Sara Whitman

Obama in a Three State Sweep

Filed By Sara Whitman | February 09, 2008 11:45 PM | comments

Filed in: Politics
Tags: Barack Obama, election 2008, Hillary Rodham Clinton, John McCain, Louisiana, Mike Huckabee, Nebraska, primaries, Washington

Obama wins, decidedly, in all three states today.

Huckabee is WINNING in Louisiana and Nebraska.

Folks? I'm beyond concerned for my country. Listen, I can live with Obama, no question.

But Obama versus Huckabee? What does that say? What kinds of deep divisions are there in this country? I live in Massachusetts, la la land of the liberal.

I'm a little blown away.


Recent Entries Filed under Politics:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.


Sara, I don't think you have anything to worry about in terms of Huckabee actually becoming the nominee. McCain is so far ahead on delegates that Huckabee has virtually no chance of winning the White House. Far scarier, and perhaps far more realistic, is the possibility of Huckabee gaining the VP slot on the GOP ticket. With McCain being as old as he is, even the possibility of Huckabee being a heartbeat from the Presidency is a downright terrifying prospect.

That said, I still don't believe a Republican has any real shot at winning the White House this time. There's still just too much anger among the electorate about the Bush Administration and about Iraq in particular to consider a McCain victory likely barring some completely unforeseeable major development that sours popular opinion on both Obama and Clinton. Possible? Perhaps. Likely? Personally, I don't think so.

Well, if Romney decided to give his delegates to Huckabee, and Huckabee won all the rest of the primaries, well he could win the nomination.

Not likely, but possible.

If that happened, who knows. I would like to think that most Americans are smart enough to see through ayatollah Hucks smokescreen and realise what a deluded little bigot he really is.

But then these are the same people who put Bush into office, not once, but twice.

A McCain/Huckabee ticket is a scary thougt, considering how old McCain is, and how insane and fanatical the religious right can be. Not such a big step from killing abortion doctors, now is it?

I don't think you have to worry about Huckabee, but I would be concerned about Barak Obama running against John McCain.

I participate regularly at the HillaryClinton.com blog site and also do a lot of reading on the Obama blog site.

I am a Senator Clinton Supporter, just so you know up front, but have become increasingly supportive of her Campaign as I've come to learn more about Obama and the mind-set of the people who tend to support him.

I watched his Victory speech tonight, and all I can say is that I am not a sheep that needs to be led to the gates of heaven via the Political Salvation he portends to deliver.

I have become very cynical as of late. I have even wondered about some wild, behind the scenes Republican conspiracy to divide the Democratic Party (even the LGBT community seems split).

First, the Florida and Michigan illegal Primaries. How many times will Florida voting be controversial?

Then, the Republican's push for a Pro-Obama bias in the media (and perhaps even financially) to create a dead-heat between the two remaining Democratic Candidates - a Black Man and a Woman.

Surely the battle between Clinton and Obama will be protracted over the Florida/Michigan votes, which may well serve to divide the Democratic Party even more.

No matter which of the two Candidates gets Nominated, the Democratic Party may be so divided (I've witnessed a massive amount of hostility between the two Camp's supporters) that many Democrats may not vote, or might even decamp to McCain.

Since most of the States Obama has won traditionally vote Republican, I'm sure the Republicans feel they could knock out a Black Man in a heart beat.

Clinton, on the other hand, has withstood 10 years of Republican attacks levied against her and I believe the Republicans would like her out the picture ASAP.

These two articles may be of some interest:

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/barack-obamas-church-ultra-left-and-afrocentric

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/and-obama-wept.html

Okay - so it's all crazy - or is it really that far fetched? We ARE talking Politics here...


A democratic party that's scoring record turnout with 2 strong candidates in a contested primary is a GOOD thing, friday. This chance we're getting to debate issues, talk to our fellow democrats etc is good for the party.

I know the republicans can't wait to have hilary in the race. Her negatives are so high it's nearly impossible for her to succeed against someone with mccain's popularity.

Kevin -

"I know the republicans can't wait to have hilary in the race. Her negatives are so high it's nearly impossible for her to succeed against someone with mccain's popularity."

Classic words I've heard a thousand times at this point. Thanks for your deep insight.

Kevin~

So, like, are you saying that there won't be any attacks on Obama if he runs? That Republicans aren't excited about him because they'll just have to roll over if he wins the nom?

They're going to go after the nom no matter what. Remember when Kerry's military credentials were beyond reproach? Yeah, the Republicans just rolled over there.

Huckabee can't possibly win Nebraska until the primary in May. The Republican Party did not do a caucus this year.

I voted Saturday in the WA. caucus in a rural area. In my precinct, there was 20 votes for Obama, and 4 for Clinton. I was very surprised.

The Obama supporters who spoke at the caucus were kind of scary. One said that he and Clinton had been in the Senate the same one term, another said that Clinton had been in the Senate only 2 years more than Obama. Taking nothing for granted based on this experience, Clinton is in her second six year term, not her first as is Obama.

Another person claimed that Clinton's campaign is being run by Madeleine Albright, who she described as an adviser to Bill Clinton, and was responsible for NAFTA. Again, for the record, Albright is the former Secretary of State(!), not a political operative, or an "adviser" to Bill Clinton. NAFTA was an economic policy, not a foreign policy.

Someone else said that if Obama wasn't the nominee, she would vote for McCain. (Yeah, because McCain is so much closer to Obama in policy and philosophy than Clinton!!!)

I guess this is the long way of saying, don't ever take anything for granted. These were the people who actually bothered to show up to vote, and they were this misinformed.

I also can never forget the lesson of 1980 when we all prayed that Ronald Reagan would get the Republican nomination, because *surely* there would be no way he could ever be elected President.

As for the current race, so far, conventional wisdom has been wrong 100% of the time. I think that should be its own cautionary tale. People keep saying that Obama would do better against McCain than Clinton. But I wonder how the electorate would react to an older war hero with 25 years of foreign policy experience standing next to a young man with no military experience and virtually no foreign policy experience. When push comes to shove, I think a lot of people will think twice before pulling the trigger (if you'll excuse the expression) for Obama. Just a thought.

BTW, on the caucus sign-in sheet (which doubles as the voting form where you declare for which candidate you're supporting), it had a box marked "GLBT? (optional)". I don't remember that being on the form before. (I could be wrong) There was also a "optional" box for race. In any case, for those who are put out by the questions, they're for delegate representation formulas. I was glad for the option to be visible.

Rory, Madeleine Albright is advising the Clinton campaign. That's true. But NAFTA and, technically, she was an advisor to Clinton I in the same way that Powell was to Bush. Most definitely she was no Karl Rove though... LOL

I always thought she was a really cool lady, myself.

As for Huckabee, I think Romney may well give him those delegates. The conservative wing is NOT happy about McCain.

Sorry, my error- Huckabee was ahead in WA, not NE.

He won KS, LA and at this time, is a very close second in WA.

"Rory, Madeleine Albright is advising the Clinton campaign. That's true. But NAFTA and, technically, she was an advisor to Clinton I in the same way that Powell was to Bush. Most definitely she was no Karl Rove though... LOL"

Yes, Albright has endorsed Hillary, and serves as a foreign policy adviser, but she isn't on the campaign staff, much less the manager, strategist, or consultant.

And sure, I guess you can say the Secretary of State advises the President, but as the top cabinent officer, to just call her an adviser like some sort of staffer doesn't seem to properly acknowledge her place in history.

But unlike Powell, Clinton actually listened to his Secretary of State. ;-)

There are interesting developments regarding the Republican caucus in Washington State at SLOG (the blog of The Stranger - Dan Savage's Seattle newspaper).

http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/02/huckabee_isnt_conceding_washington_state

I can't wait to see how the decision of the CA Supreme Court regarding same sex marriage will affect the election...and the Huckabee problem...and the fear of Democrat candidates.

What if the court decides in favor of marriage?

What if the amendment in CA gathers steam as a result of the court decision?

How will the Democrats counter a amendment vote in November that will draw the religious zealots to the polls in CA?

Alex, of course Obama will be attacked. He already has been. Because of Hilary going so negative, his primary campaign is a good chance to see how he will respond to such attacks: swiftly, candidly, and forthrightly. It's working.

Hi ya'll first if its The Huckster vs Senator Obama then my vote goes to Senator Obama.Thats right you read it correctly as no way in Hella's realm would I ever vote for the Huckster.

Side bar no one won the delegates in Louisiana
as to award those a candidate needed 50% of the vote so its who gets them and how ?Your guess is as good as mine Voodoo perhaps?

Also Washington has gone to the lawyers now form what ive just heard on CNN.And you thought the Republican side was over its gona be a wild ride so hang on and have fun watching it!

Michael Bedwell | February 10, 2008 7:31 PM

Ain’t no perception like selective perception, Baby, and the Obamamania illustrated with the quote below is a classic example:

"his primary campaign is a good chance to see how he will respond to such attacks: swiftly, candidly, and forthrightly."

Any chance of some pizza being under all that cheese?

As a voter driven to vote for Sen. Clinton by the arrogant and air-filled yet meatless Obama campaign in a car filled with all the gas generated during McClurkngate, I disagree. As might, apparently, Bilerico cofounder Jerame who wrote in an earlier thread:

“In the debates, he's been a blathering mess more often than he's been inspirational. When pressed, he starts to look pissy and purses his lips like he's ready to burn Wolf Blitzer's beard with his laser eye beams or like he's going to wrestle John Edward's hair. He only looks presidential when he makes speeches and lots of people are watching. I really enjoy those times and find him appealing when he's in his element. Otherwise, he looks rather precocious and often very petulant when things aren't going his way. He comes off as very arrogant to me most of the time.”

“Time” magazine’s Joe Klein [who regularly flames Sen. Clinton] wrote:

"'We are the ones we've been waiting for', Barack Obama said in yet another memorable election-night speech on Super-Confusing Tuesday. 'We are the change that we seek'. ...[T]here was something just a wee bit creepy about the mass messianism — 'We are the ones we've been waiting for' — of the Super Tuesday speech and the recent turn of the Obama campaign. 'This time can be different because this campaign for the presidency of the United States of America is different. It's different not because of me. It's different because of you'. That is not just maddeningly vague but also disingenuous: the campaign is entirely about Obama and his ability to inspire. Rather than focusing on any specific issue or cause — other than an amorphous desire for change — the message is becoming dangerously self-referential. The Obama campaign all too often is about how wonderful the Obama campaign is.”

The worst example I’ve seen of those two characteristics joined—an “how dare anyone criticize ME” attitude and indications he has begun to believe in his own divinity—was Obama’s answer to a question [soon after the LA “love in” debate] about whether he thought his and her supporters could support the other’s candidacy after the convention. He said that he thought Sen. Clinton’s supporters could definitely support him but, verbal pause, he wasn’t so sure his could support her.

As they say in basketball games across Indiana: Time fucking out on the floor, Senator! You might well genuinely believe that. But HOW is forming a coalition to defeat the Republicans in November served by your saying it aloud? I don’t know what he said in Richmon last night after Sen. Clinton’s earlier evening speech at another huge Jefferson-Jackson Dinner. But I read that she said that our goal must be to elect a DEMOCRAT in November.

While Klein’s mild heresy illustrates a growing number of professional commentators beginning to associate “empty” with “suit,” most media still write from the perspective of having their heads up Obama’s ass.

Writing of yesterday’s votes, the Associated Press reporter referred to the “Official Obama Campaign Guide to Hyperbole” when he wrote, “Obama's winning margins ranged from substantial to crushing. He won roughly two-thirds of the vote in Washington state and Nebraska, and almost 90 percent in the Virgin Islands.”

Hmmm. Let me think. When was the last time a party’s candidate for President was chosen based on having crushed his opponent in the Virgin Islands? “Alex, ‘What is NEVER’!!!?”

Sustaining selective perception must be particularly hard for those trapped in echolalia about “Hillary’s negatives.” Aren’t at least some of them asking themselves, “If she turns off so many people while Obama inspires so many people, why have virtually as many, so far, voted for her as him?” And so many who made up their minds in the 24 hours before their primaries and across so many more demographics?

Of course, many point to polls showing that—if the vote were held “today"—Obama would allegedly have a slightly better chance than Sen. Clinton of beating McCain. While one can imagine Obama increasing that head-to-head margin in debates with McCain, one can also imagine him reverting to the blathering mess, pissyness, and arrogance Jerame observed in his Democrat-only debate performances. By contrast, even those in the media who hate her agree that Sen. Clinton knows details about the issues that concern most voters inside and out. With her as candidate, I imagine debates in which she takes the tired ribbons of red, white and blue behind which McCain is guaranteed to try to disguise his policy ignorance and “Old, Conservative White Man-ism,” strangle him with it, and dangle him from the rafters to watch a November landslide below after the larger electorate sees clearly who REALLY represents "The Past."

Such objectively observed different levels of substance are irrelevant to some. Of such tireless blog-to-blog salesmen of Hillary Haterade, I’ve always wondered if they cared that its ingredients were originally manufactured by Republicans.

In sum, the ultimate answer to Sara’s anxieties is the answer to this question: “Who are going to eat more of their own and thus gift the White House to the other party—the loons on the Right or the loons on the Left?"

Michael Bedwell | February 10, 2008 8:11 PM

Lest there be any confusion, "Alex" in “Alex, ‘What is NEVER’!!!?” above was a "Jeopardy" reference, not Alex Blaze.

News update Obama now has won Maine thats 4 out of 4 and Hillary has fired her manager and hired a new one.Its time for her to forget the new talent and hire Bills old team to win ie James Carville!

MB~ Don't worry! I knew you were referring to my straight Canadian uncle!

But seriously, I think that you're the first crazy Hillary supporter I've encountered. You're angry that the AP reported that Obama won the Virgin Islands? Are they supposed to suppress info about Obama's wins now?

And he was a "blathering mess" of "pissiness"? I suppose I may have been watching different debates, but for the most part he did pretty well. Sure, he made some snipy comments ("You seem likable"), but really that's like less than 1% of the debate as a whole. I think there's more than a little hyperbole in saying that he's just a mess.

I don't think we have a Hillary equivalent for "Obamaniacs" or "Ronbots".... Someone more creative than I am will have to come up with it!

And, no, Obama won't gift the White House to McCain - it's a pretty solid prediction to say that either Hillary or Barack's getting the presidency. They'd have to do something majorly wrong, and I don't think that any of Barack's occasional petty comments are going to be anything to trump McCain's "old angry white man" personality. Even Buchanan's scared of him.

Michael Bedwell | February 11, 2008 1:26 PM

Thanks for dismissing me as "crazy," AB. I'm glad to see those rules of posting civility are working so well.

The pattern I've noticed in your responses to any number of people is how often you demonstrate that you haven't actually read what they wrote, and/or have an almost erotic fondness for trying to reduce what anyone says who disagrees with you to absurdity.

Nothing I wrote could rationally be interpreted as my being "angry that the AP reported that Obama won the Virgin Islands." I simply mocked the example of their verbal overkill of calling his win there "crushing" as one of the more obviously absurd examples of MSM bias for him, and that bias makes me angry.

And your insulting question, "Are they supposed to suppress info about Obama's wins now?" doesn't even get off on "rhetorical" grounds.

Nor, contrary to your closing paragraph, did I say anything about O or H gifting the White House to McCain by something they might do. I was explicitly and clearly only talking about extremist supporters on either side. Specifically, those who might not vote at all because they didn't like their party's nominee, or, less likely, vote for the opposite one in protest.