Apparently, a lot of people didn’t see it though, so they are having to push to have nonpartisans who voted on the dem ballot but didn’t check that bubble have their votes counted. Looks like they will be, though. Just taking a little longer…

I believe (and I may be misquoting) Lincoln said “don’t change horses in the middle of the stream.” We would do well to consider that. Agree or disagree, hate it or love it, we are a nation at war.

You raise a good question.

The problem, as I see it, is that the electorate is accustomed to consumer politics. Politicians sell us a product (themselves), and we buy it. It’s a very passive approach to government (it’s called civi engagement for a reason).

Hillary is a master in consumer politics. She breaks everyone up into individual interest groups. She promises a laundry list of proposals and says, “vote for me because I’ll give you what you want.”

Now, you’d think the public would know better. You can propose any policy you’d like, but it won’t amount to squat if you can’t build conscensus to pass it through Congress.

Obama, on the other hand, has a different approach. He paints a picture of what America can be and says, “we can do this together.” Sure, Obama has specific policy proposals. However the essence of his campaign centers around a vision, a goal for the future. His approach is very grassroots. It takes its lead from the Civil Rights Movement arguing that we must first build conscensus before we can ever have a legitimate chance of making truly effective policy.

A true leader gets his or her followers to buy into an idea and believe in themselves to effect the change that they want to see. This is a very noble approach, but it takes hard work. We’re used to five second sound bites and empty promises.

We’re a cynical nation (especially after 8 years of Bush). And, unfortunately, this race presents a clash within the Democratic Party: the Idealistic Progressives v. the Pragmatic Centrists. One side sees this election as a chance for a paradigmatic shift; a historical opportunity to rewrite our approach to domestic and foriegn policy (similar to the Civil Rights Era). The other side sees this election as an opportunity to WIN. One side sees a MOVEMENT, the other side sees an ELECTION. One side feels that real change comes from the bottom up. The other side assumes that change comes from the top down. They assume that a mere change in party automatically equals a change in policy. They also view politics in a zero sum context. Someone wins and someone loses – there is no middle ground.

I also get the feeling that a lot of Clinton supporters see 2008 as a chance for payback after 8 years of Bush (raising my concerns about this Bush/Clinton dynasty).

The progressive wing, however, wishes to break that mold altogether and chart a new path. It has little to do with Party identification. That’s why a lot of progressives dislike the Clintons. It’s not a matter of gender. It’s a matter of style. It’s a matter of principle. Many progressives (myself included) look at her and have some of the same concerns we had with the Bush Administration: concerns of government secrecy; stubborness; narrow-minded foreign policy; political scapegoating; a refusal to take accountability (Iraq vote); partisan bickering; and unchecked power (Bill Clinton back in the White House raises similar, constitutional, concerns seen with Dick Cheney – what influence will he have behind the scenes).

Despite claims to the contrary, the American public expects to have its political leaders spoonfeed them like little children. A self-empowering concept like “hope” is foriegn and easily dismissed as fairytale.

But he’s got all of those qualities right now, and he’s just hitting his stride. He’s in pursuit of something that benefits the entire country. Hillary’s in pursuit of something for herself.

How this country doesn’t see this is beyond my comprehension, but apparently this country isn’t concerned about being careful what it wishes for.

Obama is starting to shake me a bit. Something tells me that if Super Tuesday was a week later, the results may have been different. He’s showing that he can turn out people and carry states (albeit the wrong ones at present); if it’s McCain/Obama, somehow, I see a repeat of one long October night in 2000 (though hopefully, with the same result!).

Already got the 12th here to vote and do my part….

California, what’s wrong with you? Wha’ happen?

Do I have to start hanging out with old folks? I will, if that’s what it takes.

On the positive side, I convinced all my Minnesota relatives to caucus for him and that worked out pretty well.

“14-8 Obama
100,000 vote lead for Clinton
Delegates essentially even.
Unexpected wins for Obama – CT & MO
Nice wins for Obama – MN, NM, DE
Unexpected wins for Hillary – None
Nice wins for Hillary – Mass, NJ, CA, AZ

Crazy night.”

Is it just me, or does it seem that the bulk of Edwards voters favor Obama over Clinton?

I would be VERY surprised if Edwards did not support Obama.

Does anyone think Edwards will wait until North Carolina (May 6 – 134 delegates) to endorse?

I think he’s already done that. In his speech tonight, he spent a lot of time talking about challenging the Republicans and what he planned to do when he is President of the United States.

And I agree that the next wave of contests favor Obama. Coming up:

Louisiana (67 delegates – I wonder how this will go for Obama. I haven’t read any details.)

Washington (97 delegates)
Nebraska (31 delegates – will this be another Idaho or Colorado for Obama?)

The “Potomac Primary” – Virginia (103) Maryland (99) DC (37)

Hawaii (!!) (29 delegates)

Ohio (161) and Texas (228) are coming in March.

Brace yourselves folks…

others have said that her wins in big dem states is a sign of her general election chances, and i do NOT see that at all. I figure blue states will generally remain blue due to GOP incompetence, but reddish purple ones can be made more competitive by O

Another big point. check out this comment from TPMelectioncentral via “independentmeans”

“I live in CA, 3 million absentee voters, my spouse and I voted for Edwards, if I had waited, he and I would today have voted for Obama. I believe this is a huge factor here, absentee ballots came out 3-4 weeks ago. I have written Edwards and asked him to support Obama as I had given money to his campaign. If the best this country can offer is Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton, we are a sorry lot.”

absentee votes for hillary before she started losing to Obama + absentee votes for edwards before he dropped out.

ok enough numbers

I think that is phenomenal. BUT, the spin will ignore those states (Georgia was written off within seconds of Obama’s win) and concentrate on the coastal states for Clinton. This, in spite of the fact that Clinton will not get all of the delegates in those states. Obama could still very well come out on top with delegates. Also, right now, they are tied in Bill Richardson’s New Mexico. Hmmm…

Other than that, it looks like Obama has Clinton right where he wants her. Want proof? All of a sudden, Hillary wants to schedule a series of debates. The media picked up on this. Hillary is looking for free publicity. Why? Because she’s losing the fundraising wars at a rate of more than 2 to 1. Plus, she knows that the next wave of contests favor Obama.

So this is what I’d expect to see over the next few days. . .

First, the Clinton campaign will spend the rest of this week trying to claim victory at any cost. It won’t have to make any sense, but they’ll just keep drilling it into people’s heads, hoping that some will take it as gospel (see, “35 years of experience”). Don’t worry. It’s nothing more than your regular political spin. It’ll have a shelf life of about 3 or 4 days on the cable news circuit. Just let the talking heads battle it out on Hardball.

Next, Hillary will probably try to weave her newfound openness for debates in with her “experience” argument. She’ll try to bait Obama with a “lay it all out on the line” . . . “give the people what they want” type of argument; hoping for a major gaffe on live television.

Obama doesn’t have to take the bait, but he should play the game at least once (can’t be seen as backing down from a challenge). Obama should agree to ONE more debate sometime late next week. Nothing more (stay focused on his message). He should also repeat his campaign’s response from earlier today: “We won’t let Senator Clinton dictate the way we run our campaign.”

Hillary’s shouldn’t be the focus anymore. Obama needs to move beyond her and bring his movement into a greater debate with the Republican Party.

Finally, Obama should spend the rest of his time building large crowds in the upcoming states. Use his advantage in fundraising to flood the airwaves with POSITIVE ads. And try to run up the score in the next few contests.

And, as pointed out in the Super Tuesday open thread, isn’t it interesting that the states that are known to be “bastions of liberalism” like NY/CA/MA went for Clinton who is less liberal than Obama? Clearly they were voting for a 3rd Bill Clinton term.

I was in an Obama campaign party in Manhattan part of the evening, and the New Yorkers were happy.

In his home state, Obama beat Hillary by 34 poitns
In her state, she beat him by 17.

Obama put a real hurtin on Hillary in some of those caucuses. Alaska (75-25), Idaho (79-17), Kansas (74-26).

Seriously, what did Clinton do to piss these people off so bad?

Finally, it’s good to remember that Obama is running neck and neck against one of the most powerful names in American politics right now, and he’s all but come out of nowhere to do it.

Edwards, time to stand and be counted son!