Political Chess: Hillary Lost Texas

Obama Keeps Delegate Lead

The Associated Press

Wed, Mar 5, 2008 (6:39 a.m.)

Sen. Barack Obama survived defeats in three primaries Tuesday with his lead in the delegate race essentially intact.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton netted only a 12-delegate pickup, despite winning primaries in Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island, according to an analysis of returns by The Associated Press. There were still 12 more delegates to be awarded.

In the overall race for the nomination, Obama had 1,562 delegates, including separately chosen party and elected officials known as superdelegates. Clinton had 1,461. It takes 2,025 delegates to secure the Democratic nomination.

For the night, Clinton won at least 185 delegates and Obama won at least 173.

Clinton's victory in Ohio won her only nine more delegates than Obama, with two delegates still to be awarded. In Texas, Clinton won four more delegates than Obama in the primary. But Obama trimmed Clinton's lead to a single Texas delegate in the party caucuses. There were still 10 delegates to be awarded in the caucuses.

The candidates vied for 370 delegates in four states: Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island and Vermont. But the Democrats' system of awarding delegates proportionally made it hard for either candidate to post big gains. Also, Texas had a two-step system, with about two-thirds of its delegates awarded in a primary, and the rest in party caucuses.

The results enabled Clinton to reclaim momentum after losing 12 straight nominating contests to Obama. However, Obama maintained his delegate lead with fewer chances remaining for Clinton to catch up.

On the Republican side, Sen. John McCain surpassed the 1,191 delegates needed to secure the nomination by winning most of the delegates in the four states. He also picked up new endorsements from about 30 party officials who will automatically attend the convention and can support whomever they choose.

McCain had 1,232 delegates, according to the AP count. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who had 261 delegates, dropped out of the race Tuesday night.

There were 66 GOP delegates still to be awarded in the Texas primary.

The AP tracks the delegate races by calculating the number of national convention delegates won by candidates in each presidential primary or caucus, based on state and national party rules, and by interviewing unpledged delegates to obtain their preferences.

Most primaries and some caucuses are binding, meaning delegates won by the candidates are pledged to support that candidate at the national conventions this summer.

Political parties in some states, however, use multistep procedures to award national delegates. Typically, such states use local caucuses to elect delegates to state or congressional district conventions, where national delegates are selected. In these states, the AP uses the results from local caucuses to calculate the number of national delegates each candidate will win, if the candidate's level of support at the caucus doesn't change.


Help us

Rod Bailey,
I'm not sure who you are or which state you're in, but you could help this effort by, first of all contacting me directly so I don't have to hope you'll keep reading comments on your blog to "talk" to me. Second, what I'm suggesting to people in different states is to start gathering what info. you can on the super delegates from your state - names, addresses, phone numbers, e-mail addresses (if available). I'm doing it for NY. The following site has a complete list: http://superdelegates.org/DNC_Members. I'm putting the info into a spreadsheet that I will then circulate to folks I've been in contact with here in NY and ask them to contact anyone who is local to them and urge the super delegates to at least start thinking about Gore as a compromise/peace/healing candidate for the Party before it completely blows itself up over the Hillary and Barack thing. I'm proposing that a Gore/Obama ticket would be a guaranteed winner in Nov. and still keep the enthusiasm that Obama has generated with his candidacy (I think). You can contact me directly at rbailey22@rochester.rr.com. Thanks in advance.


Counter the Hillary Propaganda

Hillary Clinton claimed victory before all the votes were counted. As far as the world is concerned, Hillary won Texas. The reality is that she lost Texas.

I would be one of the greatest things in the world if Barack Obama stopped his campaign to go back to Texas & give them a proper victory speech while having that expropriate celebration, showing the world that she really lost Texas... that's change.

I am also stunned at how much Barrack Obama's stump speech (Bully Pulpit) reminds me of Bill Clinton in the 1990's. I had the to fight off tears as I watched this music video for Barrack Obama.

I believe it should be played like Ross Perot used his infomercials to market his campaign.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjXyqcx-mYY


The purpose of this thread

The purpose of this thread is to point out how our support for the Clintons has undermined many of the Democratic Parties major liberal institutions & organizations. Institutions such as the NOW org., MSM, as well as, many Democratic Parties candidates were in a depressed state after the Clintons ran a muck in the 1990's.

How they left the Democratic Party in shambles is part of the Clinton legacy.

P.S. If the Clintons were so good for Democrats, why didn't they produce any Democratic Party majorities?


How the Clintons pracitally destroyed the NOW Org.

Black Cell: A lot of Democrats like put too much on the Clinton years because we were forced to defend Bill behavior. But, a cold reality is that defending the Clintons broke the spine of most major liberal organizations. It is even worse be our blind support for the Clintons created the Bu$h Crime Family.

That is one of the many reasons why people are hoping for change.

Here's one!

NOW PAC Applauds Clinton's Triumph in Key States

Hillary Rodham Clinton won rousing victories in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island on Tuesday, proving once again that not only is she a fighter, but also that she can win key battleground states the Democrats need in November.
http://www.now.org/press/03-08/03-05.html

NOW's priority issues concern U.S. domestic policy. These include advancing reproductive freedoms, promoting diversity and ending racism, stopping rape and domestic violence, ensuring economic justice, winning lesbian rights, and achieving constitutional equality. [3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Organization_for_Women

Remember when Kathleen Willie accused President Clinton of personal misbehavior (rape)?

Remember back In May 1991 when Arkansas state employee Paula Jones got an unexpected 30- or 40-second glimpse of then-governor Bill Clinton's naked erection.

the January 1994 issue of The American Spectator included an article by David Brock entitled "Living With the Clintons" which broke the Troopergate scandal. It reported that Clinton had screwed some woman in 1991:

"One of the troopers told the story of how Clinton had eyed a woman at a reception at the Excelsior Hotel in downtown Little Rock. According to the trooper, who told the story to both Patterson and Perry as well, Clinton asked him to approach the woman, whom the trooper remembered only as Paula, tell her how attractive the governor thought she was, and take her to a room in the hotel where Clinton would be waiting. [...] On this particular evening, after her encounter with Clinton, which lasted no more than an hour as the trooper stood by in the hall, the trooper said Paula told him she was available to be Clinton's regular girlfriend if he so desired."

http://www.nndb.com/people/923/000023854/


Sullivan: The Clintons, a horror film that never ends...

Andrew Sullivan

It’s alive! We thought it might be over but some of us never dared fully believe it. Last week was like one of those moments in a horror movie when the worst terror recedes, the screen goes blank and then reopens on green fields or a lover’s tender embrace. Drained but still naive audiences breathe a collective sigh of relief. The plot twists have all been resolved; the threat is gone; the quiet spreads. And then . . .

Put your own movie analogy in here. Glenn Close in the bathtub in Fatal Attraction – whoosh! she’s back at your throat! – has often occurred to me when covering the Clintons these many years. The Oscars host Jon Stewart compares them to a Terminator: the kind that is splattered into a million tiny droplets of vaporised metal . . . only to pool together spontaneously and charge back at you unfazed.

The Clintons have always had a touch of the zombies about them: unkillable, they move relentlessly forward, propelled by a bloodlust for Republicans or uppity Democrats who dare to question their supremacy. You can’t escape; you can’t hide; and you can’t win. And these days, in the kinetic pace of the YouTube campaign, they are like the new 28 Days Later zombies. They come at you really quickly, like bats out of hell. Or Ohio, anyway.

Now all this may seem a little melodramatic. Perhaps it is. Objectively, an accomplished senator won a couple of races – one by a mere 3% – against another senator in a presidential campaign. One senator is still mathematically unbeatable. But that will never capture the emotional toll that the Clintons continue to take on some of us. I’m not kidding. I woke up in a cold sweat early last Wednesday. There have been moments this past week when I have felt physically ill at the thought of that pair returning to power.

Why? I have had to write several columns in this space over the years acknowledging that the substantive legacy of the Clinton administration (with a lot of assist from Newt Gingrich) was a perfectly respectable one: welfare reform, fiscal sanity, prudent foreign policy, leaner government. But remembering the day-to-day psychodramas of those years still floods my frontal cortex with waves of loathing and anxiety. The further away you are from them, the easier it is to think they’re fine. Up close they are an intolerable, endless, soul-sapping soap opera.

The media are marvelling at the Clintons’ several near-death political experiences in this campaign. Hasn’t it occurred to them how creepily familiar all this is? The Clintons live off psychodrama. They both love to push themselves to the brink of catastrophe and then accomplish the last-minute, nail-biting self-rescue. Before too long the entire story becomes about them, their ability to triumph through crisis, even though the crises are so often manufactured by themselves. That is what last week brought back for me. The 1990s – with a war on.

Remember: Bill Clinton could have easily settled the Paula Jones lawsuit years before he put the entire country through the wringer (Jones sued Clinton for sexual harassment alleged to have occurred while he was governor of Arkansas).

Recall: Hillary Clinton could have killed what turned out to be the White-water nonstory at the very outset by disclosing everything she could (the scandal centred on a controversial Arkansas property deal).

Consider: the Clintons could have prepared for primaries and caucuses after February 5 – so-called Super Tuesday, when 24 states held their presidential nomination vote – as any careful candidate would. They chose not to do any of these things. Not because they are incompetent. But because they live to risk.

Politics is also their life. They know nothing else. Most halfway normal people in politics could at some point walk away. Reagan seemed happy to. Not the Clintons. In the words of the American-based British writer Christo-pher Hitchens, these are the kind of people who never want the meeting to end. Hillary Clinton will never concede the race so long as there is even the faintest chance that she can somehow win.

They endure all sorts of humiliation – remember the taped Clinton deposition in the Ken Starr investigation (in which Clinton admitted to the inquiry headed by the far-right prosecutor that he had had an “improper physical relationship” with Monica Lewinsky)? Hillary’s dismissal of the Lewinsky matter as an invention of the right-wing conspiracy? – because they know no other way to live. They have been thinking of this moment since they were in college and being a senator or an ex-president or having two terms in the White House are not sufficient to satiate their sense of entitlement. Even if they have to put their own party through a divisive, bitter, possibly fatal death match, they will never give up. Their country, their party . . . none of this matters compared with them.

The patterns are staggeringly unaltered. Last Thursday The Washing-ton Post ran an article reporting on the almost comic divisions within the Clinton camp: how chaotic the planning had been, how much chief pollster Mark Penn hated all the other advisers, how even in the wake of a sudden victory most of the Clintonites were eager to score rancid points off each other.

The secrecy and paranoia endure too. Releasing tax returns is routine for a presidential candidate. Barack Obama did it some time back. The Clintons still haven’t – and say they won’t for more than another month. Why? They have no explanation. They seem affronted by the question.

When you look at the electoral map if the Clintons run again, you also see a reversion to the old patterns of the 1990s – the patterns that cynical political strategists such as Karl Rove and Dick Morris have been exploiting for two decades. The country – scrambled by the post-baby-boomer pragmatism of Obama – snaps back into classic red-blue mode, with the blue areas denoting Democratic-leaning states around the edge and true red Republican states in the heartlands.

The Clintons are comfortable with this polarisation. They need it. Even when running against a fellow Democrat, they instinctively reach for it. Last week, in response to the Obama camp’s request that they release their tax returns, Clinton’s spokesman called Obama a new Ken Starr. For the Clintons, all Democrats who oppose them are . . . Republicans. And all Republicans are evil.

And evil means that anything the Clintons do in self-defence is excusable – even playing the race card, and the Muslim card, and the gender card, and every sleazy gambit that the politics of fear can come up with. This is how they have arrested the Obama juggernaut. It’s the only game they know how to play.

One is reminded of the words of Bob Dylan: “And here I sit so patiently / Waiting to find out what price / You have to pay to get out of / Going through all these things twice.”

live free or die trying!


Just like in the movies ...

Medullan Marauder's picture

Someone needs to sneak into the crypt at night and drive a stake through her heart..


live free or die trying!

2 vs 1 or One down & his wife is next.

Barack Obama reminds me of all the great reasons why I liked Billery.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjXyqcx-mYY


How the Clintons Undermined the Liberal Media in the 90's

We might not be able to convince George step-on-top-of-us & friends why they shouldn't support the Clintons. But, I believe that we can convince more Democrats that they are not the right choice.

The womens organizations aren't the only liberal networks that were devastated by the Clinton Presidency.

Yes, the Clintons are leaders in the womens movement, but they forced us to undermine our every efforts. This made it possible for faux news & cronies to gain credibility over them.

The repugs used that credibility to convince America into following the Neocon agenda in the worse way.They falsely used September 11th to wage war in Iraq.

"Shellery forgot to answer that phone call."

Clinton supporter like George Step-On-Top-Of-Us were powerless. They couldn't convince enough of the American people to support practically any liberal agenda, let alone, stop the Bu$h Crime Family from doing what ever they wanted. All they could do was back peddle & damage control for Shellery.

The reality is that Hillary voted for that Bill, which was a clear declaration of war, because she didn't want to look soft on war. We needed a leader that was saying the things that Robert Bird was saying, but we got someone who was trying to do more to prep to lose this Democratic Party primaries, instead of using the power that she had to help promote our cause. Ending foolish wars for money, oil & votes.

Our blind loyalty to the Clintons in the 1990's, regardless of what they did, is the reason why many of you were frustrated & couldn't stop the Republican Party from stacking the supreme court or many other things that you complained about.

As watch the Clinton News Network try to spin away a reality their candidate was up 20 points, they went negative & lost Texas. I say to myself, " look at how they have convinced themselves to believe that the very people that practically broke their spine should take another swing a being president.

live free or die trying!


My Email to Juan Williams

I am extremely disappointed in, Juan Williams of Fux news Sunday. He, pretty much, said that if the Hillary team undermine our votes by using the unethical tactics that they are using, black Americans will still vote for her because we have no where else to go.

Not true. Hillary has to win in a moral way.

Juan should sit down & consider what he is willing to say or not say for Hillary. No I am, not looking at him as a black person, because he is also a professional news reporter. You are putting you credibility on the line. All you have is your credibility.

I am wondering what Juan is willing to do & say to help the Clintons. My goal is not to attack Juan for what he is doing & saying, but I hope to convince Juan that their is a better way. The sad thing is that he has been using the better way of fighting for at least three years now. He had his mouth set on eating lobster & he got a juicy stake.

As long as we stay being honest, positive & stay Playing the good guys version of Smash Mouth Football on the Clinton team, our lead will continue to grow.

Coming soon: I will be explaining how Juan's attack on black America for the Clintons makes it easy for repugs, demagogues & profiteers to accomplish their goals.

-Fight Harder


Clinton Supporters: Making the Truth a Casualty

Black Cell: Read how fox News Brite Hume force Rep. Wasserman-Schultz, D-Fla. to tell the truth as she made a lame attempt to try it misinform (lie) the Fox News viewers.

REP. DEBBIE WASSERMAN-SCHULTZ, D-FLA.: Well, I think when you're talking about fairness, we have to remember that this was started by the Republican- led legislature here that actually set the date of our primary.

So the victims here in all of — in the decision by the DNC to strip us of our delegates are Democratic voters in the state of Florida.

HUME: Can I stop you there? Just let me stop you there for a second, if I can.

WASSERMAN-SCHULTZ: Sure.

HUME: In the Florida state senate, who introduced the bill to move the primary forward?

WASSERMAN-SCHULTZ: The bill was introduced by a Democratic member, a new Democratic member of the state senate.

HUME: And in the legislature, senate and house as well, how many Democrats voted against it?

WASSERMAN-SCHULTZ: Well, that's an inappropriate line of questioning, Brit, because that bill ultimately...

HUME: Well, wait a minute. Well, inappropriate or not...

WASSERMAN-SCHULTZ: Excuse me, Brit.

HUME: ... could you just answer the question?

WASSERMAN-SCHULTZ: Can I answer your question?

HUME: Yes. How many?

WASSERMAN-SCHULTZ: I would like to answer your question without you asking me another one, if you don't mind.

The legislation that was originally sponsored was amended into an overall election package that included the major provision to ensure that we could have manual recount and a paper trail. So this is a major election package that the change of a date in our primary was included in.

So the vote total was unanimous, but that was because there's no one in the Florida legislature that was going to vote against changing our voting system so that you could have a paper trail and make sure that every vote can be counted, unlike our touchscreen voting system right now which doesn't allow for that.

So to try to hang a unanimous vote on the fact that Democrats supported that — that's misleading, because they supported it because they certainly weren't going to vote against making sure there was a paper trail in Florida.

HUME: I see. Well, all right. Then what's the fair way to settle it, in your judgment?

live free or die trying!


16,000 Republicans in Cuyahoga crossed over and voted Democratic

Sunday, March 09, 2008
Amanda Garrett
Plain Dealer Reporter

A staggering 16,000-plus Republicans in Cuyahoga County switched parties when they voted in last week's primary.

That includes 931 in Rocky River, 1,027 in Westlake and 1,142 in Strongsville. More than a third of the Republicans in Solon and Bay Village switched. Pepper Pike had the most dramatic change: just under half its Republicans became Democrats. And some of those who changed - it's difficult to say how many - could be in trouble with the law.

At least one member of the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections wants to investigate some Republicans who may have crossed party lines only to influence which Democrat would face presumed Republican nominee John McCain in November.

Those who crossed lines were supposed to sign a pledge card vowing allegiance to their new party.

In Cuyahoga County, dozens and dozens of Republicans scribbled addendums onto their pledges as new Democrats:

"For one day only."

"I don't believe in abortion."

A Plain Dealer review of thousands of records showed few of those who switched were challenged by poll workers.

Sandy McNair, a Democratic member of the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections, said Friday that the manipulation of the system was troublesome.

"It's something that concerns me, that I think needs to be looked at further," McNair said. "This is not a structural thing by the Republican Party. If it's a problem at all, it's on an individual level."

Lying on the pledge is a felony, punishable by six to 12 months in jail and a $2,500 fine.

Election watchers said they don't know any cases that have been prosecuted in Ohio. And it's unlikely the Republican crossovers influenced the outcome since Clinton handily defeated Barack Obama, said Edward Foley, an election-law professor at Ohio State University.

But he said Ohioans need to learn the rules governing their voting - and poll workers need to enforce them.

In a nutshell, here's how it's supposed to work: Ohio voters are allowed to switch party affiliations on the day of a primary election but only if they sign a pledge vowing to support their new party - and mean it.

If a majority of poll workers at a precinct doubt a voter's sincerity, they can challenge the voter even if the voter signed the pledge.

In the days following the election, The Plain Dealer interviewed more than two dozen voters - most of them Republicans who crossed over to Democrats last week.

None - including five who acknowledged lying about supporting the Democrats - were challenged. And several said poll workers never asked them to sign a pledge but gave them a Democratic ticket.

A movement

is afoot . . .

Some Republicans refer to it as "the plot."

It started a few weeks ago when conservative radio powerhouse Rush Limbaugh suggested that his Republican following cross over during the primary to vote for Clinton. Clinton, Limbaugh argued, would be easier for McCain to beat in November than Obama.

Soon, local morning radio show host Bob Frantz echoed Limbaugh on WTAM AM/1100, and the buzz began to grow.

Cuyahoga County Republican Chairman Rob Frost tried to tamp down the temptation. He contacted Republican voters and appeared on the Frantz show urging Republicans "not to heed the siren call of Rush Limbaugh and others."

"Elections are not something you should be playing games with," Frost said last week during a telephone interview.

Yet temptation was strong.

North Ridgeville Republican Hazel Sferry said she was kicking herself all day Tuesday after voting for McCain.

Don't get her wrong. Sferry supports McCain.

But after she voted, she ran into her niece who told her about "the plot."

Her niece, Republican Sherry Newell, crossed over Tuesday after hearing Limbaugh. Newell said she voted for Obama because she thought McCain had a better chance against him.

Regardless, Sferry said she thought it was a great idea to mess with the other party if it helped McCain win.

"I don't mind being deceptive to politicians," she said. "They are deceptive to us."

On both sides

of the Cuyahoga

On the other side of Cleveland, temptation to cross over was strong, too.

Republican Kitty Anderson began working in voting precincts during the early 1960s, and Tuesday's turnout in the Republican stronghold of Chagrin Falls was the largest she had ever seen.

It also had the most crossover voting.

Anderson, 76, and her husband, Donald, 78, served as poll workers on Tuesday and both helped fellow Republicans change parties all day; when it was time for them to vote, they crossed over, too.

"We are both concerned about what Obama would do if he was president. We don't trust him," Kitty Anderson said. "I have five grandchildren, and I keep thinking I want this world to be safe for these kids. I don't feel good about Obama. He just seems to be so vague." Come November, the Andersons said they'll most likely vote for McCain.

But not all of Chagrin Falls crossovers were motivated by the same things.

John Baggett, 50, said there was no single thing that turned him against the Republicans.

Baggett, a former military man who describes himself as conservative, said he believed the GOP has led the country in the wrong direction.

PRIMARY

A13

live free or die trying!


;-)

3.Controlling the debate is very important & right now the Democrats are on the verge of losing all the progress that they have made in these recent years because they are afraid say... "stop it!"


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.