4.50pm. CNN calls Texas for Clinton. Her lead is back to 51-48 with 75 per cent reporting.
4.42pm. Still 50-48 in Texas with 69 per cent reporting, but the trend on raw figures is nudging gently back to Cllinton. We also have 5 per cent of the caucuses reporting with Obama leading 56-44; no idea what to make of this.
4.12pm. Only just noticed how great the New York Times’ graphical maps are. Run your pointer over Texas and note how a lot of the big counties in the Obama-voting cities have a very low count.
4.08pm. … and her lead his now back to 50-48 with 63 per cent reporting.
4.08pm. CNN analyst says most of Clinton’s strong areas in Texas are “in”; if Obama’s early 60-40 lead in Houston holds up, it will apparently be enough to put him ahead, although he stresses that won’t definitely happen.
4.02pm. Clinton has gained another point in Texas, leading 51-48 with 58 per cent reporting.
3.27pm. Been away from my post for a bit. Clinton has claimed victory in Ohio and is currently delivering a speech making it very clear she’s not about to withdraw. Clinton leads 50-48 in Texas with 46 per cent reporting.
2.46pm. Now 51 per cent of precincts in Ohio and Clinton’s lead has in fact widened a little, to 57-41.
2.33pm. Clinton has caught up with Obama in Texas with 20 per cent of precincts reporting: now 49-all. Her lead is only narrowing slightly in Ohio, now at 56-42 with 47 per cent reporting.
2.14pm. Clinton still leads 57-41 in Ohio with 35 per cent of precincts reporting. Talk in comments suggests a 50-50 result in Cleveland, which I gather was expected to be good for Obama.
2.08pm. Interviewee on Fox Radio notes that Rhode Island exit polls were way out, pointing to a close result when it has actually been a big win for Clinton.
1.50pm. 21 per cent of precincts in Ohio now reporting and Clinton’s earlier lead is almost intact – now 59-39. Texas count has edged up to 6 per cent and Obama’s earlier lead has steadily been whittled away, now down to 51-49.
1.36pm. Clinton still leads 60-38 in Ohio with 14 per cent of precincts reporting.
1.31pm. Claude in comments points out another factor in Ohio being the extension of voting in some counties where Obama is expected to do well.
1.28pm. CNN calls Rhode Island for Clinton, her first win since Super Tuesday.
1.28pm. Al in comments notes no precincts are in from the Ohio cities of Columbus and Cleveland, the former being an Obama-friendly college town.
1.23pm. Huckabee announcing withdrawal. Clinton leads 60-38 in Ohio with 6 per cent counted, but this is presumably with Clinton-friendly areas reporting.
1.10pm. Fox reports that Mike Huckabee has confirmed he will withdraw, but says there are “conflicting reports”.
1.04pm. Obama campaign reportedly feeling upbeat about Ohio, the bad weather having diminished the turnout from older Democrats who favour Clinton. Fox gives McCain a clean sweep of Texas, Ohio, Vermont and Rhode Island.
1.03pm. McCain by all accounts now has enough delegates to secure the nomination.
1.01pm. Via Kevin Rennie, an explanation of the Texas system from New Republic.
12.45pm. I’ve had my eye off the ball for the last 45 minutes. Obama has an early 56-44 lead in Texas, but these are big city precincts where he is expected to do well. I’m not going to pretend to be on top of the Texan primaries-plus-caucuses system: perhaps somebody who is can provide a brief explanation in comments.
11.55am. Exit polls point to a “tight race” in Rhode Island.
11.40am. CBS News reporting a very high turnout by Hispanics in Texas and low turnout of African-Americans, boding well for Clinton.
11.30am (Australian EST). Polls have just closed in Ohio, and Fox News has immediately called Ohio for John McCain but predicted a close result between Clinton and Obama. Vermont is being called for Obama and McCain.
I found this somewhere from a guy in Tokyo. I think it’s spot on.
– Michigan will have a caucus (which was their original plan before they started trying to get clever) which won’t make much difference, but Obama will have the edge.
– Florida will stuff around for a bit and not agree to anything.
– Superdelegates will coalesce around Obama once everybody has finished voting, if not before. A majority will support him, and given his lead with pledged delegates he only needs 1/3 of the remaining undecideds in any case, so he’ll be home and dry.
– Obama will graciously vote to seat the Florida delegates as they are. At that point Hillary will probably see the writing on the wall and release them to vote for Obama in a show of unity, but if she doesn’t he’ll win the vote.
Seems to me that about the dumbest political move Obama could make is to accept second billing on Clinton’s ticket.
If Clinton turns out to be just more of the same old same old, which is a distinct possibility, then he’ll be tarred with the same brush, no matter that VP’s usually have less say than the presidential pooch. Even if she’s a great success, being VP is no guarantee you’ll get the top job, just ask Al Gore. Especially, as Chelsea will then be about old enough to become a candidate.
Plus, assuming Hillary serves two terms, there will have been 28 years of continual Bush/Clinton presidencies, how many people will want 8 more years from a Clinton understudy?
Far better, IMO, to remain his own man for another run as a ‘clean skin.’
1517: Chris B “1442 Rain. At last some logic argument, which has been severely lacking from both sides of the Democrat fence. How about some more, it will encourage us to stay on the site longer.”
.
LOL *hugs* Chris B 🙂 I dont tend to be here much though, sometimes RL intervenes, but, given that as aussies we are way-at-the-back spectators, and have no vote in this process, its still interesting that it generates so much discussion and engagement here.
.
but, what else is there? how about Obama’s anti-war position:
.
Obama seemed willing enough about Hillary’s connections and funding and party-building background and networks, when she, like many other high-profile Democrats inside the “Washington machine”, provided money for his campaign to get to the Senate in the first place in 2004.
.
Hillary’s vote in 2002 was a vote to support the US resolution in the UN for unrestricted inspections. I don’t understand the hype. Most Americans at that time knew that Bush could have declared war without the consent of Congress, citing Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which provides that “The president shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.” Presidents have generally cited Article II, Section 2 as their authority to send soldiers into combat without even referring it to Congress.
.
Hillary Clinton’s Senate speech on the 2002 vote is here http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html
One can see that what she said then is exactly what she is saying now about her position then. Excerpts from the 2002 Clinton speech:
.
“…Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.
.
Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go way with delay will oppose any UN resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.”
…
.
At that stage, most Democrats did not know Bush would end up going the way he did – most, including Kerry, Edwards and many others, “took the President at his word” that he would take it to the UN, and made very similar speeches at the time.
.
In contrast, I find Obama’s position on the war disturbing. After his one single speech at an anti-war rally in the most liberal precinct in Illinois, Obama did not oppose the war at all. He did not oppose the war in the Senate. He did not even campaign against the war when he ran for the Senate, contrary to what he said in the debates. Only when it became politically expedient to oppose the war recently in his run-up to the Presidentials, he dragged his old speech out and has been distorting Clinton’s position in order to win. Here is Obama’s 2004 Senate campaign website. Where is the anti-war campaign rhetoric he is using today? http://web.archive.org/web/20030603200043/www.obamaforillinois.com/index.shtml
.
In 2004, when Kerry was running, Obama had plenty of excuses, sympathy and moral support to offer for Kerry’s 2002 vote, which was the same as that of Clinton and of the majority of the Senate Democrats.
.
In 2004 at the DNC Convention there was an anti-war faction protesting the war with street demos, led by Kucinic. Obama sat with the majority which politely ignored the anti-war faction. He publicly said in a 2004 interview that his position was the same as Bush’s. And his very first Senate speech relating to the war, 18 months later, was ironically against early withdrawal of troops from Iraq.
.
When Clinton said something like “I have lifetime of experience. John McCain has a lifetime of experience. Obama has a 2002 speech”, she does unfortunately have evidence to back that up, and many Americans would nod – thinking maybe yeah, she’s got a point there.
.
But dont blame me too much for defending her, I just have a stupid personal trigger thing for defending *underdogs*, I’ll grow out of it
– besides, I always wanted Edwards!
.
Now I’m thinking about supporting Nader, or Cheryl Seeloff(sp?).
.
Anyway, RL has called me away again. So carry on bludgers!
.
– but here are a couple of other pieces, that some here, may or may not, want to chew on:
.
http://www.womensmediacenter.com/ex/020108.html
and
–
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/erica-jong/patriarchy1000-hillary_b_86408.html
–
and
http://www.womensmediacenter.com/ex/022708.html
1547 – GG
It comes as no surprise to me, that someone like you who doesn’t understand elementary maths nor spelling, cannot handle an alternative opinion.
Looks like I’ve missed some fairly serious sparring, people.
Here is exactly the kind of story about Obama – not his supporters, his friends, or mentors, but HIM – that will never make it into his compliant media outlets:
http://www.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/print
Obama, the clean candidate? Yeah, right. Before he scrubbed-up his image, his record includes:
– Using an expert in electoral law (old Harvard buddy) to find purely technical faults with all the other candidates’ petitions for election, including the incumbent, allowing him to run unopposed for the State legislature seat (the only way he could win, by the way).
– Being thrashed in the primaries in 1999 for a Congress seat in Illinois, by another black male, despite his best effort, because the incumbent (Bobby Rush) was able to portray him as an “out-of-touch” far-left liberal.
– Stealing the credit for many legislative accomplishments: He would look at core liberal Democrat bills that had died under the Republicans’ control of the Illinois legislature, and then sponsored new (practically unaltered) versions of them himself, with no regard for the long-serving Democrat members who had fought tooth and nail and endured much abuse to get them introduced earlier.
He wouldn’t even share the credit by allowing said longserving campaigners to co-sponsor. The Democrat speaker of the Illinois legislature (Emil Jones Jr.) was determined to “make me (sic) a Senator”, namely Obama, and actively assisted him on this. Naturally, this only worked when the Democrats controlled the Illinois legislature, and therefore he sponsored exactly 0 pieces of legislation during the first 6 years of his incumbency, before the Democrats seized control of the Illinois legislature.
– Stealing many ideas from other people – see above.
– Handing over $300m in pork-spending to Illinois, including several tens of millions of dollars to Jones’ own district, far more than any other Illinois district received. This, by the by, is just for fiscal year 2008, and shows just how laughable his opposition to earmarking and pork-barrel project is.
– Pressuring and arm-twisting reporters to run favourable stories on him.
None of this is particularly unusual, especially in Chicago, the ancestral home of dirty American politics. However, it’s a little hypocritical, given his history of using dirty tactics, to scream at Clinton for doing just the same thing, don’t you think? I am not saying that anyone, especially Clinton or McCain, is perfect. But at least they don’t resort to blatant hypocrisy in order to gain an office to which they are entirely unsuited, by claiming that they are above it, while engaging in it at the same time.
But I forget – all the Obamabots out there see no evil in this man, despite any and all evidence that comes up.
After having a brief skim over the last 200 or so posts, it’s staggering the amount of partisan cheerleading that’s taken place over the last 24 hours from Obama and Clinton supporters alike. I’ve got to imagine that anything seen here is magnified 10 times in the US itself.
No wonder the Republicans are rubbing their hands with glee over the prospect of the Democratic Nomination not being settled until June or August.
Al #1556,
Regrettably, yes. The Republicans are rubbing their hands in glee. Which is a pity, because they are the ultimate enemy of the Democrats.
And that’s my problem with them too, Matthew.
Politics is a profession? calling? what you will? with a very long history. We can therefore postulate some truths about it with more certainty than we can in almost any other field of human endeavour.
1. You don’t get anywhere in politics by being consistently honest, upright and truthful. (Sorry, we’re talking reality here, folks. I’d like an ideal world too, but I live and work in the real one). You HAVE to be a bastard, nicely camouflaged behind a big cheesy grin.
2. Many of talked of ‘changing politics’ but few have succeeded (because politics is what it is; it has evolved over centuries.).
3. If someone seems too good to be true, they are.
I’d be more than ecstatic if someone’s prepared to dispute any of these, using real examples.
Mathew Cole Says:
” …. ”
And so it begins.
You know what the trouble with politics is today Mathew; there is so much shit thrown about no one bothers to smell it anymore.
I don’t care who wins, I think the USA is going to be too broke to run any wars for a few years (but it is good fun reading posts from people who care). I think however it isn’t going to be won with a rerun of the election campaigns seen over the past 10 years; even if the shit is real.
Just a reminder that “baptism of fire” has not and will not hurt Hillary or Obama in this battle. It will be good for either of them comes November. Especially for Obama. So stop whinging about this and that. Mccain will be smashed in pieces comes Nov.
1560
The Finnigans
Oh Finn-again, that’s the most beautiful post you’ve ever crafted! LOL
1555 – Matthew Cole
Your link is broken.
If Hillary was on the Apprentice should would have been fired by now…her management ability seems sadly lacking…. what a mess.
Sniping by Her Aides Hurt Clinton’s Image as Manager
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/10/us/politics/10clinton.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
Mathew Cole – “Here is exactly the kind of story about Obama – not his supporters, his friends, or mentors, but HIM – that will never make it into his compliant media outlets”.
Pray tell, if not from ‘his compliant media’, where did you get this scoop?
Asanque #1562,
Damn it, you seem to be right.
Here’s a eference to it – this link might work.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/03/the_man_who_made_obama.html
Here’s a response from the NYT to charges of bias (funnily enough, from both sides): http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/opinion/09pubed.html?ex=1362715200&en=63ca93735ff6f1df&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
1555- Matthew
“But I forget – all the Obamabots out there see no evil in this man, despite any and all evidence that comes up.”
I will say it yet again – i do NOT for one minute think that Obama is perfect, or above the realities of politics, including all the wheeling and dealing that goes on to get into power.
He just doesn’t represent more of the same regimes that have been in power in the US for decades now. And he is espousing values and positions that I would like to see as the new political culture in the US. therefore I think he is preferable to Clinton- and both/either of them are infinitely preferable to a republican.
🙂 Mathew Cole, double check your source and have a quick think about reliability. I just had a look at the front page of ‘American Thinker’. From their top stories:
‘Today that’s happening with the global warming cult.’
‘FARC narco-terrorists are attempting to legitimize and mainstream their movement, much as the genocidal PLO transformed itself with the aid of useful idiots like Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.’
‘For those sci-fi fans among you who’ve been watching the Hillary-Obama slugfest, here’s an interesting take from a Dune fan.’
There SO much more great stuff there! Thanks for the link. Pity bout your argument though…
#1561 – [Oh Finn-again, that’s the most beautiful post you’ve ever crafted!] – KR – to paraphrase Adlai Stevenson: “I am too old to laugh and too hurt to cry” by your “complement”
New favourite:
‘We all knew the race-gender-homophobe card would be played at some point in this election. Well, it just happened. Mark this date on your calendar: On Sunday, May 8, 2008 the Big Guns of the Left fired both barrels at the same moment. If you’re agin’ Obama or Hillary, you are the embodiment of evil. Islamaphobia has just been added to the heavy burden your soul will have to bear. And don’t you dare deny it…
What’s missing in all this is a gay candidate, so that non-Leftists can be accused of homophobia on top of everything else. Perhaps this gap will be filled in by election time, and that we will get a chance to be beaten up and bullied for our sins against gays as well.’
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/03/vote_mccain_and_youre_a_sexist.html
you call this tap dancing?
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=JBwkEdtF-7Y
This is tap dancing ……… just singing in the rain …. what a glorious feeling …….. i’m happy again …. when Hillary wins in Nov.
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=bkEvy-9yVyQ
Rain –
I totally agree with the points made in your links that the personal and mysogynistic attacks on hillary are a disgrace.
The reasons I prefer Obama are not because she is a woman or the size of her ankles. Nor would i support her because she cops this type of crap.
But she shouldn’t have to anymore than he should cop racism.
It’s to do with Iraq, mainly.
Spain’s Socialist Prime Minister Reelected After Tough Campaign
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/09/AR2008030902085.html?nav=rss_world
Malta: slim PN victory
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20080310/general-election-2008/no-majority-government-ad
I’m tempted to list all the crap pro-Clinton arguments on today’s blog that have been shot down like one-winged ducks at an NRA rally but the list would be too long. But you all know who you are.
1565 – Matthew Cole
Whilst I do not think much of the American Thinker article, the Houston Press one by Todd Spivak is now back online.
Its an interesting read, and from a journalist of reasonable credentials.
I also recommend that others read it, as it provides some further background on Obama that might be worth a further look.
I did not come to the same conclusions as Matthew at 1555 though.
Its interesting that we can draw parallels from Obama to Rudd in terms of allegations of ‘shouting’ at journalists 🙂
Its a far better effort in any case then Rain’s rubbish posted again at 1553, which has been debunked numerous times and is filled with factual in accuracies.
I see the desperation amongst the Hillary supporters – crunching and recrunching the numbers – hoping that she will just make it across the line. Maybe she will, maybe she won’t.
Hillary is declared the most experienced and therefore the most entitled to be President. Obama is portrayed as too risky.
Lots of dirt from Obama’s past is now being dug up, hoping that some of it will stick. More number crunching.
And then Obama supporters are told that they are deluded, that only if they come to their senses soon, they will realise that Hillary is the most suitable candidate.
Sound familiar? It’s a pseudo-rerun of Howard vs. Rudd last year.
The Howard supporters were getting more and more desperate, clearly reeling from the threat that Rudd was posing to their great annointed one.
And the same is happening here. Hillary supporters are getting desperate. The script was never meant to go this way. She was supposed to have been the Democrat nominee by now, just as Howard supporters assumed that Howard would win yet another election.
Obama threw a spanner into the works, but hey, give it some more time, a little more dirt, a few flashes of the fear card, and those stupid voters will wake up from sleepwalking, right?
The problem with the Hillary camp and some of their supporters is that they have not just underestimated their opponent – just as Howard and the Liberals underestimated Rudd – but have misjudged the mood of the people, an emerging new wave in the collective outlook on the world – just as Howard and the Liberals also did.
I fear that this misjudgement is still happening today. And that is why Obama will ultimately succeed… no matter how much the current numbers are crunched one way or another.
Girl seen in Clinton’s ‘3 a.m.’ ad supports Obama
hahahahahaha
Noocat –
you got it.
Although you are of course, deluded.
If only we’d just all wake up and realise how wrong we are…
No 1576
Ah, good old asanque is at it again. Dare anyone suggest a criticism of Obama, they are howled down as liars and rubbish-spinners.
“If only we’d just all wake up and realise how wrong we are…”
*sigh*- if only life were that simple…
1578
Max
It was posted here yesterday Max, but it’s truly the most amusing coincidence, eh?
Maybe Obama could so a spoof ad with the young woman, it would go down a treat.
#1574 – Dio – please do …… why not do it …… do it! …… just do it! ……. you must do it! …. i insist you do it …….i demand you do it! …. i dare you to do it …. well effing do it!
Pancho @ 1570
What that quote missed was that if there ends up being a gay candidate in November, it will probably be from their side.
Daily Kos’ (perhaps tongue-in-cheek) explanation of why McCain will not pick Charlie Crist as his VP candidate is that he is “probably too gay”. I couldn’t care less if the rumours are true or not, but they exist, and I agree that the likely reaction of people like our friends at The American Thinker probably rules Crist out of VP contention, however unfair that may be.
Dio, you said you weren’t much up to speed on Pakistan, well the one thing you must know about it is the way American funds have been diverted across the border to, er, kill Americans. This rather long article, based on interviews with a Taliban defector (he got sick of Pakistan running his country), is an eye-popper.
Musharraf played them for mugs, clearly, and it’s no wonder violence is up and security is down.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/03/10/taliban/index.html
GP also see 1554 where I am flagellated to within an inch of my essence by his blistering repartee. I also thank him for the character reference.
Yeah poor old asanque is becoming a bit detached from the truth of the situation and more petulant by the blog.
Here’s my tribute song for him because I am sure he is always looking for a reason to believe in Obama.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMT8wj_YiV8
1580 – GP
Well, actually generally its for those with a record in lies and rubbish, such as yourself and Rain.
and GG 🙂
GP & GG, the circle is complete. The Howard huggers have teamed with the Clinton cuddlers to defeat the forces of light. How do you say…LOL!
TW,
There is far more heat than light on this site.
The following is a pre-paid community service announcement:
This thread is about to be forwarded to the Guiness Book Of Records for inclusion in its upcoming edition under the category:
“Most Comments On A Single Psephological Thread”
Thank you for your ongoing patronage.
——————————
Pssst, Glen and Adam,
Atheistic Socialism has once again prevailed on the Western Iberian Peninsula. Neoconservative Spanish opposition leaders will be executed at dawn tomorrow. Their obituaries will be penned by Anthony Beevor in Guardian Weekly. May god have mercy on their souls.
I think the Rodent would be a bit miffed at being compared with the Billary. He does share many characteristics with her, such as mendacity, egotism, lack of party loyalty, willingness to bend or break any rule to suit, hypocrisy and craven lust for power. But Howie at least made it on his own merit, not just because he was married to a successful Governor and then President. Does anyone honestly believe a junior senator with seven years experience with not a single notable achievement would be a candidate if it wasn’t for Bill? 🙄
Here is more mirth from the girl in the ‘Red Phone’ ad who is actually a campaigner for Obama.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOxaYKHJu3k
It seems Clinton’s experience did not lead her to vet the people appearing in her ads. Shades of Howard ’07.
And to the feminists who will undoubtedly complain about my previous post, I saw Germaine Greer on TV tonight and even she couldn’t come at endorsing because she couldn’t understand why feminists would want to support a lady who was only there because of her husband. 😀
Evening bludgers.
The handbags have been unholstered today! I havent seen this much snark since the notorious 1983 Wauchope CWA Ladies annual recipe convention where Gladys suggested that Mauds scones needed more buttermilk.
Max at 1578 raises something interesting – is it just me or are Clintons political ads suffering the same problem as her politics.
Both based on 10 year old footage.
And anyone that thinks Obama is the babe in the woods, he’s probably more machiavellian than Clinton. He just seems to be better at it.
The irony there is that it probably shows up claims ever his “inexperience” for what they are (and let’s face it, GWB had experience, so it cant really be much of an argument 🙂 ), but at the expense of showing what he is really like.
A professional Democrat politician.
AH YOOZ KIN ALL GARN GET STUFFED!!!
– H R Clinton in a recorded message to the people of Wyoming
This cartoon was linked on LP a couple of weeks back, and here now on C&L.
Any inference that it could possibly be directed at present participants is unintended and if apt, entirely coincidental:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/03/09/open-thread-743/
EC @ 1590
and we already have a place for them
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monumento_Nacional_de_Santa_Cruz_del_Valle_de_los_Caidos
No 1586
Spare us the Rod Stewart love songs GG LOL!! 😉
A generally high level of snark I must say. Though GG, you’re leaving your artistic credibility flank open to attack by using Rod Stewart.