Thursday, March 06, 2008

Guess What? Obama Is Winning Texas

By Lisa Pease
March 6, 2008

But there was one big problem. A Texas-sized problem.

Read on.

26 comments:

Looking for facts, not spin said...

LISA THE HISTORIAN LAMENTS: Rushing to judgment in an election is not just careless, it threatens the very foundations of our Democracy.

Oh, please! If the media's "rush to judgment" on the Texas delegate outcome is threatening the very foundations of our democracy, we're in deeper doo-doo than I thought.

Why don't you do some real reporting and dig a little deeper on Barack Obama's background? The fact that you, and others, have done so little to examine Mr. Obama is a bigger threat to the very foundations of our democracy, than the delegate count in Texas.

Spin, spin, spin.....

Anonymous said...

I'm a Canadian, and I think a lot of non-Americans must find the media strangely quiet about the Texas caucuses. You have to search CNN diligently online to actually find the results. But the count is so slow, over the days.
I guess Texans count with a drawl...

Yes, it appears Obama has won Texas. Dobbs and Blitzer & Co. should be commenting acerbically: 'What will Hillary do, now that she's lost the Willy-mandated Ohio AND Texas. It was his requirement.'
And what is this superstitious numerology about having to win Ohio to win the presidency. I used to be you HAD to be WHITE, you had to be MALE. Old-school. Don't these journalists have college degrees?

--Dan

Deliberate Speed said...

@ "Looking for Facts ~ Spin":
The Ya-Hoo's have come out. Your comment is endemic to what our education system has come too. Your comment really isn't deserving of response ... however ... let's go with it. The greater issue to investigate (if we're going to vet candidates), is a full disclosure of the W - H - I - T - E - W - A - T - E - R matter. That would be appropriate ... yes?

Now, as to the premise of this news story - yes her take is on point. An electorate which impacts an election of national significance IS worthy of dialogue. Reasons such as this, are precisely why states changed when they hold their primaries, i.e. California which did it while conforming to Democratic Party rules and Florida & Michigan whom moved their primaries, though not in accordance with Democratic Party rules.

I want to elect a candidate who can appear publicly with their spouse without there being dialogue such as, oh the spouse (i.e. former President Clinton) is stealing the candidate's "moment". However, this is part and parcel part of the baggage which goes along with being a former first lady. She knew this when joining "Team Clinton," especially if she's running on 35 years of experience. And frankly speaking, I'm not convinced that Hillary is even as good as an attorney as Michelle Obama, when you get right down to it as well.

Deliberate Speed said...

And now we get this:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080306/ap_on_el_pr/primary_scramble

and basically what will occurr is that if either of those states allow non Dems to vote in a "revoted" primary, then what will happen is Republicans will actually vote for Hillary in those Democratic Primaries. No need for a re-vote in those states. Ratify the elections which occurred and let's move on. Revoting is as disingenuous as replaying a "buzzer beater" in a basketball game. What this is REALLY becoming is an indictment of OUR political process. To think that So. Africa can legitimately elect a non White male to the presidency, while America appears to be having difficulty doing so is ... sad really. Recognize "game". Do we have to SETTLE for the White female, because America just can't fathom a Black president. I've got some news for you, a few of those former American presidents may have had some "Negro" ancestry ...

Elizabeth said...

Thank you for being the voice that tells the truth. My son is a journalist but he would never stoop to the kind of sloppiness and mis-reporting the rightwing-inspired media continues to do.

When are Americans going to understand that Hillary Clinton will lose to John McCain? Her husband's antics made a Bush II presidency possible and her sickening campaign tactics (with the help of the press) could lose the presidency for the Democrats.

GET OFF THE BUS, HILLARY! Go back to New York or Arkansas or Texas, but leave D.C. alone.

Elizabeth Madrigal

Anonymous said...

Amazing how far Mrs. Clinton will go to fulfil her personal greed for power: she has embarrassed the Canadians but won't apologize. And she now says she might consider Sen. Obama as a running mate after she has forcefully claimed he would not be an acceptable commander-in-chief. Is she sacrifying the interests of the United States to her own ? Anything - anything for a few votes!
How on earth anyone can trust her is beyond me.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for publicly stating what the media have been doing for far to long. Taking the easy (stupid) way out and not doing their job to report on reality.

The person who gets less deelgates does not win an election. Clinton did not win Nevada. And it looks like she will win the Texas primary, lose the caucases, and LOSE the overall state as well.

vote counter, not a bean counter said...

According to a report from ABC News, Senator Clinton has, so far, won more actual votes in the campaign than Senator Obama has.

Mr. Obama has publicly stated, previously, that the candidate who gets the most overall votes in the primaries and caucuses should get the votes from the superdelegates.

So, now what?

Lisa Pease said...

Vote counter - that sounds like old info, as it is not currently true. See this page for an updated count.

Obama leads the popular vote nationally with 12,992,769.

Clinton follows with 12,406,988.

Pot Meet Keetle said...

The caucus votes aren't even HALFWAY counted out yet and you are declaring Obama the winner?

Why are you in such a rush to declare a winner? If you can wait 24 hours to find out who is going home on "American Idol," certainly you can wait much longer to get accurate election data.

voter whose primary vote didn't count said...

Miss Pease:

Well, any way you slice it, even according to your link, Senator Clinton's POPULAR VOTE is larger than Obama's.

Those citizen/voters in Florida and Michigan, did vote for her, even if the party poohbahs decided to not seat the delegates as a result of those votes.

But, please remember it ain't over 'til it's over. Don't get in such a rush to judgment, eh?

VOTER WHOse primary vote didn't count said...

13,575,302 - OBAMA
13,609,945 - CLINTON

Lisa Pease said...

Obama did not campaign in Michigan or Florida.

In Michigan, Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot.

There's no reason to seat the delegates as if there was a fair contest when clearly no contest took place.

Anonymous said...

I HATE HILLARY.
Now, am I allowed to post on this site? To Speed,
W H I T E W A T E R has been vetted, try reading up on it please. Hillary wasn't my choice but a Chicago Democrat (Obama)is as bad as it gets for the party. I work for them, ok? I see the right wing media machine has turned dems against dems, way to go, fools.

Lisa Pease said...

Voter whose vote didn't count - you are using the Florida and Michigan numbers, and that's not only unfair, according to party rules, that's illegal.

Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan. The party asked all candidates to remove their names from the ballot. Obama complied, Hillary broke the rules.

All the candidates were asked not to campaign in Florida. Obama didn't. Clinton nearly did, holding a fundraiser (usually considered a campaign activity) in Florida the night of the primary, and making her Super Tuesday speech from that location.

Asking for those delegations to be seated is not only breaking the rules, it's completely ridiculous, because you know she'd be the first to cry foul if doing so would favor Obama. This is an utterly selfish, self-serving move on Clinton's part, and the party should not cave in to such illegal demands.

I have operated under the tradition that you don't get rewarded for breaking rules you agreed to in advance. You CERTAINLY don't decide who is president by including illegally obtained "gains."

fact checker said...

All the candidates were asked not to campaign in Florida. Obama didn't. Clinton nearly did, holding a fundraiser (usually considered a campaign activity) in Florida the night of the primary, and making her Super Tuesday speech from that location.

Yeah, right. Obama supporters say he didn't "break the rules" even though he innundated Florida television statewide with political ads, "because he bought national ads that he couldn't pull from Florida..."

Pease porridge hot, pease porridge cold...pease porridge in the pot...your spin is getting old

fact checker said...

Obama complied, Hillary broke the rules.

Well, that means that Chris Dodd and Mike Gravel broke the rules, too. They left their names on the ballot. (Dennis Kucinich's name was on the ballot, too, because he didn't do his homework quickly enough to delete his name...hmmmmm.)

The Michigan Democratic Party encouraged voters to vote "Uncommitted" (which was an option on the ballot). Hillary Clinton was of the opinion that Michigan voters -- since the primary was going to PROCEED anyway -- should be given the opportunity to vote for the candidate of their choice, so she left her name on the ballot.

Hillary Clinton beat "uncommitted."

fact checker said...

I understand the definition of the word ILLEGAL, but Miss Pease, please! She did not break any laws. I surely hope you're not going to suggest that she broke any laws.

That would be a stretch.

fact checker said...

it's completely ridiculous, because you know she'd be the first to cry foul if doing so would favor Obama.

Oh, great. Now you're a mind-reader in the mode of Howard Fineman and Maureen Dowd.

Oy.

Anita Bryant said...

Why Obama is Lukewarm on a Florida do-over

Hey, Lisa, take a gander at this.

Lisa Pease said...

Fact checker, if you want to wear that moniker, you need to keep your facts straight:

Bill Burton, the Obama for America press secretary, called the attack “misguided.”

“Both national cable networks told us it would be impossible for us to run advertising nationally that excluded only Florida,” Burton said.

“For that reason we consulted with the South Carolina Democratic Party Chair Carol Fowler who told us unequivocally she did not consider this to be in violation of [the] pledge made to the early states.”


Source

Lisa Pease said...

Anita,

No one should draw any conclusions from the matters in Michigan or Florida, since Obama did not compete in either.

fact checker said...

Lisa, that dog don't hunt.

It is possible to buy cable ad packages on a state-by-state basis. Yes, it's more complex and costs more....but it can be done.

In fact, it's done on a regular basis by spohisticated ad buyers. (We're told ad nauseum how sophisticated and organized and efficient Obama's campaign is.)

So, Obama's campaign could have eliminated Florida in its ad buy...but they chose not to, because they wanted to saturate Florida with ads....AGAINST THE RULES, as you are wont to say.

fact checker said...

Lisa, did you catch this bit of "leadership" from Obama's campaign on the Florida delegate issue?

NYT: David Plouffe, Mr. Obama’s campaign manager, floated the idea of allocating the delegates from the two states 50-50, which would erase Mrs. Clinton’s hypothetical advantage and essentially make the two states meaningless in the competitive delegate count.

Turns out Obama's campaign are nervous nellies over a re-do....because the winds of change (polls) tell them they'd lose in a re-do.

fact checker said...

NYT: Aides to Mrs. Clinton, brimming with confidence after primary victories in Ohio and Texas this week, signaled that they were open to a revote under certain conditions. Aides to Mr. Obama were warier, sensing that the recent change in the electoral and psychological dynamic could work against him in any new election in those two states, Democrats said.

Obama's campaign is finding out the lesson of UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES. Now, they're hesitant about a re-do after screaming at the top of their lungs that there had to be a re-do.

Maybe they should have voted PRESENT. :-)

fact checker said...

Perhaps this is the real reason that Obama advisor, Samantha Power, was sacked -- because she said in essence in this interview that Obama is telling the American voter what they "need" to hear to get elected about Iraq