Post super tuesday, the conventional wisdom was that Hillary would not win another contest until March. So if you ask Hill supporters, they might tell you that it is supposed to happen this way.

That said, you may be right, Hillary may very well be finished.

But if she does win Texas and PA by a decent margin, she can pull ahead of Barack and can make a stronger case for super delegates. Also, if things keep up, chances are the FL and MI delegates might be raised as an issue, either to be seated or to hold new elections, either of which could also benefit her come convention time.

O. American,
That's exactly what I talk about in my column 'Why Clinton is stronger after Super Tuesday' (Feb 07). I am not exactly a Clinton supporter, but that was the expectation that February was always going to be a good month for Obama. The problem for Hillary is that it was a great month for Obama and now there is more pressure than ever to win TX, OH, PA and RI and win big.
We'll see what happens - I still think Clintons won't go down without a fight over FL delegates, especially if she wins TX, OH and looks good in PA, KY and RI.

The two people who made comments above are so out of touch it is not funny. Wake the f*ck up. First, the Clinton campaign claimed it was going to be over on Super Tuesday and that she was going to be up a significant amount of delegates. So yes, if that mirage came true then maybe they will tell you that "it was supposed to happen that way" in the March contests. The only problem was that it wasn't over on Super Tuesday. What the Clinton campaign did not plan for was such a tight race. Why? I have no idea. The arrogance and aoura of inevitability surrounding the Clintons made me want to puke, and obvously many many other people as well. Seriously, for anyone to claim that the Clinton campaign wanted to lose 10, now 11, contests in a row is just plain stupid. No one in there right mind would want to lose that many in a row. Its so nice to watch though. And yes, Hilary is finished, with the exception of Mass and NY she barely beat Barack in the contests she has fairly won. Barack destroys her in every contest he has won, with the exception of Missouri. Where has Clinton's so called base gone? Besides a slim majority of woman, and old people, they are all going to Barack. Wake up it is over. She can claim its not, but everyone who has a clue knows it is. Barack wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan so she has no case there, no matter how you attempt to spin it. Maybe she has a case in Florida, but I don't think either will factor in when it comes down to it. But who knowns. You have to play by the rules, National DNC rules that is. They can bitch and moan about Florida and Michigan all they want, but that's all it is going to be, bitching and moaning. Hillary has gotten spanked thus far and she needs to go away now. Bye Bye Hillary. I guess you just weren't that good of a candidate to begin with, at least not as strong as you had convinced yourself to be in your big head. President Obama, a black man in the white house, it has a nice ring to it.

dee,

pot calling the kettle black. Note that I said "Post- super tuesday" as in "after" super tuesday. You reply with "First, the Clinton campaign claimed it was going to be over on Super Tuesday "

Shall I send you the definition of the word "post?"

As far as your other comments, clearly you are an Obama supporter. How nice for you. Doesn't change the fact that some of the contests clinton has won, she has also killed Obama (see California and a few other large states). Also doesn't change the fact that if the FL and MI delegates dont get to sit, then the voters from both states will be disenfranchised.

Im sure that this all conflicts with your pro-obama world view, but it's reality. Don't complain to me about it, I don't care, I dont plan on voting for either democrat come november. And frankly, unless the country really does want an extreme liberal in the white house, which I doubt, either candidate should be beatable by McCain. If I am wrong on that point, and we do elect Obama or Clinton, I do predict the honeymoon will be short, and the marriage will quickly go sour. No counselling either!

Again, I will point out how out of touch you really are... I'm saying you are wrong, that was not the plan post super Tuesday, it was the plan before super Tuesday. I don't care what you allege. If I am to beleive you then your saying that the Clington campaign, in a tight race, didn't think that it was important to win any primary or caucus for the last 10 states. That makes no sense. In a tight race, do you really think that they thought it would look good to lose ten in a row. You havn't a clue. Yes, Clinton has won some, Obama has almost doubled her in victories. Besides the two I pointed out MA and NY, she hasn't killed him, she didn't kill him in California, 9 point victory is hardly a killing, and you vague "other large states" has no teeth. Name them. The voters from FL and MI will be fine. You vote for whatever your out of touch heart desires, that's your right. And McCain does not have a chance in hell. Again you are out of touch. Let McCain keep saying we need another 100 years in Iraq and let him keep campaigning with President Bush, those two things will surely help him get elected. HAHA. You are laughable. The people obviously do want "an extreme liberal" in the white house, or else they wouldn't be voting for Barack in such large numbers now would they. Don't get left behind my man, join in the change.

I don't know if I buy that either Dem can be beaten by McCain, OA.

I'd agree that especially now, Hillary probably couldn't win against McCain, but I'm not so sure about Obama.

IMO, between Obama and McCain, Obama is more likely to be perceived favorably by a majority of voters and win.

Between Clinton and McCain, it's possible for either one of them to alienate enough voters to lose.

Out on a limb:

Obama wins 30 or more states, wins electoral college by a margin of at least 100.

This momentum is the biggest "Big Mo" any of us has ever seen [or will see again?].

McCain sealed his fate when he said he'd stay in Iraq a hundred years if necessary. Did you notice the deafening silence of the jingoism after that statement? He's on his own. Even the boldest Iraq belligerent will desert McCain in the privacy of the voting booth, tho thay may lie and act bellicose when asked or polled.

"Even the boldest Iraq belligerent will desert McCain in the privacy of the voting booth, tho thay may lie and act bellicose when asked or polled."

Wishful thinking (and projection, perhaps), with absolutely nothing to back it up.

In fact, the opposite is more likely true; people in favor of the war have learned not to talk about it in public...

It's still an active race on the Democrat end, and it might break right on down to the Convention itself-instead of a ritual of coronation, an actual Convention, complete with deals and debates.

As for McCain... well, anyone remember Bob Dole? Moderate-to-Liberal doesn't work the Republican side of the fence, and Democrats tend to prefer to vote for other Democrats, even given the option of a Liberal Republican.

Hi,
I am here at the debate. The press crowd is pretty lively. I am putting together some highlights and will have a full transcript available soon.

Heloise

Oh god, I bet that'll be the most impartial article ever written on BC ?!?

"#10 -- February 21, 2008 @ 19:35PM -- Clavos
...

"In fact, the opposite is more likely true; people in favor of the war have learned not to talk about it in public..."

Now why would that be?

Clavos is right in saying people in favor of the war are afraid to talk about it in public. Robert Kagan, neoconservative co-founder of the Project for a New American Century, and an "informal" and "unpaid" advisor for John McCain's campaign, was absolutely thrilled with Obama's address to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs last April.

Has Barack Obama really changed his mind about the appropriateness of using "unilateral force" to protect our "vital interests" since April '07, or is he just telling us he has?

""In fact, the opposite is more likely true; people in favor of the war have learned not to talk about it in public..."

Now why would that be?"

For exactly the same reason I learned never to talk about having fought in Vietnam when I got back to the World and went to college.

I quickly grew tired of being excoriated as a "baby killer" and worse.

Just look at the tone of your posts right here on BC, bliffle.

You are one of the nastiest, most vituperative commenters on this site.

No wonder the supporters keep their mouths shut.

Clavos, I'm going to say this and keep my mouth shut (as promised, multiple times!) There is a fairly high ratio of vets to non-vets, I've observed, at local campaign events for a certain Republican anti-Iraq-war presidential candidate.

Sure, I have major ideological differences with neoconservatives over the definition of just war, but what keeps my heart engaged are the stories of the military men and women coming back (or not) from Iraq. These patriotic young men and women have been used treacherously and shamefully by a group of cynics whose tentacles have a grip on every aspect of US political life, even, campaign rhetoric notwithstanding, the foreign policy of such "anti-war" candidates as Obama.

My family has packed up and sent care packages for the soldiers in Iraq. Protesting the war is another face of that same support. Any protest of the war that doesn't also pay tribute to the sacrifices, horribly misused sacrifices but sacrifices nonetheless, of the military and their families, brings to mind George Carlin's quip about "fighting for peace..."

she has also killed Obama (see California and a few other large states).

A 2% margin of victory is hardly 'killing' anyone.

Also doesn't change the fact that if the FL and MI delegates dont get to sit, then the voters from both states will be disenfranchised.

Given their history I doubt many democrats will have a problem with that.

And Irene, after Ron Paul who gets military support for reasons other than his position on the war, the largest support from the military and overwhelmingly from the retired military has gone to McCain.

Dave

That DOES it, Dave Nalle. Despite my resolve to take a "pause from BC," I am unable to resist your challenge to analyze statistical data. I have an article written in response to #18 which is 80% finished. You are likely to be less displeased with another one, a chat with my fellow Christians on the subject of Law vs. Grace and its implications for our involvement in politics, especially vis a vis social issues. I don't know if either article will do any good, so I'm not sure when or whether to finish/publish them.

A more immediate concern is: Could you please tell me how to get the subheader into the main body of my article, "Thirteen Ways of Looking at a Dark Horse?" Articles seem to be available for editing only if they're in draft or pending status. The subheader giving credit to Wallace Stevens won't appear once the article rolls off the main page. A commenter has asked for permission to link to it, and I'm hesitant to let that happen without credit to Wallace Stevens being visible in the main article.

I'll take a look at it Irene. I can access published articles.

Glad to have inspired you to write on. I always have fun with statistics articles. The other one might inspire me less, though.

Dave

I've been known to surprise people, Dave Nalle. You may be one of them. Thanks for your help with the subheader.

Tavis not smiling over Obama skip
Breaking news here. Or is it? Tavis is just as much a politician as Barack. He picks and chooses what he wants to attend. When a friend here asked him to attend something she was hosting Tavis told her "it would cost money." He don't do freebies for the most part.

Besides Barack participated in his debate about Black American issues.

Heloise

"...the largest support from the military and overwhelmingly from the retired military has gone to McCain."

Bullshit, Nalle. See the Veterans Against the Iraq War web site.

"Just look at the tone of your posts right here on BC, bliffle. You are one of the nastiest, most vituperative commenters on this site."
- Clavos

I disagree, Clavvy. I find bliff to be refreshingly open minded and reasonable.

Dave #18,

From an article in The Baltimore Sun:

"McCain's support among veterans contrasts somewhat with that for Sen. John Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee in 2004.

Although Kerry also was a decorated veteran of the Vietnam War, he was the target of negative campaigning from the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which raised questions about his record in Vietnam that were widely disputed.

After returning from Vietnam, Kerry had testified before Congress in 1971 about American military "atrocities" in Vietnam and participated in anti-war protests.

For McCain, veterans could play a significant role today in states with heavy concentrations of military veterans, Sabato said. Maryland will hold its primary Feb. 12.

Sabato pointed to exit polls showing that among veterans who voted in the South Carolina GOP primary, McCain held a double-digit edge over former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.

"Any state that has a large proportion of veterans and military personnel, McCain has a natural connection," Sabato said. (emphasis added)

And NRO:

"In fact, McCain is probably the only candidate that talks about veterans' issues in every stump speech. And why shouldn't he? If one can judge by his appearances on the campaign trail, veterans are a significant base of support for McCain. It's a reasonable conjecture that McCain's victory in New Hampshire is in no small way attributable to his appeal to veterans. Veterans comprise over 15 percent of the voting age population in the Granite State, one of the highest percentages of any state in the nation. (A search for exit-polling data on veterans' voting habits in this past New Hampshire primary and the last few elections has proved maddeningly elusive.)"

From a FoxNews exit poll in the Wisconsin primary:

"Vets make up almost one quarter of voters, and they chose McCain over Huckabee by a significant 63 percent to 31 percent."

Bullshit, Nalle. See the Veterans Against the Iraq War web site.

Clavos has already provided ample evidence that you're talking through your hat, as usual. VAIW does represent some veterans, but it's a tiny organization in the grand scheme of things.

As for armed forces members donations to candidates demonstrating who they support, one of the analyses of the data done by USA Today has Obama with the most, Paul with the second and McCain only a tiny bit behind Paul. It had the Republican candidates overall leading Democrats with 59%.

Campaign donations may not be a fair assessment of support, however. As most of us surely know, most military personnel can hardly afford to make large contributions or multiple contributions to presidential campaigns. Polls of the military or of retirees are likely to be a better measure, but I can't find any polls specifically of veterans.

There's certainly lots of veteran support for McCain. It's overwhelming based on what they say at the McCain website and press releases from Veterans for McCain, but that's hardly real evidence.

Dave

"Clavos has already provided ample evidence that you're talking through your hat, as usual."
- Dave Nalle

Speaking of "talking through your hat"...It's awful easy to support McCain's 100 year war in Iraq as long as it's someone else going, eh Nalle?

Did McCain start the Iraq War now? That's news to me. And BTW, McCain has two sons in service right now, one in the marines in Iraq and the other in the navy supporting the US efforts there. How does that sit with your little obsession, MCH?

Dave

mccain's statement was clearly out of context...he was referring to our presence in countries such as south korea and germany. REMF, looks like you shouldn't just read the cliffnotes of what the liberal media has to offer

Breaking news: Caroline Kennedy in Austin for Obama today.

Heloise

Why is this breaking news and who cares?!

Breaking news... some anonymous eejit doesn't give a shit. Who cares?

Oh didn't know I was offending members of the Obama cult. Hail your messiah!
my apologies - just don't take over a compound and start shooting :(

Breaking news: Caroline Kennedy in Austin for Obama today.

Actually, Heloise, whey is this breaking news and why should we care? More important things are going on than some 40'ish Kennedy girl running off to Texas supporting Obama - like a Russian ship discovered spying off of the Israeli coastline, or a wet noodle demo called by Hamas where virtually nobody showed to storm our border like they did the Egyptian border a ways back.

Nah, you didn't offend anyone, anon.

It's just pixels on a screen...

Well, when I write and talk hard issues and policies no one thinks that breaking news or important. I don't think Caroline has ever been to Texas before and surely not to stump for a candidate. That's breaking news fella.

Heloise

Most people wouldn't recognize Caroline Kennedy if she passed them on the street. So no it is not news in anyway except in the Obama cult where it is a huge event apparently!

Most people may not recognize her on the street, but her name definitely has a high recognition factor.

Which would explain the intense coverage by the MSM of her endorsement of Obama.

OOOOhhhh, scary, anon!

He's likely to be your next President!!!

OOOOOOHHHHHHHHH!!

Name recognition my ass! Chuck Norris also has name recognition - look where it got Huckabee.
And Kennedy endorsed Obama in her homestate of MA - remind me who won that state?

Chuck Norris is merely an actor, and a mediocre one at that.

And he was endorsing Huckabee, who was, and remains, a loser.

Caroline Kennedy is the daughter of JFK. Her and her uncle's endorsement resulted in enormous media coverage for Obama, which of course, is the point of endorsements.

That coverage helped assure that Super Tuesday was the last time Hillary won a primary.