The Day After

I think it was Rowland Martin who pointed out the irony of the current situation on CNN: (4.00 / 5)

Florida and Michigan, defying the DNC and the best interest of the election process in years ahead, actually made themselves less relevant on both sides by leapfrogging Super Tuesday.  It looks as though Texas and Ohio, voting a month and a half after Michigan, will be more relevant...and have all their delegates seated.  The tortoises to Michigan's and Florida's hares.

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:21:50 AM CST

In the shadow of Super Tuesday... (4.00 / 1)

2/09: Considerably Less Super Friday: Washington state, Louisiana, Nebraska, US Virgin Islands

2/10: Meh Saturday: Maine Caucus (Dem only)

2/12: Son of Super Tuesday: District of Columbia, Maryland, Virginia

2/19: 'Jan Brady' Tuesday: Wisconsin, Hawaii

3/4: Super Tuesday, III: Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont

3/8: "Hey, what about Wyoming?" Day: Wyoming

3/11: The State Every 4th Grader Can Spell Tuesday: Mississippi

4/22: "Next Time We Won't Listen to Carl Levin" Tuesday: Pennsylvania

5/3: "Is anybody actually gonna campaign in Guam?" Day: Guam

And so it continues...

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:43:32 AM CST

Wait.. (0.00 / 0)

Isn't Friday the 8th?  Does that mean that Maine is on Sunday?

---

by: HarrellKirstein @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:00:04 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Apparently. (0.00 / 0)

Both of my sources list the Maine Caucus for dems as being 2/10.

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 15:09:50 PM CST

[ Parent ]

To clarify, you're right, the 9th is Saturday, not Friday, and Maine is on Sunday. (0.00 / 0)

Meaning they should be called Considerably Less Super Saturday and Meh Sunday, respectively.

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 15:11:55 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Vermont (0.00 / 0)

 
*** Can you imagine campaign events in VT? ***

FInally! Our vote may actually mean something this time!

---

by: NH Ex-pat @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 04:56:03 AM CST

Obama (0.00 / 0)

My assumptions would be that it is favorable to Obama. Would you agree?

Hope > Fear



Create a free Blue Hampshire account and join the conversation.

---

by: Mike Hoefer @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 08:49:02 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Obama will CRUSH Hillary in Vermont! n/t (4.00 / 1)

---

by: NH Ex-pat @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:40:33 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Day after thoughts (0.00 / 0)

BHO needs to kill the VP talk... it will bleed his soft support

BHO needs to get get much better in the debate format. Crisp and short. While I think the challenge of a debate a week from HRC has some hints of "underdog" to it, it is a great tactic that works well for her.

There seems to be some nostaglia for the brokered convention BHO needs to kill that with at the same time he kills VP talk

I'm very nervous that a brokered convention will favor HRC with her long relationships with super-delgates

If it comes to super-delgates vs pledged delegates I'm very nervous that many will be turned off by the process.

Will Richardson endorse based on his states results? By waiting it would seem he either needs to keep quiet or endorse the pending winner of NM.

I'm hoping Edwards will show some of that "Backbone" he likes talking about so much and endores one or the other... obviously I'd have my preferences.

Hope > Fear



Create a free Blue Hampshire account and join the conversation.

---

by: Mike Hoefer @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 07:54:28 AM CST

BHO, Just say NO (4.00 / 1)

Mike,
-I hear ya, bro. I think the VP ponderings feed the "not enough experience" talking point. The more of BH's "soft support" sees him being seasoned in a Clinton Admin, the more OFA is undone.
In politics, the word "never" is a hand grenade, but he needs to find rhetoric that forces voters to "shit or get off the pot", as my sainted Nana used to say.

-Also, the "Denver Miracle" bull is dangerous as well. The notion that Gore can be conscripted to run based on the lack of a clear nominee, though enticing, distracts the pundity and preliminary voters.

-The super delegates will shift if a tide is evident. Much of Clinton's support comes from those hedging their bets. I am convinced they will break ranks if we head into Denver "tighter then a frog's ass. That's water tight, BTW."

I see the spread in the schedule as favoring Obama. It has been demonstrated that "to know Obama is to vote Obama." The 4 early states have shown this. The "kiss" in the polls shows this. Hell, the results from Mass shows Obama winning metro Boston and around UMASS Amherst.

When Obama camps out and makes his case, he convinces voters that he is the better candidate.

www.KusterforCongress.com  

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:47:58 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Good points, Jack. (0.00 / 0)

The important thing for Obama to emphasize in rejecting himself as VP is that, "our time is now."  It's extremely important that he emphasize that he's not just the right person for the job, he's the right person for the job RIGHT NOW.  There is a time and a place for the Obama movement, and that time is now, and that place is all over America.  Yes We Can.

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 15:20:20 PM CST

[ Parent ]

If Obama can do in a year, ... (0.00 / 0)

what Mrs.Clinton has been doing since 1997, I would say a tie goes to the runner!

No?

www.KusterforCongress.com  

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 15:45:22 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I don't know what that means. (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 16:49:22 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Mrs.Clinton's palanquin (0.00 / 0)

Obama is clearly a far superior politician.

The Clinton twins have been "working the room" since '92. This should be no contest!

Barack has vaulted over them all to land squarely on Mrs.Clinton's palanquin.

www.KusterforCongress.com  

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 18:52:07 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You're right, but... (0.00 / 0)

A lot of the debate crap comes from the news media.  Like CNN stooge Jeanne Moos doing a piece an hour before the LA debate about whether Obama is chivalrous enough to Hillary.  Equal playing field, please.

I think only the media is nostalgic for a brokered convention.  And by nostalgic, I mean it makes good TV.

I think you're right about Super Delegates, but I can't be the only one who thinks there would be an uproar among the party base if this is decided by the Super Delegates; surely, Howard Dean has thought of this.

Richardson is not going to endorse.  Just trust me on that one.

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 15:16:44 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Some thoughts: (0.00 / 0)

* The media, largely incapable of context, declare it a draw, but looking at the race from over a year, this is a huge culmination for Obama in the face of double-digit Clinton leads. I think he can make inroads into red states, some of which he could flip in the general (unlike McCain, who wins blue states now, but doesn't stand a chance in the general to do so).

* I fully expected Clinton to win CA, but the margin for her was better than I expected.  The happy results of early voting, or just plain solid victory?  Calling MA an "upset" was laughable, yet she also did better there than I thought she would.

* One wonderful outcome: the GOP game of whack-a-mole continues apace!  Not a landslide for McCain, Romney wins CO, Huckabee gets new life, all within the context of a day of the GOP defining itself in a pissing match with a fat drug-addled talk-show host who has never held elected office.

* If Obama can spin Tuesday into lots o' fundraising, and win those primaries in Feb he is favored to win, could he win this through a war of attrition?  What about OH and TX?

---

by: Dean Barker @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 07:55:38 AM CST

I gave last night (4.00 / 1)

I'm wondering if OH an TX could be the Deciders

It would seem that Edwards would be a good advocate for either candidate in those states.

The longer he waits the less valuable his endorsement becomes.

Hope > Fear



Create a free Blue Hampshire account and join the conversation.

---

by: Mike Hoefer @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 08:53:21 AM CST

[ Parent ]

It's a great day for the Blues (0.00 / 0)

and a great day to be a supporter of the nominee! ;)

I watched the proceedings with some young college students last night, and it was a wonderful thing to see them excited.

---

by: GreyMike @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 08:13:34 AM CST

New Mexico (0.00 / 0)

is going down the wire, only 71 votes separate Hillary and Obama, but Hillary got the majority of delegates.

Obama  65,036  49% 12 Delegates

Clinton 64,965 48% 13 Delegates

Still at 98% reporting

---

by: sdoyle @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:47:46 AM CST

Yeah, and Obama got more delegates in New Hampshire and Nevada. (0.00 / 0)

God forbid the media pay attention to what actually counts.

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 15:21:32 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Yeah, and Obama got more delegates in New Hampshire and Nevada. (0.00 / 0)

God forbid the media pay attention to what actually counts.

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 15:21:33 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Ummm (0.00 / 0)

Actually, Obama and Clinton received the same number of delegates in NH. Obama has three superdelegates to two for Clinton, with two undecided. Given what you said above about super delegates, since Hillary got the popular vote, perhaps those Obama superdelegates should change their position, and track the NH popular vote!!!

But, speaking of the supers, I keep hearing this grumble about "the superdelegates better not decide this". Yet, at the same time, I hear, "Don't sit Michigan and Florida, they broke the rules." The rules provide for the superdelegates.  I'm not saying the rules are good or bad, I'm just saying that the party decided a long time before I had anything to do with it that national committeemen, national committeewomen, at large members of the DNC, state party chairs and vice chairs, and governors, senators and congressmen should be delegates. It isn't like this process was made up just for this election (except the stripping delegates part, that was made up just for this election).  

"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 15:50:31 PM CST

[ Parent ]

stop the presses, i agree with Kathy! (0.00 / 0)

You can't pick which rules you want to follow. You either have to work to change the rules or you have to live with them. Though we hope that superdelegates will follow the will of their states as expressed in the primaries, that will not be their only consideration. This is the system we have in 2008.

Re Florida and Michigan, they will be seated, but only after the election is decided. They won't cast deciding votes at a brokered convention. Them's the rules. Doesn't matter when they were adopted. They could just have easily have protected HRC, if other states had jumped the gun.

---

by: michael57 @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 16:07:43 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I don't support every rule, I support the ones that are just. (0.00 / 0)

I don't necessarily oppose the idea of superdelegates, just the idea that they would be the deciding factor.  Consider, for example, our esteemed Chairman's statement, in response to me on an earlier thread, that he will reserve his own superdelegate vote for whomever is the clear nominee.  I'll go out on a limb and say I assume you probably did the same when you were the one, Kathy, and I agree with the spirit of that.

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 16:52:48 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Actually... (0.00 / 0)

No one asked me to endorse them after the primary was over in 2004 or 2000. If someone had asked, I might have said sure!  

Energy and persistence conquer all things.


Benjamin Franklin


 

---

by: Kathy Sullivan @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 19:26:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Everyone agrees with Kathy (0.00 / 0)

sometimes!

The superdelegates going for Obama actually represent areas where the majority voted for Obama anyway, IIRC. The split here seems fair enough. However, I'm very much against seating the MI and FL delegates. It would be a slap in the face to NH and the work Ray Buckley and others did to keep NH's first in the nation status. I'm also uncomfortable with Hillary's interpretation of the pledge taken by the candidates not to participate in the MI and Fl contests. It's reminiscent of her husband's odd definition of what a sexual act entails.

---

by: Jennifer Daler @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 16:57:01 PM CST

[ Parent ]

My wife is very clear on that n/t (0.00 / 0)

www.KusterforCongress.com  

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 19:00:32 PM CST

[ Parent ]

"Obama Girl" Didn't Vote (0.00 / 0)

Our friends at the New York Times - more spefically scribe-about-town Jennifer 8. Lee - say Amber Lee Ettinger, the star of last summer's Obama Girl video, failed to vote in yesterday's primary. The heartbreaking details are worth checking out.

---

by: Tim Ashwell @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 13:18:06 PM CST

somehow (0.00 / 0)

not surprised...lol

---

by: sdoyle @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 13:35:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Gosh NM is still out there... (0.00 / 0)

Hope > Fear



Create a free Blue Hampshire account and join the conversation.

---

by: Mike Hoefer @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 19:52:16 PM CST