This is excellent news! Sen. Clinton was outspent 2-1 in both Ohio and Texas, and has now won the Ohio primary. Even with the "big mo" behind him, and the money, he is simply not able to close the deal.Hillary has consistently won the states that Democrats must win in November for them to take the general election. Keep in mind that many of the states in the Obama camp are states that are very unlikely to go Democratic in the general election.
18 comments:
BAC: Not a bad night at all. I LOVED THE SICK LOOKS ON BLIZER'S AND JESSICA YELLIN'S FACE WHEN THEY HAD TO CALL OHIO FOR CLINTON. AND THEY SAID IT WAS KIND OF A VICTORY FOR OBAMA!!!!
we know that we are facing McCain and that McCain would rather face Obama than Clinton. If the Democratic party wants to win the general election then they had better get behind the canidate with a better chance to win in November and imo that is Senator Clinton!!!
Lib:
The MSM does such an in-depth analytical job, don't they. They look at one poll and say Obama's stronger against McCain than Clinton is. End of story.
That's the silliest thing I've ever heard. Obama cannot beat McCain because his style matches up so poorly with McCain's. Obama is serious, brittle and accomodating to conservatives. McCain is alternately very mean or very charming and has the MSM completely sewn up. Obama would campaign against McCain the same way he's campaigning against Clinton only more tentatively and even more fearfully if that's possible.
Obama can neither land nor take a punch. Clinton has an absolutely granite jaw and matches up so beautifully with McCain. She's all about strength, ideas, and a long-running feud. Make no mistake, Obama may irritate her, but she DESPISES McCain. This is totally personal and she's never failed to get the best of him in the past.
Obama is actually a great prep for her because he has been her first opponent who has had all the favorable press as McCain certainly will have.
Obama is just a third in a series of ever weaker Democrats (Gore 2000, Kerry 2004). We really got unlucky that Dean threw craps in Iowa in 2004 because he would have mopped the floor with Bush. Clinton and Dean share many of those same characteristics that you really like to see in your Democrat.
Well said, Kelso! I'm trying imagine debates between McCain- Obama and McCain-Clinton. Obama will not be able to hold his own, and will come off looking too inexperienced middle America. Clinton, on the other hand, can match up with McCain on issue after issue.
Don't you think McCain's people are just salivating over the Afghanistan Oversight Committee issue?
Quick edit BAC "Hillary has consistently won the states that Democrats are guaranteed to win in November..."
You still haven't given any stats on how Clinton is going to win in the general.
"Obama would campaign ... more tentatively and ... fearfully" That has been proven false in the past couple weeks as he has been campaigning more against McCain than Clinton.
"Clinton has [a] granite jaw ... and a long running feud ... [S]he despises McCain." Yes, this is precisely what we don't need in November if we want to get anything done in the next four years. Someone who can stand up to the Republicans is good, but both have shown that they can do that.
Clinton is very strong among fellow Democrats. She is very strong when it comes to name recognition. She is very weak, historically and in the current polls, among independents - especially when running against McCain. Historically and in current polls, she is absolutely hated by Republicans. This limits her support to at best 50% of the electorate. McCain is strong among independents and mixed with Republicans AND Democrats.
Sue, the committee Obama is on that he didn't call any meetings for is the committee on Europe, which has some oversight of NATO, not over Afghanistan. The larger foreign relations committee has passed legislation this year on NATO, so maybe there hasn't been any need. Yes, it is a weakness that he hasn't addressed properly, but it's one among many strengths.
Face facts John ... your candidate went all out to crush her, outspending Clinton 2-1, yet he COULDN'T CLOSE THE DEAL. He simply doesn't have what it takes to win in November. Things get mildly tough and he folds like a cheap suit!!!
He admitted that he has not done his job regarding Afghanistan, so why can't YOU??
He got caught in his lie about NAFTA. The MSM finally did it's job in reporting that one.
And DON'T THINK FOR A SECOND that Democrats are going to vote for John McCain!!
If Democrats want to WIN in November, their best chance is to nominate Sen. Hillary Clinton.
BAC
He was down, in Texas and Ohio, by 20% according to polls two weeks ago. He closed to 4% in Texas. Ohio he did lose, but because Clinton made an effective lie that the media liked better than the truth. He has had a mountain to climb the entire way; the fact that he is still winning against Clinton shows he can fight.
He admitted he didn't call any meetings in his sub-committee on EUROPE; I would expect that the armed services committee is where Afghanistan policy is decided, where in the past month they have had two hearings on Afghanistan.
He made no lies about NAFTA, a member of his staff met unofficially and unbeknown to the rest of the Obama campaign with some ambassadors from the Canadian embassy. The memo that was sent out was admitted to be misleading and the Canadian parliament has officially slammed the release of that memo. I admit, he was not given a chance to counter that lie; all media coverage of it was blatantly favoring Clinton's statements on it and acted as if Obama himself sent out the memo. That's the media, they are lazy and go with the more sensational story, be it against Obama or Clinton.
I don't fear that the dyed in the wool Democrats will vote for McCain, but that only gives Clinton 33% of the population. To win, the Democrat's nominee needs to get the independent vote and they have time and again and will vote against Clinton. Especially if she keeps campaigning on lies like she is right now. This is why I have been saying for the past many months that Clinton needs to focus on herself and drop the lies and false accusations and hatred.
He has had a mountain to climb the entire way...
Baloney!! He's had a cake walk the entire way.
And Clinton has not said anything about Obama that is not true, and that cannot be verified.
Obama is the one who decided to lie about NAFTA. Or at least grossly mislead the public, and then not set the record straight.
And how quickly you defend Obama for not doing his job. Is that how it's going to be should he secure the nomination?
And John, your last sentence is complete bullshit. Sen. Clinton is not lying, and she is not engaging in "false accussations and hatred" ... your guy just can't take even mild heat coming his way. He folded like a cheap suit, and you can't stand it. He won't stand a chance against the Republican slime maching.
BAC
Clinton said that Obama sent a memo to Canada. FALSE. It is a strait up lie and Clinton knew it.
Here are the facts of this incident:
1) The memo was from a CONSERVATIVE ambassador (who was summarily chastised by his parliament) and was released to the Clinton campaign in a calculated attempt to weaken the Democrats.
2) The person who met with this ambassador was not meeting on behalf of the Obama campaign. He also didn't have the knowledge or approval of the campaign to meet with Canada.
3) The memo completely mischaracterized what the man said. He actually, according to the person, said Obama wants to renegotiate the employee rights and environmental concerns, exactly what Obama said in the debate.
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/canadian_embassy_report_on_oba.php
http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2008/03/03/1341219-obama-denies-assuring-canada-on-nafta
The media prefers a scandal to the truth, we both know this. Or is the media never wrong when they criticize Obama but always wrong when they criticize Clinton?
I'm also not defending him for not doing his job, I'm just telling you that the committee you are attacking him about is not about Afghanistan.
Congrats BAC!
I still don't think this is going to work out the way you'd prefer but stranger things have happened.
It's no secret that I would've hoped we had a candidate after last night. Oh well. Such is life.
Very nice job by Senator Clinton and he supporters in making last night come about.
Dean
John -- Taylor Marsh has all the info on this, so anyone who would like to see the clips for themselves can go there. The evidence is clear.
Face it, John ... your guy lost! There is no other way to spin it. He simply can't close the deal!
Dean -- thanks for your comment!
BAC
FactCheck.org has more accurate information than the biased Taylor Marsh - http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/the_facts_about_nafta-gate.html
Face it, Clinton LIED. She did it very effectively and had very good timing and from a strategic stand point, I congratulate her on it. It doesn't make it any less of a lie and it doesn't make it any better that she did it.
Obama did lose in Ohio, I'm not trying to spin that. But Clinton can't close either, she has only once beaten Obama by more than 20% of the electorate - in Arkansas. Obama has accomplished this feat 16 times now. She couldn't even beat "Undecided" by that much in Michigan.
Clinton is an accomplished fighter. There is no arguing against that. But a 3 out of 15 record is is not a winning record. Neither is 14 out of 39 (15 out of 42 if you count territories and foreign nationals IIRC). 0.358 is a great batting average, unless you are going up against someone with a 0.742.
John - the bottom line is the Obama camp is telling Canada one thing, and United State citizens another. And he got caught. Good for the voters of Ohio for rejecting him.
And you can parse the numbers any way that makes you feel comfortable John, but again ... the bottom line is that many of Obama's wins have taken place in states he will NOT carry if he is the nominee in November.
Clinton's wins have taken place in states critical to the Democrats.
She has proven herself to be a tough fighter, which is what we are going to need if we are to win in November.
Even the slightest challenge and Obama caves.
He has now had three opportunities at outright victory, and he has not been able to close the deal. Clearly Americans are not as comfortable with him as you would have us think.
BAC
I never thought this was going to be easy, but she ain't getting my vote, regardless of whether or not he is on the ticket.
And her smarmy "victory" speech which "plagiarized" from Obama is hypocrisy of the Old Guard at the fullest.
Get a grip CK. Clearly we were listening to different speeches, because Clinton's was great.
You are being pretty short-sighted, just because your guy can't close the deal.
BAC
What I don't see is why will Obama not carry these states in November. Some he won't, but in almost every primary he has won, he has gotten more votes than the entire Republican party. These numbers mean less and less since the Potomac Primaries, but that was only 6 primaries ago. You cannot discount (so far) 27 of the 50 states. This is how the Democrats have failed recently.
Clinton is winning in the solidly blue states, ones that are effectively guaranteed to go with the Democratic nominee no matter who it is. Where Obama has lost, he has done so, in most cases, by 10% or less. Clinton has lost by 20% - 53% in 16 elections (more elections than she has won by any margin). Obama is leading in the popular vote by 586,000+ votes (if you include Florida, that lead shrinks to 108,000, if you include Michigan, where he didn't have any votes because his name wasn't on the ballot, Clinton only leads by 50,000 and if you give Obama only half of the uncommitted votes there it swings back in his favor to a 70,000 vote lead).
These are not me "parsing the numbers"; these are facts.
If Obama caved at the slightest challenge, he wouldn't have made it through Nevada. He was not given a chance to respond to the NAFTA allegations. It is clear according to the facts that he did nothing of what Clinton has accused him of, but that story is not getting played anywhere.
John - Republicans are not going to vote for a Democrat in a general election. I would not at all be surprised if some of them have crossed over to vote for him because they think he will be less formitable in a general election.
And remember, John McCain has always been very popular with independents.
when you factor in his NAFTA troubles, when "it's the economy, stupid" is going to be the big issue by the fall, he is simply not our strongest choice.
BAC
I don't believe I was counting Republicans in on that. Yes, they are a part of the total popular vote, but they are a very small percent of Obama's total vote. A large part of Obama's support comes from new voters.
McCain has always been popular with independents, which is why we shouldn't just hand them over to him. Obama rates best with independents even against McCain, and definitely in comparison to Clinton.
His "NAFTA troubles" are trumped up and have been proven unfounded. McCain has no way to speak against him on that as he is an open supporter of NAFTA and voted for it.
Post a Comment