...more recent posts
And this is without the Dems campaigning in Fla.
| Clinton | 856,944 |
| McCain | 693,425 |
| Romney | 598,152 |
| Obama | 568,930 |
| Giuliani | 281,755 |
| Huckabee | 259,703 |
| Edwards | 248,575 |
from here
On the Democratic side, Clinton beat rival Barack Obama in a tight Nevada contest. She won the popular vote but Obama won more delegates. (???) I guess I need a civics lesson.
the other night coward fineman could not stop gushing about tim russerts skill and fearsomeness as an interviewer and that hillary was brave to submit to an hour in his presence. judge for yourself right now but dont look directly into his eyes or you may not live to comment again.
Here's a comment to a Matt Yglesais post, with an excerpt from Matt's post in italics:
That said, all the available evidence points to there being more people with friendly feelings toward Obama than there are with friendly feelings toward Hillary.This isn't making me change my mind, but this is the first argument for Clinton vs. Obama that has made any sense at all to me. What do you guys think?
OTOH, there are greater limits to the grossest ways in which the Republican candidates can dog whistle on HRC than on Obama. Republicans weren't going to get the black vote anyway. The main reason to seem friendly to black voters is to reassure white female voters (or so I think Rove said). But attacking HRC on dog whistle gender grounds seems at least as likely to cost Republicans those white women voters, whom they currently win by (I think) 10%, as attacking Obama on race-related dog whistle grounds. Even K-Lo gets irritated by some of the gender related HRC-bashing, and occassionally gets frustrated by the lack of Republican female politicians.
I don't think the issue is as clear cut as you're making it out to be.
Overall I still say that since Clinton is stronger with the dem base, and Obama is stronger with independents, he's a better candidate in the general election since the base is going to vote for whoever the dem nominee is anyway, while the independents can easily break the other way (or just split or just stay home) if it's Clinton.
| 112,238 | 104,757 | 88,447 | 75,202 | 48,666 | 26,760 | 20,387 | 18,276 | 13,245 | 3,912 | 2,884 | 1,220 | 402 | |
must say im not that put off by dowds column as everyone else seems.
have to admit gobsmacked is not the first word that comes to mind.
New Hampshire election results broken down by town. Pretty nice.
dionne distills.
i only caught the tail end of the dems debate last night because i didnt realized there was one. but i did see stephanopoulos and sawyer call this hillarys worst moment and josh marshall posits that it was either an impassioned or enraged response depending on your point of view. i see it as a marginally honest assessment wrapped in cherry picked factoids. noone is willing to completely come out and say that the notion of "change" is campaign rhetoric. who the hell isnt for change? only those who wish to "stay the course." its pretty much an either or proposition. what you plan to do to effect change is all that matters not that you are for change. that said, i dont see how anyone could view hillarys response as anything but impassioned. now is not the time for sitting on your hands and modulating your response so as not to ruffle the heathers feathers.
counting on electronic voting machines
pretty momentous night of political theater last night. as far as coverage went, the democrats certainly seemed to be center stage while the republicans were almost an afterthought. maybe thats because the conservative who won doesnt have any institutional support so noone wanted to push his brand. and romney disappeared himself by giving his speech at exactly the same time as huckabee insuring that he would not be covered live. doesnt seem very smart. ron paul, of course, got the wheres waldo treatment, despite his respectable 10% showing. he got no coverage and barely no mention, whereas mccain at 13%, still the media darling, was mentioned at every turn. in fact, msnbc desperate to promote mccain had him as #3 most of the night (they only showed the top three in their graphics) despite the fact that he was in fourth behind deputy droop-a-long, fred thompson. thompson must have taken the night off knowing he was on the way out because he got about as much facetime as bill richardson, which was none, and only mentioned in the context of throwing his support to st. mccain. also, despite beating hillary by the hair on his chinny chin chin, edwards wasnt considered viable down the road by the poobahs. probably true but it seems the media would like to make this a self fullfilling prophecy.
my favorite moment of the night: some pundit trying to explain the chuck norris ironic appeal to interpups.
also great to see rachel maddow of air america given space at the msnbc pundits table. kudos to msnbc for having a true liberal voice. i thought she acquitted herself quite well.
so obama gives good speech. i was nearly as taken with edwards populist cant but you cant deny obamas presence. hillary was pretty gracious in defeat but i cant say i wasnt just as happy as the odious chris matthews to see some fresh faces take center stage. oh, and obama wins on art direction as well. instead of the claustrophobic backdrop of family and supporters huddled onstage, he was set apart. it was very bushian, in fact, but effective given his victory.
Be afraid, be very afraid -- but don't let it show.