Bill Clinton: Hillary Has To Win Texas And Ohio

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 04:25:42 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

By Big Tent Democrat

Via TPM, it's semi-official, Hillary Clinton has to win Texas and Ohio:

If she wins Texas and Ohio I think she will be the nominee; if you don't then I don't think she can. It's all on you," the former president told the audience at the beginning of his speech.

Of course, Obama and his supporters do not agree with the first part but certainly we all agree with the second part.

Texas and Ohio are the last stand.

< O'Reilly Holds Off On "Lynching Party" For Michelle Obama | Texas May Be Hillary's Last Chance >

The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

Menu

Home | About | RSS
E-Mail | Comment Policy |
Search
Login

Make a new account

Existing Users

Username:
Password:
Creator and Principal Author
- Jeralyn E. Merritt
TL Alumni

Contribute To TalkLeft

Sections
Site Credits
- TalkLeft Graphics by C.L., Our Man in Hollywood (2006 - 2008)
- TalkLeft Header Graphic by Monk
- Powered by Scoop
Legal
- All Content Copyright ©2002-2024. Reprints only by permission from TalkLeft.com
- Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.
- TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.
"The pump don't work 'cause the vandals took the handles"
© 1965 Bob Dylan

Bill Clinton: Hillary Has To Win Texas And Ohio | 91 comments (91 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I think this is where the goal posts will stay (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by andgarden on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 04:31:13 PM EST

Bill is a much better political advisor than Penn or Wolfson.

And I love his line (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by andgarden on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 04:33:36 PM EST

"Texas is the only place in America where you can vote twice in one election and not go to jail."

Parent

Ha! (none / 0) (#7)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 04:38:07 PM EST

That the Big Dog's?

Parent

Yup (none / 0) (#9)
by andgarden on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 04:41:01 PM EST

watch the video on the right side of the ABC page.

Parent

He's the best (5.00 / 5) (#12)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 04:43:26 PM EST

Obama will rue the day he neutralized him as an asset.

Parent

So (none / 0) (#22)
by Jgarza on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 04:56:06 PM EST

let me get this straight? Bill Clinton is Obamas fault?

That goes right in with the line of reasoning that said it is obamas fault Dodd Biden and Richardson lost?

Parent

Yes (5.00 / 3) (#26)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 04:58:47 PM EST

It is very much Obama's fault. He chose to demonize them.

Parent

And the choice to Demonize (5.00 / 1) (#70)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 06:27:21 PM EST

Bill wasn't just bad for Obama, it was bad for Democrats....in the LONG term.

There are plenty of ways for a Democrat to win without attempting to destroy a Democratic president.

Parent

: When was Bill Clinton destroyed? (none / 0) (#86)
by Luke D on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:13:29 PM EST

Lots of people have "attempted to destroy" or "demonize" Bill Clinton, but I don't think Barack Obama is one of them, and I don't think any of the people who has tried has ever really succeeded (though all of them would surely be sore if it were a Democrat who did what they could not). I'd characterize it as normal give and take of a competitive political campaign, which Bill Clinton has proven he can take.
And since when do we expect our politicians not to respond to attacks? Is there a civility rule somewhere that it is above board for former presidents to work for a campaign and attack the other frontrunner, but that they have a "no backsies" shield that makes return fire beyond the pale?
Let's keep the discussion serious.

Parent
: Absolutely! (none / 0) (#93)
by kenoshaMarge on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 06:45:20 AM EST

This was when I first began to dislike Obama so much. In the last 40 years we have had only 2 Democrats in the White House and the Obama campaign chooses to demean the only successful one. I could not and do not understand it. But even though Bill Clinton will emerge from this bashing as he has emerged from so many other bashings it has taken it's toll and it has damaged the Democratic Party. Just one of the things I find unforgivable about Obama.
I'm hoping in Texas but do they have an open primary so that Republican crossovers can skew the vote as it did here in Wisconsin? (Before anyone tries to stomp me for saying it, the Republicans and Rightwing Radio are bragging about it.)

Parent

so when Bill attacked him (none / 0) (#32)
by Jgarza on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:04:06 PM EST

he should have?

If you want to blame someone it's the person that tossed away his mettle of elder statesman to become attack dog.

So what else is Obama's fault?

Parent

He should have let it go (5.00 / 2) (#37)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:12:10 PM EST

the Media was going to attack Bill for him.

Parent

: I'm going to let this one go (none / 0) (#79)
by AF on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 06:45:46 PM EST

and let my fellow Obama supporters attack you for it.

Parent

Tired (5.00 / 6) (#56)
by tek on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:59:53 PM EST

of hearing how "Bill attacked" He never attacked Barack Obama. He certainly never demonized Obama or anyone. You people really need to do a little research and get your facts straight instead of just reading biased junk like HuffPo and the other All Obama All the Time blogs.

Parent

It suppose it depends (none / 0) (#81)
by AF on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:07:04 PM EST

on what the definition of "attack" is.

It takes some parsing but here's Bill's non-confession confession:

I did not ever criticize Senator Obama personally in South Carolina. I never criticized him personally...and it was just this myth grew up.

(emphasis added)

The words "in South Carolina" were well-chosen because his "fairy tale" rant was in New Hampshire. According to Bill, this was not "personal" criticism. Maybe so, but in a political campaign "criticize" and "attack" are synonyms.

Okay, I did my research. Where's yours?

Parent

: Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#83)
by Kathy on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:11:41 PM EST

said that it was a fairy tale that Obama's consistently voting to fund the war had not been vetted.
I would not call that an attack. I would call it a statement of fact.

Parent

Notice the pictures of Obama and Hillary? (none / 0) (#91)
by splashy on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:37:57 PM EST

His is smiling with a hat that makes him look more "down home" while hers looks like she's anxious and showing the sign for a little body part.

Parent

So, according to Bill, if Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by oculus on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 04:50:17 PM EST

its the fault of the voters of TX and OH. Lets Mark Penn off the hook.

Well, I think he's trying.... (5.00 / 3) (#38)
by CathyinLa on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:12:56 PM EST

...to invest people into getting the vote out for her.

Should he drum up support for her by listing hers, his and Mark Penns mistakes and say: eh, would you please vote for her anyway?

Parent

: Nope. I was kidding. (5.00 / 2) (#44)
by oculus on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:29:23 PM EST

Mark Penn doesn't have a very good reputation around here.

Parent

I view his statement with a mix of relief and (5.00 / 3) (#21)
by athyrio on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 04:56:04 PM EST

tremendous sadness as I don't want Hillary to have to endure anymore than she already has...She is one brave lady and I have the utmost respect for her in any arena...

I think it diffuses the BS (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by andgarden on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 04:58:55 PM EST

about how Hillary is supposedly going to try and steal delegates.

Parent

: If she loses Ohio or Texas, (none / 0) (#78)
by MKS on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 06:45:21 PM EST

then she should concede, and if not, the Superdelegates should step in and stop the fight before it gets even more ugly. A slow grinding loss by Hillary helps no one....

Parent

Her vote on Iran (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by MKS on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 04:56:49 PM EST

when few Democrats voted for it puts her into the hawkish wing of the Democratic Party.

his failure to vote (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by Kathy on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 04:58:52 PM EST

on the Iran resolution when he was in DC that day puts her in the "present" wing of the democratic party.

Parent

: Hey wait, I thought he was in NH? (none / 0) (#49)
by oculus on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:43:49 PM EST

Parent

It also makes her the better nominee (none / 0) (#46)
by Cream City on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:41:50 PM EST

to get a lot of the moderates, the security moms, etc. That's how I figured that we could win back the White House.

I am not as confident that Obama can do as well in November, so I am resigning myself to a Republican winning again.

Parent

What do you think, CC, will we (none / 0) (#51)
by oculus on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:45:54 PM EST

change our minds? I also do not anticipate Obama will beat McCain.

Parent

: I always may change my mind (none / 0) (#66)
by Cream City on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 06:19:32 PM EST

if I see "macaca moments," health problems, etc., by any candidates. But based on the political realities that will remain unchanged -- demographics, for example -- I don't see Obama doing it. And I cannot tell you how much that depresses me after the horrible Bush years, especially following the good economy and social progress of the Clinton years.

Parent

Do you have the same opinion (none / 0) (#61)
by MKS on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 06:07:54 PM EST

regarding Obama's appeal to moderates based on vouchers?

The war and peace issue is crucial....I have always assumed her war votes were strategic to preserve her viability as commander-in-chief....(Or she is an outright hawk. Either way.) I disagree with agreeing with war in order to get elected....following the crowd....

Parent

Not sure I understand your query (none / 0) (#65)
by Cream City on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 06:17:22 PM EST

Is this in response to my posts on the disaster of voucher schools in Milwaukee? That scheme was not an appeal to moderates; it's conservatives who love it.

Parent

I am Independent (none / 0) (#71)
by MKS on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 06:29:11 PM EST

and I'm not necessarily opposed to vouchers....I thought Obama's comments on that, as well as on having some flexibility on entitlements, is a point in his favor--while I understand that most here see things differently.....

I also think his lack of mandates in his health care plan, and unwillingness to impose a moritorium on foreclsosures, while creating a fund to assist borrowers, is vey smart and preferable from my point of view....

My views are very similar to Lincoln Chafee's, who voted against the Iraq war.

On the margins, Obama has a few economic policies that appeal to moderates...So, isn't that a good thing--all part of winning the election?

You seem willing to give Hillary an incredible amount of slack on her war votes....as a means of getting her elected.....I think opposing the war is the goal, not electing Hillary.

Parent

: You seem willing to see (none / 0) (#89)
by Cream City on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:45:52 PM EST

what isn't there. I said nothing about the war votes yet. I had posted on the voucher plan, because it was about Milwaukee's plan, and I live there and know its impact all too well. So your reply re the vouchers seemed relevant to my posts, and I tackled that point first.
I would now discuss the war vote with you, but -- now I won't, as you certainly have started with an attitude before even getting my point of view. I would prefer to spend time with other sorts.

Parent

I dread it so. When Gore gave his speech (4.60 / 10) (#11)
by Teresa on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 04:43:03 PM EST

after the Supreme Court decision, it hurt so bad that I swore I would never care so deeply about a particular candidate again. In 2004, I didn't care who won though I would have preferred Clark. I was upset that Bush won but not so much that Kerry lost.

I started out hoping that HC wouldn't run because I knew the media would destroy her. I never dreamed that so many people that I used to respect would so actively help them do it.

I started out thinking we'd be fine with any of the top four or five running. When the attacks started on her, I became more and more emotionally invested in her campaign. As I see her on the verge of losing, I can't describe the sadness I feel. I feel like it's happening to a member of my family.

I don't think she'll win Texas and Ohio and I think she should drop out with the kind of gracious speech that makes me proud to share a party with her.

I'll vote for Obama and be happy if he wins. If he loses, he'll just be another John Kerry for me and I'll feel very bad for our country but not so much for him.

Next primary, I'm back to no emotional investment.

: Teresa, your comment rings true (5.00 / 1) (#47)
by oculus on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:41:54 PM EST

to me. Can't say I had all that much emotion invested in Gore or Kerry either. Of course, I didn't start reading and/or commenting on blogs until just before the 2004 election.

Parent
: Very (none / 0) (#58)
by tek on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 06:01:16 PM EST

touching post. I also never thought I would be unhappy with the Democratic nominee, but I had seen so much wrong stuff from Obama months ago I never thought he would be a serious contender.

Parent
: Perfect post. (none / 0) (#75)
by ahazydelirium on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 06:38:22 PM EST

I sympathize so much.
This is the only time during politics that I've been so emotionally invested that I spend my days dwelling on this campaign and hoping Hillary will get the nomination. I've choked up twice listening to her speak, and I nearly broke down during her Super Tuesday speech.
Her grace and strength during this campaign have impressed me more than anything any politician has down during my 21 years.

Parent

ohio (none / 0) (#1)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 04:28:58 PM EST

A talking head said this AM that Ohio is just like WI except with more AA's and better college sports.

On the whole, not too far off I'd say.

Ohio is same as national norm in AAs (5.00 / 1) (#55)
by Cream City on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:55:21 PM EST

at 12%, Wisconsin at 6%. Ohio has far better record of women winning political office -- but has same poor record on women's reproductive rights, with an F for both states. Otherwise, yes, education and income levels similar -- although women better on those in Ohio, below national norms in Wisconsin -- with similar strong industrial and union base and strong German heritage (and like beer).

But Wisconsin has better Great Lakes, both of them on our border. So the business base is a bit different; although both historical have a strong industrial base, and Ohio's is rebounding better than Wisconsin's from the Rustbelt devastation, Wisconsin at large is less industrial (the top industry is tourism) and has fewer large cities of the size of those in Ohio.

Just offering all of these factors that have had some significance for the campaign so far.

Parent

Does Ohio do the Fri fish-fry also? (none / 0) (#59)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 06:02:01 PM EST

Parent

Dunno -- it's not as Catholic (none / 0) (#64)
by Cream City on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 06:15:44 PM EST

but I'll have to check on that. Good one!

And then I'll have to see if Ohioans bowl as much as Wisconsinites do -- Milwaukee being the home of the American Bowling Congress. :-)

Parent

: I've broken 100 several times, I'm proud to say. (none / 0) (#68)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 06:20:27 PM EST

Parent

Here are the (none / 0) (#76)
by PlayInPeoria on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 06:38:27 PM EST

Census Bureau facts for Ohio.

Parent

Bill didn't say she will win TX and OH, (none / 0) (#3)
by oculus on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 04:31:14 PM EST

he sd. she has to.

He didn't say... (none / 0) (#5)
by mike in dc on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 04:33:42 PM EST

...how much she had to win by. If she wins narrowly in both, she stays alive, but her prospects for getting the nomination are still less than 50-50. If she wins by 10 in Ohio and loses by 5 in Texas, this would appear to suggest she's still done for.
Now, Obama just has to win or "tie" one of these two states, and it doesn't look as daunting as it did even a week ago.

Of course, there are still two debates and a few dozen more fatuous beltway pundit op-ed pieces about "why Obama lost me" to come. He could commit a gaffe, or stumble at a debate.

But I think the CW that Obama has about an 80% shot and Clinton about a 20% shot is about right.

That is your view (none / 0) (#6)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 04:37:36 PM EST

Interestingly, I think if she wins by any margin NOW, she is very much back in it.

Why? Expectations. At this point she is EXPECTED to lose. Real momentum might develop from it.

Parent

back in it maybe (none / 0) (#13)
by Jgarza on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 04:44:41 PM EST

the nominee as he said. that would be tough.

Parent

maybe (none / 0) (#14)
by coigue on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 04:45:52 PM EST

also if the superdelegates start to perceive Obama as vulnerable on terrorism against McCain

Parent

But now Obama has the perfect (none / 0) (#16)
by oculus on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 04:48:51 PM EST

argument, which is even up on Huffington Post: Bush did exactly what Obama stated during a debate: go into Pacistan w or w/o that government's pre-approval, and take out the terrorist leaders.

Parent

Was that Obama's plan before or after (5.00 / 1) (#50)
by Cream City on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:45:46 PM EST

he labeled Senator Clinton as D-Punjab?

Parent

Even? (5.00 / 1) (#60)
by tek on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 06:03:35 PM EST

up on Huffington Post? That post has every word Obama ever said posted.

Parent

: You're right. I forgot! (none / 0) (#73)
by oculus on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 06:34:00 PM EST

Well, not every word. They are definitely minimizing his use of the words of others.

Parent

I suppose (none / 0) (#19)
by coigue on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 04:52:31 PM EST

it's more the perception the superdelegates might worry about than the reality. They want to back the winner.

So hopefully he can prove now, as McCain starts to attack him, that he is not vulnerable.

Parent

McCain (none / 0) (#18)
by Jgarza on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 04:52:23 PM EST

wants to ask permission to Kill Osama? who is weka on terrorism?

Parent

erm...does perception = reality? (none / 0) (#20)
by coigue on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 04:53:46 PM EST

Were the swiftboaters against Kerry right?

Or were they effective?

Parent

seriously (1.00 / 0) (#25)
by Jgarza on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 04:58:07 PM EST

you think that the GOP can just make up any little thing and it will destroy Obama, but Hillary had this magical power that would defeat it?

Parent

: Wher did I say that? (5.00 / 2) (#31)
by coigue on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:00:43 PM EST

Hmmmmmm?
I am not the hyperpartisan you think I am.
Perhaps a you should learn to read.

Parent

also (none / 0) (#24)
by Kathy on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 04:58:05 PM EST

with TX and OH, she will have again won the populous states with the more varied demographics.

That's a compelling argument for the nomination.

Has anyone noticed that the Washington State primary had Clinton and Obama basically within a couple of percentage points, and that an overwhelming number voted in the primary as opposed to the caucus? MyDD has the numbers:

Caucus results: Votes Percentages Delegates
Barack Obama - 21,768 - 68% 53
Hillary Clinton - 10,038 - 31% 25

Primary results:
Candidate Votes Percentage Delegates
Barack Obama 259,323 - 50.40% 0
Hillary Clinton 243,306 - 47.29% 0

Parent

those "votes" (1.00 / 0) (#29)
by Jgarza on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 04:59:25 PM EST

for caucus are delegates not actual participation. stop printing falsehoods.

Parent

I did a cut and paste (5.00 / 2) (#34)
by Kathy on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:04:43 PM EST

from MyDD, as I stated. You will do well not to launch spurious attacks against me. If Jeralyn feels I am printing a falsehood, then she will remove it.

The overall result that you seem to be missing is the percentage points, which I think are significant.

Parent

You are right (none / 0) (#36)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:11:19 PM EST

but no need to insult Kathy.

The estimated turnout in the WA caucus was 200,000.

Parent

: thank you, BTD (none / 0) (#40)
by Kathy on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:19:48 PM EST

MyDD says closer to 250K (I read down thread past the percentages), but if I am reading the diary correctly, twice as many voted in the primaries--which don't count.
This is all so insane.

Parent

just to clarify... (none / 0) (#33)
by jor on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:04:41 PM EST

she is not expected to lose both states. I think the expectation is she will be out of the race on March 5th. Obama has to just win one.

Parent

Just to clarify (none / 0) (#35)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:09:00 PM EST

Sorry, the expectation is CLEARLY that she will lose both now.

silly to pretend otherwise.

Parent

It doesn't really matter, though, does it? (none / 0) (#39)
by sweetthings on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:16:53 PM EST

Mathematically, I don't see any way for her to survive unless she wins both. Even if she's expected to lose both and manages to win one, she's still finished. Granted, she'll go out with a bang, but momentum after the fact isn't very helpful.

If either of those states gets away from her, I think it'll be over. The Supers (and everyone else) will converge on Obama and Hillary will come under intense pressure to concede. Nobody wants this primary to go on any longer than it has to.

Parent

It matters a lot (none / 0) (#41)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:21:13 PM EST

If Hillary starts winning and starts closing the gap, the Super Delegates are back in play.

Do not be so sure that a 50 delegate lead is secure.

Yesterday, Obama picked up what 18 delegates net? That is not what made it a big night for him.

Parent

: Is it possible... (none / 0) (#52)
by sweetthings on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:47:53 PM EST

We're discussing two different scenarios?
If Hillary wins both, then yeah, it's a big deal. She stays alive to fight on till at least Pennsylvania. She'll stand to gain a huge burst of momentum and will maintain the loyalty of her committed Supers.
But if she loses either of them, then I don't think the fact that she was expected to lose both will help her much. It gets very difficult to see how she might get the nod without both of those states under her belt.
Winning both might well be huge for her. Winning one...I suspect not so much.

Parent

She's only expected to lose... (none / 0) (#42)
by mike in dc on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:24:40 PM EST

...if the polling in OH/TX begins to reflect the CW. If she's still up by 10 points in each state on election eve, she doesn't gain much momentum by eking out wins by a few points.

Parent

: I disagree. (5.00 / 1) (#45)
by CathyinLa on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:32:48 PM EST

This is not what I expect to happen, but if she wins TX and OH after losing 10 in a row by huge margins, the question about Obama being able to keep those blue collar voters in big states starts all over again.
Imagine if she gets them back, they'll wonder what Obama has to do to keep them, why'd he lose them?

Parent

True. (none / 0) (#10)
by ajain on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 04:42:24 PM EST

I think Hillary has to make the point that Obama's Iraq war "opposition" is a classic example of how he says one thing and votes the other way.

That is the only thing I hold against her (none / 0) (#15)
by coigue on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 04:46:35 PM EST

: what about flag-burning? (none / 0) (#67)
by A DC Wonk on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 06:19:57 PM EST

and stated opposition to retroactivity to lowered drug sentences?
Just asking.

Parent

Fortunately for Hillary and Bill (none / 0) (#30)
by athyrio on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 04:59:55 PM EST

their campaigning for Obama will only hurt him as he has demonized and put down every thing they have stood for so they can return home with a clear concience...She can continue to wield her power in the Senate....

Doesn't show the post-Wisconsin bounce (none / 0) (#48)
by Cream City on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:43:41 PM EST

for Obama yet. Give it a couple of days.

: ok... (none / 0) (#54)
by jor on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:53:23 PM EST

... once that kicks in, if she is behind, then we can lower expectations.

Parent

Republican Flip Flop (none / 0) (#53)
by Sunshine on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:49:39 PM EST

I'm in Texas and the Republicans are voting in the Democratic primary for Obama, this is pretty publicly talked about.. That is why you will see the women's vote go to Obama, these are Republican women... Wolfe Blitzer last night was giving the percentages of the WI exit polls, the number of people that voted in the Democratic and Republican primarys, at one point only 9% had voted in the Republican primary, how many Republicans do you think voted in the Democratic primary and who do you think they voted for? And is that why the women vote was going to Obama?

Yes and that is why Obama is the (none / 0) (#57)
by athyrio on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 06:00:03 PM EST

Republican chosen candidate for the democrats as crazy as that sounds....what the democrats want matters little these days I fear....Kudos to Karl Rove...

Parent

I do not believe (none / 0) (#63)
by MKS on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 06:14:14 PM EST

you have more than a handful of strategic voters....

Most polls show Indepedents like Obama....That would suggest there is no nefarious effort of any consequence to throw the election to the "easier" oppoent--especially since all public statements by Republican opinion makers are that they actually prefer to run against Hillary, whom McCain consistently leads in the polls....

Parent

Of course they will say that in public about (5.00 / 1) (#69)
by athyrio on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 06:21:49 PM EST

wanting to run against Hillary but then if true why do they encourage all who are listening to vote for Obama ......Kinda easy to see their plot.....

Parent

And why does David Brooks (none / 0) (#72)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 06:29:38 PM EST

and Petty Noonan LOVE Obama. They would never vote for a Democrat.

(Okay, I typo'ed "Petty" instead of "Peggy" but I liked it so I left it ;-).)

Parent

My--that's some grassy knoll you got there (none / 0) (#74)
by MKS on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 06:35:47 PM EST

So, all the public comments are that Republicans prefer to run against Hillary, but there is a secret consipiracy understood by at least tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands of Republicans, to vote for Obama, and not one word of this has leaked out...

You give them too much credit.....

Parent

Grassy (5.00 / 1) (#77)
by Sunshine on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 06:43:08 PM EST

That has leaked out in Texas... Maybe the MSM isn't talking about it but that doesn't mean that it is not happening...

Parent

But it has leaked out... (5.00 / 1) (#80)
by sumac on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 06:57:00 PM EST

Here in Texas it is a pretty well known "secret" that (some) Republicans are going to vote for Obama though they have no intention of voting for him in the GE. That's not to say that all Republicans who vote for Obama are doing so to sabotage the Democratic nominee in the GE, but when you start to hear a reoccurring theme, it's no longer as easy to dismiss as a conspiracy theory.

It's really quite dispiriting.

Parent

Knowing Texas (none / 0) (#82)
by MKS on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:08:36 PM EST

it would seem any such motivation would be to get a chance to beat Hillary, rather than a strategic wish to elevate an easier opponent.....The data doesn't show that Hillary is the tougher candidate.

Parent

I didn't say it did (none / 0) (#84)
by sumac on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:15:36 PM EST

I don't know what "data" has inspired anyone to switch parties for a day to basically vote against a candidate in another party. But it does present some interesting questions, doesn't it?

Parent

: And I would add... (none / 0) (#85)
by sumac on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:30:08 PM EST

I don't see Republicans ushering in an unstoppable candidate (Obama - and he may very well be unstoppable) all for the satisfaction of beating Hillary during the primaries.

Parent

Knoll quite grassy in Wisconsin (5.00 / 1) (#88)
by Cream City on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:31:40 PM EST

where (see more in earlier posts) I know the state, county by country, and results show unquestionably a massive crossover. Counties where a Dem cannot get elected did not suddenly see the light of Obama's greatness and come over in droves that will be with us again in November -- evangelical, fundie counties that turned out twice as many votes for Dems as for the GOP yesterday.

The crossover is traditional here in open primaries when the GOP contest is settled; this time, it was encouraged on conservative blogs and talk radio (both very active here) and the largest paper in the state essentially put the how-to on its front page.

I said it would happen because I knew the history here, saw the conservative campaign to do so, and can read the results county by county. When a Texan who is there says the same thing is happening there, believe it. It makes sense.

Parent

Condescending (none / 0) (#87)
by Luke D on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:28:21 PM EST

So all of his crowds and support with core Democratic voters is meaningless trickery by evil Karl if someone somewhere finds some Republicans who joined the parade line? I have nothing against Hillary Clinton, but I can't stand this practice I've been seeing over the last few weeks of assuming everyone who doesn't vote for her doesn't speak for "real" Democrats.

Parent

GO 12 State Stratergery! it worked great (none / 0) (#62)
by seabos84 on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 06:14:00 PM EST

for kerry and gore ...

well, it did work great for the mcaulliffe crowd cuz if gore or kerry had won would hillary have made this far in '08 ???

ugh.

rmm.

Difficult for Clintons (none / 0) (#90)
by timber on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:24:48 PM EST

Damn if you do, damn if you dont.

If you become candid, they will attack you and turn your words against you.

If you are careful with what you say, they will be attacked as scripted, manufactured, and not authentic.

Krugman calls it the Clinton rule.

I think they are just too nice--that media feels safe attacking them.

However, their claws come out when they touch their daughter. That is why media is careful now about their daughter.

The Clinton Campaign in Financial Trouble (none / 0) (#92)
by Aaron on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:22:35 AM EST

January yields debt for HRC, cash for Obama

Bill Clinton: Hillary Has To Win Texas And Ohio | 91 comments (91 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment