Let me caveat this post with the following: I cannot stand Hilary Clinton and Bill Clinton. I view both Clinton’s as the epitome of why I hate politics. I think President Clinton was one of our worst President’s and Senator Clinton has done nothing while in the Senate. I would almost rather live in France than have Senator Clinton be the next President, but the only problem with that is France is full of Frenchmen. And now on with the post….
It is obvious that either the “drive-by” media hates Senator Clinton or is in love with Senator Obama. Going into last Tuesday’s 6 May 2008 primary Senator Clinton stood no chance in North Carolina and was expected to win Indiana. She did exactly that. She did what was expected, and nothing more or less. Nothing should have changed via the media outlets, but it has. From Chris Matthew’s (youtube video) to Bill O’Reilly and all other media outlets (youtube video) it is over for her. The only problem with that it isn’t. With the Democrat primary the individual states really do not matter, all that matters is the super delegates. Even if Senator Obama wins the rest of the states, he is not guaranteed the nomination. Why? because in the democratic primary system it is a few “elite” individuals who get to choose the party’s nomination, so average joe and jane have no say. That is very democratic….But I digress. Senator Clinton did what was expected on Tuesday. If she would have pulled off an upset in North Carolina would the media be clamoring for Senator Obama to step down? I doubt it.
Senator Clinton is no where near out of it….never count the Clinton’s out. The next primary is West Virginia on Tuesday 13 May. Senator Clinton will win this. After 13 May is the 20 May primaries in Kentucky and Oregon. I do not know the poll numbers for Oregon, but Senator Clinton will probably win Kentucky. So out of the next three primaries she will win at least 2. That is by no way’s out of it. And yes one can argue that she cannot catch him via the delegate count, but that does not matter because of what I stated earlier in how the delegates do not matter. The only thing that matters are the party elite.
One last thing….is anyone in the democratic camp worried that Obama cannot even carry his closest state neighbors? How is that for electability? (He lost Indiana, Michigan (debatable because he was not on the ballot but would have lost anyways), Ohio, and Missouri). He will lose or tie a total of 4 out of the 6 states that border Illinois.
UPDATE: It appears she will fight on… http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/07/democrats.race/index.html
Filed under: Politics | Tagged: 2008 Election, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Media Bias
I am a Clinton supporter, just as long as we are all being honest. I actually did not live in the US for the first Bill Clinton presidency, and I wasn’t crazy about him, but after Bush, he looks almost like a great president to me. Now I digress.
The media, with the exception of Wright circus on Fox, LOVES Obama. This is clear. And I don’t know how any women put up with the sexist bashing Clinton gets–because if they think it is limited to her, they are wrong. Misogyny runs deeper.
It is worrisome that Obama cannot take large states, and if the Democratic Party expects him to be able to pick up the necessary electoral votes in Nov., let them run him. They’re idiots. If they love this guy so much, get him ready. Because when he loses in Nov., I don’t think he’ll be a comeback kid. I am not all about being pragmatic, but I also do not want more of Republican rule. You are right, nothing has changed in the race. And not much has changed in the media. They were calling for her to drop out after she lost a caucus.
With all the attention the Rev. Wright story got, it’s hard to believe that the media “loves” Obama.
A couple things:
Proximity to the senator’s home state matters very little. With communication technologies being where they are i can know more about Obama than someone who lives in chicago. Or i could know a lot less… Quick, tell me the senators for Ky, Md, Nc, Tn, and Wv .. whats that you cant? but they are your neighboring states!
As for being worried about hrc… no i am not. She wont win, she cant win; dont feed me this “never count out a clinton” crap that was fed to you by the same media you claim favors Obama. I would argue that it is good the hrd stays in the race. Think about it if she were to drop out now she would probably still win WV and KY (im pretty sure her name would still be on the ballot). That would be terrrible for Obama, she stays in the race and it is ok for him to lose those states that are full of uneducated, bible thumping, toothless, hicks (am i allowed to say that on this blog?).
To say that delegates, super delegates, popular vote etc. don’t matter is wrong and you know. Those “few elites” you reference will look heavily at the numbers and choose the best nominee to beat McCain… assuming he hasnt fossilized by then.
That being said – the media does favor obama but thats probably because there education includes more than a GED.
*their education
The New York Times certainly doesn’t “love” Obama. They endorsed Clinton and they continue to run Paul “the conscience of a liberal” Krugman’s rants against Obama.
Also, this point of border states is not very relevant.
1. It’s the match-up that matters. A state that favors Clinton over Obama doesn’t mean that Obama will lose to McCain in that state. Clinton trounced Obama in California and New York. I will bet my left foot that Obama will beat McCain in Cali and NY.
2. Illinois is very peculiar when it comes to the midwest. It is dominated by the Chicago area (9 million out of the 12 million state population), which is more similar to New York and California in terms of voting behavior than the rest of the midwest. So citing Ohio is a “border” state is really stretching it.
3. Also, thinking about this border state thing a little more, I have come to the conclusion that (i) John needs to look at a US map, because Ohio doesn’t share a border with Illinois, in fact it’s not even close both geographically and politically and (ii) Obama won Iowa and Wisconsin, so if you want to really count border states, you get Indiana (barely) and Missouri (barely and in fact they tied for the number of delegates) for Clinton, Iowa (comfortable margin) and Wisconsin (a lot) for Obama. That’s 2 to 2 for now (counting Michigan isn’t fair).
Well Fang I do not need geography lesson, maybe you need reading lessons. There are 6 states that border Illinois and though I mentioned Ohio as one of Illinois closest state neighbors, I did not call it a border state. Out of the 6 states Kentucky still needs to vote. I gave that to Clinton so that is 3-2. And I agree one should not count Michigan, but the latest news from Michigan is that they will split the delegates giving a few more to Clinton because it is obvious she would win that state. The DNC will not exclude Michigan or Florida because it does not want to disenfranchises two major states, so they will count them to some extent. That gives Clinton 4-2 like I stated in the post.
Then why mention Ohio at all? Regardless, my points 1 and 2 still hold.
And because of the extremely tight races in Indiana and Missouri, your argument about these borders states seems very weak to me.
I mention Ohio because for I don’t know the past X elections the way Ohio goes so does the election. That is why I mentioned Ohio.
I was not making an argument I was just curious amongst democrats if it showed concern to them that he could not carry his neighbors…but I see it does not
.
As to the other comments thank you for contributing!
And since I have no life, I did some math:
Counting the popular votes in Michigan (I counted uncommitted for Obama, this is an upward bias since some of these were for Edwards, but presumably if he had his name on the ballot and was able to campaign, he may have similar numbers, regardless Clinton still had a 100,000 vote advantage), Indiana, Missouri, and Wisconsin (I haven’t included Iowa which was a caucus and Kentucky), we get:
Clinton 1,820,388
Obama 1,920,967
Counting the pledged delegates, Obama is up by 16 (not counting Michigan and Kentucky).
Again, this border state argument is weakened even more.
Wait a second. Did I miss something? Is Kloss a liberal?
I would actually make a more useful comment except that the important points seem to have already been made.
In short, no, I am not concerned that Obama did not carry Indiana.
Fang’s point #1 is the most salient in this discussion. You have to be careful not to incorrectly project primary results to the general election. In November, there are states that will remain blue no matter the candidates. Same for red states; even though, Obama won Utah and Wyoming, I don’t think McCain is really concerned that he might lose there.
What is most important is how things turn out in those more ambiguous swing states, the purple states if you will. And the point I would make here is that Obama’s primary run is encouraging to me because he has shown an ability to pull in many people from the middle. As a democrat, I think this is more useful to the party in the general election and could turn the tide in those purple states.
Of course, a big part of that thinking is based on the assumption that those people left of the middle, even if they prefer Clinton over Obama right now, will stay on the left in the fall when Obama is the nominee. On the other hand I don’t think Clinton has demonstrated the ability to pull in those voters in the middle, and thus they are more likely to swing to McCain if they cannot vote for Obama.
Counting popular votes? Since when did popular votes matter?
We are a representative democracy…moron
And again I was not making an argument for or against the border states, I was simply asking if it concerned democrats.
Anyways I think Clinton would have a better chance against McCain than Obama….but that can be another post another day…next post for me is an environment one
Since when do your people care for the environment?
And why exactly do you think McCain beats Obama?
Well I counted delegates too. Popular votes were to underscore my point.