didn't want to turn his family upside-down. Being a senator from Virginia (next to D.C.) is perfect for him, so I'd be surprised if he wanted to be Veep (Veep's typically do a lot of travel, never mind campaigning).

Latest Rasmussen poll had Hillary leading Obama by 3 points prior to Edwards dropping out. Right now, it is a big outlier, but it is the most recent poll.

during our dinner table conversation tonight I sorta started to talk myself into voting for hillary. idk

I'm hoping the Warner sister Dot will decide to run instead ;)

Dude I almost spit out my drink laughing at that. Good show Good show

not the case as applied to the context in which the idea of foreign involvement/investment/donations as a negative, BW brought it up in this thread.