Three out of four for Clinton?
Is this fight going on - as Clinton strategist Mark Penn has promised - all the way to the Convention?
The ´óÏó´«Ã½ has just heard from a very senior Clinton source that they are expecting to win three out of four contests (Obama gets Vermont and that's it). There's no way of verifying that expectation - and it's worth pointing out that the caucuses in Texas have not even opened as I write this.
But plainly there are hopes rising in her camp that this is not the execution night that her opponents had planned for her.
Meanwhile anyone thinking that the press gets privileged access to all of this history-in-the-making should take a look at ...
Hello, I'm 
°ä´Ç³¾³¾±ð²Ô³Ù²õÌýÌý Post your comment
Justin, in case you've not come across it, this (https://www.newsweek.com/id/118240) paints a vivid picture.
According to Newsweek, even if Clinton won a hypothetical landslide from now until the convention (which, as you well know, won't happen) she would still be beaten in delegates.
Assuming Obama is the nominee within days - and surely all the figures really point that way - its time for Senator Obama to start considering his VP choice (and possible cabinet too. I hope reports are right that he will surround himself with experience including experienced Republicans. How about Gov Bill Richardson as VP and perhaps Gen Colin Powell back as National Security Advisor?
We are very excited about the exit polls showing Hilary is doing very well - especially in Texas.
Considering the early calls have all gone spectacularly wrong, why should the 3 out of 4 be given any weight?
I believe Hillary will win tonight and get the nomination at the convention, just like my team Arsenal beat AC Milan last night. Quote me !!!.
Last September my NYC friends were sure Clinton was a shoo-in for the nomination. I took the view that they were underestimating the massive unacknowledged (and even unconscious) sexism of the electorate overall - and that pretty nearly any male contender would stand a better chance of winning the actual election than pretty nearly any woman. Look what's going on here: if Obama beats Clinton, he runs against McCain, who is white and male and will strike the majority as being much better qualified to run the Oval Office than either Obama or Clinton. Could Clinton seriously win against McCain? We all get to feel good about having a woman and a person of colour in this race, but I think everyone seems to have lost sight of the fact that this fight for the nomination, excellent soap opera as it is, is not, alas, the actual presidential race. Would that it were.
Granted Obama's more intelligent than W and seems to have more humane ideals, but we've already had nearly 8 years of an under-qualified leader.
Most of what I hear from him are buzzwords and catch phrases. Watching crowds fall in love with so little substance is unnerving.
The Clinton campaign needs to start talking tough, because Obama can't possibly get the votes he needs to clinch the nomination if races continue to be this tight. If Clinton smiles, talks nice, and fights for each vote, she has a real chance of being the nominee. Clinton is winning or tying the decisive states: California, Missouri, Texas, Michigan, Florida, Ohio. The press has yet to acknowledge how she is adding excited Hispanics to the vote, as many or more than the African-Americans that Obama has energized. If Obama goes up against McCain, the Republican can point to a balanced immigration bill that he sponsored and Obama voted against. Case closed.
Maybe Clinton should consider running as VP for Ralph Nader...
Clinton has some serious delegate math problems. Winning 2 or even 3 primaries tonight barely makes a dent in Obama's lead. With VT, RI, and Ohio already "called" and delegates awarded Clinton has gained ONLY 6 delegate. Texas still not "called" nor delegates awarded.
Obama will compete well in the future primaries as well.
Consider, in what way are narrow wins tonight for Clinton a "comeback" when she blew double diget leads in those states in abt. two weeks?
Over 10 % of voters in Ohio were Republican "crossover" voters...voting for Clinton to extend this primary race and help McCain in the meantime?...they're trouble makers for the Dems. Cinton will be easier for McCain to whoop in the General Election.
If you could put Obama's words in Clinton's mouth, everyone would criticize Clinton for being soft and fuzzy and lacking substance. If you could put Clinton's words in Obama's mouth, everyone would cheer for his thoughtful approach to solving the country's problems. This campaign is a reminder that a woman who fights for what she believes in and is the tiniest aggressive is a b____, but that a man who does the same is a Leader.
Mollie, where do you get the 10% figure and the 6 delegate figure at this point? This strikes me as irrationally pro-Obama. Do support your candidate, but do also respect that fact that thousands of other Democrats support Clinton. One way or another, very soon, we will all want to support the Democratic nominee, whoever he or she is. And frankly, given the many twists and turns in the race so far, I don't think there is any way to predict which Democrat will do best against McCain. I'd like to think that it will be the Democratic voters who convince our independent and Republican friends to support our cause, not embrace or shun a particular personality...
And the answer is: Yes!
Now that yet another 2 weeks of comment and reporting have proved inaccurate could we have less ´óÏó´«Ã½ reporting of the US opinion polls and speculation of who will win which state?
The media seems to swing back and forth. Initially, they scrutinise Clinton and play soft with Obama. Now after the SNL skit and criticism of the imbalance they swing the pendulum all the way in the other direction. It seems like the media is trying to compensate.
It seems that the media at large can't seem to keep the bowling ball in the lane. It ends up in one gutter then they overcompensate and roll the ball into the other gutter.
The Rezko story was not new and both Hillary and Obama have some inconsistencies on NAFTA. The Rezko story is relevant but the media had squirreled that acorn away. But conveniently in a self-conscious epiphany they suddenly deem it pertinent on the eve of the recent primaries/caucus. I hope all media outlets remember they are in the business of reporting news not marketing candidates like they're fads (leave that to the politicians).
John Kecsmar asks "why should the 3 out of 4 be given any weight?" Because, as Karl Rove pointed out this evening, Mr Obama's momentum has been stopped and both the media and the electorate have been taking a second look at him. The states where Mrs Clinton has prevailed are those which are usually the big winners for Democrats in the General Election - and as Ohio goes, so goes the Nation!
Does anyone else think that with all her talk of "experience" that Clinton is actually giving McCain a huge stick to beat her with if she does win the nomination.
Clinton might have more experience then Obama but doesn't McCain have more experience then both of them put together?
It would be interesting to see if McCain uses her own words against her.
Clinton is only happy that she wasn't knocked out in Ohio and Texas, but she knows that overcoming Obama's massive lead in the pledged delegates is a near impossibility. People should bear in mind that just about a week or so ago, Mrs. Clinton had very Healthy leads in these states, and they were all blown away. Tonight, in my view was a sure win for Obama, because he did not drop that much delegates, which is what it all boils down to.
Her execution has only been postponed!!
From time to time, the "nice" Hillary comes out; but more often than not, her true colors show. In this case, she's taking tips from Bush and Cheney on how to get people to vote for her. The answer? Don't try to show what she can do for the country, or how she can make things better. The health care issue isn't a big enough motivator, anymore. Instead, use fear. Put fear into the hearts of voters that if they don't vote for her, this country will surely come under attack by terrorists. Obama just doesn't have her gift for saving us when "that call" comes in at 3 in the morning. It's all a bunch of bunk, as are the words, "home of the free and the BRAVE." More like, home of cowards who shrink at whatever "sky is falling" notion politicians put in their heads. Instead of believing in hope and change for America, we're back to the old fearful thoughts so skillfully introduced by the Bush administration, that we're about to be attacked at any moment. Not much has changed, and not much will change under Hillary if she stays this course. Given the choice, I'd rather have McCain in office, since, unlike Hillary, he truly does have more experience in this realm. But neither is a good choice for America. We need to wipe the slate clean, and start fresh. That takes courage, since trying something new is not for the faint of heart. Most people would rather just play it safe. Home of the free and the brave, indeed.
I just don't understand the Democrats. Hilary is hated by Republicans and will gain no 'centrist' voters, who will surely swing in behind McCain when the chips are down. If the Democrats really are serious about winning they have only one choice, and they now seem to be incapable of making that simple decision.
If Clinton wins the nomination I will be one of those hardcore democrats that will vote for McCain in protest. What is the difference between Hillary and McCain? Both got us into this mess - and things will not be any different. I am sick and tired of a dynasty ruling the US. It is time for a different last name to govern the country.Also, most minorities are missing on a great opportunity to make a statement that they have arrived on the political scene.
I was trying to look at the issue of delegates and found something very interesting; the math interms of the number of delegates. You can go to either www.newsweek.com/id/118240 or
www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1719614,00.html
They more or less talk about the same thing. It'll be interesting to see how things turn out.
From the Euro perspective, I'm relieved to see the naieve optimism that was appearing to sweep Obama to the nomination, is being leavened with some real politics - such as NAFTA, and the implications of even he having links to sleaze. With the experience of seeing the hope that Tony Blair gave us all, dissipate in a well of sleaze and cronyism, and slavish devotion to the Bush regime, I would warn you against voting for a character who is more likely to disappoint and betray your ideals, than an experienced pragmatist who delivers at least some of what you want. The result will be a frustrating four years followed by more republicanism. Clinton reminds me of our Gordon Brown, who as Chancellor has led a real redistribution of wealth to the poorer in our society without 'frightening the horses', and through insight rather than wishful thinking, has driven some genuine sea-change in our previously shattered social fabric. Basically - he's proved a better manager of capitalism than the capitalists own party - and delivered social reform at the same time. What more can you or we ask - except he help Hillary disengage from Iraq as soon as possible!
OHIO >>RHODE ISLAND>>TEXAS
SLAM DUNK!!!
"As goes Ohio…So goes the Nation"
GO HILLARY!!!
THE COME BACK QUEEN!!!
~
(Hmm…maybe Bwark Obama will be too busy in Chicago next week...)
I am a Liberian, and I am residence of Monrovia, the Capital City of the Republic of Liberia.
And, I am also US Democratic Party's fan since I got aware of US Presidential race politics from former President Jimmy Carter's time.
With that view, I see Senator Hilary Clinton being in a better position to bring the national leadership of the United States of America (USA) back to the Democratic Party in this year's US Presidential election.
Why do I state so? My reason is Senator Obama is full of some of the best inspiring speeches in recent time after President Robert Mugabe's "Let Tony Blaire have his Britain and let me have my Zimbabwe".
And that may sound like a revolution to the American conservatives in the coming US Presidential election. The question is; are the Americans ready for a revolutionist?
#18 - Surely the precise number of pledged delegates is almost irrelevant now that it appears certain that the noination will decided in an old-fashioned brokered convention by the super-delegates. Assuming the 2 candidates go into the convention approximately equal in terms of pledged delegates (+/-100 or so) then the nomination will come down to backstage political maneuvering, something which should favour Sen. Clinton.
I am so disappointed in Hillary - who has shown now that she cares only about herself. Her comment "I have experience, JOhn McCain has experience, Obama has a speech" - is essentially a message to her base to support McCain over Obama - is a line that I thought even she would never cross. Shame on her. She clearly believes that the nomination is her divine right and that any one who challenges her should be destroyed - no matter what the cost. I was always a staunch Clinton supporter - both Bill and Hillary. I will never support or vote for either of them on anything again. It's very depressing to see such selfishness being rewarded.
I hope Obama will win, because Hillary as U.S.A president means the country will be administer by her husband,as the saying goes old "wine in new bottle"
I live and work in Houston, what surprised me in a straw poll in the office was the number of Republicans who were voting for Clinton, so the battle would continue. Good old Tactical voting.
Much as I would like to see an African American becoming the US president this year. It needs to be remembered that there are only around 45 million African Americans in the USA, whilst more tahn half the US population is female. So come on US women, vote for Hillary, and let the world's most powerful nation be ruled by a woman at last.
Anyone who thinks last night was a win for Obama needs to look at the facts.
Obama's camp thought it would be all over by today - they thought he would take Texas and Hillary would be finished. What actually happened was Hillary's tactics hit home with her core, which Obama had eaten into, and suddenly the women saw through Obama and voted for their girl.
Obama is the media darling but suddenly for some reason over the past week they have looked at him more closely and not everything is what it seemed.
He can talk the talk but can he walk the walk - that is the question the Clinton camp put to Texas and Ohio and they overwhelming said that they didn't think he could.
Now if Hillary can get Florida's (and Michigan's - but that is harder) delegates into the convention then suddenly they'll virtually be tied in delegates and the popular vote - and suddenly it is anyone's ball game once more.
It is a great night for the Clinton camp and for those who love to watch pure Politics theatre as that it what we are going to be treated to over the next few weeks and months.
I wonder what tactics Clinton's camp will come up with next to try and make Obama look bad. She is fighting just like a woman - cold and calculated
So Hillary cant win without the "super-delegates". But she can improve her super-delegate count by doing a lot better until the convention.
For her to do better, she has to openly acknowledge that she isnt as charismatic as Obama, and that Americans tend to vote for leaders who are. Politics SHOULD be about policy not personality. But in America it isnt, and by acknowledging her deficits here she speaks to all those who - like her - are not naturals in front of a camera or audience. This should make people trust her more, not less....
Her campaign should take a leaf out of the Eminem 8 mile movie. Throw at yourself everything that everyone is already throwing at you. That leaves them with nothing to say...
What a great night, I know trust isn't a word you can use when it comes to politicans, however I really believe that Obama is coming across a little to cool for school. I really don't believe he has the necessary clout or experience to make a good President. Clinton on the other hand has real credentials and more importantly has laid more on the table in terms of her poitical intentions. Ok she made a mistake with Iraq but she wasn't the only one! In my opinion Obama is all style and no substance and it is Clinton who has the charisma and intelligence to change America for the better!
Obama may lack substance but Whitewater, refusal to release white house papers, refusal to release tax returns, voting for the war in Iraq and giving NAFTA the thumbs up isn't the kind of substance America needs!!!!
As a former Hillary supporter, I must say that I'm extremely disappointed by the campaign she has run. Why should one be proud or happy by her "wins" last night? She played the fear card and threw out spurious allegations (which pale in comparison to her own skeletons). It's disappointing that such tactics proved to work.
Or did they? The more and more I think about it, the more I realize that over the past few weeks, DESPITE her negative campaigning, she actually LOST her big lead in Texas. As I write this, she is also behind trailing Obama, in double digits, in the Texas caucuses. I don't see how last night was a "win" for Clinton. It seems much more like a "pause" in the Barack momentum. But of course, in the end, I guess "spin" is more convincing than the truth.
Obama isn't perfect, but I feel that too many buy into the Clinton line that he is inexperienced and lacking at substance, without doing any research on Obama. Please...look at their voting records, look at what legislation Hillary produced during her time in the Senate and compare that to Obama. He has been much more prolific in producing substantive legislation than Ms. Clinton. Again, I have moved over to the Obama camp and while I can respect those that support Hillary for what she WAS, it's hard to back someone who currently seems willing to win at all costs. My only hope is that Barack does not lower himself to fighting Clinton in the same fashion.
To Christina Fraquelli:
So Hillary is fighting like a woman, cold and calculating. Ironic that in a man you say he was being a masterful tactician. A bit hypocritical don't you think. Did our mothers and grandmothers fight for equal rights just to have us undermined for demonstrating the same strenghts (and weaknesses) of men. How should she campaign, with tea and crumpets in a floral frock and pumps?
how many times have the bbc political team written Clinton off to date. The interesting question is why.(not whether they will admit bias!)
Here is the big story that everyone seems to have missed concerning the Texas Primary. Enjoy.
Hilary’s Margin of Victory in Texas (McCain supporters)
On March 4, 2008, a small band of conservative Texans autonomously and individually decided to do the unthinkable. They voted for Hilary Clinton. Their goal was simple. They would give Hilary a glimmer of hope that she could wrestle (steal) the Democratic nomination for president from Senator Barack Hussein Obama even though he had more delegates and opinion polls indicated that he would be more successful facing Senator John McCain in a general election.
Because of her massive ego, and unquenchable thirst for power, it was believed that the Clinton attack machine would be the most deadly weapon that could be directed again Senator Obama. It was also hoped that continuing the Democratic primary would destroy the unity of the Democratic Party, undermine the dignity of both candidates, offend independent voters and consume massive economic and emotion resources of the feuding camps. During this period of tribulation, Senator McCain would be free to prepare for the final battle.
While Senator Clinton has often claimed to be the victim of a vast right wing conspiracy in the past, it is interesting to note that her campaign appears to have resurrected by a tiny rag-tag collection of conservative Texans who weren’t ready to see her go quietly into the night. Godspeed Senator Clinton, you sure got my vote.
Evidence for this is the following:
1. Clinton won the primary but lost the caucus. The caucus process is very public and requires that individuals sign their name and declare publicly who they voted for. This could have been too embarrassing for some conservatives to stomach.
2. Mike Huckabee got 38% while Senator McCain only got 55%. While the Baptist Jihad may be strong in Texas, I would be willing to bet that McCain’s percentage would have been much higher had some of his loyal supporters not been voting in the Democratic Primary.
Best wishes from Austin, Texas.
Ed
There has been so much comment re Pro Obama and con Hillary that one may lose insight as to who is really the strongest and most knowledgeable ; the most qualified to lead our country out of the doldrums. Without doubt it is Hillary Clinton. She is the one who takes the questions first and answers with substance. Obama usually answers second and agrees with her; the easy way out. And also, noone really ever heard of Obama prior to the run for the nomination. Where did he come from? What did he do to becomre a forerunner? Who paid out the big money to put him on top and why? All I have heard from him are pie in the sky platitudes and I don't believe a word he says. I hope people wake up before it's too late. We need a Democratic administration not another four years of Republican dominance.Weneed Hillary Clinton as president. That's all.
Making a big deal about winning Ohio and saying that No president in recent history has won the presidency without winning Ohio says something about the poor choice Ohio has made in electing and reelecting the current President. If they are proud of their choice and their judgement and do not vote for a drastic change, then they bear the dire consequences for that. The rest of the nation should clearly not be driven by what Ohio does.
Its not three out of four for Clinton. Texas is not complete. Bases on the continuing and painfully slow Texas caucus count, The winner of Texas will be Obama.
I am concerned and disappointed that the press has not been enlightened enough to make this point.
Clinton’s camp continues to ride on euphoria and waves of illusion about wining 3 out of 4 on March 4th and gaining the hard sort after momentum. The truth is, soon or later they will wake up to a rude enlightening. Obama is wining the Texas caucus and so are the delegates. What counts? Popular votes or delegates? Last time I checked the conventions do not seat popular votes. They seat delegates; otherwise George Bush would not have left Crowley since Al Gore won the popular votes. So what happens to all the crowning the media has done to Queen Hillary? It is time to dethrone her. Baba.