Hillary Clinton to Take Texas Primary

-

I just had a phone call from a prominent political strategist and was told:

Watch your TV. The primary is about to go to Hillary.

I’m watching. She’s ahead. The race has not been called. And I have no idea what will happen in the caucuses.
Stay tuned.
— Steve Clemons

Comments

29 comments on “Hillary Clinton to Take Texas Primary

  1. navarro says:

    at this point it seems almost certain that obama will have the most texas delegates but it won’t become apparent until the county/senatorial district caucuses on march 29. i realize our primary/caucus hybrid is a little weird to most people but we’ve been using it for 32 years. and really, it isn’t that hard to understand. unfortunately the current media climate doesn’t allow much time for understanding, so by the time the news that obama won texas is available the press won’t care.
    as for thuggery in the caucuses, my caucus was was a model of citizen involvement and civility, as were the 17 other caucuses friends and family members of mine attended across the state.

    Reply

  2. Ajaz Haque says:

    Not so fast Steve. Obama may still win Texas.

    Reply

  3. Ajaz says:

    Hi Leo
    Sorry I did not notice the link to Globe & Mail in your comment. My apologies.

    Reply

  4. Ajaz says:

    This is whatToday’s Globe and Mail reported:
    PM’s top aide set off storm with Obama NAFTA leak
    Source of initial tip revealed after Harper vows to investigate ‘unacceptable’ act
    CAMPBELL CLARK
    From Thursday’s Globe and Mail
    March 5, 2008 at 10:38 PM EST
    OTTAWA — The leak of a confidential diplomatic discussion that rocked the U.S. presidential campaign began with an offhand remark to journalists from the Prime Minister’s chief of staff, Ian Brodie.
    Prime Minister Stephen Harper vowed yesterday to use whatever investigative means necessary to find the source of leaks that, he said, were “unfair” to U.S. Democratic candidate Barack Obama and may have been illegal — although opposition leaders insisted the Conservatives cannot be trusted to investigate political players on their own team.
    But the story that reverberated through the U.S. presidential campaign began as a terse, almost throwaway remark that Mr. Brodie made to journalists from CTV, according to people familiar with the events.
    Mr. Brodie, during the media lockup for the Feb. 26 budget, stopped to chat with several journalists, and was surrounded by a group from CTV.
    Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s chief of staff Ian Brodie watches from the back of the room during a photo op before the government caucus meeting on Parliament Hill in Ottawa Wednesday.
    Excerpts: Harper’s response to the leak
    NAFTA leak could harm Canada, experts warn
    Harper denies aide leaked Obama document
    Will Obama’s ‘wink wink’ on free trade help Clinton win precious votes in Ohio?
    The conversation turned to the pledges to renegotiate the North American free-trade agreement made by the two Democratic contenders, Mr. Obama and New York Senator Hillary Clinton.
    Mr. Brodie, apparently seeking to play down the potential impact on Canada, told the reporters the threat was not serious, and that someone from Ms. Clinton’s campaign had even contacted Canadian diplomats to tell them not to worry because the NAFTA threats were mostly political posturing.
    The Canadian Press cited an unnamed source last night as saying that several people overheard the remark.
    The news agency quoted that source as saying that Mr. Brodie said that someone from Ms. Clinton’s campaign called and was “telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt.”
    The story was followed by CTV’s Washington bureau chief, Tom Clark, who reported that the Obama campaign, not the Clinton’s, had reassured Canadian diplomats.
    Mr. Clark cited unnamed Canadian sources in his initial report.
    There was no explanation last night for why Mr. Brodie was said to have referred to the Clinton campaign but the news report was about the Obama campaign. Robert Hurst, president of CTV News, declined to comment.
    The Prime Minister’s communications director, Sandra Buckler, has said that Mr. Brodie “does not recall” discussing the issue.
    On Tuesday, Mr. Harper denied that Mr. Brodie was a source of the leak — but he appeared to be referring to a diplomatic memo that described the key conversation between an adviser to Mr. Obama and Canada’s consul-general in Chicago, Georges Rioux.
    Although Mr. Harper has for days brushed aside allegations that his government interfered in the U.S. presidential campaign, yesterday he promised to “get to the bottom” of the matter and said laws may have been broken.
    “It is not in the interest of the Government of Canada, and the way the leak was executed, Mr. Speaker, was blatantly unfair to Senator Obama and his campaign,” the Prime Minister said in the Commons.
    “We will make sure that every legal and every investigative technique necessary is undertaken to find out who exactly is behind this.”
    But opposition politicians accused Mr. Harper of hiding behind artful denials — ignoring the verbal leak, while denying that the diplomatic memo came from his top aide.
    However, Mr. Harper did not appear to be distinguishing between the two leaks yesterday.
    Yesterday, he said he had asked the top civil servant, Clerk of the Privy Council Kevin Lynch, to call in an internal security team, with the help of Foreign Affairs.
    Members of the opposition asserted that an internal inquiry is unlikely to look seriously at Mr. Harper’s own high-level political aides and appointees, such as Mr. Brodie, or Michael Wilson, Canada’s ambassador to Washington.
    The first leak sparked stories that Mr. Obama had privately delivered a message through an aide to Canadian diplomats that the stand against NAFTA was more political posturing than a real policy plan.
    The Clinton campaign seized on the stories to argue that Mr. Obama was making promises that he did not mean. The Obama campaign sputtered after this and other attacks on his experience and integrity.
    Days later, the leak of the internal Canadian diplomatic note revealed that Mr. Obama’s adviser, Austan Goolsbee, spoke to Mr. Rioux on Feb. 8.
    In a summary of the meeting written by Canadian diplomat Joseph de Mora, Mr. Goolsbee was described as indicating that Mr. Obama’s NAFTA stand “should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans.” Mr. Goolsbee denied using those terms.
    Mr. Clark of CTV says he called Mr. Wilson for reaction.
    The next day, the embassy and Mr. Obama’s campaign denied the story. Since Mr. de Mora’s memo was leaked to The Associated Press, the Canadian embassy in Washington won’t respond to questions about “NAFTA-gate,” as the issue has been dubbed.

    Reply

  5. leo says:

    Hey Ajaz, there’s a news story today that the Canadians originally leaked that the Clinton campaign “didn’t mean what it says” about NAFTA. So the Clintons were misleading the public and press when they attacked Obama:
    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/181749.php
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080305.wharpleak0305/BNStory/National/home

    Reply

  6. Ajaz says:

    Barack Obama likely to Win Texas
    Things may not be as bad for Obama as they seemed Tuesday night. In the Texas primary Hillary Clinton leads in primary delegates by 65 to 61. But Obama is leading by a whopping 12% in the Caucus count. So far only 40% caucus results have come in and he is greadually increasing his lead. Even if the ultimate caucus result remains the same i.e. Obama’s 56% to Clinton’s 44%, Obama will win Texas overall (not counting the Super delegates). This is how the math works out:
    Delegate Allocation:
    Primary (99% results in) Clinton 65 Obama 61
    Caucus (40% results in so far
    Obama 56% Clinton 44%
    assuming total 67 delegates
    allocated on this basis) Clinton 29 Obama 38
    Total Delegates Clinton 94 Obama99
    Once all the caucus results are in, Obama should claim victory in Texas.
    Also he needs to fire his advisor Goolsbee who damaged him tremendously in the Ohio primary by telling a Canadian Consulate employee in Chicago that Obama does not mean what he says about NAFTA. Obama should also address this issue in his next speech and take it head on to put this controversy to rest.

    Reply

  7. leo says:

    “Hillary is the big-state heavyweight Democratic powerhouse”
    If you don’t think that Obama will win those big states against McCain (!) you really are drinking the Clinton Kool Aid, TE.
    What we’re really seeing in the Democratic race is that a sizable portion of the establishment (and maybe you TE) got on the wrong bus before the campaign got started, they were trapped as Obama passed them by.
    Is it really true, as Talking Points Memo is reporting, that it was the Clinton campaign that talked with the Canadians about NAFTA and the primaries?

    Reply

  8. Jojam says:

    So damn sad to see that – out of all of America – the best candidates on offer are a snake-oil salesman with the gift of the gab, his opponent a lying politician with more baggage than British Airways lost luggage department, and a ‘war hero’ who wants to the country to stay locked in an illegal war you can’t win and who also allowed himself to be personally humiliated and vilified by the man who has just given him his support as the Republicans candidate. Last Novembers elections have made not one iota of difference to the direction of the country.
    America really is in a sad, sad way………..

    Reply

  9. Jojam says:

    So damn sad to see that – out of all of America – the best candidates on offer are a snake-oil salesman, a politician with more baggage than British Airways lost luggage and a ‘war hero’ who wants to the country to stay in war and also allowed himself to be personally humiliated by the man who just gave him his support. America really is in a sad, sad way………..

    Reply

  10. Tahoe Editor says:

    I don’t recall writing “unstoppable.”
    Oh! That’s because I didn’t.

    Reply

  11. calling all toasters says:

    No one is saying he has to accept the vice presidency.
    OK, but you agree Hillary is unstoppable? I mean, she is awesome! She wins the big states! You have a list of all the states she’s wonand can paste them at a moment’s notice! Obama is afraid of the Pennsylvania voters!!!!1!1!!!!onehundredeleven!!!!

    Reply

  12. Tahoe Editor says:

    No one is saying he has to accept the vice presidency.
    Though I’d be surprised if he didn’t, considering how anxious he is not to do his job in the Senate.

    Reply

  13. calling all toasters says:

    ZOMG! Hillary is unstoppable! She has cut her deficit from 155 to 145 delegates! If there were 15 Ohios, she’d be tied! 16 and she’d be in the lead! Obama must accept the Vice-Presidency, because Hillary is super unstoppable! Comeback kid! 3 A. M.! Wa-hoooooooo!*
    Note: idiotic cheerleading and refusal to face reality is proof of not being in a cult. In case you weren’t sure.

    Reply

  14. Tahoe Editor says:

    Hillary is the big-state heavyweight Democratic powerhouse; Barack is the rally-the-troops small-state lightweight who repeatedly gets ahead of himself in his quest to use one higher office to get to the next without building himself up first.
    Add one more interim higher office to his ambitions (VP) and I think the general electorate will get behind the D ticket whole hog.

    Reply

  15. anatol says:

    Obama is in bigger trouble than his supporters realize – because of the Texas two-step.
    In the same state at the same time we had an election, which Obama lost and where he received 1.3 million votes to Clinton’s 1.4 million, and a caucus, which he’s winning with 37% precincts reporting, with 20,595 votes to Clinton’s 19,105 (data from CNN). For those keeping score at home, at this pace he’s likely to get about 56,000 caucus votes total, which is less than 4% of Clinton’s primary vote. Add to this many confirmed cases of fraud and thuggery by Obama’s supporters at the caucus sites, reported by the press and the Clinton’s campaign.
    As a result of this “fair” process Obama is likely to either split the delegates from Texas, or come out of the state slightly ahead in the delegate count.
    Now let’s remember that many of Obama’s spectacular wins occurred in the caucuses. I’m sure Clinton’s campaign will be reminding the public and superdelegates about these little facts, so Clinton’s eventual nomination (I hope, knock on wood) will seem fair to most of the public.

    Reply

  16. Mr.Murder says:

    Obama’s campaign finance chair could come under scrutiny to greater degrees too.
    How’s the Rezko trial going?
    Merry Fitzmas.

    Reply

  17. leo says:

    Of course Rove would actually want Hillary to win because McCain has been beating her in national polls for weeks.
    Obama has been beating McCain over the same period, that’s why McCain attacked Obama and why many Republicans have been supporting Hillary’s claims of bias (nothing unites Republicans like Hillary).

    Reply

  18. mike says:

    Lots of sick puppies posting here on your blog lately, Steve. I am not sure whether they are sore-loser, true-blue Obama supporters or whether they are Rovian trolls trying their dirty tricks again to divide and conquer. A little of both perhaps.

    Reply

  19. leo says:

    So Ms. Win-Dirty Clinton managed to grab a few delegates, literally 3-4, after flinging muck all last week and scaring the supine press.
    We all now trudge down Kitchen Sink Road for the last dying months of Hillary’s doomed campaign, let her be praised.

    Reply

  20. Larry says:

    Guys
    I have been listening for some time now to Hillary go on about, how she is the best person for the job of president. So, I did some work to find about the Clintons and how they have conducted their lives. As soon as I enter their names into the computer, I was surprise to see that the Clinton’s are not well liked! I don’t want to jump to any wrong assumptions about anyone but this is of great concern to me and other. Please read this information and tell me what you think! I only write this because of the name calling in the contest between Hillary and Obama. I thought this would be some information the members would like to read for themselves. I am not saying that they did anything improper but it needs to be addressed in some meaning for way. Keep up the work for the members!!!!!! Ps. I thank you will find the youtube video very interesting.
    Thank you,
    Bill & Hillary Clinton: Their Secret Life – #01 of 12 – From: TMWKK – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0-HkVcMOSw
    Contact: Robert@1984ArkansasMotherOfTheYear.com or Robert Morrow @ 512-306-1510 (Austin, TX)
    ________________________________________
    I urge my Democratic friends to vote for John Edwards, Barack Obama or Bill Richardson, and NOT Hillary. The bottom line: Hillary is irresponsible with power. Hillary uses a secret police, private detectives and criminal intimidation tactics to harass intimidate and terrify Bill’s sex victims and girlfriends. Hillary and Bill are criminals; they cheat on their income taxes, cheat on their campaign financing, and they use violence and criminal intimidation tactics to achieve political power. A good example would be the Clintons’ savage and near fatal beating of Gary Johnson (6-26-92) because he had videotapes of Bill often entering Gennifer Flowers’ condominium.
    Furthermore, Hillary, a misogynist “feminist,” has been covering for and protecting a red-faced, lip-biting rapist and serial sexual predator for 36 years. Hillary knew about and helped cover up Bill’s rape of Juanita Broaddrick in 1978. Hillary is often vulgar, rude and abusive with staff members, state troopers, and Secret Service agents as many former Clinton staff and former friends report. Hillary makes a sport of ridiculing and demeaning Bill, when she is not throwing things at him or physically attacking him. Then she goes on TV and says vote for him, he is such a great guy.
    Hillary and Bill are dangerous, deranged psychopaths who should have been locked up in prison a long time ago. I think an appropriate sentence for Hillary and Bill would be to be locked up in a jail cell 23 out of 24 hours a day – for at least 5 years – WITH EACH OTHER. Of course, the penalties for beating up people (Gary Johnson), raping (Juanita Broaddrick), assaulting women, criminal intimidation tactics (Kathleen Willey) and possibly murdering Jerry Parks (9-26-93) would be much stronger.
    The story of black woman Charlotte Perry: another woman abused by the Clintons
    Bill illegally gave no-skills Gennifer a state job
    in 1990 over qualified black woman candidate Charlotte Perry
    http://www.salon.com/news/1998/09/11newsa.html
    BY MURRAY WAAS
    WASHINGTON — Late on the same evening that President Clinton testified before Kenneth Starr’s grand jury from the Map Room of the White House that he had had an “inappropriate” relationship with Monica Lewinsky, he defiantly went on national television to ask the American people “to turn away from the spectacle of the past seven months.”
    The entire affair should now become a private matter between him, his family and God, he argued: “Even presidents have private lives … It’s time to stop the pursuit of personal destruction and the prying into private lives and get on with our national life.”
    A longtime Arkansas state employee named Charlotte Perry might be excused for believing otherwise. An African-American woman with three young children at home, Perry is the type of person who comes to mind when, as he is wont to do, the president talks about those who work hard and play by the rules. It was such folks whom Clinton said he wanted to serve when he asked us to elect him as president in the first place.
    In February 1990, Charlotte Perry hoped that her hard work, integrity and many years of service to the state government were finally going to pay off. She applied for a better paying job as an administrative assistant at a state agency called the Arkansas Board of Review. The position paid slightly more than $17,500 a year.
    But Perry didn’t receive the promotion she clearly deserved. Instead, it went to another woman with less experience and fewer qualifications — Gennifer Flowers, whom everyone around Little Rock knew to be the governor’s girlfriend. An investigation of the matter by a state agency later determined that the hiring procedure that led to Flowers being hired over Perry was “improper” and the result of favoritism.
    Flowers, seeking work, had approached Clinton about finding her a position with the state. There were, after all, surely perks to be had for being the governor’s mistress, Flowers reasoned. Clinton turned over the dirty work of finding the appropriate position for Flowers to an assistant named Judy Gaddy. Gaddy tried hard to find something for Flowers, even landing her an interview with the Arkansas Historical Preservation Program as a multimedia specialist. But Flowers was found to be unqualified for that job.
    On Feb. 23, 1990, even more desperate for work than before, Flowers wrote Clinton: “Bill, I’ve tried to explain my situation to you and how badly I need a job … Unfortunately it looks like I have to pursue the lawsuit to hopefully get some money to live on, until I get employment.”
    The lawsuit Flowers was referring to had been filed by a former Arkansas state employee named Larry Nichols. He alleged that Clinton had had sexual relationships with five women, including Flowers. Nichols had sued the governor after Clinton had fired him for stealing state funds. When a local radio station named Flowers based on papers filed in the lawsuit, Flowers told Clinton she would have to sue the radio station for slander so that she would have some money to live on.
    In fact, Flowers was only bringing up Nichols’ charges as a means to try to intimidate Clinton to find her a job. No one in Little Rock believed much of anything Nichols had to say, because he was known as the local loony. The four other women he named in the lawsuit simply laughed off his charges. And except for the one radio station, no reputable news organization in the state of Arkansas gave credence to Nichols’ charges. Nevertheless, Flowers’ ploy to intimidate Clinton had the intended effect.
    In March 1990, the job that Gennifer Flowers and Charlotte Perry were to compete for became available. At first glance, things did not look good for Flowers. She ranked ninth out of 11 applicants.
    But then Flowers caught a break. On April 26, 1990, Don K. Barnes, the chairman of the Arkansas Board, abruptly changed the qualifications for the job. He did so at the direction of his boss, William Gaddy, the husband of Judy Gaddy, the governor’s assistant to whom Clinton had earlier assigned the task of finding a job for Flowers.
    The new requirements for the job now included experience with computers and public relations. As it happened, Flowers had listed those precise qualifications on her resume a month earlier when she applied for the Arkansas Board of Review job.
    In two telephone interviews last year, William Gaddy told me that he could not recall any role in changing the job requirements to help Flowers: “I just don’t know what to think about that … I’m not sure why my name has come up in this.” William Gaddy also denied to me that he had ever spoken with his own wife, Judy, about the potential job for Flowers: “She does her thing and I do mine,” he said. “We never talked with each other about Gennifer.”
    After failing to get the promotion, Perry filed a complaint with the state Grievance Review Committee, the Arkansas equivalent of a merit protections selection board, saying that she was unfairly denied the job awarded to Flowers.
    Barnes testified to the committee that he changed the job description at the direction of William Gaddy. He said that he had supported Flowers because she had told him about her experience with computers during a job interview.
    In her own sworn testimony, Flowers, however, could not recall any type of computer that she knew how to use. And asked how she had learned of the state job, Flowers swore: “It was advertised in the newspaper and I had heard about it through the personnel department.”
    Barnes, the state official who hired Flowers, told Newsday in 1992 that he believed Flowers had committed “perjury” by not disclosing the Gaddys’ assistance in finding her the state job.
    Newsday also discovered that Flowers had told a few lies on her job application. She had stated that she had been “director of public relations” for the Dallas-based Club Corporation of America, even though in an earlier application for a state job, she had said that she was only the “membership director” for that group. Flowers further represented on her resume that she had an associate degree from the University of Arkansas. But that college had no record of her ever attending. And Flowers had also lied about her experience working on computers.
    In early 1992, as disclosures about their affair were on the verge of going public, Flowers called Clinton and secretly recorded the conversations. Flowers told her former boyfriend she was concerned that someone might find out about his assistance in her obtaining the state job.
    “The only thing that concerns me, where I’m, where I’m concerned at this point, is the state job,” Flowers told Clinton.
    “Yeah, I never thought about that,” Clinton responded, in that earnest manner we are all so familiar with. “If they ever ask if you’ve talked to me about it, you can say no.”
    When Flowers told Clinton that she had lied about how she learned about the job, he responded: “Good for you!”
    Clinton’s deceptions did not end there. As Salon recently disclosed, during that telephone conversation between Clinton and Flowers, Hillary Rodham Clinton was standing only a few feet away from her husband.
    According to a version of the story that Hillary Clinton has told two close friends, the first lady-to-be was standing right next to her husband as he talked to Flowers on a phone extension in the kitchen of the Arkansas governor’s mansion. The first lady had told the friends that her presence was evidence that her husband could not have possibly been deceiving her when he claimed that he had no relationship with Flowers.
    It was vintage Clinton: He was simultaneously encouraging Flowers to conceal the relationship while saying nothing too incriminating in case she was taping the conversation, and he was putting on a show for his own wife as well.
    On Jan. 23, 1992, Flowers held a press conference to publicize a story in the Star tabloid, alleging that she had had a 12-year relationship with Clinton. Having been paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for the confession, she no longer had any use for her state job. She never even bothered to call work to tell her bosses that she wasn’t coming in anymore. They had to figure that out on their own when she simply stopped showing up.
    Apparently believing her husband’s explanations that Flowers’ charges were the result of Republican dirty tricks, Hillary Clinton personally directed a campaign to raise similar allegations against then President Bush. There had been rumors circulating around Washington for years that Bush had had an extramarital affair with an aide named Jennifer Fitzgerald. The only problem was that there was little evidence to support the charges, which were most likely false.
    According to three sources, the first lady personally, and through her surrogates, began to encourage a number of journalists to look into the allegations. Eventually, New Republic writer Sidney Blumenthal, now Clinton’s aggressive spin doctor, convinced a Spy magazine writer to include the Fitzgerald allegations in an article just prior to the 1992 presidential election, even though the piece contained no compelling evidence to support the rumors.
    Blumenthal then publicly questioned the ethics of Spy for publishing the story, even though he had put the magazine up to publishing it in the first place. Hillary Clinton and Blumenthal then spearheaded a further effort to have the sex allegations against Bush circulated in the mainstream press.
    “That was probably the genesis of the so-called scorched-earth strategy … You investigate our sex-lives, we investigate yours,” recalls one veteran of the 1992 Clinton-for-president campaign. (A spokesperson for the first lady declined to comment for this story.)
    New Yorker columnist Kurt Andersen, who was then editor of Spy, said he didn’t know about Blumenthal’s involvement, but offered: “Sidney’s first political crush was Gary Hart, whose career was ruined by a sex scandal … a tragic and compulsive motif in Sidney’s career.”
    The Flowers allegations were only a momentary distraction for Clinton, who would quickly move on to the presidency and recidivism.
    As for Charlotte Perry, the Arkansas state Grievance Review Committee ruled in her favor. It concluded that there had been favoritism and “irregular practices” in the hiring of Flowers and recommended that Perry be awarded Flowers’ job, and also that she be compensated for back pay.
    Still, justice was never done. The review committee’s findings were not binding. They were overruled by Barnes, the very same official who was found by the committee to have engaged in favoritism on Flowers’ behalf in the first place.
    Unlike Flowers and Lewinsky, Perry is the other woman we should care about. Flowers and Lewinsky were never the victims they have portrayed themselves to be. Flowers received a state job and a half million dollars for her story, using Clinton perhaps as much, or more than, he used her. As for Monica, now that she has confided to Starr’s grand jury her tales of White House trysts in all their glorious detail, fortune will surely follow fame.
    In contrast to all of them, Charlotte Perry is a true victim of the president’s sexual misconduct. As we consider her story, it illustrates why, despite the president’s desire to the contrary, his private affairs are sometimes public matters.
    SALON | Sept. 11, 1998
    Murray Waas has published numerous investigative reports in Salon.

    Reply

  21. ... says:

    calling for her to dropout is a sign of arrogance and hubris.. seems to show up as a trait of ‘some’ of the obama supporters too..

    Reply

  22. Tahoe Editor says:

    John King just likened the Obama campaign to somebody ahead at the 400-mile mark at the Indy 500 saying, “Why don’t we just stop the race now before someone gets hurt?” Finally someone recognizes the absurdity of calling for Hillary to drop out!
    CALIFORNIA
    NEW YORK
    NEW JERSEY
    OHIO
    TEXAS
    MASSACHUSETTS
    ARIZONA
    NEW MEXICO
    FLORIDA
    MICHIGAN
    TENNESSEE
    NEW HAMPSHIRE
    NEW MEXICO
    OKLAHOMA
    ARKANSAS
    RHODE ISLAND

    Reply

  23. Tahoe Editor says:

    Bill didn’t have the nomination wrapped up until June. Conventions USED to be a place where the nominee was actually CHOSEN. Anyone who’s afraid of Pennsylvania voters doesn’t have a pair big enough to sit in the Oval Office. Deal with the new narrative like adults and see what happens and what you can do about it.
    CLINTON-OBAMA ’08

    Reply

  24. Kathy K says:

    Steve, how much do you credit the idea that dragging this thing out will simply harm the Dems, but not hone policy even a trifle?
    It’s my opinion that it will. Seven weeks of negative? geez. No decent policy discussion here!
    Rethugs will replay the ‘dialogue’– whether it be out-of-candidates-mouths or out of some anonymous 527 mouth!–in tape after tape in the general. Meanwhile, throwing in objects to stumble over (say, a Goolsbee?? Dont worry–next time, it’ll be Hillary’s turn. )
    One way or the other, they’ll do this.
    So I get a little tired of the ‘gee, it’s a fascinating race’ thing, as though the Dems were a bunch of stamp collectors, or tennis hobbyists…as though the race is happening in a vacuum…
    It’s not. It’s painful. It’s costly. And ideologically, except on the margins, it’s not meaningful in the slightest.
    The people who are laughing tonight are Republicans. I can hear their guffaws now.

    Reply

  25. Steve Clemons says:

    OS — just got confirmation from a Texas source that the primary has gone to HRC. I still don’t have a read on the caucus results.
    This is important because the evening furthers my earlier comment that the Democratic party in its totality wants a hybrid of Obama and Clinton and refuses to make up its mind. It wants hope and experience and sees these two as mutually exclusive examples of these traits.
    It’s a fascinating political race.
    Best, steve clemons

    Reply

  26. Steve Clemons says:

    ObamaSupporter — thanks for your note. But review your own filters. I express no glee in Hillary’s win. I’m fascinated with the comeback and the mechanics of competition. But I was only reporting on a call I received. I clearly stated that I’m watching the TV and did not hear the state primary called (yet) for HRC — and expressed that I did not know how the Texas caucus would go.
    Thanks for the comment — but don’t put words in my mouth.
    All the best,
    Steve Clemons

    Reply

  27. Angel says:

    Any numbers?

    Reply

  28. obamasupporter says:

    7 minutes Steve — it hasnt been called yet? Why does it give you so much glee when she wins. He is still ahead in delegate count – tonight was awash.
    How can you be excited for a campaign that has introduced fear into a hopeful moment in this country – from her not squashing the rumor that Obama is Muslim, to the OJ simpson style ad, to the Farrakhan loving anti-Israel rhetoric, and on and on and on. ????
    As someone that is so interested in the new realism – HRC is not realisitc. The only interest based politicking she is doing is for herself not for our country.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *