her tactics are deplorable, her lies and embellishments disgusting..her elitist behavior.."only big states really count" (she lost Texas...don't hear much about that, do we) her willingness to wallow in the mud when every one knows the skeletons that rattle around in her closet..is McCain or Hillary the best this country can do..she is like a zombie..cut her head off and she will still crawl after you

by Susan Nelsen (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 287 comments) on Wednesday, Apr 23, 2008 at 12:25:23 PM

  (0+)

although every state counts, whomever carries the big states usually wins the election. The bulk of our population can be found in these big states. So can the bulk of the problems most of the people in this country now face. The big states have been the hardest hit states economically. The most job losses come from those states. People are generally forced to pay higher taxes in the larger states, the cost of living in the larger states is higher too and the poverty levels in the larger states by far overshadow those in the small states. So why is it (and allbeit those races were close) that the elitist Hillary is winning the larger states? Are most of the people in those states all idiots? Or do they see her chances of winning in the fall better than Barrack's? Did they get the message wrong? Or did a few negative articles about Reverend Wright do the job? Do they listen to FOX News more than people in the smaller states do? Whatever the reasons, be they a combination or none of the above, Obama has been unable to carry even one big state. That means plenty!

by Michael Shaw (12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 439 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Apr 23, 2008 at 2:13:05 PM

  (0+)

Obama did carry the most caucus delegates according to Texas election rules but Clinton won the primary, the popular vote by 4%. So if numbers don't lie at least the majority of the people in that state voted for Clinton even if their  caucus delegates did not. To me this is not a clear victory for either candidate. In fact it is the most confusing situation I have ever seen in an election primary.

by Michael Shaw (12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 439 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Apr 23, 2008 at 2:49:14 PM

  (0+)

And sometimes they mean nothing even when they should. That said and although you are correct in the "Obama still has the numbers" message, landslide or not Obama has failed to win even one key state in this election and that will say a lot to the super delegates at the convention. Especially when considering Obama out spent Hillary 3-1 in Pennsylvania and still lost. Also she now has the momentum moving into the last three primaries.

Frankly I was hoping for an Obama win in Pennsylvania. I wanted to see him carry a big state. He didn't. What does this all mean? Well it could mean nothing. The important news I think comes in the form of voter turnout. The democrats are going out in droves and that usually means good news for democrats in the general election.

But lets not forget this last primary meant a lot to both candidates. It is now not a do or die situation for Clinton. It is a neck in neck race all the way to the finish. May the best man or woman win.

by Michael Shaw (12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 439 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Apr 23, 2008 at 1:46:24 PM

  (0+)

Hillary still has the republican machine behind her, and Diebold. I predicted months ago,and caught a lot of flack for it, that Obama would be allowed to lead, to give the process a semblance of legitimacy, and Hillary would have the final states flipped in her favor by the Bush mafia machine.  I will not at this time say I told you so, that will wait until the sham primary is over.

by john riggs (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 463 comments [24 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Apr 23, 2008 at 2:20:23 PM

  (0+)

in the Diebold count vs the hand count, especially in NH. Perhaps you're right, maybe the republicans do wish Hillary would win. One aspect in Pennsylvania comes to mind. Those independents and republicans who went out in droves to re-register as democrats seemed to be supporting Clinton over Obama. Yet overall it seems independents everywhere else supported Obama. Another point is that in Pennsylvania 51 counties use paperless electronic voting machines and you need a legitimate excuse to vote absentee. I don't like the sound of that!

We certainly do know that Diebold did plenty for George W. Bush, it's CEO being one of Georgie boy's frat brothers. The fact they are still allowed in the election process(name change or not) is a travesty. Sadly since there is no paper trail all we can do at this point is be speculative. We'll never know the true results.

Most of the red states seem content with Diebold and other electronic vote counting companies. Either that or they can't afford to make a transition or their elected reps won't bother to make one. Indeed these machines are a true threat to democracy. Perhaps the greatest threat. Many blue states like California have been making the right moves. But it seems obvious this too little too late. It sure was concerning the primary and we will face it again in the general elections.

Another aspect of course are earmarks. Clinton received more earmarks in her state by defense contractors than did Obama. Still they both received them. So in the end what does this all mean? These earmark wars hurt both democratic candidates. Meanwhile McCain, who has been asking for more earmark transparency on a bill he knew would never pass, comes out of this looking squeaky clean. He has the most backing by defense contractors too!

I have often wondered if there is even a point. A system in voting we know to be open to easy fraud, a system we know can be manipulated so readily, a system that has been proven over and over to be flawed seems to be the hardest thing on earth to get rid of. They can spend millions of our tax dollars on these machines at the drop of a dime, but they can't spend money on written paper ballots? Seems absurd to me!

by Michael Shaw (12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 439 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Apr 23, 2008 at 3:53:29 PM

  (0+)

CNN is so F*CKING LIAR, a news anchor wh0re from CNN said that Obama's speech is "elitist", and that's why he is losing, because Hillary is more pro-workers, damn how can CNN lie to people like that. The Clintons are no pro-poor at all, they slashed welfare social programs, they are anti-food stamps and anti-welfare. how could CNN lie to people like that

by LincolnMarx (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 86 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Apr 23, 2008 at 10:08:52 PM

  (0+)