Who had a Better night Obama or Clinton?

[Thomas Jackson]

....

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I think that our new friend is so special that he deserves a toy all of his own:

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

MSNBC has Obama leading 838-834 with pledged delegates. Of course, Clinton leads superdelegates.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

California was considered a toss-up, and ended up a bit more solid for Clinton than expected.  Result: a small public victory for Clinton.

Elsewhere, a small public victory for Obama thanks to the overall state wins, the "we've surged in a few months" argument, Missouri and Connecticut.

Most importantly, all of the news coverage was of a tie.  Some news sources focused on Obama winning more states (and probably more delegates); others focused on Clinton's California win.  There were no big news stories either way, even from the sensationalist newspapers.  That says a lot.

This is really not a big public perception deal either way, and I'm amazed that the Clinton and Obama die-hards are spinning it that way.  Man, you guys are really true believers, both in the American public and your candidates.

I'm reminded of the fact that even in the 1950's (in Britain, btw) it was estimated that about a third of the population had no real knowledge of or interest in current events. And this a time in which turnout at general elections here hovered around 80%.

[Gabu]

MSNBC has Obama leading 838-834 with pledged delegates. Of course, Clinton leads superdelegates.

Man, I don't think you could have asked for a closer race.

[Thomas Jackson]

.........

[minionofmidas]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wrong again. http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20080206/cm_thenation/15281018

Substantially more. Not effectively equal numbers.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]As if that was the only thing that mattered. Massachusetts was never a likely candidate for an Obama win.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]Missouri is hardly a strongly Black state. They're just very concentrated. (No, I'm not "shocked".) CT was always going to be Obama's best state in southern New England, but I wouldn't have guessed him to win it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Under no circumstances would I EVER vote for Hillary! She could be running against Kermit the Frog, and Kermit would get my vote. Beyond that, Obama is inspiring, positive and hopeful.
[/quote]Well, Kermit... yeah, I'm tempted to agree. But not anybody from the original Republican field.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

LOL at Hillary being "cruel". Seems like the 94 Radio Right Brainwashing has caused lasting damage to the American psyche.... As for cunning and manipulative... All successful politicians are. Up to a point. Obama is.  As for "inspiring and positive", that's just a friendly way of saying "manipulative".
And drop the annoying ! if you want people to take you seriously. Just a friendly suggestion.

[Flying Dog]

Hillary loaned herself 5 million dollars. She has maxed out her donors.

[John Dibble]

Hillary loaned herself 5 million dollars. She has maxed out her donors.

Oh man, she had better hope the media doesn't make too big of a deal out of it - having to finance your own campaign when you're supposed to be the front runner is a sure sign than your campaign is in trouble, and people are going to pick up on that.

[Cubby]

Welcome to the Forum, Ghost Monkey. I am annoyed that some of my peers are attacking you simply because you are new. We were all new at some point.

I think the "Hillary!" thing is funny. Its not just a joke, she really is very forceful and overpowering, so it has some truth to it.

JJ wants Clinton to win because she will be easy to defeat in November. Clay has no excuse to support her, except that he's a white Southerner (I don't know why they don't like Obama, its not just because of his race, its probably other issues, she's always done well with poor people too.)

Sam I didn't know you were a registered Democrat. Why do you still have a green avatar? You and Harry support Hillary, which further supports my statement above.

Clinton was supposed to win California, New York and Massachusetts. Just because 2 senators endorsed Obama doesn't mean that he'll win the state. At the very last minute, the CA polls said Obama, but lots of people voted early, which I don't think should be allowed. All of those wasted votes for Edwards could have helped Obama there (not enough to win though).

I think Obama should campaign a lot in central and southern Ohio, the Rio Grande Valley, and urban areas of Texas over the next month.

[Lief 🗽]

Hillary loaned herself 5 million dollars. She has maxed out her donors.

Oh man, she had better hope the media doesn't make too big of a deal out of it - having to finance your own campaign when you're supposed to be the front runner is a sure sign than your campaign is in trouble, and people are going to pick up on that.

I'm watching Tucker for some reason, and that's all he's talking about. He also just said that some of Clinton's staff are forgoing their pay, which reminded everyone on the panel of another New Yorker who recently dropped out.

[Lief 🗽]

Here's the story.

http://thepage.time.com/2008/02/06/page-exclusive-some-clinton-senior-staff-working-without-pay/

[Wakie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

When did you start?

Yeah, I came onto this forum 6+ years ago.  Typically newbs don't come in shilling like a madman posting to only 1 thread.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wrong again. http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20080206/cm_thenation/15281018[/quote]

Ahh yes, the Nation.  Because you know "no one owns the Nation" ... except that CNN is showing it 580 for Clinton and 571 for Obama, http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/

I trust CNN more than I trust "The Nation".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hillary! Had huge leads in both MA and CA. Even the last SUSA poll had Hillary! +13 in CA. She was supposed to win Both. She did what she was supposed to do. That's not a "victory".[/quote]

A win is a win is a win.  The Patriots were supposed to the AFC Championship over the Chargers.  They did.  But because they were supposed to does that make it "not a win"?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hillary! had consistant leads in these States. Consistant. Like it or not, you can't change those facts.[/quote]

And Obama had leads in states you crowed about.  Again, last night was a draw.  Saying otherwise is pure spin.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nonsense. Hillary! supporters have tried to play the gender card over and over again. Her supporters support her because of what is between her legs. They brand anyone who dares speak out against the machine as "anti-woman". [/quote]

Ahhh ... I see, you're a mind-reader.  The only reason someone would support a former First Lady of the last Democratic President over someone who was still in Law School while she was living in the White House is because of gender bias?

Jesus, why not just play the race card?  Oh wait ... you did ....

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The fact is, many Hillary! supporters have attacked Obama's race. They keep trying to paint him as the "Black Candidate" when he is anything but. [/quote]

Give me an example.  Look buddy, race has nothing to do with this election.  Yes, Obama is black.  I also hear he smokes and has 10 fingers and 10 toes.  Whoopie.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah .... I remember 8 years when idiots on the Hard Left said the same thing about Gore.  He was too right-wing.  All he wanted was power.  Voting Nader would push the Dems to the left.  No way would Bush win.  And even if he did how much damage could he do?  And certainly he'd be out in 4 years.

Were you a Nader voter?

[MarkWarner08]

People are generally stupid and poorly-informed, not just stupid.

I couldn't agree more.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

People are generally both more intelligent and less well informed than the political and media classes like to think.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

No doubt Obama.  Although I'm pleased with how Hillary did, Obama was more impressive.

[Alcon]

People are generally both more intelligent and less well informed than the political and media classes like to think.

Well, intelligence is irrelevant here.

What's relevant is:

1. Ability to analyze political results realistically
2. Keeping up with said political results

In both cases, the average American fails much too miserably for last night to mean much.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

People are generally both more intelligent and less well informed than the political and media classes like to think.

Well, intelligence is irrelevant here.

What's relevant is:

1. Ability to analyze political results realistically
2. Keeping up with said political results

In both cases, the average American fails much too miserably for last night to mean much.

Like I said, most people are even less well-informed about politics than we (ie; all those inside some form of political bubble) realise.

[Thomas Jackson]

.........

[J. J.]

JJ wants Clinton to win because she will be easy to defeat in November. Clay has no excuse to support her, except that he's a white Southerner (I don't know why they don't like Obama, its not just because of his race, its probably other issues, she's always done well with poor people too.)

No, sorry, I've thought she would be the likely winner after NH.  I do thing Obama is over-hyped (and I actually think that's hurting him).

[Wakie]

I don't get it. It's typical of Hillary! and her supporters. I am happy and excited over how well Obama did last night, so when I come to a political forum to post about it, I get attacked for being the "new guy."

No, you get laughed at for exaggerating last night's results.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

LOL ... ahh yes, the Nation has more credibility than CNN.  I'm sure.  But since you seem to like MSNBC, lets use their numbers.  Now what is being discussed are the results from last night only (as in who got more electors LAST NIGHT).  Here's the MSNBC link, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21660914

The 838-834 number which you cited is ALL delegates (so it includes NH, SC, IA, etc) allocated thus far.  Go back and add up the states which voted last night for the Dems.  That is AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, GA, ID, IL, KS, MA, MN, MO, NJ, NM, NY, ND, OK, TN, and UT.  Now ... use the MSNBC link and add up the delegates.  Clinton got 786, Obama 775.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As I said, last night was a draw.  Good for both of them.  Can you look past your Barack support and admit that Hillary did well?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually the only time I've heard the gender card used is when someone launches a "Hillary is a d*ke" attack or "no one will respect a woman as our leader".  And yes, I've heard those in campaign.  On the flip side I CONSTANTLY hear that if you question Obama on anything it is because you are racist.  Compare him to a failed Dem candidate for President?  You're a racist.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You also need ideas to run a country.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Riiiight because that is a completely fair assessment.  Here's a better one.  Lets say your wife was the CEO of a Fortune 500 company and you were involved in the management of the company, so closely involved that you managed one of the major initiatives undertaken by her management team (Healthcare).  As married couples do you constantly discussed business.  When she retired you then spent 8 years in a high executive position.  Now you are up for a CEO job and it is safe to assume that she will be right along with you as an advisor throughout.  Yeah, I'd say you'd be bringing some nice credentials to the table.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nope, but I must have missed whatever it is that you are on about.  The relevant thing regarding SC that I can think of is that the Obama people cried because Bill drew a parallel between the Obama campaign and the Jackson campaign (as in SC isn't a bellweather state for the Dems).  He drew the same sort of comparison to the Dean campaign when Obama jumped out to an early lead.  Was that racism too???

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As a matter of fact I was not a Nader voter, And You attempting to pull out this red herring shows desperation. I stated a fact, under no circumstance will I ever vote for Hillary! none.

That's my right.
[/quote]

If you can't see the parallel between your position that you won't vote for Clinton if she gets the nom and the people who said the same thing about Gore in 2000 then you're hopeless.  You're part of the group that is willing to split the party and return the GOP to the White House if "your guy" doesn't get the nom.  And then you charge the Clinton supporters with "splitting the party".  How selfish are you?

Don't you get it that a Republican President will stay in Iraq and more soldiers will needlessly die?

Don't you get it that John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg probably won't survive to 2012 and that a Republican President only needs to put 1 more hardcore conservative Justice on the Supreme Court to give them the majority?

Don't you get it that a Republican President won't care about creating a reasonable healthcare system or the environment?

[gmo]

You're part of the group that is willing to split the party and return the GOP to the White House if "your guy" doesn't get the nom.  And then you charge the Clinton supporters with "splitting the party".  How selfish are you?

Which branch of Obamites are these that believe the bringing together means everybody across the country, expect Clinton supporters, and probably Republicans, and maybe nobody who is not a true believer?  Do you think they see the irony?

[Cubby]

JJ wants Clinton to win because she will be easy to defeat in November. Clay has no excuse to support her, except that he's a white Southerner (I don't know why they don't like Obama, its not just because of his race, its probably other issues, she's always done well with poor people too.)

No, sorry, I've thought she would be the likely winner after NH.  I do thing Obama is over-hyped (and I actually think that's hurting him).

There have to be more reasons than a feeling that you think he is over-hyped, which he may be at this point, its hard to say. When someone has momentum, its can seem the same as hype.

[Aizen]

looks like 38.7% of this forum are hillary hacks LOL

[Eraserhead]

Well Obama is certainly cleaning her clock in the spin war for once. No denying that.