I endorse Barack Obama for president

[starkserious]

Obama has been trying to be the gentleman, above the fray, but he is now saying he is going to fight back. The fight is going to turn quite nasty. And that will not be good for the fall. The democrats are doing all the opposition research for McCain.

Seems to me, if the situation remains more or less static -- if no one stumbles badly or deals a fatal blow -- Obama will win the next few primaries, and Hillary will win Pennsylvania. Which means the contest will not be settled. It may happen, then, that the democratic "elders" -- the super delegates -- will make a determination to throw the race one way or the other, for the sake of the party. That's just speculation, but it makes sense. But in the meantime, stand back for a slug fest.

[Jeff]

Obama has been trying to be the gentleman, above the fray, but he is now saying he is going to fight back. The fight is going to turn quite nasty. And that will not be good for the fall. The democrats are doing all the opposition research for McCain.

Seems to me, if the situation remains more or less static -- if no one stumbles badly or deals a fatal blow -- Obama will win the next few primaries, and Hillary will win Pennsylvania. Which means the contest will not be settled. It may happen, then, that the democratic "elders" -- the super delegates -- will make a determination to throw the race one way or the other, for the sake of the party. That's just speculation, but it makes sense. But in the meantime, stand back for a slug fest.

I agree. This couldn't turn into the most pleasant thing on TV.

[mpbrockman]

Watching (of all people) David Gergen last night, he said "We knew Obama could take a punch, the question is, can he throw one?". He went on to suggest that Obama might best be served by hammering on the "Do you want more of the same?" angle, thereby taking shots at both McCain and Hilary in the same breath and diffusing the perception of them being "personal" attacks.

[Jeff]

Watching (of all people) David Gergen last night, he said "We knew Obama could take a punch, the question is, can he throw one?". He went on to suggest that Obama might best be served by hammering on the "Do you want more of the same?" angle, thereby taking shots at both McCain and Hilary in the same breath and diffusing the perception of them being "personal" attacks.

My deal with that is, I obviously want Obama to get the nomination, but I greatly appreciate his lack of "shame on yous" and "your children are in dangers" that Clinton has been throwing around. I think he can win by staying on task without resorting to attacks. Or, I hope he can.

[starkserious]

I'm just worried the Democrats will blow it and alienate voters and we'll get 4 more years of Bush type crap and war with McCain. If it turns ugly, voters will get turned off and stay home. At least Karl Rove is sitting this one out for now so hopefully the millions evangelical voters will stay in church and pray instead of voting.

[acrouch]

In the early days of American electioneering (at least up through Andrew Jackson, our seventh president) it was considered unseemly for a candidate to campaign on their own behalf.

The campaigns were often extremely nasty, but all the dirty work was done by supporters or political allies. The press was especially partisan, with friends of politicians starting newspapers just so they could say mean things about the opponent. The candidates just chilled out at home the whole time.

[mpbrockman]

Watching (of all people) David Gergen last night, he said "We knew Obama could take a punch, the question is, can he throw one?". He went on to suggest that Obama might best be served by hammering on the "Do you want more of the same?" angle, thereby taking shots at both McCain and Hilary in the same breath and diffusing the perception of them being "personal" attacks.

My deal with that is, I obviously want Obama to get the nomination, but I greatly appreciate his lack of "shame on yous" and "your children are in dangers" that Clinton has been throwing around. I think he can win by staying on task without resorting to attacks. Or, I hope he can.

I appreciate your sentiment, but don't think it's terribly realistic. Obama now has the unenviable task of retaining the voters such as yourself who appreciate his taking the high road as often as possible, as well as swinging back to his side the high percentage of last minute decision makers who were swayed by the "3AM phone call" ads and an SNL appearance. Fear-mongering isn't around because the candidates who play to it are evil bastards - it's around because it works.

He's also, frankly, going to need to throw a few punches to convince many indy voters that he's capable of calling bullshit on the neocon powers-that-be if he's elected. I personally would be more comfortable with Obama if I felt sure he could tell someone like Mitch McConnell to "sit down and shut the f*** up" when the situation called for it. I think this is why I like Bill Clinton the ex-prez better than I liked Bill Clinton the president. It warms my heart when he calls out some jackass of a reporter - but I digress, and I'm probably in the minority on this.

It will be interesting to watch. I just fear for the Dems in what should be their year. Remember, this is the party that managed to lose 4 years ago to an incumbent with a 40% approval rating. All of the talk of a "new paradigm" is lovely, but doesn't mean a damn thing if they trip over themselves (again) and lose to McCain.

[Jeff]

Watching (of all people) David Gergen last night, he said "We knew Obama could take a punch, the question is, can he throw one?". He went on to suggest that Obama might best be served by hammering on the "Do you want more of the same?" angle, thereby taking shots at both McCain and Hilary in the same breath and diffusing the perception of them being "personal" attacks.

My deal with that is, I obviously want Obama to get the nomination, but I greatly appreciate his lack of "shame on yous" and "your children are in dangers" that Clinton has been throwing around. I think he can win by staying on task without resorting to attacks. Or, I hope he can.

I appreciate your sentiment, but don't think it's terribly realistic. Obama now has the unenviable task of retaining the voters such as yourself who appreciate his taking the high road as often as possible, as well as swinging back to his side the high percentage of last minute decision makers who were swayed by the "3AM phone call" ads and an SNL appearance. Fear-mongering isn't around because the candidates who play to it are evil bastards - it's around because it works.

He's also, frankly, going to need to throw a few punches to convince many indy voters that he's capable of calling bullshit on the neocon powers-that-be if he's elected. I personally would be more comfortable with Obama if I felt sure he could tell someone like Mitch McConnell to "sit down and shut the f*** up" when the situation called for it. I think this is why I like Bill Clinton the ex-prez better than I liked Bill Clinton the president. It warms my heart when he calls out some jackass of a reporter - but I digress, and I'm probably in the minority on this.

It will be interesting to watch. I just fear for the Dems in what should be their year. Remember, this is the party that managed to lose 4 years ago to an incumbent with a 40% approval rating. All of the talk of a "new paradigm" is lovely, but doesn't mean a damn thing if they trip over themselves (again) and lose to McCain.

Well, first of all, you called my statement what it is-- a sentiment. It's how I feel rather than what I believe will happen or what is more likely to work for Obama. Essentially, I agree with you about that.

As far as W J Clinton, I've been wanting to do some research to back up this impression I've gotten about him, which is that I think I've seen three different Bill Clintons-- the President, the ex-President, and the Hillary supporter. My favorite character is the middle one, the ex-President. He's the guy who plays hardball back at sensationalist reporters and seems less careful about his precious public image. The President, who I liked okay, seemed warm and fatherly during his speeches, but carefully sugar-coated everything he said. The Hillary campaigner seems to me authoritarian, bordering on belligerent. A couple of his recent campaign speeches seemed to say, "This is your last chance" with the tone of a stern father who's sick of us taking his car out all night every night and getting into trouble. Like we'd better vote for his wife or we'll be grounded for life.

And about the last thing, I suspect that the McCain campaign believes it can't possibly beat an Obama nomination. What's unfortunate about that perspective is that it means that the Clinton and McCain campaigns can combine forces (to only some extent, of course... but Clinton has already explicitly asserted that she and McCain have enough experience to qualify for President, and that Obama, of her own party, does not) against Obama because it's in both of their best interests that Obama doesn't get the nomination.

[Frank]

Just heard on NPR that Obama won 56% of the caucus vote vs Clinton w/44%. She's still claiming victory in Texas, but I think Obama's getting more delegates. He is also claiming victory.

[kbadr]

Just heard on NPR that Obama won 56% of the caucus vote vs Clinton w/44%. She's still claiming victory in Texas, but I think Obama's getting more delegates. He is also claiming victory.

Gosh, that reminds me of some recent election. Now what was it? Darn, I just can't remember.



we're all doomed

[Jeff]

Just heard on NPR that Obama won 56% of the caucus vote vs Clinton w/44%. She's still claiming victory in Texas, but I think Obama's getting more delegates. He is also claiming victory.

I heard that report, too. It sounded like Obama will have good reason to claim victory, according to that analyst. But he seemed to be talking about some kind of electorate math about which I'm ignorant, like he was averaging out the Texas votes with the numbers of delegates.

Kareem, here's a silver lining to your doomsday scenario: the last few major elections, it seems, have included unique elements (albeit, mostly mistakes) that have resulted in a broadening awareness about how our electoral system works. See? It's nice we're learning.

[the_orf]

Here are the most recently reported tallies as of Thursday (3/6) afternoon:

Primary voting:
Clinton - 52%, worth 65 delegates
Obama - 48%, worth 61 delegates

Caucus:
Clinton - 44%, worth 30 delegates
Obama - 56%, worth 37 delegates

Superdelegates
Clinton - 12 pledges of support
Obama - 9 pledges of support
14 remaining undecided

Thus the totals for Texas are, after all this rigamarole:
Clinton - 107 delegates
Obama - 107 delegates
14 superdelegates still undecided, and probably waiting for the convention

It's a tie! They both win! Or they both lose! Or we're all confused! Something like that.

[Aden]

Here are the most recently reported tallies as of Thursday (3/6) afternoon:

Primary voting:
Clinton - 52%, worth 65 delegates
Obama - 48%, worth 61 delegates

Caucus:
Clinton - 44%, worth 30 delegates
Obama - 56%, worth 37 delegates

Superdelegates
Clinton - 12 pledges of support
Obama - 9 pledges of support
14 remaining undecided

Thus the totals for Texas are, after all this rigamarole:
Clinton - 107 delegates
Obama - 107 delegates
14 superdelegates still undecided, and probably waiting for the convention

It's a tie! They both win! Or they both lose! Or we're all confused! Something like that.

Oh good. Then everything is as it should be. For a moment there, I thought one of 'em was gonna pull ahead as the victor.

[nadine]

This cracked me up:

"The Texas primary results were much closer. The white male vote, which keeps shifting, was split. I’m beginning to suspect that the white males have realized that they’re either going to be accused of racism or sexism and have therefore made a secret pact to take turns."

Gail Colins
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/06/opini ... ei=5087%0A

[Jeff]

This cracked me up:

"The Texas primary results were much closer. The white male vote, which keeps shifting, was split. I’m beginning to suspect that the white males have realized that they’re either going to be accused of racism or sexism and have therefore made a secret pact to take turns."

Gail Colins
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/06/opini ... ei=5087%0A

I've decided to be a misogynist.