Craig Crawford's Trail Mix

beautimous.

MORNING CRAIG!!! Thanks for the video. So happy for Hillary. Great Night.

One question??? Why aren't you a reporter on a network!! You are GREAT.MSNBC should see your knowledge and public appeal.

Waiting for Craig on Imus shortly...

Craig,

I wish I could have been at Hillary's victory celebration. It's so refreshing
to hear a commentator actually give Mrs. Clinton credit for winning by 10 points in PA and not try to crash the party with negative spin.

You seem to fit right in at Hillary's bash.

Good Morning Craig, All:

For me and other Hillary supporters it was a great night indeed.
I made a comparison of the two speeches last night and suffice to say Hillary's speech was terrific, it was about the people the common folk uplifting and full of hope for the future.

Obama's was about....yes, all about Obama, the loss in Pennsylvania did precious little to deter his arrogance nor his hypocrisy, I just watched transfixed as Obama sort of made a comparison of himself with Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy and that he was the one to carry on their legacy. Ha! It was a long flowery speech from him as usual, actually far too long... been there and heard that before. I suppose St. Obama and his handlers do not know the difference between a stump speech and a concession speech.

Just a hint to the Sainted Obama, before comparing or hinting at comparing yourself to Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy you have to have at least accomplished some of what they accomplished, your arrogance is astounding and along with many other flaws will be your ultimate undoing.

Luckily for the St. Obama he will never face a debate with anyone that may say "I knew Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy...they were friends of mine...and you sir are no Roosevelt, Truman or Kennedy."

I cannot be brainwashed by the Sainted Obama, you are a far left extremist product of the radical left wing moveon.org crowd I do not not buy your centrist speech for a minute. It would have been far better if you kept your speech short sir, congratulated Hillary Clinton on a job well done in Pennsylvania and thanked your supporters.

--Heather

Heather - we hardly know each other but i am falling in love..... with your posts

Craig....
nothing compares to starting my day off with a little bit about the Fabulous Moolah..... or was that Dame Edna..... I forget..... ;0)

watch it Heather..... Ping is a Repub.....
although.... he's our Repub..... which makes him a lovable rascal....

Craig.... while you're in Philly..... there's a wonderful exhibit there at the art museum of the works of Frida Kahlo.... hoping to get down there to see it myself.....

been working hard lately..... getting mucho done..... enjoy your day!

Good Morning Renee ☺

LOL! I guess most people know by now I am a moderate in the middle Democrat loyal to my party, although Obama may be the ultimate test of my loyalty, with good social values. I despise the far right zealot radical neocons as much as I do the moveon.org extremists both do detrimental damage to their respective parties and the ideologues that created and support them make it close to impossible to make and create policy resolutions that would create a greater America that would lead to prosperity, civility, a stronger defense and increased liberty for all of America's citizens.

If both parties would root out its extremist elements perhaps one day it would lead to better government and a better legacy to our children and their children.

--Heather

Three points I would like to make this morning.

First is that the op-ed people seem to be pissed that they just can't control the voters. They just don't seem to be able to finish Clinton off.

Second, last night was one of the first times in a very long time that the MSM said some nice things about Clinton. I have been boycotting the MSM but I tuned in to CNN and Fox and heard some nice things directed to Clinton. I decided I would watch a little Fox. It is much easier for me to hate a network I always hated than to hate a network I used to love, ie. MSNBC.

Third, we have all been saying that it is nice that the young people have become involved in politics. I am not sure that it is a good thing. When they interview these young people they don't have a clue. Do we really want people who don't have a clue making important decisions that affect all of our lives? Not me, I would rather they go back to their Play Stations and beer.

PS, why can't I type in that stupid Captcha the first time?

Carol

Congrats to Hillary and her supporters on the 10 point win last night!

ct said:
Do we really want people who don't have a clue making important decisions that affect all of our lives?

After the last seven years and the current administration I think we can safely just say, "No".

BTW, I am glad you are back Heather. I missed you. I have been reading your website. Nice

Heard your Imus appearance. Darn it, every time you use the three-dollar hotel telephones, they don't go so well as they should or could. Those hotels must have a/v rooms with decent videoconferencing setups.

When the Fabulous Moolah died last November, it was a really big deal here in Columbia--I was surprised at the following she had.

More and more it looks as if they must make a ticket of it with her in the lead position and he as Mr Vice--don't think it would work the other way around. Then, after one term, she retires to enjoy her celebrity and adopt an Eleanor Roosevelt-like presence.

Somehow listening to McCain's hoary old chestnuts about cutting taxes magically making everything ok in cities where heavy industry has left behind blight sounded more tired than usual this morning. Honestly, if we vote for more of the stuff that doesn't work, we're dumber than I thought.

Hate to say it, but it should be fun watching the HIllary-hating pundits try to spin this as a loss.

I have one thing to say...because the networks (except for FOX argh) are so glum that their chosen candidate didn't win.

HILL YEA!!!!

How is it that a guy spends over 11 million and still loses by 10...

I have said this many times and will say it again. People seemed surprised that the Op-Ed people like Today's New York Times bash Hillary and they will continue to do so, because they are far left and had a hatred for the Clintons in general.

America as a whole is centrist-right so it is no big surprise that the way America votes will not be aligned with the Op-Ed beltway mentality of far left liberal elitist Marxism.

Hillary appeals to the mainstream everyday mainstream hardworking Americans, thats why she won Pennsylvania.

At the end of the day if you are a super-delegate you have to ask yourself one question..."What demographic is there more of... liberal extremist elitists or mainstream American centrists"?

--Heather

Renee... You blew my cover.. !!
Once again agree with Heather that we do not need the extremes of the parties. So lets meet in the middle and make something happen.
However I do not agree that I would vote for anyone just because of party, This was the blind manner of my grandparents. One should always consider the options.

More on BHO

http://www.myamericanvalues.com/2008/04/political-process-versus-value.htm

Comments ?

note this site is still under development

Congrats to Hillary's 10% win.. and her 8-9 delegate pickup.

On to NC and IN so the Tar Heels and Hoosiers can register their vote. Two more must-win primaries for HRC ..Good Luck!

Hil’ry’s speech was right on the money. Obama was his usual, arrogant, double-you-ish self. Nothing but self-aggrandizement and unsubstantiated claims of the change he could bring about.

Tweety was much more gracious about her win than KO. He kept trying to spin it Obama’s way, as if spending 3 times as much and losing by 10 points could somehow be considered a victory. (Too many turning points mean you’re going in circles buddy.)

MoJo was right about people connecting Rev. Wright’s words with Michelle Obama’s statement about never being proud of being of her country until now. The GOP would use that to paint them as unpatriotic and unworthy of the WH. The Dems may not have the stomach for that kind of thing, but the Reps do.

Ps – Craig --- I now have to write in Word and paste to your blog….90% of my posts get eaten. (I know that pleases some of you, but my guess is that I’m not the only one with this issue.)

Morning Craig,
Please have Nash send the $100 I bet him yesterday to the HRC campaign. Then suggest he seek some medical help. Here's my high five Wendy, maybe this will spare us Brian for a few days. Add Florida and Michigan, it is a whole different ball game, but BO wouldn't want to united those voters with his own party would he?

I predicted more than 10 points. Hillary's speech was a good one, Barak the same old promise with the communist mantra thrown in. Colbert plugged Obama all last week. So much for the Colbert bounce. More like a Colbert foot in his own mouth.

Funniest line? Obama saying his campaign unites Independents, Republicans and Democrats. About the only group Obama is uniting is the Black one.

Got to run. Have a nice day everyone.

Ping, she gets almost 21-pct more votes than he does and she ends up with a lousy 8/9 delegate bonus when she should be getting 38/39 more than he does.

Hey, Tell me AGAIN why my neighbors that voted in the Florida Dem Priamary do not count?
What has happened to our REPUBLIC?

Flatus, Hope you are doing well...
Seems like bad math... Is that an effect of Gerrys mandering activity? Pun Pun Pun

ct

Get yourself a little blue key from Typekey and you will never have to type capcha again.

More than anything else about Sen. Obama that keeps me from being willing to lean in that direction is the overwhelming ego with little to justify it.

He is either putting out his own publicity or believing the myths produced by others. He is not MLK. He is not Kennedy or Truman or FDR. His accomplishments in his public life are limited. None of this makes him a bad or untalented person, it just makes him inexperienced.

Let him be VP and grow into the role, then maybe he would turn out to be an MLK, Kennedy, Truman, or FDR.

I'll be leaving shortly for the animal hospital, but before I go I'm going to post two link about voting problems in PA.

The first link is from a site you may or may not have read before.

http://www.boomantribune.com/

The other one is the Brad Blog.

http://www.bradblog.com/

Most of the trouble was in precincts that favored Obama and a good majority were tallied from Touch Screen were there is no paper trail and a lot of voters were denied provisional ballots because there names were not on the voter roles.

Including many long time Democrats.

I said last night that I would be skeptical of any votes that were done on Touch Screen no matter where the votes went or to which candidate. I still am.

God Bless.

mornin' all.

Nash, about that buck...

Well, that was a good victory last night. The spin will be "Doesn't matter. More states, more delegates, yada yada." Problem is, superdelegates have to consider the party's chances in the fall, and they can change their declared preference on a whim. If they think that winning the big dem states and big swing states is more important to victory in the fall, they will vote for Clinton and the delegate count will go to her. If they think winning more small states and Republican states that will never go Dem counts for more, they will vote for Obama and the delegate count will go to him.

The Rascals had it right "It's a Beautiful Mornin', I think I'll go outside for while and just smile..."

Max - fat chance on your Brian wish. And really, what would you do with a few days without mean spirited snark?

Ping, good to see you around - don't be a stranger. I know it's on the other side of the state, but know anything about Cocoa Beach? Looks like I'll be spending a week down there in July - Li'l Pogo's AAU basketball team made the national tourney that's down there (he averaged 20 pts per game - proud Papa talking).

Obama's speech fell flat last night as did his speech in San Antonio on the night of the Texas primary. Too negative. He needs to stay upbeat, stop the smirking, stay positive and re-establish himself as the candidate of Hope and Change. Frankly, the less availability he has from this point on, the better.

pogo: I'm going to mail a dollar to Hillary. She'll need it as her campaign is bankrupt. (Where are those lobbyists when you need them?)

AP: Best wishes at the animal hospital and meow to Ginger!

Some thoughts...

I have only seen clips from BHO's concession(?) speech last night. I didn't hear BHO congratulate HRC. If he did...good!! ! If not...shame on him!!!

Compared to what MLRO normally wears(her designer suits/dresses)...I thought she looked extremely frumpy...and a bit PO'd.

Chris Obamatthews really needs to stop stirring the "race" pot. He questions why white people admit that race is a factor for them. He doesn't ask black people the same question(or at least he doesn't report on it).

No Mika today.

Ally,

"Frankly, the less availability he has from this point on, the better. "

If he wants to get elected, he should avoid public exposure at all costs.

Hint to Nash:
The lobbyists are contributing to Obama via moveon.org

--Heather

I hate to be a wet blanket (no I don't) but...

Hillary is still losing.

She is behind in pledge delegates and popular vote. The remaining primaries, unless something truly odd happens, will not put her in the lead.

Her ONLY CHANCE is to con the Super-Ds into betraying the majority of Dem primary voters and handing her a stolen victory.

Lush: He did congratulate her and then the crowd booed.

Hmmmmmm

Star Trek The Next Generation had a creature call a "Borg" I think Nash is an "Oborg" half Nash half Obama his Brain is ruled by by a coalition of Obama/Pastor Wright/ moveon.org which totally explains his mentality and behavior.

The Democratic establishment, the GOP, and the MSM are conspiring to weaken the Democratic primary leader. Why?

* The establishment pols are afraid of change. Obama is bringing in new voters that they don't understand. They are afraid of being swept aside.

* The GOP fears Obama and wants to run against Hillary. They've been digging up new dirt on the Clintons for eight years.

* The MSM wants the Dem primary to go on and on to keep ratings up.

pogo,,, actually Cocoa beach is the closest to where I live in Downtown Orlando, in fact you can get to Cocoa Beach some times faster from the Orlando Airport then you can the northern Suburbs.... Catch you up

I will post more agian,, been busy keeping the edge and ahead of economic matters. And of course BIG CONCERN is IF BHO gets office. Watch out. Then sad to say I might have lots of time, but no way to pay.

Jamie said: "If he wants to get elected, he should avoid public exposure at all costs."

OK, once again I spit up my latté all over my keyboard. That was about as good as the McCaskill comments from last night regarding kittens and a swift river.

Ping said: "Flatus, Hope you are doing well...
Seems like bad math... Is that an effect of Gerrys mandering activity? Pun Pun Pun"

I'm hanging in there, Ping, how about you??

My figure is not percentage of the vote, but of how many more votes Mrs Clinton got than Mr Obama.

Here's an example: If you and I are competing for class president and there are 24 people in the class. If you get 16 votes and I get 8, you've earned 100-pct more votes than me. ((16-8)/8=1.00)

Or, you beat me two to one. Or, you beat me by 33-pct.

The most meaningful, to me, is the 100-pct more.

South Carolina is terrible for gerrymandering. Here's a map of our Congressional districts (I'm in the second):
http://www.google.com/search?q=south+carolina+congressional+districts&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B3GGGL_en___US232

played "Slick's" on Cocoa Beach oncet.......

Did I just hear Bill Richardson say the Sainted Obama will win Puerto Rico?
Hmmm seems the facial hair has affected his thinking ☺

--Heather

Top story in today's NYT.

Mrs. Clinton’s margin was probably not sufficient to fundamentally alter the dynamics of the race, which continued to favor an eventual victory for Mr. Obama.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/us/politics/23assess.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1208955820-CW0pYogbgNjvGSvTzi1x7A

Flatus: I was saying the same thing to my husband last night: How in the world does she get 20% more votes than he does and only end up with a 55% to 45% victory. I am serious here...can you explain?

(Where are those lobbyists when you need them?)
They are and have been supporting Obama you clueless ass

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obamas-k-street-project-2007-03-28.html

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/08/09/pacs_and_lobbyists_aided_obamas_rise/

Craig, the fact you were at the Clinton victory party shows you are in the "tank' with her ... (ET ducks and laughs).

I haven't read any posts yet, but I thought I'd first say "YIPPEE for Hillary: and then read the negative spin the Obamaniacs are certain to deliver here.

Gee Nash:

We already know about the crazy op-ed bashing of Hillary in the New York Times

Do you plan on filibustering Craig's blog all day with your Hillary Bashing? Nothing better to do Nash?

--Heather

You know, as I always say...I am about as sharp as a marble, when it comes to politics...

I notice many people, with brilliant political minds, keep saying that BHO is bringing in new voters.

Is it possible(keep an open mind here)...just possible, that many of the new voters are signing up so they can vote AGAINST BHO...either by directly voting against him or by voting for him now, so they can vote against him in NOV?

it's just a thought...

OK. Never mind. I did the math again and I get it : )

Quoting the paper of Jason Blair and Judith Miller ...the paper that blew the McCain story
'
\Ofhttp://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/09/23/in_illinois_obama_dealt_with_lobbyists/

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/07/despite-rhetori.html

course a two (or more) faced liar is what you prefer
Suck it up loser

Linda.......Scarborough said as much last night......that Barack could balance the blue collar workers going for Hillary only by switch-over republicans......

There have been more than a few comments about Senator Clinton "blowing" a 20 point lead in PA.

Jerome Armstrong at My DD ddiffers.

That was ONE poll which has been quoted endlessly.

Here are Clinton's monthly poll averages for three months:

February: 47.8 - 38.3, a 9.5% margin for Clinton
March: 51.3 - 38.4, a 12.9% margin for Clinton
April: 45 - 38.6, a 6.4% margin for Clinton

Here is his comment:

The one thing that easy to see is this was never a "20 percent lead" by Clinton [since Super Tuesday on Feb 5th]. Also, despite all the resources Obama has put into PA, he had been stuck at 38 for three months. Now, the final poll of polls shows it a bit closer. The last 10 polls show 50 percent for Clinton and 42.8 percent for Obama.

So... I'd have to say that "20% lead" was an outlier. (Me learn new word!)

"Craig, the fact you were at the Clinton victory party shows you are in the "tank' with her ... (ET ducks and laughs). -- posted by EuroTom"

i know you're kidding around, Euro, but want to get on the record that i came to Philadelphia expecting to cover two election night events, but as it turned out Obama left the state, was instead on a plane to Indiana -- and not even my Trail Mix Jet Pack could put me in both places. HRC was the only game in town last night.

"Frank Luntz loves Hillary Clinton... er ... loves her speech"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_W9paHxmoKc

Huffingtonpost is reporting that many super-Ds are planning to announce support for Obama in the next few days.

WSJ says that Gore is going to back Obama, but not right away.

I predict that Gore and Edwards will both support Nader.

Heather: That was a NYT story from today, not the editorial from yesterday.

no.....wait......I predict that Gore and Edwards and Nader, all three, will endorse John McCain on Aug. 3rd at precisely 3 pm.

The Democratic establishment, the GOP, and the MSM are conspiring to weaken the Democratic primary leader. Why?

Posted by: Nash

Oh really? Aren't Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Patrick Leahy, Bill Richardson et al, part of the "Democratic establishment". Hasn't Donna Brazile threatened to leave the Democrats if the SDs vote against the popular vote? Is SHE not a member of the Democratic establishment? Didn't the DNC and Howard Dean create a divisive fiasco in Michigan and Florida that basically plays into the hands of Obama (ok I'll give them a pass on this as no one thought it would matter because the race would be over now), and then refused to recognize the voters of those two states while Obama is ahead? Aren't THEY part of the Democratic establishment???

Half the GOP seems to think Hillary is the weaker candidate for the general election and half the GOP seems to think that Obama is the weaker candidate for the general election. They're REPUBLICANS. Of course they are going to try to disrupt any Democratic momentum.

The MSM? Are you kidding? They were ON BENDED KNEES for months (before the SNL parody of how pathetic they were as if kissing the toes of royalty when "reporting" on Obama) and have only recently begun doing REAL investigative work into the man, his background and his associates.

So Nash, the real question is WHY? Why did you post such an erroneous assessment of how the current tally leader is being treated?

It also being reported Elizabth Edwards is endorsing Senator Clinton

Craig, I figured as much! Why stick around if you've lost? Any predictions on Indiana? Can Hillary pull out another victory? Or does Barack have it in the "voting booth" (to change an old cliche' a bit).

Thank you (((( ET!))))

Excellent post!

--Heather

Heather thank YOU... :)

Might be of interest to some: Jerusalem Post perspective on PA Primary.

"How Penn's Jewish governor tried to give Clinton a boost"

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1208870470180&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Indiana
RCP Average 03/31 - 04/16 - 46.0 43.8 Clinton +2.2

Obama started with a 10% advantage

In PA she split the so called youth vote aka new voters

"Scarborough said as much last night......"
--sturgeone

darn it sturgeone...you didn't have to tell me that!! I was thinking I came up with the theory all on my own...LOLOLOL!!!

I thought, after months of hanging out here(with the brilliant political minds), that maybe my marble was beginning to develop some sharp edges!! 8~D

Does anyone know if someone has analyzed the "voters per delegate" in caucus states versus primary states? I know that the Obama supporters on this blog just LOVE THOSE CAUCUSES but so much of the weight of Obama's victory is tied to caucus states. I cannot believe this is not more of a concern to the DNC.

This isn't a TEN point victory, it's a FIVE point victory. If 5 percent of the voters changed their votes, the outcome shifts in the other direction, so she won by 5 points.

Not a bad night for someone who had a 20 point lead three weeks ago. The more she talks the less people like her.

McCain slept VERY well last night; he's practicing the oath as we speak.

I'd like the Hillary people to point to ONE responsible political analyst who can describe a scenario where Hillary could win without conning the Super-Ds into stealing the nomination for her.

You can't. It's her only strategy.

Some silver lining for Obama:

Obama Improving Among Whites And Seniors, Holding Among Jews

In Ohio, Obama lost to Senator Clinton among white men by a margin of 58 percent to 39 percent. That deficit was reduced to 55 percent to 45 percent, according to Pennsylvania exits polls - a 16-point gap narrowed to ten.

A similar trend held true among seniors. In Ohio, Clinton won this group by a wide margin of 69 percent to 28 percent. Six weeks later, Obama narrowed the gap by more than half, earning 41 percent of support among Pennsylvanian's 60 years and older compared to Clinton's 59 percent.

the only way Obama can win is for Clinton to drop out

Now that's a strategy

Obama cannot close the deal
He's ht the wall--all the money he spent in PA
couldn't close the deal

The more people hear him...the more they walk away
the late deciders all broke for Clinton

Per usual the Obama supporters spew specious bullshit. Factless drivel is their stock in trade

Nash, she can't steal the nomination from Obama because he doesn't have the nomination. He needs the SD's just like she does. And with a bit of luck, they will all come to their senses and see that he can't win the general.

"Do you plan on filibustering Craig's blog all day with your Hillary Bashing? Nothing better to do Nash?"

Actually, some of us prefer it over your rah. rah Hillary messages! No offense

Another comment on Nash's erroneous statement that the Democratic Establishment is against Obama.

From NYTimes: "Mrs. Clinton faces major challenges going forward: her campaign is essentially out of money, with unpaid bills piling up, and she faces growing frustration among some Democratic officials who would prefer her to end her campaign in recognition of Mr. Obama’s lead in the overall popular vote of the primaries and caucuses so far, as well as his continuing edge toward amassing the 2,025 delegates needed to secure the nomination."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/us/politics/23cnd-campaign.html?hp

Details are such pesky things!

Also from today's Jerusalem Post - Clinton's Jewish staffers at Seder: Next year in the White House

"That's the message of Passover. You keep going to get to the other side."

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1208422652758&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

nash, you're an honorable man (and you're right - after last night, Hillary is only flush - and just barely - so she needs your buck), but you're spinning like a top when it comes to the superDs. You want only the rules that favor your candidate to count. Sorry, tell it to Howie. Get rid of caucuses, superDs, proportional delegate apportionment with"bonus" delegates in Dem voting districts, and the other horse shit that the DNC has birthed, and we don't have this argument. Time to put someone in the DNC leadership chair who will shepard a meaningful nomination format in and get rid of all this crap.

sturg - Slick's? Still there as far as you know? Be great to retreat to live music at night to get away from 11 year old basketball players.

Ally, Hillary got 1,258,245 votes (54.7%) to Obama's 1,042,297 (45.3%) of 2,300,542 total votes. The difference is 215,948. The difference is 9.38% of the overall vote, The difference is 20.7% of Obama's vote total and is 17% of Hillary's total. Hillary beat Obama by the difference of the total vote - 10%, not the difference expressed as a percentage of Obama's vote. Any way you cut it, Obama has not won a single large dem state other than his own or a single critical swing state. That is a problem for him.

"Does anyone know if someone has analyzed the "voters per delegate" in caucus states versus primary states? -- Posted by: Ally"

havent seen that particular breakdown yet, Ally. one of the lovely things about caucuses is that many of those states don't even bother to count or report the tally of voters for each candidate, only the numbers of delegates chosen by the voters. BUT i have seen guesstimates that Obama nets another 100,000 in popular vote had those voters been counted in caucus states with no voter count

eurotom, at this juncture i'd give Indiana to Clinton by 2 percentage points and North Carolina to Obama by 10 (subject to change, they are 2 weeks away)

Nash, she can't steal the nomination from Obama because he doesn't have the nomination. He needs the SD's just like she does. And with a bit of luck, they will all come to their senses and see that he can't win the general.

Posted by: nannymm | April 23, 2008 9:45 AM

nanny, from your mouth to the "higher power's" ears :-)

And Rez, c'mon, everytime Obama has good news the Obamaniacs are "rah rah-ing" all over the place.

Nash is BITTER

Norah O'Donnell pregnant again??...that cheap slut!!!

Just Kidding!!! I think she is adorable!!! She and her husband must be thrilled!!!

Congrats, Norah!!

"liberal extremist elitists or mainstream American centrists"

Well said Heather!

Clinton's dirty campaign ads might have worked. However, it shows who she really is, a ruthless, unethical, disingenuous, dishonest politician who will try to win at all costs. The womem who so solidly backed her had better evaluate her character because she seems to have none. She doesn't need dirt to make mud. She and her handlers are pros at it. !!!!!!

HAHAHAH Lush, at first I thought you said "Rosie O'Donnell" and my reaction was "WOW now THAT IS NEWS!!!!"

AP allocates 80 PA delegates to Clinton and 66 to Obama: http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/campaign_plus/delegate_tracker/delegate_tracker.swf

we are at mathematical certitude that Clinton cannot catch Obama in elected delegates, and Obama cannot win the nomination in that category alone

behold the superdelegates

Obama's strategy reminds me of Bush & Company's strategy following November 2000 elections..."act as if." Act as if you already won and people will believe you did.

Thank goodness Hillary is not acting as if she's the loser...

"That is a problem for him."

Pogo, that's a problem only if the SDs think so.

ET- each of us has a preference, sorry. Bitter? what's that? :)

The womem who so solidly backed her had better evaluate her character because she seems to have none. She doesn't need dirt to make mud. She and her handlers are pros at it. !!!!!!

Posted by: Skylark | April 23, 2008 9:53 AM

BITTER? Table for ONE?

EuroTom

The "that cheap slut" line is taken from a Christine Lavin song("getting in touch with my inner bitch")...LOLOLOL!!! 8~D

Ally said: "Flatus: I was saying the same thing to my husband last night: How in the world does she get 20% more votes than he does and only end up with a 55% to 45% victory. I am serious here...can you explain?"

Ally, it's kind of an apples and oranges thing. The 55/45 thing refers to the total number of ballots cast. She got 10-pct more of the total votes than did he. That's the apples part.

But, here's the oranges. When you take the number of votes each received and compare those to each other (NOT to the total ballots cast) then you come-up with she having received 20-pct more votes than did he.

Earlier I posted a simple example. Try building your own and working through it a couple of times.

Pogo: Yes, I did the math after I made that post and figured it out. Duh! Thanks though!

Craig: 100,000 might be somewhat accurate but, I can tell you from my experience in Iowa, some of those caucus rooms were a bloody mess and I wouldn't trust any numbers to come out of caucus states as far as I could throw them. It would just be a little strange to have a Democratic nominee who didn't win New York, New Jersey, California, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Texas, Florida and Michigan. Just sayin' is all.

And nash, let me provide you with a responsible analyst who sees a way. (btw, I don't accept your premise because your definition of theft is erroneous - the SDs are incapable of stealing anything - their role is defined for them - to exercise their independent judgment. If Obama can't convince them that his wins in little red states are more important than Hillary's in big blue ones and makes him the man for the job, he's given the nomination away).

"With at least a 200,000-vote margin of victory in Pennsylvania, Clinton can edge ahead of Obama in popular vote by the end of the primary season in early June. But to do so, she must hold his leads in North Carolina, Oregon, South Dakota and Montana to no more than 10 percentage points, beat him by at least two percentage points in Indiana and post big double-digit wins in West Virginia, Kentucky and Puerto Rico.

That is a tall order, but that’s what it takes for Clinton to impress the remaining 250 undecided superdelegates."

Recognize it? Anyone?

damn you, 9/11 - providing facts instead of bullshit!!! Damn your hide, man. LOLOLOL

LushL wrote: "Chris Obamatthews really needs to stop stirring the "race" pot. He questions why white people admit that race is a factor for them. He doesn't ask black people the same question(or at least he doesn't report on it)."

I thought this was very interesting as well. The exit poll said 16% of voters said race mattered and Matthews immediately assumed all 16% were white...he never made the assumption that those voters or a good chunk of them were black. Given that Obama won 90% of the black vote...I would say it's safe to say a good chunk of that 16% were actually black and not white.

I'd send a comment to MSNBO about it but it's pretty much hopeless at this point so...

ihttp://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2008/04/clinton-parties-hard-in-pennsy.html#comment-71519

i should have noted above that while at "mathematical" certitude, we are still short of "metaphysical" certitude. they are very different

In a winner-take-all world, here's roughly what the Dem delegate count would be today, addiing in Pennsylvania:

CLINTON--1895
OBAMA--1537

I just think this admittedly academic point is important in the "perception war" that's going on.

Yes, Obama holds a slim lead based on the rules that everyone by now admits defy common sense and walking-around logic.

Yet Hillary would hold a commanding lead under rules that most voters, unti this year, had every reason to believe were how the game was supposed to be played. It's how the GOP sees fit to choose its nominee, after all.

But rank-and-file Dems have been in the dark about their screwed up system, mainly because the arcane, stupid apportionment rules have never really mattered until this year.

Winner-take-all is common sense -- it's how we're accustomed to viewing all contests, from sports to politics. Otherwise, the World Series would be decided each year not according to who won how many games, but instead would follow a complex formula based on who scored how many runs when and under what weather conditions.

Am I trying to change the rules in the middle of the game? Certainly not. But I only hope the superDs will consider this perspective before they start believing spin that voting for Hillary amounts to "Unfairly ripping away the nomination from Obama."

Flatus: Yes, I figured that out after the post. I felt stupid for even saying (typing it). I am a graphic designer...obviously.

Skylark

"Clinton's dirty campaign ads"

What unadulterated spin. There was nothing dirty about those ads. None of them mentioned Obama in any way. It laid out the problems that exist in the world and said, "Who do you trust to fix this mess".

The PA folks decided they wanted the lady to change the diaper on the baby George Bush is leaving on the WH doorstep. They recommended the professor sleep in and then go to work back in the Senate.

He keeps telling us what he will do when he is President. It might be nice if he wasn't so arrogant that he didn't think it was necessary to ask for the job.

Rez - my point exactly. The SDs are precisely why it's a problem for him.

BITTER? Table for ONE?

WHATS THE CODE??????? EURO TOM

Morning,
I thought KO looked like he was sucking lemons last night. He kept trying to spin everything in BHO favor.
Atta Girl, Hillary!

Oh Skylark - please - he is just as negative and has been all along - the difference is that the media narrative is that Hillary is negative and not Barack.

I mean today David Gregory of all people was like - she's going to keep bringing up the flag pin, she's going to keep bringing up Rev. Wright when SHE never brought those things up in the first place. All of that stuff was brought up by Fox and then picked up by others. She commented on Wright once in a press conference and once in the debate. THAT IS IT.

The media has painted the picture and because it suits what you want to believe "Hillary Bad Obomie Good" you go with it.

Nobody here is buying it except for Obamatrons.

Craig, great post! "BEHOLD THE SUPERDELEGATES"... If neither one can mathematically reach the magic required number of delegates to carry the nomination, then how will it go? If I were an undecided SD, I would be torn by two or three competing issues to inform me on which candidate to support.

On the one had I would be extremely excited and thankful that Barack Obama brought so many young and enthusiastic people (first time voters, etc) into the party creating an important bloc come November.

I would also think about the lead in the popular vote and the total number of delegates already allocated and also the historic importance of an African American candidate actually carrying the nomination.

I would also be motivated by Hillary Clinton's analysis of which states she has won (the large, must-have DEMOCRATIC states) to win in the general election. I would also be impressed by the slate of new voters she has garnered: energized women, the historic importance of her candidacy, and her advocacy for the voters in Florida and Michigan.

I would also look back with fondness on her and Bill's years in the White House and ask myself "was life better for me 8 years ago, than it is today?" And I would look at her leadership in the U.S. Senate and her real desire to solve America's national health care fiasco.

I think for me... electability would become the final issue and I would push and urge both candidates to run together as a unity ticket. Barring that, I would probably be most convinced by the big state wins and the disenfranchisement of Michigan and Florida.

This is, of course, assuming she does well in upcoming contests...

This is simply a free thought so do be kind.

As long as people insist on quoting the NYTIMES
I thought MODO was on your side

Is he skittish around her because he knows that she detests him and he’s used to charming everyone? Or does he feel guilty that he cut in line ahead of her? As the husband of Michelle, does he know better than to defy the will of a strong woman? Or is he simply scared of Hillary because she’s scary?

He is frantic to get away from her because he can’t keep carbo-loading to relate to the common people.

"In the final days in Pennsylvania, he dutifully logged time at diners and force-fed himself waffles, pancakes, sausage and a Philly cheese steak. He split the pancakes with Michelle, left some of the waffle and sausage behind, and gave away the French fries that came with the cheese steak.

But this is clearly a man who can’t wait to get back to his organic scrambled egg whites. That was made plain with his cri de coeur at the Glider Diner in Scranton when a reporter asked him about Jimmy Carter and Hamas.

“Why” he pleaded, sounding a bit, dare we say, bitter, “can’t I just eat my waffle?”

His subtext was obvious: Why can’t I just be president? Why do I have to keep eating these gooey waffles and answering these gotcha questions and debating this gonzo woman?"

Lardass, you old pragmatist, you. :-)

Wendy: Excellent post on Tweety's race comment...

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2008/04/clinton-parties-hard-in-pennsy.html#comment-71525

yes, Ally, i find it tough to think that we should count votes in states that don't even report the popular vote -- seems at least as weird as counting a state like michigan where only one candidate was on the ballot. so that if unreported caucus-state popular votes are estimated for a national total, then count them all, including FL and MI. -- and if you do that, btw, Clinton and Obama are now almost exactly dead even in national popular vote

Hey Heather,

Maybe what you see from "St. Obama" is not arrogance, but confidence. I know as a Hillary supporter, you may not be familiar with that because you've been behind for so long. But when you're ahead in pledged delegates, total delegates and popular vote, you tend not to sweat losing one battle, particularly when you know that in ten days, you'll win back the popular votes you lost. Oh then there's that small thing about Hillary being broke. Tapped out. Hat in hand. Can you spare me some change?

Lard,

I wouldn't even mind "proportional" as long as it were vote for vote equality. This weighted vote depending on location is pure crud.

good one, jamie, that's why i prefer to call it a DISproportional voting sytem

"HRC was the only game in town last night."

NOW AIN'T THAT THE TRUTH!

This isn't a TEN point victory, it's a FIVE point victory. If 5 percent of the voters changed their votes, the outcome shifts in the other direction, so she won by 5 points.

Posted by: Ted | April 23, 2008 9:39 AM

Ted, are you a Weight Watchers member by any chance? We used to say stuff there like "well I'm down 5 lbs, but I could have been up 5 lbs, so I am 10 lbs ahead"...

Just reading your comment reminded me of it :-)

TO WENDY,

PERHAPS YOU HAVE FORGOTTEN ABOUT ALL THE UNSAVORY ACTS SH COMMITTED THE LAST TIME SHE LIVED IN THE WHITE HOUSE.

REMEMBER White Water, Filegate, Travel gate, hiring private investigators to discredit the women Bill abused and in the case of Juanita Brodderick, raped, stealing Vince Foster;'s papers before she let the police into his office and more and more. She is unethical, no character and unfit to hold any public office period!!!!!

Sorry Craig,

But those vote counts in Michigan and Florida ain't counting. I can make the argument that if my candidate is not on the ballot (Michigan) then I don't show up to vote. Therefore I'm disenfranchised.

In Florida, it doesn't matter if a bunch of people showed up. It's the ones who didn't show up because they were told their vote wouldn't count. Saying that one should count the vote regardless smacks of voter disenfranchisement that used to happen to blacks in the bad old days in the South. A significant section of the population denied their voting rights (because the populace was told one thing, but the rules change after the fact), but the vote validated at the convention.

Craig: I agree on Michigan but Florida should count. I was in an elevator with Florida supporters when I went to pick up my Elton John tickets at HRC Campaign Headquarters and let me tell you, those Floridians are angry, to put it mildly.

Back to the caucuses, at my caucus people just started leaving at a certain point (near the 2-2.5 hour mark). No one could hear anything, it was going on and on and on and on, it was hotter than hell in the room and there was no place to sit. Finally, there was a buzz in the room that it was OK to leave (and, mostly older people, headed for the doors.) There was no way to know what the final count was after everybody was shifted around.

Here's the way I think you should vote for a candidate: Check their name off on a ballot.

" counting a state like michigan where only one candidate was on the ballot. "

What were Kuchinich, Dodd and Gravel? Chopped Liver?
http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/pdf/mipp108.pdf

You're right Jamie. And to apply my World Series analogy to that extra layer of absurdity, it would be like counting runs scored by infielders as 1.5 runs, while runs scored by outfielders count as 1 run.

Craig...for the life of me, I can't understand while HRC supporters or honest media brokers don't use the hypothetical "winner-take-all" tally as a talking point. It would be simple for voters/viewers to grasp, and the alternate reality it suggests becomes more and more compelling with each primary.

Right now, under winner-take-all, the headlines and the dynamic would be exactly the opposite as they are. Fo Obama, a victory would be almost mathematically out of reach...he would be under pressure to drop out...and the headlines would be talking about Hillary "closing-the-deal" in Indiana.

All with the same actual vote -- just different rules for counting it.

Why wouldn't the Carvilles of the world use this argument to spin their case to SuperDs?

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2008/04/clinton-parties-hard-in-pennsy.html#comment-71548

nice job of selective argument there, ByeBye -- you only responded to the half of my point that you wanted to address, i guess. my whole point was that if your're going to count popular vote in caucus states that didn't count it themselves, then open the floodgates and count everything. personally, i think i'm disenfranchised if i show up at a caucus and my vote is not registered, counted or reported

Michigan is easy if they don't want to go to the trouble of a revote.

Give her the votes she won. Give him the rest. It is obvious all those people wanted someone else. Simply let him have them.

It's somewhat like Slick said, If you don't like the game or how it's played and scored, then don't suit up. Makes sense to me Bubba

It's somewhat like Slick said, If you don't like the game or how it's played and scored, then don't suit up. Makes sense to me Bubba

Most recent SurveyUSA poll has Hillary closing the gap slightly in NC from 10 points (4/8) to 9 (as of yesterday)

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=7e1ed059-9ef0-4a2c-a2a6-3cbef8ca9803

Hopefully PA will give her a bump there and she can close the gap even more.

The last Indiana poll was last week - I bet they'll release today but as of the last poll on 4/14 Hillary was ahead by 16

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=d8b46eaa-c463-408e-98d2-b830eb122d39

Oh...by the way...my back-of-the-napkin winner-take-all tally EXCLUDES both Florida and Michigan, just for the record.

Bye Bye, are your John R. by any chance?

sorry about double posts..

Don't sweat the double posts, Rez. It happens to the best of us.

Don't sweat the double posts, Rez. It happens to the best of us.

OK, junkies - as we anticpate the change of the guard at DNC HQ after they f*cked this nominating process up, let's look at two states that point to the problems in the system, with the possibility that the system could be fixed somewhere down the line.

First, PA. Look at the map - count the counties won.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#PA

Next, Missouri.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#MO

Anything look odd about this to you? Our dear friend Will Rogers was right.

Skylark is screaming again. Those must be right wing talking points. They need to be louder and more repetitive than regular conversation or people won't believe them.

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2008/04/clinton-parties-hard-in-pennsy.html#comment-71552

lardass, based on my chats last night with HRC poobahs, i found them to be much more careful and measured about their spin than i expected (perhaps because so many in the media blow everything they say so wildly out of proportion). but it seemed to me they are trying not to overwhelm SuperDs with too many hypothetical-sounding arguments (even though that's about all theyve got at this point). they are even going slow on the popular-vote possibilities (but that will certainly change if they do somehow manage to edge ahead).

pogo,

My hide comes pre-damned.

sturge,

And AFTER they all endorse McCain...

McCain will in turn endorse Eliot Spitzer.

Okay, thanks for the inside dope Craig.

Now I think I'll just go outside, foaming at the mouth, and strike up a conversation with a telephone pole.

Catch you all later today.

Go Hillary!!!

Craig: If the general population really knew how caucuses worked, they would be gone. When I moved to Iowa I was excited to be part of this exciting thing called a "Caucus." After I attended, I was mortified that this was the system in place to select our nominee. Especially in a state where you are taking your life into your own hands just getting from the house to the car in the dead of winter. My husband had a Dr. Atkins moment about two weeks prior to the caucus. My son found him laying in the driveway. He is 45-years-old and almost died taking out the trash. Don't underestimate how hard it is for some folks to navigate the elements.

Oh skylark - I remember the republicans spending 80 million dollars to get the Clinton's on something and...well...there was NOTHING.

Let me put it in terms you clearly enjoy:

WAIST OF TAX PAYER MONEY

Great...in the end we caught a guy lying about an affair

80 million TAX PAYER DOLLARS

Yippee

Now skylark I hope you took your motion sickness pill this morning because I'd hate for you to up chuck all over the blog after all the spinning you've been doing.

pogo,

My guess is that this is a stalemate, no matter how the individual primaries go.

The only group which can end the race are the Superdelegates who are going to have to stop playing Pontius Pilate and admit they exist to get their hands dirty and do one or the other candidacy in.

What is valuable about the Superdelegate system is that it is NOT a backroom.

For while it may not be a transparent process, the final product has their names on it.

And if anyone here believes the Superdelegate system was designed to honor and protect its citizen voters, well, then -- congratulations!

As you are brilliant at regrowing your virginity.

Also keep in mind about MI that 44% voted uncommitted. Keep in mind, also, that Edwards was still in the race...

I bet out of those 44% Edwards would have gotten most of them and come in second...

But...OK...give him the entire 44% if he's going to be a "typical whiny baby" about it.

Ally,

I felt the same about Washington after living all my life with the California primaries. Washington doesn't really have the weather problems but if you are aged, ill, serving in the military, or working you are out of luck. When you add in the crowds, group intimidation, and arcane mathematical considerations it is laughable to call it democracy.

I still predict this is going to convention. And after seeing the party last night in Philadelphia, why wouldn't the dems want it to? I do not understand why the Obama supporters are so afraid of more debates or a fight on the convention floor. It makes us stronger, not weaker. I still hope for a dream team as that will keep the dems in power for 16 years vs. 8 years. Again, the yin and yang ticket.

Isn't it a wonderful thing that all you can say was they they didn't find anything on the Clintons. She was named unindicted co-conspirator in the White water case. remember she could find the papers requested by the court until ONE WEEK AFTER THE STATUE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN.

Some of you people must be living in La La land if you think she would be good for the country. I'm living in New York and we have found her to be a lack luster senator because she was so busy as.... kissing the Republicans to convince them she was a moderate. Her accomplishments consisted of putting some new names on old post offices and having a monument built in Puerto Rico. WOW quite a senator. Face it if she wasn't sort of married to a former president she would be no where and I wish that is where she will be soon.

IT IS A BEAUTIFUL THING TO WATCH HER CAMPAIGN IMPLODING !!!!!!

I have been asking for years who the 52 million voters were that would re-elect George Bush. They are the people that don't really pay attention to politics, but only pick up on the media spin, sound bites and photo ops. I see the same type of mentality in many BHO supporters. The TV/ radio pundits make catty snide remarks about Clinton and it gets repeated over and over.

killfile
Posted by: Skylark | April 23, 2008 10:48 AM

Skylark

I know innocent until proven guilty does not exist in your Clinton lexicon, but may I dare to point out that an "unindicted co-conspirator" is someone suspected but not accused and the people who are actually accused need to be convicted for the second layer of "unindicted" to come into play. Nobody was convicted. It was all right wing accusation.

I could say that you are an unindicted co-conspirator in a murder, but I have to prove that a murder actually took place before I can come after you. As it turned out, someone just got a little ill, so you are off the hook.

Superdelegates shouldn’t ignore the odds
Gene Lyons

"Which brings us to the forbidden issue of electability. Is it realistic to think that a gifted novice like Obama can win enough states to prevail in the Electoral College ? Among Democrats, it’s possible to avoid the question by crying racism, as Obama supporters did early and often.

Let’s talk demographics. Making himself the black candidate has definitely worked for Obama in the primaries. But the unfortunate fact is that most African American voters reside in states that Democrats either can’t win (the Deep South ) or almost can’t lose (New York, Illinois, California )."

http://www.nwanews.com/story.php?paper=adg§ion=Editorial&storyid=223629

I've been getting quite a few fundraising calls lately. I've discovered if I say right off I prefer not to be "recorded or monitored" it pretty much ends the conversation on the spot. One persistent woman attempted to argue with me about "the law," that ANY time you talk on the phone it's subject to being recorded. Well, I said, I guess we just won't be talking, will we?

The Clintons are filled with dirt and don't belong anywhere near the White House. There is something very wrong with these 2 people who are constantly surrounded with scandal and unethical behavior PERIOD !!!!!!

If anyone wants a break from chronic taf