Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

WI and HI Open Thread

By

Obama declared the winner in WI 56-43.

Once again, the most significant story may be the turnout:

In Wisconsin, officials said they expected the turnout to exceed 35 percent, making it the state’s highest participation rate in a primary since 1988.

What’s your reaction?

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. I’m a big fan of Obama, but I’m not a big fan of his campaign cutting of Clinton’s speech with his own. It was smart, because in the middle of prime time he got to tell all Texas voters how to vote early & to remind them to caucus. Great idea from an organizing point of view. Just bad etiquette.

    <

    p>Good speech overall. I could have sworn that at the end he said “Hope for the best and work for it,” but I wasn’t listening. Can anybody confirm?

    • Normally, after a hotly contested election, the “free” media provides an opportunity for each campaign to comment on (concede or accept) the results of that election. The victor is traditionally given more air time than the loser to make whatever victory speech she or he chooses.

      <

      p>Hillary Clinton did not comment in Texas on the “breaking news” by graciously conceding defeat in Wisconsin as is the tradition of good sportpersonship.  Some appear to suggest that the “free” media and the Obama campaign owe her air time for a regular stump speech.  If Clinton were to publicly acknowledge her loss and make a concession speech, I’d say it was new newsworthy, but more than once, she, to her discredit, hasn’t.

    • The bad etiquette was on display from the Clinton campaign by yet again refusing to offer a concession speech and not congratulating Obama.  I’m actually fine with that —  it’s a strategic move on Clinton’s part.  It’s not good to give 9 or 10 concession speeches in a row when you’re trying to project a winning image.  Obama’s campaign saw she wasn’t even going to mention the WI loss, so they decided to take her off the national airwaves.  I thought it was a good move.

      • Agree with the strategic analysis. Clinton called Obama to congratulate him on his victory. That’s good enough for me. If she hadn’t, then maybe you could say she lacked good etiquette. If this were Iowa or New Hampshire, i.e. the only game in town this night or week, I’d say your traditional concession speech might be in order. But these two are full tilt into the home stretch of a tight and tough campaign, and the time is now for message message message.  

      • Does anyone still think there’s a possibility they will share the ticket? No way.

        <

        p>Clinton should’ve congratulated Obama in the first minute and Obama should’ve let her finish her speech.

        <

        p>I think it was equally bad form by both.

        • ….”politics makes strange bedfellows” exists for a reason.  

          <

          p>If BHO gets the nomination (more likely at this point) and wants unfettered access to the entirety of the democratic political machine he should choose HRC and if she still wants to be in the White House, even in the number 2 spot, she’ll have to accept.

          <

          p>If HRC gets the nomination (less likely but not out of the question) and wants to tap the Obama momentum she’ll need him and his best shot at the White House down the line may be running as the former VP.

          <

          p>It may still happen, if for no other reason than it makes political sense.

          • I know, I know. JFK/LBJ, Reagan/Bush, W and America; strange combinations one and all. BUT…

            <

            p>If Hillary enjoys and controls access to unfettered use of the entriety of the democratic political machine, I would’ve thought she’d have made better use of it by now. Instead, she is on the verge of being done.

            <

            p>He has shown national strength, the ability to grow in constituencies that are strengths for her and an ability to raise lots of money. I’m not saying she wouldn’t be able to help, but I don’t think he needs to put her on the ticket to get help from her.

            <

            p>I really think at some point it got to where they both had enough success that the VP slot would be just a bitter pill to swallow. I think it has gotten a bit too publicly personal in this day and age. For one to get on board with the other I think there would’ve had to have been a much earlier and decisive victory for one over the other.

            <

            p>I don’t expect to see a ticket with Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on it as P and VP in either combination. (and I don’t think either is the best ticket.) But hey, I’ve been wrong before lots and lots and lots of times. Care to make it interesting?

  2. Turnout continues to be the significant story of this campaign.  This is the most serious threat to a McCain/Republican victory in 2008.  There are simply an overwhelming number of new Democratic voters (not necessarily Democrats) who have entered the fray as part of the “transformational” nature of the Obama movement.

    <

    p>Also, interesting, here in Hawaii, the news broke about the Obama win in Wisconsin and the local Democratic caucuses won’t open for another hour or so. And while I earlier noted in a comment that the local morning newspaper had reported a 40-50% increase in Dem registrations in the past week, the head of the Democratic Party here, is reported as saying it is a 25% increase.  Of course, people can still register up to 6pm tonight, so we’ll see what the actual increase in new registrations is after this all shakes out tonight.

    • If there is a resurgence in conflict and turmoil abroad in the balkans and the middle east and some of it is brought here to USA, I wonder how it will affect  the voting patterns.

      <

      p>Conversely if everything is as quiet as a mill pond it may have the opposite effect.

      <

      p>The economic soothsayers aren’t being particularly ebullient in their economic predictions–another factor in the equation.

      • Note how Iraq has almost completely dropped off the MSM radar screen. I can’t remember the last time I heard Clinton’s vote for the war, for example, even mentioned. (Maybe my memory is fading!)

        <

        p>On the other hand, the Dow and the economy and sub-prime are on everyone’s lips.

        <

        p>The latter, I think, is particularly difficult for the Republicans since (a) they are the incumbents, and (b) the last economic memory people have is of Bill Clinton’s goldilocks economy.

  3. MSNBC seems to have decent exit polling. White women: Clinton 53, Obama 45. The only age group he lost was 65+. Obama took people between the ages of 50-64: Obama 53, Clinton 46. And he’s basically splitting the low income voters. That means in almost all of her core supporters, Obama is severely digging into her lead.

    <

    p>(NOTE: All these numbers subject to change as the night progresses according to MSNBC.)

  4. With 38% precincts reporting in the WA primary, McCain whomped Huckababy 48-21.  Clinton and Obama are still too close to call.

    <

    p>The WA repubs are using the primary to assign about half of their delegates.  They assigned the other halfish amount at their straw poll about 10 days ago.

    <

    p>The WA dems assigned all their delegates according to the caucus.  Thus, the dem primary result will be of interest…to someone…  but it is meaningless in terms of assigning delegates.

  5. Election results with 10% reporting

    <

    p>http://kgmb9.com/main/content/…

    <

    p>Written by KGMB9 News – news@kgmb9.com    
    Tuesday, February 19, 2008 09:36 PM  

    <

    p>Maui and Oahu
    Clinton – 666
    Obama – 2,258

    <

    p>(Less than 10 percent of vote)

    <

    p>South Kona

    <

    p>Obama – 311
    Clinton – 97

    <

    p>Last Updated ( Tuesday, February 19, 2008 09:44 PM )

    <

    p>Fyi
    that is, 2:44 EST Massachusetts time

    <

    p>South Kona is on the Big Island aka Island of Hawaii, most of population lives on Oahu

    <

    p>Aloha from Hawaii

  6. Election results with less than 10% reporting (about 8%)

    <

    p>http://kgmb9.com/main/content/…

    <

    p>Written by KGMB9 News – news@kgmb9.com    
    Tuesday, February 19, 2008 09:36 PM  

    <

    p>Maui and Oahu
    Clinton – 666
    Obama – 2,258

    <

    p>(Less than 10 percent of vote)

    <

    p>South Kona

    <

    p>Obama – 311
    Clinton – 97

    <

    p>Last Updated ( Tuesday, February 19, 2008 09:44 PM )

    <

    p>Fyi
    that is, 2:44 EST Massachusetts time

    <

    p>South Kona is on the Big Island aka Island of Hawaii, most of population lives on Oahu

    <

    p>Aloha from Hawaii

  7. More results:

    <

    p>Tuesday, February 19, 2008 10:25 PM  HST
    Clinton – 1,875
    Obama – 5,436

    <

    p>(Still reporting as “less than 10 percent of vote”)

    <

    p>FYI, there were huge lines and a number of precincts ran out of ballots, so there will be additional delays in reporting.  It appears to me that the places that have had ballot shortages are areas that would tend to favor Obama.

    <

    p>We’ll see.

  8. Florence Kong Kee, the head of Democratic Party of Hawai’i announced a breakdown of the (less than?) 10% results (I have a question about whether that reported percentage number is accurate), from both Hawai’i congressional districts:

    <

    p>CD1
    5681 votes

    <

    p>Edwards 8
    Kucinich 15
    Uncommitted 14
    Clinton 1542
    Obama 4302

    <

    p>CD2
    1488 votes

    <

    p>Edwards 4
    Kucinich 11
    Uncommitted 6
    Clinton 333
    Obama 1134

    <

    p>There is a clearly a trend apparent in both congressional districts that favor Obama by a significant margin. I wonder what superdelegate Senator Dan Inouye will be doing with his vote come Convention time.

    <

    p>My mother, the ancient Republican, can now go to bed happy that “that nice boy from Punahou” whom she’s been enthusiastically rooting for, has won.  

    <

    p>Aloha from Hawai’i.

    • Nice wins!  It showed bouncebackability – i.e. the ability to ride out some bad press and weather some mistakes.  The Big O has been tested here, with the negatives on the debates and weak plagiarism charges, and now he has shown that his support is not fair weather (and the weather in cheese land was certainly not fair).  The good cheese making and beer swilling folks of Wisconsin said we don’t give a damn about Clintonian trivialities – he’s just the better candidate.

      <

      p>The Clintons again showed a disorganised approach to the whole Wisconsin enterprise. First they weren’t in, then they were, weren’t, and then were — and it ended it up she spent the last 48 hours in Wisconsin because of snow storms – much more than Obama spent in the closing days – and she still got whooped.

      <

      p>She got outspent big time which is a testament to the weak standing of her finances at this stage.  She only had four offices recently opened to Obama’s 12.  He was in there much earlier and with much more firepower.  You could say of course he should have won it under such conditions.  But, you could also wonder about a Clinton campaign that is getting fundamentally outworked, outthought, outhustled at this point.  

      <

      p>And yet she’s still got a shot – another set of firewalls for Obama to bridge in Texas and Ohio.  But this comprehensive beat down is not gonna help.  I’d venture to say the polls in Ohio and Texas should be evening up pretty soon and the superdels should start getting closer as well.  Let us go forth to March 4th.

      <

      p>GO BAMA!!!

      <

      p>

    • But, I do think its time for Obama to start making a claim on the nomination and that its time for the party to unite — this can start putting some heat on the Clintons.

      <

      p>Obama could add something like this in the stump:

      <

      p>”A big part of the reason I decided to take this improbable journey and run for the presidency was because I wanted to unify our country around a common purpose after years of partisan division and failed policies.

      <

      p>And I think as this campaign has progressed we have started to see Americans come together – across party lines – hopeful for change and hopeful that our nation can once again live up to the promise of its founding.

      <

      p>Democrats have joined with independent voters and Republicans to demand change.  

      <

      p>But the forces of the status quo aren’t gonna give up too quickly.  They want four more years of war, four more years of uncontrolled spending, four more years of tax cuts for offshore corporations and policy made by Washington lobbyists.

      <

      p>Bush and the forces of the status quo have annointed their successor – and it is time to unify our party and our people so we can get started unifying our country.  We can’t afford to stay divided much longer, let’s come together and take our country back.”

      <

      p>

      • that you keep referring to the campaign as the “Clintons.”  Interesting choice for an allegedly progressive person. Yet, you don’t refer to the Obama campaign as the Obamas.  Hmmmmmmm.

        • even many progressives can’t seem to admit that the buck can stop with a woman.  she owns that campaign, successes and mistakes alike.  yet some insist on keeping the sock puppet image alive.  “a new direction” my ass.

          • While I agree that sexism (and racism) remains sadly alive in political progressives, I don’t necessarily agree that all short-hand labeling of the Hillary Clinton campaign as “the Clintons” is defacto sexism.

            <

            p>Clinton, herself, has actively referred to the Bill Clinton administration as evidence of “her” 35 years of political experience, even though she was not elected or appointed to any Cabinet office during that administration. Since she uses the “we” construction when it is politcally advantageous, it seems disengenous to then complain when others use it too. NAFTA comes to mind.

            <

            p>If Bush 41 had been as active a participant in Bush 43’s primary campaign (sitting in the inner policy and strategy circle), I think it would have been fair to refer to them as “the Bushes”.  The participation of a popular former US President in active primary campaigning for his or her family member is highly unusual and gives a significant media advantage (it was Bill Clinton who “conceded” South Carolina to Obama in a televised political campaign stop) to that candidate. I don’t think MSM would cutaway from remarks by Senator Obama or Senator Clinton to cover a speech by Michelle Obama.  

            <

            p>But to your main point, I agree that Hillary Clinton is the person responsible for her campaign, her vote authorizing the war, her vote for Kyl-Lieberman, her vote to approve anti-consumer changes to the bankruptcy laws, as well as for her good leadership in protecting children’s health through SCHIP. Yes, let’s let the buck stop where it may.

            • of his son’s ascendancy; he was not in the backseat, and neither was Georgie’s momma.  The inner circle was pure 41.  

              <

              p>And as long as we’re having the “buck stop where it may,” let’s make sure you hold all candidates to the same benchmark.  

              • My point was that using the term “the Clintons” as a literal reference to Bill and Hillary Clinton was not necessarily sexist because of Hillary Clinton’s own use of the achievements of the Bill Clinton administration as examples of her own successes.  She tied her own individual name to the success of her husband’s Presidential administration. And so has he.  

                <

                p>You seem to suggest that because some members of Bush 41’s administration were part of the Bush 43 campaign this is synonymous with the actual presence of former President Bill Clinton, as an active surrogate and a member of Hillary Clinton’s strategic and political decision-making inner circle. I simply don’t agree. Bush 43 didn’t run on or take credit for his father’s record. In fact, he ran from his father’s record.  

                <

                p>While it is true that W’s mother (and her famous rolladex) was a significant factor in his rise, to say that she sat in his inner political and strategic circle is not supported by fact.  One simply cannot compare the influence of Bill Clinton who is part of Hillary Clinton’s decision-making circle (along with Grunwald, Penn, Ickes, and +/- Wolfson) with a rolladex.  You might have a better analogy is you compared Barbara Bush with Clinton fundraiser Terry McAuliffe.  But you didn’t and neither did I.

                <

                p>Bush 41, was clearly marginalized by Bush 43, who ran against the image of his father as a weak, waffling not-true conservative.  Some members of Bush 41’s administration actually opposed Bush 43 as a candidate for the Presidency. Father Bush clearly has always favored his more talented son Jeb for the Presidency.  GHW Bush was, sadly, never part of Bush 41’s inner circle, because perhaps if he had we might have never gotten into this disasterous war in Iraq.  

                <

                p>In fact, neither of the family Bush campaigned or directed 41’s campaign on par with the influence or presence of Bill Clinton. Hence the use of the term “the Clintons.” And surely neither parent Bush made speeches suggesting that if you vote for 43, you get a return to the good times of Bush 41, or a vote for Bush 41 amounted to three for the price of one.

                <

                p>While I respect that you may not agree, I think my point still stands: Hillary Clinton has taken credit for “the Clintons'” achievements and has made the use of that term as a descriptive of her campaign fair, both as a positive and a negative; She is responsible for her own campaign and her own legislative record, both postive and negative.  

          • That just confirmed for too many the bizarre nature of her quest for the White House – that it means giving a former president another stint there.  

            <

            p>I didn’t coin the phrase Billary and if you read many a woman columnist (Maureen Dowd most prominently) they see his enhanced presence in the campaign as a turnoff.  

            <

            p>And I know this will sound somewhat pathetic (like the I have a black friend argument used by bigots), but I have voted for many a great female politician in the past and hope to again – but Hillary, while being a very good candidate, is ultimately not the best we have this year – my wife thinks so too.  She ran a campaign based on her name (and thereby her inevitability as heir to the party throne) and not on her own very significant personal qualities.  

            <

            p>She diminished herself in the affected glow of the Clinton years versus the Bush years (assuming the everyone thought the Clinton years were so great), has overemphasised her experience and didn’t catch the desire for change the public wanted until too late.  She has herself to blame for all of it.  The buck does stop with her in part because she let her big mouth husband become too much of a story.

            <

            p>And a lot of Hillary supporters seem to imply that the fact that Obama ran at all was in some ways sexist.  But if a woman is to assume the presidency, something I hope to see but not necessarily for its own sake, they will just have to be the best candidate and she hasn’t been so far.

          • If Michelle Obama worked closely with her husband, maybe he could prevent her from saying stupid things that will be regretted in October.

            • She better watch what she says…even if its honest.  A First Lady has to be a voice for her country and not just her husband…she will have to watch the unpatriotic sounding rhetoric.

        • If Hillary stopped owning the Clinton years in the White House and all that experience she gained from there I’d stop.  

          <

          p>But the fact is, she can’t use Bill as a big part of her appeal and then act like its all about her.  You can’t have it both ways.

          <

          p>This campaign has been all about them – that is one of the things that has most disappointed me about it.  I wish Bill took a back seat but I fear he can’t and that means he’s gonna be a big player a Clinton White House and I don’t want that.

          <

          p>Honestly I am a much bigger fan of her than him but I sadly can’t get past the fact that she brings him with her.

          <

          p>If I’m sexist because of that I think the word sexist has become diminished.  

      • I have no interest in seeing a Democratic candidate prematurely concede, again.  So I would hope that she would cordially invite him to place that invitation in the orifice of his choice, at least until Texas and Ohio.

        <

        p>Playing devil’s advocate to myself, HRC has seemed to do best so far when her back appears to be up against the wall.  See NH.

  10. On the subject of the speach timing, I will admit I felt a bit uneasy about it, but I think it was a solid decision.
    When Clinton decided not to mention Obama’s win, but instead decide to attack his ‘readiness’ among other things in her unchanging arsenal of diggs, Obama showed some strength in putting his foot down and squashing that nonsense.
    As soon as I realized that all of the networks went to the WINNER, it put a smile on my face. Knowing that his outlook had changed and that he wanted to show the country who’s boss will project the confidence that will bring more people towards real reform.

    <

    p>For you Clintonistas who may be upset, if the tables were turned, Hillary would have done the same thing. You know this.  

  11. Certainly the party will nominate Senator Clinton.  She has the party and the superdelegates on her side.  The rest of this is just high melodrama, but, what was the reason for this?  

    <

    p>That doesn’t do much good for either side.  Who else called?  Hitler?  Jack the Ripper?  Benedict Arnold?  

    <

    p>What a news outfit that CNN.

Archives