home

Schweitzer: Let The Contest Continue

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:42:44 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer:

Gov. Brian Schweitzer said he would like to see the race between Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama continue to Montana's June 3 primary, the last contest in the nation. . . . "Ya know, it's nearly tied," Schweitzer said in an interview. "I think it's been good for the Democratic Party. There's millions of new voters, lots of excitement and energy. I don't know, let the voting continue. Might as well let Montana finish the voting." . . ."It was exciting that the presidential candidates came to Montana, and they now have active presidential campaigns in Montana," the governor said.

Cue the Netroots denunciations of the evil Schweitzer.

By Big Tent Democrat

< Did Obama Win On Iraq? No | Living In The Past >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Schweitzer: Let The Contest Continue | 155 comments (155 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Parochial interest (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Ben Masel on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:48:10 PM EST
    not saying it's ALL that motivates him, but Montana gains a lot of $ by Obama, Clinton, and their media escorts eating, sleeping, and buying spots in the State.

    And? (5.00 / 5) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:08:09 PM EST
    If there is an election in Novemebr that involves Dems in Montana, maybe a little Dem parochial interest.

    Parent
    A true 50 state strategy (5.00 / 7) (#32)
    by Kathy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:10:01 PM EST
    is all about reaching into red states like this, right?  No one in their right mind thinks that MT is gonna turn bright blue next November, but having dems show up and actively politic can't be a bad thing, right?

    Wasn't that why this whole stupid primary was revamped, anyway, to give smaller states that normally are ignored some attention?

    Parent

    We're already deep purple, (none / 0) (#89)
    by eleanora on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:47:47 PM EST
    Dem gov and two Dem Senators, and only one Republican holds statewide office here. Clinton won MT in 1992 and a Democrat with a good economic plan who stands up for civil liberties could at least keep MT close this year.

    Parent
    The parochial interest of wanting Montana (5.00 / 6) (#63)
    by Joelarama on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:30:25 PM EST
    voters to participate in an election, and feel that for once their vote might actually make a difference.

    Parent
    Not mutually exclusive. (none / 0) (#82)
    by Ben Masel on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:42:16 PM EST


    Parent
    Yes, but you chose to emphasize the one you (none / 0) (#85)
    by Joelarama on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:44:33 PM EST
    did.  

    Parent
    He's Montana's Governor before (none / 0) (#151)
    by Ben Masel on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:08:10 PM EST
    he's a Democratic Governor. Nothing wrong with that.

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Steve M on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:48:22 PM EST
    I sure hope no one expected him to say anything else!  No one is going to say no to the media attention and tourism dollars that come from having a meaningful primary.

    They'd better not denounce him. (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by madamab on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:50:47 PM EST
    He is a great example of how to win an election in the Mountain West.

    But wait...is he a Bubba and must therefore be purged?

    So confused, so confused. Help me, Chris Bowers, help me!

    alas madamab (5.00 / 6) (#46)
    by kenoshaMarge on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:20:31 PM EST
    I do believe he is a bubba. Well educated, well traveled, well liked in his state, moderate, he drives a pickup truck, wears a flannel shirt and none of it is phony, that's who and what he is. Definately a great big teddy bear of a bubba. Thus he must be purged.

    Parent
    Nooooooo! (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by madamab on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:25:49 PM EST
    Another one bites the dust.

    But we must obey the wishes of the Creative Class at all costs, must we not? ;-)

    Since Schweitzer has a crazy high approval rating, I don't think the rejecting and denouncing will do a whole hell of a lot. The laugh is really on them and their delusions of grandeur.

    Parent

    Re: They'd better not denounce him. (none / 0) (#156)
    by Sleeper on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:22:51 PM EST
    "I am outraged, OUTRAGED, about this hypothetical denunciation that has yet to happen!!!"

    Parent
    Nearly tied. (5.00 / 7) (#6)
    by rooge04 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:53:56 PM EST
    Did no one tell Schweitzer it's been won like 3 times already? :)

    uh-oh (none / 0) (#83)
    by Josey on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:43:12 PM EST
    I'll bet this news won't make it to DailyO where Schweitzer is well liked.
     

    Parent
    Many of them don't like it when Bubba gets uppity. (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Joelarama on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:47:12 PM EST
    Perhaps McJoan will speak some sense on this.  I really don't care enough to go over to Daily-O and look at the reaction.

    Parent
    It will be interesting to see (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by shoephone on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:54:10 PM EST
    the Blog Boyz denounce him, since Sirota's claim to fame was as Schweitzer's campaign director.

    I have (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:05:57 PM EST
    all over.

    Parent
    The problem with (5.00 / 5) (#77)
    by TomP on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:39:12 PM EST
    many in the "netroots" is that no dissent to Obama's positions seems to be allowed.  Obama's okay on most isuses, a moderate, but certainly on Dkos, amny, including a few front pagers (e.g., DHinMI) will attack any questioning on issues as "concern trolls." I note a Dvid Mizner diary in which this occurred, even though David voted for Obama.

    I have no problem voting for Obama over McCain.  Obama clearly is a lot better.  But I do have aproblem with being required to check barckobama.com before I can think or opinine on an issue.  

    Certainly neutrals are attacked.  I saw comments on Daily Kos today attacking John Edwards for not fully endorsing Obama today, even though he clearly tilted toward him and implied he voted for Obama.

    It is not enough for some that a person support or vote for Barack Obama.  These few but loud folks demand faith in and obedience to Obama.

    That's not politics.  It's something else.

    And if those people's attitudes get out to the general public, many will be turned off.

    It's not a video game for children.  Defeating McCain matters.

    The viciousness I have seen by front pagers,  blog owners, and some Obama supporters toward Clinton and her supporters, along with the occasional sexism, was wrong.  

    Parent

    Re: The problem with (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Sleeper on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:15:51 PM EST
    There was a similar post on Kos asking/petitioning/demanding Robert Byrd endorse Obama before WV.  It was a little too strident and basically said that he owed it because he was in the Klan fifty years ago, but I understood the basic argument: now that the tide seems to have turned, it's for the best to end the contest and maximize the time of reconciliation and strategizing.  I can see their argument but since we've come so far, why not just finish the primary schedule, let everyone participate, and then come together?  Honestly, if things were reversed and Clinton had eked out a narrow but insurmountable lead over Obama, you would hear the same calls for Obama to drop out and for supers to pledge to Clinton now, today, immediately.

    I don't think it's an Obama thing.  I think it's an exhaustion thing.  And I understand the reasoning but it's probably for the best to let the rest of the states have their say, and then it's on to Denver to finish this.

    Parent

    The idea of exhaustion (none / 0) (#164)
    by mg7505 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:01:21 PM EST
    doesn't mean much to me. I am exhausted of the coverage of this campaign, but honestly I haven't yet seen enough of these candidates or the issues. It's easy to throw one's hands up and say you're exhausted, but truth be told we haven't yet fleshed out these candidates' true differences in style and policy yet. The fact that rallies are still so well attended and the campaign coverage is so heavy seems to support this point. Plus we let them get away with starting the campaign so early, and now we've got to deal with the consequences. But when you think about it, we've only had a few months of primaries -- about 40 primaries in that period of time!

    If Hillary's still fighting through round 50, how can we claim to be exhausted?

    Parent

    Re: The idea of exhaustion (none / 0) (#173)
    by Sleeper on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:34:31 PM EST
    Only 4 months of primaries, but over a year of campaigning.  It gets to you.

    Honestly, if I had to guess, Clinton is continuing to get her wins in WV and KY so she can withdraw on a high note.  Maybe they'll give her a huge bounce so she can go on, but almost certainly not.  But she has to see her odds are not good.

    Parent

    I think (none / 0) (#87)
    by CanadianDem on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:45:11 PM EST
    they s/he means actual posts, not comments.

    Parent
    BTD (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:54:28 PM EST
    love your snark! Yeah! Let the denunciations begin!

    And I think Obama made a mistake by trying to declare victory already. It's probably ticked more than a few Hillary supporters off.

    May 20. (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by oculus on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:02:58 PM EST


    Parent
    Yes. Let's put the blame where it should be. (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by rooge04 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:06:29 PM EST
    Right on Obama. He who will declare victory on May 20 when he'll magically have "won." Again.  

    Parent
    And apparently (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:24:24 PM EST
    he even has an aircraft photo op all lined up.

    (tongue in cheek)
    Link

    Parent

    How is that different... (none / 0) (#114)
    by Sleeper on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:22:23 PM EST
    ...than every confident candidate this year or in years past saying that by such and such a date, this contest will be over?  Or whoever wins this state and that state will be the overall winner?

    I think at this point some people are just looking for things to complain about.  Given the polling and the delegate count so far, it's not imperious overreaching for Obama and his campaign to predict victory after a certain primary.  Come on guys.  Calm down, please.

    Parent

    Because (none / 0) (#117)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:25:18 PM EST
    it's Bushian and everybody hasn't voted. Don't you remember W. doing victory laps in CA before the election in 2000? It's grotesque and arrogant.

    Parent
    Re: Because (none / 0) (#153)
    by Sleeper on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:17:07 PM EST
    It is not "Bushian" to look at the polls, look at the delegate counts, and to say that by this date we expect to have won.  Calm down.  He is going out of his way to be gracious and to let her continue without demanding she throw in the towel.

    There is nothing whatsoever grotesque and arrogant about mathematical probabilities.  yikes.

    Parent

    Obama is not predicting, he is claiming (none / 0) (#134)
    by aquarian on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:40:23 PM EST
    Bold move.  In my book, winners win when they win.  With the voters roughly fifty-fifty over who they want as nominee, and unpledged delegates, Senator Obama claiming victory is premature.

    Needless to say, the MSM will pick up Senator Obama's "victory" and repeat it so many times that it will actually become "truth" as opposed to optimistic fiction.  

    Parent

    Please find me a quote (none / 0) (#154)
    by Sleeper on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:19:01 PM EST
    ...where Obama "claims" victory as opposed to predicting it.  I would appreciate it, thanks.

    Parent
    Here's (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:07:08 PM EST
    a link

    Obama to Claim Victory on May 20:
    Link

    Parent

    Thanks for the link (none / 0) (#167)
    by mg7505 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:10:32 PM EST
    This is the kind of MSM thing that makes me mad:

    In January, Clinton won both states by wide margins when Obama did not actively contest them

    Didn't he run ads in Florida? If not, they should at least say that NEITHER candidate actively contested these states, rather than implying that Clinton did and Obama didn't. I can already see how this will go down in history...amazing in an age where accurate information is at our fingertips.

    Parent

    Cue the 06 diaries (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by BarnBabe on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:59:16 PM EST
    I can remember reading all the Testa diaries and all the wonderful comments about Schweitzer at the big Orange. There was one night that he was even donating his tie or something at a Testa gathering. The Netroots thought he was the cat's meow. So let's see what happens. Unless........all those people are no longer at the Big Orange. Oh No! Mr. Bill.

    In Football (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Oliver Willis on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:01:38 PM EST
    Even when a team is up 30-7, you let the time run out on the clock but nobody expects the other team to win with a minute left.

    BTW (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:07:04 PM EST
    It's more like 27-24 with Obama taking a knee.

    Parent
    wow (none / 0) (#58)
    by Kathy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:27:35 PM EST
    that's the most hopeful I've seen you since forever.

    Since you are a sporting man (though, admittedly, for the wrong team), I'll refer you to the most important game of the 1970s, if not perhaps the entire last century.  The best team won in the last two minutes on two blocked punts.

    To paraphrase: "Punt, Obama, punt."

    Parent

    40-24? (none / 0) (#105)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:10:52 PM EST
    That is just stupid.

    Seriously that is just dumb.

    Parent

    You really expect a woman to know anything (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Joelarama on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:57:51 PM EST
    about football?  Worse, a jilted psycho woman?  (snark)

    Parent
    My aunt could diagram (none / 0) (#119)
    by Molly Pitcher on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:26:21 PM EST
    every play the U-T Vols made for at least 50 years.

    Parent
    Tell that to John Aravosis and his cadre (none / 0) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:05:18 PM EST
    I happen to agree with you.

    Parent
    And yet... (none / 0) (#21)
    by madamab on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:06:02 PM EST
    HRC and Obama are not in that situation.

    More like the Giants and the Patriots.

    Parent

    We don't know which is which yet! (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by madamab on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:10:46 PM EST
    That's why we shouldn't declare it over.

    Also, that little teeny thing called Democracy, which the Democratic Party used to at least pretend to believe in.

    Parent

    I think (none / 0) (#96)
    by CanadianDem on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:59:19 PM EST
    she meant that Hillary was the Patriots.

    Parent
    Re: And yet... (none / 0) (#122)
    by Sleeper on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:31:15 PM EST
    I think it's somewhere in between.  Although the analogy isn't quite perfect, because it excludes superdelegates spontaneously kicking field goals independent of the real action on the field.

    Parent
    Re: But (none / 0) (#131)
    by Sleeper on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:38:49 PM EST
    >I'm still hopeful that HIllary can prevail, but it shouldn't have been this hard to begin with. SHe is the much better candidate.

    I think she'd make a better president.  But by definition, if she's not winning, then she's not a better candidate.

    >I blame the media partially

    That argument held water before the Jeremiah Wright nonsense that consumed the media for weeks.  Honestly, if the Obama campaign can make any rightful claim of racism, it's here.  John Hagee says God killed 2000 New Orleanians because of their upcoming gay pride parade, and the media shrugs.  Jerry Falwell blames 9/11 on Wiccans and feminists and he gets a slap on the wrist and a hug from McCain.  But Jeremiah Wright says maybe our overbearing and intrusive foreign policy contributed to 9/11 and he's demonized.

    I think more than anything this showed how shallow the media's supposed Obama bias is.  They liked him mainly because he was not Clinton, and their reflexive Clinton attack instincts die hard, even a decade later.  But given a chance to rip him open they went for it without hesitation.  Flyboy John McCain, of course, is another story because he's such a maverick and he hangs with them on the bus.  blah.

    Parent

    So Edwards and Biden (none / 0) (#34)
    by riddlerandy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:12:29 PM EST
    should have stayed in the race too

    Parent
    Hard to take your post seriously (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Marvin42 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:17:57 PM EST
    When you compare someone who is within 100 delegates when this is done with someone who is behind say 1500 delegates...

    Parent
    I forget (none / 0) (#174)
    by riddlerandy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:35:22 PM EST
    what do you get for finishing within 100?

    Parent
    Subvert? (5.00 / 8) (#17)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:03:19 PM EST
    Funny, I thought it was called democracy...you  know, people voting, primaries....

    Here's a clue (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:30:34 PM EST
    the PEOPLE of those two states WANT to be heard!  WOW.  Are you really serious in that line of thinking?  That's why you saw the Dean meltdown after the PA debates:  he realizes that the punishment was a FUBAR.

    Now you have two really important states who are being catered to by Clinton.  Yes it may be self-serving but at least it's a democratic move.

    And don't tell me Obama wouldn't do the same thing.  I don't buy the meme he's a new style pol.  He's the same ol' junk:  see Kennedy/Kerry backing for details.

    Parent

    and Obama played his part.... (5.00 / 0) (#93)
    by Josey on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:56:10 PM EST
    Oct. 2007 - IowaIndependent
    Five individuals connected to five different campaigns have confirmed -- but only under condition of anonymity -- that the situation that developed in connection with the Michigan ballot is not at all as it appears on the surface. The campaign for Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, arguably fearing a poor showing in Michigan, reached out to the others with a desire of leaving New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as the only candidate on the ballot. The hope was that such a move would provide one more political obstacle for the Clinton campaign to overcome in Iowa.
    http://tinyurl.com/2quujs

    Parent
    You have heard it about 7,000,000 times (5.00 / 6) (#72)
    by madamab on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:33:33 PM EST
    but you refuse to listen.

    It matters now because it is such a close race. Same reason the superdelegates matter.

    Parent

    The DNC also has rules (none / 0) (#95)
    by Josey on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:59:08 PM EST
    and one of them states candidates cannot campaign or advertise in FL & MI.
    Obama was the only candidate to violate those rules.
    The penalty?
    chirp, chirp


    Parent
    Seems to me (none / 0) (#121)
    by Molly Pitcher on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:30:33 PM EST
    it was reported that he was at a fundraising--and should have stayed in doors, btw.

    Parent
    HUH? (none / 0) (#129)
    by Molly Pitcher on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:36:54 PM EST


    Parent
    demsforlife, fundraising was allowed (none / 0) (#128)
    by lookoverthere on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:36:22 PM EST
    according to the pledge.

    The press conference the one Sen. Obama gave in Florida was campaigning and expressly forbidden by the pledge. He broke the rules.

    Parent

    Subvert? (5.00 / 7) (#26)
    by ineedalife on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:07:31 PM EST
    See that is the problem. Demonization of your opponent. The only way Hillary could have "won" was to "subvert" the nomination. Very rich, seeing as two of her states are not being counted. Who is subverting who?

    If the media (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:09:12 PM EST
    didn't want him to run against their darling (McCain) he would never have gotten away with this.

    Parent
    Just curious. What is with your nick? (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by MarkL on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:08:39 PM EST
    Your comments do not reflect the sentiment announced there in the least.

    Heh. (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by madamab on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:09:56 PM EST
    I tend to mistrust nicks like that. :-)

    Parent
    Probably ObamaMaMa (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:18:53 PM EST
    But so far playing nice.

    Parent
    HAHA.. that would figured. (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by MarkL on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:20:01 PM EST
    I real believer in Hillary would be saying that Hillary can still win.

    Parent
    Please point me to where you have (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by MarkL on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:33:27 PM EST
    been reaffirming that Hillary can still win.
    I missed those comments.

    Parent
    I think you think (none / 0) (#57)
    by rooge04 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:26:18 PM EST
    your new name will make us agree with you this time. ;) Not likely.

    Parent
    he was an imposter (none / 0) (#175)
    by Jeralyn on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:49:32 PM EST
    and twice banned user, this time using the name Hillaryisabeliver. His account has been erased along with 17 comments.

    Parent
    Bitter and Defensive in Victory (5.00 / 0) (#36)
    by Katherine Graham Cracker on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:14:21 PM EST
    Schweitzer echoes everyone but the media in the important role the primary process has played in giving so many people a stake in the election.
    I am shocked and dismayed about the bitter tone of the Obama victory.   First of all, it is very close and second the use of he media by the Obama campaign has been both cynical and stupid.  The main stream media has no real reporting with the exceptions you can practically name on one hand.
    Why give them any credibility and now when it will really count and the media is lying their collective asses off about McCain -- not much you can do.

    Perhaps (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Kathy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:31:26 PM EST
    the bitter tone of the Obama victory comes from the fact that he is not yet victorious?

    If only she'd stop winning, then he could be the nominee.

    Parent

    Re: Bitter and Defensive in Victory (none / 0) (#138)
    by Sleeper on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:46:12 PM EST
    How is the Obama campaign being bitter in victory?  Can you site some specific examples?  I haven't seen it, if anything, the bitterness is coming from the other campaign.  To say the least.

    Parent
    This blog as a statements from Obama supporters (none / 0) (#157)
    by Katherine Graham Cracker on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:30:57 PM EST
    the current post is about Senator Kennedy's statements and then there's this

    Balloon Juice and Oliver Willis enjoyed this nasty bit of sexism - Hillary Clinton: Psycho Ex-Girlfriend Of The Democratic Party.

    Is there any self awareness left in the blogs? Or do these folks really want to alienate every Clinton supporter in the country?

    from talkleft

    Parent

    This is exactly what I mean (none / 0) (#161)
    by Sleeper on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:54:51 PM EST
    You know very well what I said.  I said the Obama campaign.  I did not say partisan independent bloggers who are outspoken Obama advocates and aren't being paid by the campaign and therefore don't answer to them or have to speak politely and who in fact have an audience largely on the basis of being passionate and profane in their blogging.

    Please, try again.  And stop looking for sexism around every corner and beneath every bed.  The idea that they wouldn't mock a male candidate who was in Clinton's position is not very convincing.

    Parent

    what victory (none / 0) (#158)
    by isaac on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:38:03 PM EST
    he's not won much lately

    Parent
    Re: what victory (none / 0) (#162)
    by Sleeper on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:56:38 PM EST
    His victories to this point necessitated she win every remaining primary with 60-70 percent.  He crushed her in NC and she eked out a 1-2 percent victory in IN.

    That's what victory.

    Parent

    'a win is a win' (none / 0) (#166)
    by isaac on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:06:24 PM EST
    BHO.  nc=sc, another loser in november, so what.  he still couldnt put her away in indiana

    Parent
    Re: (none / 0) (#168)
    by Sleeper on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:26:28 PM EST
    >nc=sc, another loser in november, so what.

    South Carolina Democratic primary: 532,468 votes cast
    South Carolina Republican primary: 445,667 votes cast

    North Carolina Democratic primary: 1,593,335 votes cast
    North Carolina Republican primary: 518,224 votes cast

    Granted the NC primary means less because McCain's won.  But SC was equally vital for both parties.  And in this deep red state we turned out 80 thousand more voters.

    Parent

    I have seen this Montana governor (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by stefystef on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:15:00 PM EST
    and he's totally cool and he totally understand his state.

    Hillary is going to campaign out there, which is smart.  With Obama's insult of her gun control policy, it will play badly in Montana.  Annie Oakley???  Obama is lucky Hillary ISN'T Annie Oakley.

    Hillary will give the Democrats in all 50 states the chance to vote.  And she's right.  It's only the snobby netrooters and so-called liberal "eggheads" trying to control this election, the same way that the right-wing of the Republicans controlled the 2000 election.

    From Orwell's "Animal Farm"
    7 Rules of the Farm
    #7:  All Animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others"

    Beward the Rise of the Creative Class

    Re: I have seen this Montana governor (none / 0) (#141)
    by Sleeper on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:48:57 PM EST
    >the snobby netrooters and so-called liberal "eggheads"

    ....

    Is this where we're at?  Are we going to try and outdo the GOP's anti-science and anti-education policies now as well?

    >Beward the Rise of the Creative Class

    Answer: yes.

    Parent

    I like Schweitzer, but (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Jim J on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:19:08 PM EST
    I think it's laughably ridiculous how the netroots give a total free pass to centrist "fighting Dems" when they're big and manly like Schweitzer.

    The boy bloggers are permanently 12 years old, always in awe of the high school quarterback.

    That pic of him on Kos (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by rooge04 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:25:11 PM EST
    with manly man jacket and manly man ranch background and manly man wife was up for an awfully long time! I wonder if they're drawing devil horns on him yet.

    Parent
    Huh? (none / 0) (#62)
    by Addison on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:29:01 PM EST
    The free pass is because he won Montana as a relatively decent Democrat. It was amazing and remains so, and he gets a lot of leeway because of it.

    Your psychoanalysis is worthy of psychoanalysis itself.

    Parent

    So (none / 0) (#75)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:35:22 PM EST
    if you think that Obama is going to go into MT and win like he did in the GE, you gotta 'nuther thing coming.

    Dems win in those places, sadly, by small margins.  Once GE season kicks in, Ol' Dick Cheney will be going all over Wyoming (his home state) and its neighbors to campaign for McCain.

    Sorry to pop your balloon

    Parent

    God only knows (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Addison on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:40:59 PM EST
    ...what comment you're responding to, but it's not mine. I was talking about why Schweitzer is respected a lot by the netroots. You're talking, for some reason, about Obama and balloons.

    Parent
    Feh (none / 0) (#120)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:27:39 PM EST
    they seem to be giving lots of passes to an effette liberal candidate like Obama. There is no rhyme or reason to what they do I have decided.

    Parent
    Subvert? (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by kenoshaMarge on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:22:52 PM EST
    Even when convinced you've won you just have to stick the knife in don't you? And there are a great many Dems who are not yet ready to move on.

    Characterization. (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Addison on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:24:41 PM EST
    Do you worry that you might be overplaying the impression that all pro-Obama bloggers are calling for Hillary to leave right now as opposed to merely saying that the contest is essentially over? I think you're characterizing the general feeling incorrectly.

    There are "Surrender, Hillary!" people out there, and I'm sure they'll be quoted here when they post, but in my wanderings around the blogosphere the "it's basically over, and Hillary will get out eventually" opinion is far more common than screeds for Hillary to immediately withdraw or denunciations of people for saying she shouldn't withdraw now.

    Anyway, I think this post, specifically the last line, are predicated on an inaccurate characterization. Or an exaggeration of the proportion of "Surrender, Hillary!" folks' numbers. Take that with a grain of salt.

    I picture Kos on a broom spewing black (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Joelarama on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:53:07 PM EST
    smoke signals over the Emerald City.

    Yes, I do think WWTSBQ was the general tenor of the folks at the Daily-O, before I left.  That was after Super Tuesday.

    Parent

    I see (none / 0) (#104)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:09:02 PM EST
    Now I can't make a joke.

    It's only the sexist and misogynistic stuff that is ok.

    Hilarious.

    Parent

    Huh? (none / 0) (#132)
    by Addison on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:39:08 PM EST
    I really doubt you meant it as a joke. Meant it to be funny, maybe, but not a joke. And as recently as today I've noted that the sexist and misogynistic stuff is not ok.


    Parent
    Jokes are funny (none / 0) (#140)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:47:17 PM EST
    I really do not expect any denunciations of Schweitzer, but there is the hypocrisy.

    Parent
    Superdelegates having a case of the jitters? (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by goldberry on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:27:48 PM EST
    I don't see them jumping en masse onto the Obama bandwagon any more.  The writing is on the wall.  Obama is not electable.  He's pissed too many constituencies off.  And let us  be clear about this, Hillary has the working class but her appeal cuts across all of the other groups as well.  Those of us who should be in the Obama constituency are getting fed up with being called racists just because we think he is unready.  
    Oh, and Chris Bowers is an idiot.  

    Obama (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:31:05 PM EST
    gained 5 today, per Yahoo News.

    Just saying.

    But yeah, she isn't caving.  Maybe it has something to do with the fact that Gallup still shows her even with Obama, she's beating McCain by 4 and electoral-vote.com shows her beating and Obama losing to McCain (as of today).

    So the he's winning is certainly in tug of war with she's most electable.

    Parent

    Re: Superdelegates having a case of the jitters? (none / 0) (#146)
    by Sleeper on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:58:10 PM EST
    >The writing is on the wall.  Obama is not electable.

    This sentiment seems detached from reality to me.

    >Those of us who should be in the Obama constituency are getting fed up with being called racists just because we think he is unready.  

    That's not racist, that's a valid criticism.  One I shared myself.

    What's more arguably racist, though, is the media and Clinton double standard about Rev. Wright, and Clinton's comments that white voters don't seem to want to vote for Obama so she would be the best nominee.  I found that comment, while perhaps poorly worded and not demonstrative of her beliefs, to be particularly distasteful.  It smacks more of desperation than racism, and desperation is not a compelling argument to make to superdelegates.

    Parent

    3.5 million new voters (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:30:28 PM EST
    I think that pretty much says it all.  Despite the heat on both sides and the irrational behavior of some on both sides, this race has finally fired up the party, good or bad.  

    No reason to end it now unless they both continue to attack one another.  Although I would argue that Obama needs more "toughening" up and at least one more debate if not two to prep for the GE.  

    Despite what i read in the MSM, I did not think Obama won any of the debates I saw and certainly from the clips I saw of the abc one, he needs hone his replies and soon.

    I see absolutely no value (none / 0) (#92)
    by flyerhawk on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:55:34 PM EST
    in having additional debates.  The only thing they would do is force Obama to say things he may need to defend in the general.

    Parent
    I have no problem (5.00 / 0) (#99)
    by Kathy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:01:48 PM EST
    with Clinton debating, because I know that she is consistent and knows her policy, and won't say one thing in the primaries that she wouldn't say in the general election.

    It's called being an experienced and politically savvy politician.

    Parent

    Oh no!! We can't have (none / 0) (#100)
    by rooge04 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:02:25 PM EST
    him defending his positions! How terrible. To have to TALK about what you actually stand for.  During an election, no less!

    Parent
    Re: Oh no!! We can't have (none / 0) (#148)
    by Sleeper on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:02:38 PM EST
    Seriously, they've both been through, what, 21, 22 debates?  What more is possibly left for either one of them to say?

    Parent
    Sure, and we would (none / 0) (#106)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:11:23 PM EST
    be dictating the talking points that he would be "defending".  you don't think karl rove influenced a few questions for his rivals along the way in those primaries?  Get Obama where he is weak now so that he can sharpen his message in upcoming debates.  

    Only a fool doesn't want to improve which is really rather foolish.

    Parent

    lucky for him if he gets the nom (none / 0) (#112)
    by wasabi on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:19:07 PM EST
    That McCain doesn't come across well in a debate.  He's willing to jab.  He just does it inelegantly.

    Parent
    But will the 3.5 million voters stay? (none / 0) (#142)
    by stefystef on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:50:14 PM EST
    It reminds me of 2004 when they registered millions of young people to support Kerry.

    Remember P Diddy and "Vote or Die" and MTV Votes!  And what happened?

    The youth vote when down during the General Election.  Right now, it's "cool" to endorse Obama.  It will be yesterday's news by summer and by November, something else will get their attention.

    It is those old, white women who vote, not the young, elite college crowd.  Hillary is right.  She has the constituents who will put a Democrat in office.

    Now, they are feeling ostracized by the "new" class order.  But that's okay.  McCain will take care of them.

    Parent

    go back and look at the turnout (none / 0) (#145)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:55:04 PM EST
    in the dem primary in 2004.  It pales in comparison to this year.  Kerry was the wrong candidate, a complete friggin bore.  Americans could relate to Bush, as scary as that sounds.

    Parent
    young voters (none / 0) (#160)
    by isaac on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:48:29 PM EST
    are unreliable voters.  maybe they come out maybe they dont, but weaker voters are more likely to be  turned off by negativity and if you dont this this is gonna get ugly you are wrong.  i heard bill moyers say, obama put the rev wright thing behind him; yeah, in the primary, bill!

    Parent
    Yes let it continue (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by IzikLA on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:34:01 PM EST
    It is only 3 more weeks of primaries for crying out loud.  I don't understand why Obama's campaign and supporters are so eager to push her out.  

    I also have an honest to goodness question.  Say she bows out today.  I have a sneaky suspicion she would still win WV, KY and PR by very large margins.  How would it make Obama look to lose those contests to someone not even in the campaign anymore?  Honestly, I think she's doing a favor to him at this point.  

    I also think that, despite her slim chance of winning this thing, she is staying in largely because of the voters, and for her to find a point to exit that is honorable to her campaign and does justice to the votes that were cast (including FL & MI).  She made history as a female presidential candidate.  I find it disrespectful what is going on in the media right now.  You just don't exit a race when you lose a state you were always expected to lose and win a state that was supposed to be close.  I've asked the same question since March.  When was she supposed to get out?  After huge wins in OH, TX and RI?  Or after a big win in PA?  Or after a slim win in IN and an expected loss in NC?  There has been no good point so she is honoring her campaign and her pledge to the American people and I, for one, respect her all the more for that.

    She can still win (5.00 / 0) (#97)
    by Kathy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:00:19 PM EST
    that's why they want her to drop out.

    How will it look for her to win WVA, KY, PR and take him on in OR and give him a good fight in MT?  It will look like he's not the presumptive nominee.

    If he had locked this thing up, then it would be over.  He has not, so it is not over.  They are apart by single digit percentages.  She has won millions of voters.  MI and FL are still not settled.

    Why on earth would she quit when she has a chance to win?

    Parent

    So can the Cubs (none / 0) (#108)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:12:25 PM EST
    i mean mathematically they are still in it.

    Parent
    Re: Yes let it continue (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Sleeper on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:06:41 PM EST
    >I don't understand why Obama's campaign and supporters are so eager to push her out.

    You guys need to differentiate between the Obama campaign and the Obama partisans here in the blogosphere.

    Obama wants her to stay in very much, for the reasons you mentioned.  To get those annoying losses in WV and KY out of the way.  It would look bad for the presumptive nominee to continue losing.

    Parent

    I am wondering how the Obama campaign, (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by kenosharick on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:40:34 PM EST
    and his supporters (including the MSM) will react when the real attacks start. They have been calling this (Obama v. Clinton) one of the nastiest campaigns ever, which is absurd. They will be stunned by what is coming.

    This year is the first time (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by eleanora on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:44:47 PM EST
    my Montana primary vote would ever make a difference. I'm glad Schweitzer understands how much that means to all of us here.

    I hear ya (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by wasabi on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:34:00 PM EST
    I've been voting for 32 years and this is the first time mine's ever counted.  Feels good too!

    Parent
    Clyburn's threats of a pending apocalypse if the (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Salt on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:52:20 PM EST
    race continues is plain political theater, the break has already happened and appears mutual there will be no healing IMO those that are going to break away will. What Clyburn, Pelosi, Dean and the SDs appear to fear is further empirical data that will show that they knowingly were accountable for the  Nov. loss  and that they cannot blame on Clinton and the so called hillbilly class who do not now and will not support Obama.  The integrity of the race has already been corrupted let Montana and all other State participate in the revenue sharing aspect of the 50 State strategy.

    Playing the race card (none / 0) (#144)
    by stefystef on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:52:32 PM EST
    has been done by Obama and other so-called black leaders in this country.

    This is backfire in November.  By September (or earlier) the media will be talking about McCain Democrats (like in 2000).  And Obama and the netroot community we be handed their head in their hand.

    Hillary.  True Leadership.  Real Change

    Parent

    Re: Playing the race card (none / 0) (#152)
    by Sleeper on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:13:11 PM EST
    >By September (or earlier) the media will be talking about McCain Democrats (like in 2000).  And Obama and the netroot community we be handed their head in their hand.

    McCain in 2008 is not McCain from 2000.

    And the Reagan Democrats had a tanking economy from Carter in 1980 and a relatively prosperous one from Reagan in 1984 (very relatively) to vote on.  There are no Democrats to blame or Republicans to praise this year.  And McCain has wrapped the Bush economy anchor around himself.  Not to mention the Iraq War anchor and the torture anchor and the erosion of civil liberties anchor.

    Parent

    I don't know why (5.00 / 0) (#109)
    by Oldman Democrat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:13:41 PM EST
    anyone here would not want to see a meaningful contest in Montana. I don't think we would want to alienate our Democratic bretheren any more/less than our Floridian democrats. I know Montana has not been a blue state in our presidential elections, but I don't think Florida was blue in 2000 or 2004, they have a republican govenor and legislature. I know Florida is bigger but do we really need to disrespect any electorate. I think the contest(s)should continue with vigor through the remaining primaries. Another month of disunity isn't going to make any difference between the radical supporters of both candidates and it would be interesting to see the final total numbers with all contest being meaningful.

    Be careful Montana (4.00 / 4) (#15)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:02:10 PM EST
    with the "progressives" on patrol, Barack will resort to the 47 state strategy.

    Florida and Michigan are being treated like bastards at a family reunion.  Tread lightly or you will be on the back porch, too.

    Good OneTX....I Like Schweitzer... (none / 0) (#52)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:23:31 PM EST
    And isn't he trying to push a process they are using in Germany to turn coal into gasoline or something like that?  I think it would cost a billion dollars to build it, but would save mucho money in the long run.

    Parent
    Thanks (5.00 / 0) (#76)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:37:40 PM EST
    Democrats like the gov of MT are more old school.  He seems to think more long-term (wow! whatta concept) when it comes to energy policy.

    Obama's all about coal isn't he?  First, we have to address the safety concerns with coal.  I am tired of our miners being sealed forever in mtns...along with their rescuers.

    OMG...paging Eleanor Roosevelt!!!!!!!

    Parent

    Yep, she went down one! (none / 0) (#113)
    by Molly Pitcher on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:21:17 PM EST
    When people talk coal to me, I recall (having grown up in coal country) how dangerous mines really are.  And strip mining, by the way--anyone familiar with what Ducktown, TN (I think it was) looked like?

    Parent
    Are you sure they are safe? (none / 0) (#115)
    by Molly Pitcher on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:23:17 PM EST
    After all, the Florida dems did NOT move their primary up.  It was done for them.  And by rights, the Kerry jab should go with Obama, not Hillary.

    Parent
    Yeah-- (none / 0) (#130)
    by Molly Pitcher on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:38:02 PM EST
    because after 2000 they knew the voting machines need a paper trail.

    Parent
    While (4.00 / 0) (#47)
    by flyerhawk on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:20:58 PM EST
    I think the Governor has his own reasons to see the race continue onto, I really see no problem with doing so.

    We've waited this long, what's the big deal with waiting 4 more weeks?   We'll still have 2 months  to get the house cleaned up for the party.

    Good for you (none / 0) (#49)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:21:57 PM EST
    Time to spread the word.

    Parent
    Saying that the race is nearly tied (1.00 / 0) (#3)
    by digdugboy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:49:59 PM EST
    is a little outlandish, don't you think? That suggests that it's still anybody's nomination to win. That's hardly accurate.

    Ha! (5.00 / 8) (#5)
    by madamab on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:53:17 PM EST
    It is nearly tied! In delegates, in popular vote, in superdelegates...and it's not over till everyone has voted INCLUDING FL and MI.

    I believe there's a figure in the Open Thread post, showing how far behind Kennedy was in 1980 when he ran against Carter. 2.7 million votes and 600 delegates shy...and he still took it to the convention.

    There is absolutely no precedent or reason for HRC to drop out now.

    Parent

    Don't forget Poland (none / 0) (#48)
    by wasabi on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:21:25 PM EST
    I mean Puerto Rico!

    Parent
    Want some wood? :-) (none / 0) (#60)
    by madamab on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:28:05 PM EST


    Parent
    Nearly tied (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by flyerhawk on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:18:00 PM EST
    is just another way of saying NOT tied.

    Parent
    Re: Saying that the race is nearly tied (4.00 / 0) (#103)
    by Sleeper on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:07:27 PM EST
    I wouldn't say it's anybody's to win.  I think we can safely assume that Biden and Dodd are goners.

    But it is nearly tied.  If Obama had a massive lead then this would have been settled a month ago.  But they're both very close.  It just so happens that every indicator shows him winning in the end.  But things change overnight in politics, I suppose that's Clinton's hope, to stay in and wait for a miracle.

    Besides I agree with the governor.  In the end this primary season from Hell may turn out to be a boon for the party.  Massive voter turnout in states, attention from the candidates, and media coverage in states that never get that.  Excitement about participating in the process, particularly for the young voters.  It does tend to require mountains of cash, but maybe in the end this fight to the finish (or almost) will be out secret weapon in November.

    Parent

    If this were a football game (none / 0) (#143)
    by digdugboy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:51:54 PM EST
    Obama would be taking a snap and kneeling down to run out the clock. There is nothing left for Hillary to do to change the outcome of the game now. Even Bill was wiping away tears while standing behind her at her speech in Indiana.

    The only hope left is that some catascrophic scandal hits Obama. Short of that, it's over.

    It's time for everybody to recalibrate their perceptions of reality. Obama is going to be the nominee, to a 99% certainty.

    Parent

    Re: If this were a football game (none / 0) (#155)
    by Sleeper on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:21:29 PM EST
    I don't know if I'd say 99%.  But it's not anyone's game, as people here seem to be telling themselves, mainly to soften the blow I think.

    Parent
    I'd say it's greater than 99% (none / 0) (#159)
    by digdugboy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:42:53 PM EST
    All that's left is for Obama to falter, and he's withstood withering pressure and undoubtedly the most thorough scouring of his background possible.

    Parent
    wihtstood? (none / 0) (#163)
    by isaac on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:59:01 PM EST
    no, whined, backtracked, and gotten a generous hand from the media

    Parent
    Withstood, actually (none / 0) (#172)
    by Sleeper on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:31:17 PM EST
    The whining has been on both sides.  His more recently, hers for months last year and earlier this year.  He's just better at concealing it, really, which is all that counts to the media.  If they don't see whining, then he's not whining.

    Parent
    Denounce and reject!! (3.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:06:20 PM EST


    Parent
    LOL (none / 0) (#139)
    by digdugboy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:47:02 PM EST
    Whoever is giving these people their political news isn't doing a very good job.

    Armando, could you teach an electoral math course here please?

    Parent

    Love The New Moniker (none / 0) (#39)
    by Blue Jean on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:15:28 PM EST
    "The Evil Schweitzer" or perhaps "The EEEeevil Schweitzer."  Sounds like a melodrama vaudevile villain.

    Look at the Pretty Bunny Instead (none / 0) (#61)
    by Petey on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:28:49 PM EST
    "Cue the Netroots denunciations of the evil Schweitzer."

    My guess is that they'll simply ignore it.

    -----

    Can you imagine the zeitgeist if she actually wins OR & MT?

    Oooh! (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by madamab on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:30:48 PM EST
    I just got a Tweety-like tingle up my leg!

    LOL

    Parent

    She won't win Oregon. (none / 0) (#102)
    by shoephone on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:05:31 PM EST


    Parent
    She wasn't supposed to win NH (none / 0) (#107)
    by Petey on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:11:29 PM EST
    "She won't win Oregon"

    Probably not.

    But imagine if she does.  The media would have to walk back the "presumptive nominee" stories.  

    And it would make the two weeks that follow - the RBC meeting, PR, and MT - a very interesting time period.

    Parent

    And (none / 0) (#127)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:35:54 PM EST
    she wasn't supposed to win IN either.

    Parent
    Blame that one on Team Clinton (none / 0) (#137)
    by Petey on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:46:12 PM EST
    "she wasn't supposed to win IN either."

    That was the Clinton campaign's (perhaps) mortal error: they let expectations on 5/6 get out of hand.

    They'd managed expectations quite nicely for the two months prior to that, but they didn't think through 5/6 particularly well.

    Parent

    Re: She wasn't supposed to win NH (none / 0) (#147)
    by Sleeper on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:00:45 PM EST
    >"She won't win Oregon"  Probably not.  But imagine if she does.

    January 8 was four months and a lifetime ago.

    She may and probably will still win the states where she's been running ahead, but overturning any of his leads is nigh-impossible.

    Parent

    nonsense (none / 0) (#165)
    by isaac on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:03:37 PM EST
    oregon is close with demographics cutting both ways, it is a toss up.

    Parent
    Re: nonsense (none / 0) (#169)
    by Sleeper on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:31:02 PM EST
    >it is a toss up.

    I think that's naive but we'll see, I guess.

    Parent

    The 10% Chance (none / 0) (#170)
    by Petey on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:59:36 PM EST
    "I think that's naive but we'll see, I guess."

    I agree that Obama is likely to win OR.

    But I'm just saying that if he doesn't, the morning after would be pretty interesting.

    If Clinton can find some way to win OR, she'd be on her way to winning the last 6 primaries, which would make for an ultra-interesting June 4th.

    It's not the most likely scenario, but it's not unimaginable either.

    Parent

    Re: (none / 0) (#171)
    by Sleeper on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:18:51 PM EST
    I agree.  Interesting to say the least.  heh.

    Parent
    So where are these denunciations? (none / 0) (#74)
    by s5 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:34:03 PM EST
    I can't find any.

    "Letting" the votes continue? (none / 0) (#98)
    by Anne on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:01:08 PM EST
    As if Schweitzer had the power to declare that Montana didn't need to vote so he was canceling the election?

    What is with this faux magnanimity that people have - "letting" the votes continue, "allowing" Clinton to stay in the race?

    Here's the thing: Obama doesn't own the election, he hasn't won anything - yet - and he and his supporters and the party blowhards ought to wise up and realize that Obama and Clinton are just this cycle's cogs in a process that we - the voters - own.  When we decide it's over, it's over.  It isn't a question of "letting" us have our say - it's a matter of our actually having a process in place to be heard, and participating in it.  We do not deserve to be treated like dirty-faced children who might be exceeding our boundaries.

    Apologies if the words you chose were not intended to come across the way I read them.

    Re: "Letting" the votes continue? (5.00 / 0) (#135)
    by Sleeper on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:43:17 PM EST
    I think they meant letting the process continue actively.  The Republican primaries are still going too, but no one would suggest that it's anything but going through the motions.

    I think the Obama campaign is going out of their way to say that the process should continue for as long as Clinton wants to go.  But they feel confident enough to predict the outcome, that's all.

    Parent

    Frothy comments notwithstanding... (none / 0) (#101)
    by Binx on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:03:59 PM EST
    I can't say they won't, but the "netroots", as indicted above, have not savaged Schweitzer for his comments. There is a lot of anger and hostility being vented toward something that has not yet happened.

    Re: I think the evil characterization (none / 0) (#118)
    by Sleeper on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:26:13 PM EST
    I think you meant to say "win" the nomination, not "subvert."

    Clinton has every right to run this all the way to the convention floor if she likes.  It used to be the norm.  But she has to weigh the possibility of victory vs. the potential damage she will do to herself and the party.  Unlike a lot of Obama supporters, I think the notion that she intends to sabotage him and destroy the party out of petulance is about the dumbest thing I've ever heard.  Clinton is undeniably ambitious but I think in the end she's strong enough to come to terms with disappointment and do what's best for the party and the country.  (I just hope her supporters follow suit.)

    BTD, I am really fed up (none / 0) (#133)
    by Molly Pitcher on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:40:10 PM EST
    with the two who are continuously posting troll stuff.  

    Depressed (none / 0) (#136)
    by bodhcatha on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:45:03 PM EST
    reading most of the threads today.  Yesterday most of the regulars were in a fightin' mood.  Today, not so much.  What happened?

    Not on this thread (none / 0) (#149)
    by bodhcatha on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:03:17 PM EST
    I see the fire in the belly on this thread, but on most of the others the tone is "He's the nominee, so why don't his supporters show some class".  For the record, he is NOT the nominee and will NEVER be, if God really don't like ugly.

    Schweitzer: Let The Contest Continue | 155 comments (155 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment