LAist: Obama Won

elmer

Fri, 08 Feb 2008 19:28:39 -0800

This idea that Obama is a better candidate simply because people will vote against Clinton, or stay home and not vote at all, is way too cynical for this stage of the race. My biggest question to Obama supporters, so I can get a better handle on what his support is about, is this: what is it about him that you find inspiring? And what will this inspiration cause you to do that is different from what you do now (besides vote?) Anything? And why is it important that the president of the US be "inspirational"--isn't that the job of spiritual leaders and artists?

csharp7

Fri, 08 Feb 2008 14:36:24 -0800

Honestly - I don't think Hillary Clinton can win the white house. I don't know a single Clinton supporter who would stay home on election day if Obama were the nominee. However, I know many Obama supporters (mostly Repubs who are disenchanted with how religious the GOP has gotten) who will never ever vote for a Clinton. Add to this that John McCain will almost certainly be the GOP candidate. If he is, evangelical Christians who were almost single-handedly responsible for the last 8 years of GWB will stay home on election day and not vote for John McCain. But only if Obama is the Democrat he faces. There is only one person that this voting block hates more than John McCain, and that person is Hillary Clinton. They will get out the vote with a fury if she has a chance at becoming president. Trust. So ask yourself, is pulling for Clinton worth jeopardizing a best case scenario of 4 more years of GOP leadership and worst case, 1-2 years of President McCain and 2-8 years of Vice-turned-President Huckabee???

futureperfect

Fri, 08 Feb 2008 14:08:23 -0800

go huckabee!!!!

David Grossman

Thu, 07 Feb 2008 19:14:56 -0800

Alright, let's see what we got here: @elmer- The numbers you are posting include Super Delegates, which I was not talking about in the article. I was only talking about Super Tuesday,as I've mentioned earlier. I'd recommend you check out http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21660914 which has only the delegates, with no pledged SDs. While this shows more then SupTues numbers, Hillary was leading before Super Tuesday, and now Barack is leading. So yeah. And you want to talk about special interests? Hillary was on the board of Wal-Mart. I also question your idea that Hillary has an "unrivaled" grasp of domestic and foreign policy. The grasp wasn't smart enough to vote against the war in Iraq, after all. @wrappedcherry- If this were the Republican side, you'd most likely be right. But the Democratic primaries hand out delegates proportionally @everyone else- I messed up on Wisconsin and Hawaii- their primaries/caucuses are on the 19th, not the 12. My bad.

jrb

Thu, 07 Feb 2008 13:16:09 -0800

Hey Elmer, if you are a Clinton supporter you must be a racist. BTW, do you still beat your wife?

elmer

Thu, 07 Feb 2008 12:30:37 -0800

um...last I checked, 1,000 was a greater number than 902: http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_8196350?source=most_viewed&nclick_check=1 Hillary Clinton won. Maybe LAist wants to do some updates today? Well, jrb, then you must not mind that Obama got money from Rezko (in his personal AND professional life)--and from Exelon, the country’s biggest nuclear plant operator. So he yokes small individual contributors TOGETHER with huge corporate ones--awesome! Look--my point is that Obama is a politician too, with all the attendant conflicts of interest. If you support him, go for it--but his desire to portray himself as holier than thou is bullshit. He's no more holy than you or I. Or Hillary.

elmer

Thu, 07 Feb 2008 12:18:35 -0800

um...last I checked, 1,000 was a greater number than 902: http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_8196350?source=most_viewed&nclick_check=1 Hillary Clinton won. maybe laist wants to do some updates today?

wrappedcherry

Thu, 07 Feb 2008 12:02:14 -0800

you really want to know who won? add up the popular votes. i'm guessing hillary won, right? right?

jrb

Thu, 07 Feb 2008 07:33:55 -0800

Well geeze Elmer, I support Obama because he gets most of his money from small individual contributors. That makes me a sexist? Clinton has even gotten money from Rupert Murdoch. I place more importance where a candidate gets their the money, because that tells me who the candidate will be most loyal to, if elected.

elmer

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 21:25:10 -0800

i love how the fact that obama seems to have a lead among white male democrats is being spun as a virtue rather than the ugly reality that it is: many white men, including and not limited to hipsters, are still deeply sexist. it's 2008, and somehow what a majority of white men in the democratic party want is being framed as something that is good for all of us? please. i can make up my own mind, with research and reading and listening and discussion. i don't need shepard fairey's sanctimonious posters or common's lazy videos. hillary clinton's unrivaled grasp of domestic and foreign policy stands in clear, stark contrast to obama's lack of experience: a grand total of 3 years in federal government. his messages are vague, unspecific, short on facts, and loooong on rhetoric. he is the one who has introduced acid negativity into this campaign. i find his self-righteousness deeply troubling, arrogant and divisive.

raul

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 17:37:08 -0800

That's true. I suppose if she wants to be cozy with voters by going with her first name, then it's within everyone's right to refer to her by her first name. My bad. Anyway, I think it would benefit Clinton to portray herself as a fighter for the working class Democrats, the union members. She won California through their support, and in turn she can portray Obama as the one being championed by the rich, wealthy, Hollywood liberals. However, that will be tough considering the support she has received from rich, wealthy liberals in the past.

marc22386

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 17:23:17 -0800

The fact that Obama won a lot of Midwestern and traditionally Republican states pretty handedly should be reason enough to make him the Democratic nominee. McCain will be tough to beat, and pitting up someone who voted very similarly to him in the Senate (i.e. Hillary) won't do much for Democrats. Plus the fact that Hillary can't get male or independent votes...does anyone seriously think she's the one that can take down the GOP??

Andy Sternberg

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 17:22:04 -0800

raul -- if it's demeaning to refer to Sen. Clinton as Hillary, then why does so much of her campaign propaganda, bumper stickers, etc. say simply "Hillary for president." Just look at her website. I was kind of disgusted by the first-name-thing myself when I noticed Cristina signs everywhere in Argentina. Cristina Kirchner recently became their first female president and was preceded by her husband, Nestor's '03-'07 presidency.

David Grossman

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 17:20:16 -0800

Hold up- I just realized the link I gave was not the actual store of the campaign. Here's the real one, which actually proves my point even more- http://www.hillarystore.com/

David Grossman

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 17:17:01 -0800

@Raul: Have you noticed her campaign? It's Hillary '08 on all the signs and such. She's as sexist and demeaning as I am if that's the case. Proof: http://www2.demstore.com/cgi-local/SoftCart.exe/scstore/Clinton/?E+scstore+done

raul

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 17:06:21 -0800

Or it could just be a way to mock her just as you pointed out Bush was mocked by being called "Dubya". It's demeaning even if it's not sexist.

Elise Thompson

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 16:54:01 -0800

I believe we are calling Clinton by her first name because there has already been a president Clinton. The same way we called Bush "George W" until fairly recently.

Andy Sternberg

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 16:48:23 -0800

Cephyn, the nature of this post is commentary. While we usually stick to straight reporting on politics, it's fun to mix in some opinion/commentary, especially with our primary election now in the rear-view mirror.

raul

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 16:46:48 -0800

Are we calling Clinton by her first name because she's a woman?

cephyn

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 16:14:19 -0800

OK so you're still going off projections only. With the projected total separated by only 4 delegates, and with the current running total Hillary up 729-722 (http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/super-tuesday-delegate-tracker.html) at best this post is premature, and at worst - downright wrong.

David Grossman

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 15:56:43 -0800

Actually, I'm using MSNBC because CNN is just going with fully determined seats, which takes too long; CBS, ABC, FOX News and WaPo are incorporating Super Delegates into their reports, and I wanted to only talk about Super Tuesday. Got it?

cephyn

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 15:44:09 -0800

So you're taking the one contrarian source because they're using projections instead of actual tallies. Got it.

grendel20

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 15:35:41 -0800

In for hillary crying again.

grendel20

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 15:35:34 -0800

In for hillary crying again.

David Grossman

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 15:34:05 -0800

@cephyn- I would like to rewrite this post, but only because I used the word "Hillary" three times in one sentance. And Andy took the words write out of my mouth. (internet mouth?) It's also worth noting that the folks at TPM Election Central say that NBC has the most accurate numbers so far because " they represent not a momentary conclusion during an ongoing tally, but a calculation of where the totals will end up when all the returns are factored in". So yeah.

Andy Sternberg

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 15:24:57 -0800

MSNBC.com shows Obama 838-834. AP's latest count (Super Tues. only) = Clinton 739-706. Regardless of what the count REALLY is, it's clear that Obama has momentum in his favor -- just a week ago, when Edwards was still in, it didn't look like it would be this close b/w Clinton&Obama

riley

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 15:17:16 -0800

i believe hillary is still leading delegates, at least including the super-smarmy, super-undemocratic superdelegates. that said, the race is clearly far from over and i hope obama prevails. if not, say hello to president mccain.

kino

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 14:33:29 -0800

well said sir.

cephyn

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 14:31:03 -0800

Yeah, as it turns out - Hillary won more delegates on Super Tuesday. Perhaps you'd like to rewrite this entry?

David Grossman

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 14:09:21 -0800

The race does get longer because of this, rdm, but I see that only helping Obama. He's in a pretty unique position of being the newcomer AND having significantly more cash, so he will be able to introduce his message to soft support pretty easily. Of course, Hillary could try to remake herself as she did post-Iowa, but I'm not sure how well that would work. Mark Penn, Clinton Family Pollster, is already trying out a new message, saying Barack is the establishment candidate. I think that'll be a tough sell.

rdm24

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 13:54:03 -0800

I think either side would be hard pressed to declare a winner yet. If anything, the contest is more protracted than ever.

torrmoz

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 13:46:40 -0800

Clinton loans herself $5 million: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/06/clinton-loans-herself-5-million/