Reason Magazine

Site Search

It's Rush Wot Won It

In the days running up to these last primaries, Rush Limbaugh told his national audience of conservatives to vote in the Democratic race.
I want Hillary to stay in this, Laura. This is too good a soap opera. We need Barack Obama bloodied up politically, and it's obvious that the Republicans are not going to do it and don't have the stomach for it, as you probably know. We're getting all kinds of memos from the RNC, saying we're not going to be critical there. Mark McKinnon of McCain's campaign says he'll quit if they get critical over Obama. This is the presidency of the United States we're talking about. I want our party to win. I want the Democrats to lose. They're in the midst of tearing themselves apart right now. It is fascinating to watch, and it's all going to stop if Hillary loses. So, yeah, I'm asking people to cross over and, if they can stomach it -- I know it's a difficult thing to do, to vote for a Clinton, but it will sustain this soap opera, and it's something I think we need. It would be fun, too.
It turned into a pretty hot meme in Texas, and on Monday, while Rush was out, guest host Mark Davis scored an interview with Bill Clinton. Did it work?

Go and check the exit polls. In Wisconsin, Republicans made up 9 percent of the Democratic primary vote. Obama won them 72-28 over Clinton. Just as tellingly, 14 percent of primary voters said they were "conservative," and Obama won them 59-40, a bigger margin than he won with liberals or moderates. Tactical voters who said Obama stood a better chance of winning in November? They went for him 87-13.

Now, look at Ohio. Once again 9 percent of voters were Republicans, but Obama and Clinton split them evenly, 49-49. Once again, 14 percent of voters were "conservatives," and Obama and Clinton split them 48-48. (Obama did better with them than he did with liberals and moderates.) Those tactical voters who thought Obama could win gave him a 80-18 victory, a margin twelve points smaller than the margin in Wisconsin.

It's a similar story in Texas, where Limbaugh has the most listeners of any of these states. Obama won the Republican vote 52-47, but conservatives (22 percent of all voters, up from 15 percent in the Kerry-Edwards primary) went against Obama. For the first time since Super Tuesday, they were Clinton's best ideological group: She won them 53-43. And Clinton won 13 percent of the people who said Obama was the most electable candidate.

Ohio didn't wind up being very close, but Clinton won the Texas primary by about 98,000 votes out of 2.8 million cast. If the exits are right, about 252,000 of those voters were Republicans, and about 618,000 were conservatives. Clinton truly might have won the Texas primary on the backs of Rush Limbaugh listeners.

What's this mean? Psychologically it's hilarious: Every joke that's ever been told about how the right needs the Clintons to survive is true. Hillary Hatred is the gas, the ethanol, and the rocket fuel of the staggering GOP. Logistically, it might mean the end of GOP crossover voting if the Democrats get their game together and pass new primary/caucus reforms when this Ragnarok draws to a close. (In the short term I can't decide if it's better for Hillary or Obama, but it's a probably a relief to both campaigns that Pennsylvania will be Democrats-only.)

UPDATE: The Texas theory is being challenged in the comments, so I'll add one data point. In 2004, Al Sharpton got 3.7 percent of the vote in Texas. Among the Republicans who crossed over to vote in the race, he got 10 percent. He got 2 percent of liberal voters, 4 percent of moderates, and 7 percent of conservatives. There's no way to explain this unless you assume some eventual Bush voters were making mischief for the Democrats.

UPDATE II: An e-mailer to the Corner has the most persuasive evidence yet. An astounding number of voters took Democratic ballots, voted for president, then left the rest of their ballots blank.
The undercount in the D primary was almost 700,000 ballots out of 2.86 million. By contrast, the undercount in the R primary was about 164,000 ballots out of 1.38 million. In the 2004 general election, the dropoff from president to railroad commissioner (the next race on the state ballot) was less than 400,000 out of 7.4 million.

It's reasonable to assume many of these voters were "screw the Dems" Limbaugh listeners.

Send this article to:

« More From Mississippi | Main | Being 6 Feet and 5… »

Comments to "It's Rush Wot Won It":

Cesar | March 5, 2008, 11:33am | #

I don't see a right-wing conspiracy here. Obama has crested, and now hes falling. He had really bad news cycles in the last week. The turban photo, the Farrakhan "endorsement", his wife's gaffes, his middle name, whether he has any real substance or not, etc etc.

shecky | March 5, 2008, 11:35am | #

Conservatives seem to forget that the Clintons thrive when under fire. This may backfire for them in the long run if Clinton ends up facing McCain.

Abdul | March 5, 2008, 11:50am | #

I voted for Hillary in VA's open primary because I thought McCain had the best chance of beating her. Obama cleaned her clock here despite my vote, but it's a strategic vote when the GOP nomination is already assured.

creech | March 5, 2008, 11:52am | #

Pennsylvania Republicans have until March 24th to re-register for the privilege of voting for either of them. Or, if you can't stand McCain, vote for Ron Paul in the Pa. primary.

Niedermeyer | March 5, 2008, 11:53am | #

The Ragnarok reference rules. Did I just hear the Gjallarhorn?

Episiarch | March 5, 2008, 11:56am | #

No Niedermeyer, that was Mjollnir whacking you in the head.

These election results are the best possible, because it increases the chances of a Dem convention bloodbath. I can't wait (rubs hands with glee).

joe | March 5, 2008, 11:58am | #

I don't know what's more pathetic: a political pundit so devoted to carrying water for the RNC that he receives and follows their campaign memos; or citizens so devoted to obeying a radio DJ that they follow his instructions to vote for a candidate they don't like.

Cesar, we know you feel that way, but shouldn't the data Weigal cites matter at least a little?

Bhh | March 5, 2008, 11:59am | #

Shorter Republican 2008 campaign:

1) CLINTONS!!!

2) About the last 8 years . . . uh . . .

3) CLINTONS!!!

4) And there's this McCain guy here.

90s nostalgia is something we all can agree on.

joe | March 5, 2008, 11:59am | #

And WTF is this?

We need Barack Obama bloodied up politically, and it's obvious that the Republicans are not going to do it and don't have the stomach for it,

You know those Republicans. So shy to bloody Democratic candidates. Think Rush still has any Purple Heart band-aids?

Cesar | March 5, 2008, 11:59am | #

Joe, isn't it quite possible that conservatives voted for Hillary because of hear fear ads. You know, they think Obama will "surrender", that hes a secret Muslim, etc.

joe | March 5, 2008, 12:04pm | #

They thought that three, seven, and ten weeks ago, too.

When did Fox Nooz run that story about Obama going to a "madrassa?" When did the HUSSEIN OBAMA email start going around?

My gut tells me that people wouldn't take marching orders from a DJ, but the hard data seem to suggest otherwise.

Cesar | March 5, 2008, 12:05pm | #

Yes joe, but the Republican race was still competitive seven and ten weeks ago. Now that McCain is a fati compli so they were free to vote in the Democratic primary without worry.

alan | March 5, 2008, 12:05pm | #

I've finally read the article Obama wrote for Foreign Affairs,

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86401/barack-obama/renewing-american-leadership.html

to see how he perceives an Obama presidency will act on the world stage ('perceive' as opposed how they 'will act' because weak presidents often are no more than a contributing factor to how foreign affairs are conducted during their administrations).

Reserving judgment while I digest this stuff, how many of you believe that Obama conduct of foreign policy would be superior to Clinton's?

CS | March 5, 2008, 12:09pm | #

Or being a "conservative" Dem means different things in WI and TX. How is that less likely than your undemonstrated Limbaugh causation?

I know you get paid just to move your fingers, not necessarily to make sense, but...jeepers.

I'm sure you were up most of the night, and no faulty reasoning is so seductive as one's own. Your proper penance would be to contact Andrew Sullivan and calm him down a little.

joe | March 5, 2008, 12:10pm | #

Yes joe, but the Republican race was still competitive seven and ten weeks ago.

It wasn't in Wisconsin. Though McCain didn't have the winning number of delegates, he had the race sewn up, and people who are political junkies enough to listen to Rush Limbaugh and vote tactically would have know that.

alan | March 5, 2008, 12:11pm | #

Wegel missed the opportunity to use 'I am the DJ and I am what I play' for the bump line.

I don't know what's more pathetic: a political pundit so devoted to carrying water for the RNC that he receives and follows their campaign memos; or citizens so devoted to obeying a radio DJ that they follow his instructions to vote for a candidate they don't like.

Too true.
When you throw principle out the window, all you have are your enemies to fall back on.

Cesar | March 5, 2008, 12:12pm | #

With reagards to Clintons foreign policy, it will be Bush Lite. Though if I were Al Qaeda, I'd be scared of a Hillary Presidency. They seem to know how to always take down their enemies.

alan | March 5, 2008, 12:13pm | #

bleh,
Wegel, Weigel, worst editor ever award goes to . . . me

alan | March 5, 2008, 12:14pm | #

so far,
we can agree,

Clinton = Bush Lite
McCain = UberCheney
Obama?

Cesar | March 5, 2008, 12:15pm | #

Obama is Eugene McCarthy.

Michelle O | March 5, 2008, 12:16pm | #

America is "just downright mean"

New Yorker interview coming March 10th

OOOOPSS was I not suppose to say that? Not again...

joe | March 5, 2008, 12:18pm | #

On the military/security side of things, Obama and Clinton would probably be very similar, mabye Hillary would be a little more "forward engaged," but nothing dramatic.

On the diplomatic front, however, I think there would be a pretty substantial difference.

I don't quite get Hillary and McCain's fear of holding talks with hostile countries. What, exactly, makes those two think that sitting across a bargaining table from them is a REWARD?

Jon H | March 5, 2008, 12:20pm | #

"Reserving judgment while I digest this stuff, how many of you believe that Obama conduct of foreign policy would be superior to Clinton's?"

Well, given that Clinton's married to a former president, she's likely to be hampered due to grudges about what her husband did in places like Yugoslavia, Iraq, etc.

Whether or not what Bill Clinton did was justified, the grudges and distrust won't help us deal with present-day issues that arise in the same areas.

joe | March 5, 2008, 12:21pm | #

I knew the Republicans were going to start going after the wife, but I thought it would be more overtly racial.

alan | March 5, 2008, 12:21pm | #

My opinion of Obama isn't a settled one, there is even a small chance I'll vote for him (though a Barr run on the LP would be interesting. I recall his disillusionment with the G-man Hoover as a moment of great integrity), but I do not like the wife in the least.

She reminds me of the old Cash&Carter
tune that went, 'oh, you big mouthed woman . . .'

Pinette | March 5, 2008, 12:22pm | #

The data does not suggest that Republicans voted for Clinton at the behest of Rush. Obama won among republicans and conservatives.

joe | March 5, 2008, 12:23pm | #

John H raises a good point, particularly in regards to places that have actual dynasties, and really do conflate the chief executive with the nation.

Cesar | March 5, 2008, 12:24pm | #

The Republicans better not go too hard after Michelle unless they want Cindy "I stole OxyContin from my own charity" McCain to get it good and hard too.

Democrats have been pretty nice to Laura (and before, Barbara) Bush but this is the second time in the space of 16 years where the Republicans attack the wife of their opponent.

I'm too young to remember how the Democrats felt about Nancy Reagan. Did they try to go after her at all?

joe | March 5, 2008, 12:25pm | #

Obama won among republicans and conservatives.

True, Pinette, but by a much smaller margin. Obama has been picking up Republicans and conservatives throughout the race; it's just now - in both Texas and Ohio - that we started seeing a considerable number of them vote for Hillary.

Rico | March 5, 2008, 12:25pm | #

"For the first time, they were Clinton's best ideological group: She won them 53-43."

Except that in California, HRC won among self-described conservatives by 50%-42%.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#CADEM

Rush Limbaugh effect. meh.

alan | March 5, 2008, 12:27pm | #

Jon H,

that is very much true and also tends to get underplayed in the annuals of history. Also, there is the possibility that a Clinton administration can be extorted by those whom the first Clinton's administration played some peculiar
footsy.

smartass sob | March 5, 2008, 12:27pm | #

If Republicans and/or conservatives really did cross over to vote for Hillary because they think she would be easier to beat, their strategy may very well backfire on them. This morning she was already hinting at offering the vice-presidency to Obama. A Clinton-Obama ticket would be unstoppable. And don't be too sure that Obama wouldn't accept the vp slot - it's a great position from which to launch a campaign for president in 2012 or later. He's young enough that he can bide his time.

Pro Libertate | March 5, 2008, 12:28pm | #

joe,

We do a good job of that here, particularly our media. Kennedy got us to the Moon, Reagan ended the Cold War, etc. Of course, those are entirely ridiculous statements given the distribution of power in the federal government. It's the CEO = the company phenomenon all over again. False, but beloved by many reporters none the less (it makes better narrative). And accepted by most consumers/voters.

Cesar,

It's one of the reasons I ignore the idea that Hillary Hate is some uniquely awful Republican plot. The hate piled on Nancy Reagan by the left was at least as bad. Although the whole astrology thing was distressing ☺

Dave Weigel | March 5, 2008, 12:28pm | #

Rico - You're right, I've fixed that.

joe | March 5, 2008, 12:28pm | #

If Rushbaugh keeps bragging about this, and Hillary wins the nomination and then beats McCain, that might cause some unpleasant scenes at the 2009 CPAC convention.

deron | March 5, 2008, 12:28pm | #

Reserving judgment while I digest this stuff, how many of you believe that Obama conduct of foreign policy would be superior to Clinton's?

Thanks for the link.

I can't answer your question regarding Obama. So reading the article might be helpful to me.

Right now I don't expect Mrs. Clinton's foreign policy to be particularly intelligent. Forceful, poll driven to appear strong, erratic , irresponsible, constantly supported by fear tactics, big on photo ops, and very active, all seem likely predictive descriptions for a HRC foreign policy.

In this regard I don't know the substance of Obama's policy. It could be worse than Hillary's.

McCain, for me, will beat Hillary, for the sole reason that I don't feel he'll calibrate a dumb move to appear strong on security. I also feel like he be pretty status quo. If you're happy with that.

sv | March 5, 2008, 12:29pm | #

can the exit polls be trusted? wouldn't a republican strategic enough to vote in the dem primary for the candidate they perceive to be weaker also be cunning enough to try to hide their efforts by not participating in exit polls, or lying? which would make obama look weaker or worse, conservatives voting against him, or liberals, or independents? maybe i am overthinking it.

joe | March 5, 2008, 12:31pm | #

Pro Lib,

To a certain extent, that's human nature, but in a country with an actual monarchy or president-for-life, the whole "L'etat c'est moi" thing is going to be even stronger.

It's called "Saudi Arabia" fer chrissakes!

Pro Libertate | March 5, 2008, 12:33pm | #

Well, yes, we still have divided government here. I'd just like to keep it that way, though I feel increasingly alone in that desire.

Cesar | March 5, 2008, 12:35pm | #

I'd like a divided government but reversed. Democratic President, Republican Congress. Why? Because the Democrats in Congress seem to have no spine.

joe's nerve | March 5, 2008, 12:36pm | #

Who struck me? Who?!?

Cesar | March 5, 2008, 12:37pm | #

When it gets close to thirty years of a Bush/Clinton in power (as it would if Hildog serves two terms) I think we can safely say we're not a Republic anymore.

Bingo | March 5, 2008, 12:44pm | #

If joe is saying the modern American political establishment and system are fucking stupid then I agree with him.

Charles | March 5, 2008, 12:49pm | #

Cesar,

Worse, there's no reason to think it would end there. Jeb? Chelsea?!?

P Brooks | March 5, 2008, 12:49pm | #

Skimming through the top half of the comments, I see no mention of "da yoonyun vote." I suspect Hillary's use of NAFTA (and the post-debate Obama's Secret Wink-wink Nudge-nudge story) as a tool to rally the UAW, Steelworkers, and their faithful ilk, was pretty successful, in Ohio.

Rex Rhino | March 5, 2008, 12:54pm | #

A Clinton-Obama ticket would be unstoppable.
Your deluted. An Obama ticket would be unstoppable. Clinton is poision to too many voters, which is why the Republicans are so desperate to keep Clinton is the race.

Hillary is only a "dream" to die hard Democrats. She is highly likely to alienate the middle. Lets see how much those rural gun-owning democrats in the middle love Hillary "Gun Control" Clinton. Or how much the Cuban population in Florida love Hillary "Send Elan back to Cuba" Clinton. Or how much the democratic union workers with really good health insurance want to give it up for Hillarycare.

Shannon Love | March 5, 2008, 12:59pm | #

David Weigel,

I think you're conflating conservatives and Repulicans to make your argument but in Texas the two don't strongly overlap. For example, you will find many older African American's who identify themselves as conservatives based on their social conservatism. Many whites also do the same thing even though they have been democrats for 40 years. Prior to the 80's, Republicans didn't exist in Texas and all conservatives were democrats. Many people have never caught up.

Based on that information, the exist polling would seem to indicate that Republicans voting Democrat helped Obama more than they helped Hillary. I listened to local talk radio yesterday to track the election and Republican callers who said they voted democrat seemed to divide evenly between those who went with Obama and those who went with Hillary.

Republicans do near universally hate Hillary (the see her as the Democrat Nixon) but that hatred generates two different voting strategies. Some people see her as the weakest candidate and vote for her but others see her as so dangerous that they would rather see Obama win the Presidency.

Allen | March 5, 2008, 1:02pm | #

On the Limbaugh Koolaid: I think what Limbaugh suggested to his followers is one of the most unpatriotic, and reprehensible, acts that I've seen. To suggest that our right to vote should be carelessly thrown around to subvert the will of the people is disgusting. I'm pretty sure that's not what our founding fathers had in mind, nor what millions have fought and died for in defending this right

smartass sob | March 5, 2008, 1:03pm | #

Your deluted.

I believe the word you are looking for is deluded. I drink alot of coffee, but not enough to dilute myself. And no, I'm not deluded either - wait and see.

deron | March 5, 2008, 1:05pm | #

Allen,

For Limbaugh the loyalty to the GOP is patriotism.

Chris Blask | March 5, 2008, 1:07pm | #

Hi folks,

Sen. Clinton won last night, in large part, due to Republicans following Rush's advice to insincerely vote for Sen. Clinton "because she will be easier to beat in November." Sen. Clinton got ~10% of her vote Tuesday from Republicans, and while many of us right-wingers are supporting Obama based on actual support for him, I dare say there are few (if any) to right of center who are supporting Clinton.

Within a ten-minute period on the Sean Hannity show last night (around 7:10pm ET), two out of three callers bragged about switching and voting for Clinton to help bring Obama down and thereby win the general election for Sen. McCain (one in Ohio, one in Texas). The third caller was debating it.

Tiffany in Austin, after laughing at Democrats about it, went on to say that she was going to go out and caucus as well. She noted that her firefighter husband said he "couldn't bring himself to do it", for which I give him points for moral character.

Even Sean Hannity spent a good bit of time voicing his discomfort with the idea. "Ask yourself how you would feel if the Democrats were doing that to our primary," he asked the undecided election subverter in Ohio.

I think the entire episode is sordid. On the part of democracy-subverting Republicans - I'm ashamed of you. This is the antithesis of what core conservative political values are about. On the part of Sen. Clinton in supporting the action (and recommending McCain over Obama), the whole implication of turning on your party to serve your own ends is perhaps the lowest form of betrayal of trust.

I don't mind losing a fair fight, but this aspect of the contest makes me feel soiled and disappointed.

-chris

Shannon Love | March 5, 2008, 1:07pm | #

joe,

I don't quite get Hillary and McCain's fear of holding talks with hostile countries. What, exactly, makes those two think that sitting across a bargaining table from them is a REWARD?

Because culturally, Americans talk or we fight. Doing both at the same time seems dishonest. Saying that one will base one's strategy on diplomacy signals to that one has taken coercive action off the table.

That is in fact how we do behave and our enemies always seek to engage in long drawn out negotiations precisely to delay any action that we might take.

When Obama says that he will talk, he is simultaneously declaring that he won't employ direct or indirect coercion. A lot of people think that is a bad idea based on the character of the people we would be talking to.

joe | March 5, 2008, 1:11pm | #

joe's nerve | March 5, 2008, 12:36pm | #

Who struck me? Who?!?


I don't get it.

SIV | March 5, 2008, 1:12pm | #

I'm too young to remember how the Democrats felt about Nancy Reagan. Did they try to go after her at all?
Viciously,the Dems portrayal of Nancy Reagan made Marie Antoinette look like Mother Theresa.
Going after the wife is an old tradition in American politics.

Who was the last Presidential Candidate elected with a junkie wife? There might be a curse there,Betty, Kitty, now Cindy?

Neil B. | March 5, 2008, 1:13pm | #

Cesar | March 5, 2008, 11:33am [at the top]
I don't see a right-wing conspiracy here.
...
That comment is silly on its face given the context we know: Rush specifically told listeners to vote for Hillary! Of course it had an effect, he has influence and they love tactical gamesmanship. That's pretty much a given, argue over the details of how much difference it made.

joshua corning | March 5, 2008, 1:19pm | #

For Limbaugh the loyalty to the GOP is patriotism.

That must be why he has refused to endorse McCain.

Jesus I hope deron is not really with Reason.com.

That was almost as dumb as what joe has been vomiting up on this thread.

Chris Potter | March 5, 2008, 1:19pm | #

If this is true, it's no worse than Democrats and independents flooding into the GOP primaries to vote for McCain, is it? Open primaries are the problem -- the system is set up to encourage this type of behavior.

joe | March 5, 2008, 1:21pm | #

Shannon Love, you are making really insightful, thoughtful points today.

On the "conservative Democrats" in Texas: would that not also have been true in South Carolina and other Southern states, which did not have the same conservative Clinton vote?

On talking and fighting: I suspect that what you describe does describe the mindset of McCain and many Americans, but I will point you to Bill Clinton's diplomatic offensive towards Milosevic, and Reagan's initial diplomatic thrusts towards Gorbachev.

So, out of curiosity, are you a girl or an Irish guy?

joe | March 5, 2008, 1:22pm | #

As opposed to joshua, who is being true to form.

Cesar | March 5, 2008, 1:24pm | #

Charles its not Jeb whose next. Its Jeb's son, George P. Bush. Hes even partly hispanic, which would help a lot especially in 2024 or so.

Cesar | March 5, 2008, 1:26pm | #

Going after the wife is an old tradition in American politics.
Why didn't they go after Barbara and Laura Bush? You think with all the vitriol the last eight years they would've tried it.

joe | March 5, 2008, 1:30pm | #

I don't recall the "vicious" treatment of Nancy Reagan. The worst I can remember was the astrology thing, which seemed like a fair point, and the stories about her and Raisa Gorbachev not getting along.

joshua corning | March 5, 2008, 1:32pm | #

Charles its not Jeb whose next. Its Jeb's son, George P. Bush. Hes even partly hispanic, which would help a lot especially in 2024 or so.

Don't the Kennedys have any spawn? Or the Rosevelts?

R C Dean | March 5, 2008, 1:32pm | #

To suggest that our right to vote should be carelessly thrown around to subvert the will of the people is disgusting.

I'm a little foggy on how casting a vote = subverting the will of teh peepul.

More anecdotal evidence: I know lots of Republicans who voted in the Dem primary. Not one could bring themselves to vote for Hillary, even while acknowledging the strategic value of such a vote to the Republicans.

Shannon Love, you are making really insightful, thoughtful points today.

Shannon makes insightful, thoughtful posts most days.

I don't quite get Hillary and McCain's fear of holding talks with hostile countries. What, exactly, makes those two think that sitting across a bargaining table from them is a REWARD?

I doubt its fear. Its more a recognition that talking with a regime legitimizes it, and creates expectations that we will give it some of what it wants. History shows that this tends to be a one-way street.

The question shouldn't be, why won't we talk with country X? The question should be, why should we? How, exactly will these talks advance our national interest? What concessions will country X make, what promises will it make and keep?

Lisa | March 5, 2008, 1:32pm | #

So let me get this straight: for Republicans like Rush, the point is really that "your side" wins- even if you don't like what your candidate stands for, as Rush as said he feels re McCain.

I agree with poster who said :

"I think the entire episode is sordid. On the part of democracy-subverting Republicans - I'm ashamed of you. This is the antithesis of what core conservative political values are about.
I don't mind losing a fair fight, but this aspect of the contest makes me feel soiled and disappointed. "

If some (note use of word, some) feel they can't win fairly, why must they cheat?

Are you so happy with the way your party has run things the last 8 years?

Pro Libertate | March 5, 2008, 1:36pm | #

joe,

You were probably too young to catch all of it, but the Nancy stuff was heavy duty. I used to more or less accept her evil genius label myself back then, assuming in my young adulthood that where there's smoke, there's fire. Her behavior since seems to negate much of that. To me, anyway.

In any case, there's no dirty trick that either party is completely innocent of. Though dead people voting seems to be a more likely occurrence with the Democrats, for some reason.

Pendulum | March 5, 2008, 1:36pm | #

Ohio here. My roommate's whole family, McCain voters, took to the polls for Clinton.

Plus, when I was in the Mansfield area, I heard that the rumor about Obama swearing only on the Koran, and turning his back to the flag and slouching during the Pledge of Allegiance was making the rounds.

Cesar | March 5, 2008, 1:37pm | #

Hillary is now up +4 nationally in the new gallup polls. Seems Obama crested WAY too early.

deron | March 5, 2008, 1:38pm | #

Sorry Joshua, don't want to upset. But, if you feel I'm trolling don't be so dumb as to egg me on.

I'm not a Rush fan. I don't trust that his anti-McCain take will last.

I don't believe he wanted people to crossover to vote for Hillary, because he wants Hillary to be President. He wanted people to crossover, because McCain will beat Hillary. Who cares if he refuses to endorse McCain, if his actions are meant to help McCain get elected?

If he doesn't want McCain elected, then why would he encourage the crossovers?

alan | March 5, 2008, 1:41pm | #

his back to the flag and slouching during the Pledge of Allegiance was making the rounds.

Why I would never make it in politics. I don't do the flag worship thing, nor the pledge thing. The only words that come out of my mouth are my own.

joe | March 5, 2008, 1:41pm | #

R C,

The question should be, why should we?

In general,

1) To get stuff from them,

2) To gain the upper hand over them by engaging and winning in a PR battle.

It's interesting that you just assume we would always come out the worse in such endeavors - sort of the opposite of the assumption at the beginning of the Iraq War that of course we would accomplish an impressive and glorious victory that would enhance our image and power.

The diplomatic arena, like the military arena, can be a space for competition as well as cooperation. Conservatives - with Reagan as a notable exception - have a tendency to lose there by forfeit, and that's not good for our interests.

And, unfortunately, like so many other aspects of government (emergency management comes to mind), their lack of appreciation for its importance leads them to put little effort into getting good at it, so when they do enter that arena (say, the negotiations with India about nuclear technology), the other side ends up eating our lunch.

Cesar | March 5, 2008, 1:43pm | #

Joe, other Republicans besides Reagan have engaged with America's enemies.

Nixon talked to China (who only a few years before said they would defeat us in a nuclear war one day), Eisenhower engaged Khruschev even though he said he would "bury" us.

joe | March 5, 2008, 1:44pm | #

Of course, Cesar. It is a rather recent phenomenon.

deron | March 5, 2008, 1:47pm | #

The Republican's ability to engage with enemies is one of the greatest strengths the GOP has, and one of the reasons I fear a HRC foreign policy.

McCain will be able to talk without being permanently hurt and called weak. Hillary or Obama will never be able to talk without ever being able to live down the soft angle.

If it makes sense: I don't think Hillary will ever risk it, I can't decide if Obama would, and I feel fairly certain McCain will.

What would China be like today if we had treated it like we have Cuba?

Cesar | March 5, 2008, 1:51pm | #

Its going to be kind of amusing to watch MoveOn, Kos, et al. come crawling back to Hillary in a few months.

deron | March 5, 2008, 1:52pm | #

Its going to be kind of amusing to watch MoveOn, Kos, et al. come crawling back to Hillary in a few months.

To be fair an balanced. Their patriotism extends as far beyond the Democrat Party as Rush's extends beyond the GOP.

ChrisH | March 5, 2008, 1:53pm | #

Al Sharpton .... Among the Republicans who crossed over to vote in the race, he got 10 percent .... 7 percent of conservatives. There's no way to explain this unless you assume some eventual Bush voters were making mischief for the Democrats.
That's "Reverend" Al Sharpton. It's just the Conservative Evangelicals going for one of their own.

Right?

John | March 5, 2008, 1:54pm | #

I don't think Hillary Clinton is nearly as weak of a national candidate as people think. She does really well with working class voters and no one gets more out of the old Democratic turnout machine than the Clintons. Also, she is such a known commodity. That works against her in the sense that she will never get her negaitives down. But it helps her in the sense that there really isn't an effective way to attack her. Everyone knows who she is and already has an opinion of her. If Hillary wins the nomination, people will vote on the issues rather than the person, especially with the election being between two very known commodities in Hillary and McCain.

The other big advantage she has is that her husband was President and the world didn't end. Clinton wasn't the greatest President but he wasn't Jimmmy Carter either. As much as I dislike the Clintons, I wouldn't lose much sleep over the safety and future of the country if she were President. I doubt I am alone in that feeling. Obama in contrast is a total wildcard who seems to have a dangerously inflated view of himself. When it comes down to voting, a lot of people are going to take the devil they know in McCain over Obama.

alan | March 5, 2008, 1:58pm | #

What would China be like today if we had treated it like we have Cuba?

What it is today, a force to be reckon with. I imagine though a few caveats there, for instance those diplomats who put their personal stakes into ties with the US if we had turned our backs on China, they, who also tended to be the market reformers, would have suffered politically at the hands of the hard liners.

However, my point is, there is nothing preventing either Cuba or China from being an Nations above the par in terms of economic and political power beyond the decrepit
nature of Communism.

MattR | March 5, 2008, 1:58pm | #

I'm a Houston resident and stood outside the polling place yesterday watching Republican after Republican enter the Democratic polling place. It was happening throughout the state.

Next to Hillary, the happiest person on earth today is Rush Limbaugh.

Cesar | March 5, 2008, 2:01pm | #

Next to Hillary, the happiest person on earth today is Rush Limbaugh.
And whoever started the Obama "Muslim" rumor. It seems to have worked quite well.

James Ard | March 5, 2008, 2:01pm | #

With McCain as the GOP's choice, I now view my political affiliation as Anti-Democratic instead of Republican. I'm voting for Hillary in the general election because she'll be hell on the Democratic party, just like her husband. I want to watch Democratic congressmen embarassing themselves defending the classless Clintons again. I crave scandal and coverup, and I don't think Bill and Hillary can help but get into trouble.

Chris Potter | March 5, 2008, 2:02pm | #

If Hillary wins the nomination, people will vote on the issues rather than the person, especially with the election being between two very known commodities in Hillary and McCain.

Didn't we used to know that Hillary was pro-NAFTA and McCain supported medical marijuana? In an age when politicians are allowed, and even expected, to change their minds on issues to win elections, is there anyone who's a known commodity?

I mean, as Matt Welch has documented extensively, newspaper editorial boards don't seem to know anything about John McCain's past...

John | March 5, 2008, 2:03pm | #

"However, my point is, there is nothing preventing either Cuba or China from being an Nations above the par in terms of economic and political power beyond the decrepit
nature of Communism."

No there is not. A lot more countries refused to trade with Apartheid South Africa than refuse to trade with Cuba. Yet, the poorest South African black wasn't much worse off than your average Cuban and overall South Africa was about a hundred times richer than Cuba. I hate Castro but I get tired of the Cubans whining all of the time like none of this was their fault. It is Cuba's business who runs their country and if they as a society are not willing to do the right thing and rise up and hang the dumb bastard and his toadies, at some point they bear some responsibility for how things are.

Someone Who Doesn't Want to Lose His Job | March 5, 2008, 2:03pm | #

Allen:
On the Limbaugh Koolaid: I think what Limbaugh suggested to his followers is one of the most unpatriotic, and reprehensible, acts that I've seen.
Then maybe you don't remember the time in the '90s he suggested that his listeners should wear dollar bills on their lapels to take them out of circulation and damage the economy because it would hurt Clinton.

whatever | March 5, 2008, 2:04pm | #

"13% voted for Hillary despite thinking Obama is the most electable."

That doesn't mean those 13% are conservatards.

I am a democrat. I think Hillary is teh better president. I think Obama is the most electable. I voted for Hillary.

I vote for you being an idiot.

alan | March 5, 2008, 2:04pm | #

If Hillary wins the nomination, people will vote on the issues rather than the person, especially with the election being between two very known commodities in Hillary and McCain.

I have a feeling, Clinton would be the tougher opponent to match McCain in a race as well. Obama did not fair so well in the news conference the other day. I hate to resort to anecdotal evidence, but that, the items on his website, and the article in foreign affairs are pretty much all I have to make an assessment.

Chris Potter | March 5, 2008, 2:05pm | #

Or, to echo Mitt Romney, neither Hillary nor McCain has ever held an executive office, nor run a business. We have no idea of how they would perform as administrators, and since both have changed their positions on issues over and over again, there's precious little we know for sure what would happen after one of them takes office.

John | March 5, 2008, 2:07pm | #

"Didn't we used to know that Hillary was pro-NAFTA and McCain supported medical marijuana? In an age when politicians are allowed, and even expected, to change their minds on issues to win elections, is there anyone who's a known commodity?"

True, but when I say known commodity, I don't just mean the issues. Everyone expects politicians to pander and say what they think people want to hear. But with someone who has been on the national scene as much as McCain and Clinton have, there really isn't much else to say about the person. You either love them or hate them but I doubt your opinion is going to change between now and November. So people will basically vote on the platform each candidate is running on more than their personal affinity for them.

Cesar | March 5, 2008, 2:08pm | #

Does anyone here think the dynasty issue will hurt Hillary in the general?

Chris Potter | March 5, 2008, 2:08pm | #

I hate Castro but I get tired of the Cubans whining all of the time like none of this was their fault.

So, if the Cuban economy would be in terrible shape even without the embargo, lifting it wouldn't help Castro or his successors, would it? So why don't we just end the embargo and take away that excuse?

Someone Who Doesn't Want to Lose His Job | March 5, 2008, 2:08pm | #

John:
I don't think Hillary Clinton is nearly as weak of a national candidate as people think. She does really well with working class voters and no one gets more out of the old Democratic turnout machine than the Clintons. Also, she is such a known commodity. That works against her in the sense that she will never get her negaitives down. But it helps her in the sense that there really isn't an effective way to attack her.
Her negatives will go up every time she gives a speech. That voice. She's her own worst enemy as far as that goes.

Apart from Rex Rhino's regrettable typo, I agree with his thinking that Hillary Clinton is poison in the general election, regardless of where her position on the ticket. I could be wrong, but I think it's not just Republicans who hate her (and they do), but independents as well.

Someone Who Doesn't Want to Lose His Job | March 5, 2008, 2:10pm | #

Cesar, I don't know if it will hurt her, but it should.

I fear that you're right in the future being some combination of Jeb, George P, and Chelsea. This is embarrassing. It's like Hazzard County politics.

John | March 5, 2008, 2:11pm | #

Chris,

Niether one of them have been an exectutive but by McCain being in Congress for so long and Clinton being whatever the hell she was during her husband's administration they understand the bureaucracy. Running the federal government is like running nothing else on earth. It is totally different from anything in the private sector. I think Romney would have gotten a bigger surprise had he been elected President than either McCain or Clinton. Romeny would have come in there thinking he was King/CEO and the bureaucracy would have ate him alive.

Cesar | March 5, 2008, 2:11pm | #

Someone Who Doesn't Want to Lose His Job-

I never thought I'd see politics in the USA turn into Mexico under the PRI or India shortly after independence, but it seems headed that way.

Dave Weigel | March 5, 2008, 2:13pm | #

Does anyone here think the dynasty issue will hurt Hillary in the general?

I think it could. We're seeing that voters 1)want change and 2)want a brass-balled commander in chief. In the Democratic primary Clinton loses one of those arguments. In the general election she loses both.

John | March 5, 2008, 2:13pm | #

"So, if the Cuban economy would be in terrible shape even without the embargo, lifting it wouldn't help Castro or his successors, would it? So why don't we just end the embargo and take away that excuse?"

I don't have a problem with ending the embargo. I really don't care about Cuba one way or another anymore. They can sit down there and live in their own shit for all I care. Go ahead and trade with them and hope that someone on that shithole of an island gets some sense and does away with the Castros.

Chris Potter | March 5, 2008, 2:16pm | #

OK, John, I guess I was assuming you were an embargo supporter for some reason. Fair enough.

deron | March 5, 2008, 2:16pm | #

It is Cuba's business who runs their country and if they as a society are not willing to do the right thing and rise up and hang the dumb bastard and his toadies, at some point they bear some responsibility for how things are.

At the risk of asking a question I don't know the answer to...

When was the last time that our restriction on trade, and policy of non-communication resulted in the people rising up and hanging the the dumb bastards and toadies?

Cesar | March 5, 2008, 2:17pm | #

When was the last time that our restriction on trade, and policy of non-communication resulted in the people rising up and hanging the the dumb bastards and toadies?
The only time I can think where it worked was against Slobidan Milosevic when the Serbians finally had enough of being international pariahs and kicked him out.

I'd say the 1989 revolutions too but we actually talked and engaged with the eastern block.

Blue Texan | March 5, 2008, 2:18pm | #

Remember that Texas has a huge hispanic population that has a positive history with Hillary. They are loyal and came out to vote for her in numbers. Her policy of allowing illegal but honest mexican immigrants living and working here to pay a fee and become a citizen is very popular in that community. Barack's policy is similar but says they must go to the back of the line. I saw very few hispanics at his rally in Dallas but many hispanic families in the Hillary section during the caucus last night. So I'd say Rush didn't have such a significant impact in Texas as suggested.

Either that or Diebold did it again! Hillary would be easier to defeat as far as Republican strategy goes.
==================
End Corporate Rule!

Mary R. | March 5, 2008, 2:20pm | #

I would like to know why the Democartic Clintosn have all of a sudden become buddy-buddy with Rush, Karl Rove, etc? They are selling the Democratis down the river. I have never voted for a republican in my life, but I will if Hillary Clinton gets the nomination. I defended her for years and now I see her for what she is and I can't stand her. Everyone I have spoken with today feels the same way.

WAKE UP people..they want her out so the party rallies around McCain. They will rally just to defeat her.

JR | March 5, 2008, 2:21pm | #

Question to those who doubt the Limbaugh effect: Please explain why, in a heavily GOP district of San Antonio, the large majority of primary voters voted for Hillary Clinton, not John McCain. In their caucus, Obama was the clear winner.

The talk of the neighborhood was Limbaugh's idea to cross lines for HRC.

deron | March 5, 2008, 2:24pm | #

WAKE UP people..they want her out so the party rallies around McCain. They will rally just to defeat her.

There's nothing wrong with that. Of course they want to win.

My complaint is that many of these people, Rush included, have already said McCain would be terrible. So why now make moves to help him win? Maybe he's not as bad as all that?

joe | March 5, 2008, 2:28pm | #

John does an excellent job laying out why, on paper, Hillary is a stronger candidate than Obama.

Sort of like how Bush the Elder was a stonger candidate on paper than Bill Clinton.

Obama got game. Hillary got no game. Hillary will win over everyone that finds her impressive on paper, and that's it. Obama's charisma and magnetism, like Reagan's or Clinton's, can win over people who aren't like him ideologically, or who aren't won over by his record in office.

John | March 5, 2008, 2:29pm | #

"My complaint is that many of these people, Rush included, have already said McCain would be terrible. So why now make moves to help him win? Maybe he's not as bad as all that?"

He isn't and there is no reason for Rush and his like to have such issues with McCain other than the fact that he didn't kiss their ass enough.

Cesar | March 5, 2008, 2:31pm | #

Joe-

"On paper" seems to be helping her a lot recently.

Or at least, shes been extremely effective in raising Obama's negatives. The Clintons know how to play dirty, how to take a race into the gutter and come out on top.

Obama just gives a pretty speech and then ends up getting swiftboated on everything from his middle name, to his religious background, to his wife.

Shannon Love | March 5, 2008, 2:39pm | #

Joe,


On the "conservative Democrats" in Texas: would that not also have been true in South Carolina and other Southern states, which did not have the same conservative Clinton vote?

I can't say without seeing the data. I can say that since, conservative does not equal Republican in this context, arguing that Rush's urging of Republicans to vote for Hillary in the democrat primary lead to victory is not supported by the numbers. Indeed, it appears that Republicans broke for Obama.

In general, I would say that the national data shows that conservative democrats go strongly for Hillary. I don't see anything in the Texas data to contradict that general trend.

I think that in the end, the fear that Hillary is the second coming of Nixon overwhelmed the hope she would be easier to defeat in the general election.

On talking and fighting: I suspect that what you describe does describe the mindset of McCain and many Americans, but I will point you to Bill Clinton's diplomatic offensive towards Milosevic, and Reagan's initial diplomatic thrusts towards Gorbachev.

Like most things, this is largely a matter of emphasis and wariness. After all, Bush is talking to all the governments in the region right now and always has. On that basis, how would Obama be any different. For his statement to be meaningful, it must mean that he intends to put down Bush's big stick and just rely on the good faith of those who declared themselves our enemies.

History suggest that they will take him for a ride and play for time just like they did Nixon, Carter and Clinton. People who maintain their position in their positions within their own societies by violence are not to be trusted in negotiations, even nominal allies unless one holds a credible threat over them.

So, out of curiosity, are you a girl or an Irish guy?

My spouse's name is Michaelynne and my children are named Ripleigh and Rylant, so the answer should be obvious.

John | March 5, 2008, 2:41pm | #

Joe,

Reagan and Clinton could win with average people. Reagan and Clinton could both connect with working people from places like oh I don't know Ohio. Obama has shown no ability to do that. He has charisma if you only count black voters and elite white liberals. Hillary is killing him with the white working class vote. Obama hasn't shown one lick of charisma with that group. Since he is so charismatic with a certain group of people, educated liberals, and that group is very influential in the media, it is easy to believe that he has all of this charisma with everyone else. But that doesn't appear to be happening. If it were, he wouldn't have gotten killed in Ohio and he would have won Texas, Republicans or no.

Elise in NH | March 5, 2008, 2:43pm | #

It's not just Rush. It's Coulter and Hannity (Rush's echo chamber/cheering squad).

As Andrew Sullivan wrote in The Atlantic blog:

"History gets funnier, doesn't it? Who would have thought back in the 1990s that the Clintons would finally join forces with talk-radio hate? But it seems so fitting now, in retrospect. They are just two sides of the same polarizing coin. They need each other; they feed off each other; they sustain each other. Breaking their stranglehold on American politics is partly what this election is about. It's good to flush them out."

http://obamastraws.blogspot.com/2008/03/rogues-gallery.html

Bonded | March 5, 2008, 2:47pm | #

It was either Fox or CNN that had polling data that showed Republicans did cross over, but more crossed over for Obama than Hilary. The logistics of this opportunity were too tempting to pass up. But obviously this was not a well organized event that leads to no net gain effect.
In regards to the fairness argument: Are we now going to bring back the old debates about gerrymandering that goes much farther in nullifying voter blocks in the general election than party jumping in the primaries?

deron | March 5, 2008, 2:49pm | #

Is Bush's big stick convincing anyone of anything right now?

Honest question. Korea, Iran, Libya, Pakistan, Venezuela...

I see two wars that ought to have given them all the willies, but things don't appear to be much different then the status quo from eight years ago. Sure, the bad guys may have ducked, but when they looked around they appear to have all come out of their holes and gone on about their business. The world looks as much like a prairie dog town as ever.

bookworm | March 5, 2008, 2:49pm | #

"Breaking their stranglehold on American politics is partly what this election is about. It's good to flush them out."

It looks as if politics as usual may be winning out. Rush may have the Clintons around for the next 4 or 8 years to keep his ratings up or McCain may be able to keep the failed foreign policy of Bush, Cheney, and the neocons alive for the next 4 or 8 years.

joe | March 5, 2008, 2:49pm | #

Cesar,

"On paper" seems to be helping her a lot recently.

I think you're vastly overstating the significance of yesterday. Don't you remember, Texas and Ohio were the "firewall" states that were stacked in her favor, the way that the past 11 contests were stacked in Obama's favor.

She's going to have to pull off an upset, or at least a victory where she isn't picked to win, before we can start talking about what she's done that worked.

Obama's victories since Super Tuesday didn't justify all the hype about the race being over - they were all in states where he has natural advantages due to demography - and Hillary's victories in Texas and Ohio, ditto.

Cesar | March 5, 2008, 2:51pm | #

Joe, Obama HAD to put Hillary away yesterday. Because he didn't, this campaign will go on for eight more weeks, ending in a state extremely favorable to Hillary (Pennsylvania). The longer the race lasts, the more Hillary's institutional/establishment credentials help her push Obama down.

She went dirty on him, and its been effective. Hes crested. The only way he stops this is if he wins Pennsylvania by a big margin. Otherwise the superdelegates go to Hillary and its over for him.

John | March 5, 2008, 2:51pm | #

Elise,

It is funny that Sullivan calls out Limbaugh and the Clintons for being nasty and hate filled when Sullivan is one the nastiest most hate filled writers around. He is just the sober gay man's Hitchens.

TJ | March 5, 2008, 2:55pm | #

All these comments, and only ONE person mentions that the Democrats cross over and vote in open Republican primaries, too?

Back in 2000, most of McCain's primary wins came in open primary states, and the general feeling was that support from Democrats gave him those wins.

Just a few months ago, Kos was suggesting that his readers in Michigan cross party lines and vote for Romney, specifically to muddy the GOP waters.

It never fails to amaze me how Democrats can do anything they want, but if/when the GOP does the same thing, it suddenly becomes a crime against democracy.

If/when a GOP candidate petitions to keep the polls open later in a friendly district, we'll suddenly hear how THAT's dirty gutter politics. The Dems have done it the last few elections, but, you know, that's different.

joe | March 5, 2008, 2:55pm | #

Shannon,

Again, Republican crossovers have always broken for Obama, but they did so by much smaller margins this time, indicating that for one reason or another, some significantly larger number of Republicans turned out for her than had done so in the past. Maybe they did so for another reason, but they did.

Like most things, this is largely a matter of emphasis and wariness. Yes.

After all, Bush is talking to all the governments in the region right now and always has. WHAT?!? Are you kidding me? Have you already forgotten about the flap over Pelosi's Syria trip? The refusal to meet with the Iranians? This is like the posters coming down in 1984! Are you pulling my leg, or do you actually mean this?

My spouse's name is Michaelynne and my children are named Ripleigh and Rylant, so the answer should be obvious. Lol.

John | March 5, 2008, 2:56pm | #

It is weird how a couple of moments can change things a lot. I think the SNL skit, the first funny one in years, and Obama's abysmal performance in the press conference where the Chicago media actually asked him some tough questions about his past relationship to lobbyists really hurt him. The SNL skit finally embarrassed the media enough to get them to be a little harder on him and the press conference gave people the impression he is not ready for prime time. That is the one thing about being a teen idol, which is what Obama is in political terms, once someone knocks you down you can fall just as fast as you rose.

bookworm | March 5, 2008, 3:00pm | #

"he intends to put down Bush's big stick and just rely on the good faith of those who declared themselves our enemies."

They have only declared themselves to be our enemies because of our meddling foreign policy.

John | March 5, 2008, 3:03pm | #

http://www.state.gov/secretary/trvl/c20717.htm


"After all, Bush is talking to all the governments in the region right now and always has. WHAT?!? Are you kidding me? Have you already forgotten about the flap over Pelosi's Syria trip? The refusal to meet with the Iranians? This is like the posters coming down in 1984! Are you pulling my leg, or do you actually mean this?"


I don't why I feed the troll but here goes. Joe look at Secretary Rice's 2007 travel itinerary linked above. Bush is in dialog with all of these people. As far as Iran goes, he has done exactly what the Dems say he should do, which is work China and Russia and the UN and try to get bilateral commitment to sanctions. Every President Democrat or Republican engages in Diplomacy and talks to these people If talking worked, North Korea and Iran and their ilk wouldn't be a problem. Not that I expect you to understand that since you are lunatic about these things.

joe | March 5, 2008, 3:04pm | #

John,

Reagan and Clinton could win with average people. Reagan and Clinton could both connect with working people from places like oh I don't know Ohio. Obama has shown no ability to do that.

I guess they don't have working people in South Carolina, Colorado, Maine, Louisiana, Minnesota, Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, Missouri, Mississippi, Wyoming, Wisconsin, Iowa...

Do you know what Reagan and Clinton both had? Crossover appeal. Hillary, to put it mildly, lacks crossover appeal.

He has charisma if you only count black voters and elite white liberals. I guess not, since he has been pulling large numbers of Republicans throughout the contest (and not as part of a prank), and has been leading in matchups with McCain, a popular centrist, for months.

If it were, he wouldn't have gotten killed in Ohio and he would have won Texas, Republicans or no. Yeah, right. I don't think anybody has actually forgotten that Ohio and Texas have long been known to be strongholds for Hillary Clinton. It's interesting that the only people claiming to do so have a rooting interest in seeing Hillary win.

You're spouting talking points, John. Just like when you repeated the silly Wall Street Journal editoral about Obama's "relentlessly negative message."

John | March 5, 2008, 3:04pm | #

"They have only declared themselves to be our enemies because of our meddling foreign policy."


Yeah, if we would just let the North Koreans invade and enslave the South they would love us. If we would just let the Arabs kill every Jew in Israel they would love us. The whole thing is clearly our fault.

Cesar | March 5, 2008, 3:06pm | #

Joe, in Virginia Obama didn't win a single county in the Shennandoah Valley or Southwest. Those are the whitest, poorest parts of the state.

joe | March 5, 2008, 3:07pm | #

Cesar | March 5, 2008, 2:51pm | #

Joe, Obama HAD to put Hillary away yesterday.


Uh huh. Texas and Ohio have been described as safe Hillary states for a month, but suddenly they're must-wins for Obama. Tell us another one, pappy.

The only way he stops this is if he wins Pennsylvania by a big margin. Oh, look, another state that has long been described as safe for Clinton is a "must-win" for the candidate that is leading her late in the race. It's funny how the states that he's actually supposed to perform well in are not "must-wins," but only the ones that have built-ih advantages for Hillary. You know what, New York was totally a must-win for Obama, too.

Are you getting this crap directly from Terry McAulliff?

John | March 5, 2008, 3:08pm | #

"I guess they don't have working people in South Carolina, Colorado, Maine, Louisiana, Minnesota, Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, Missouri, Mississippi, Wyoming, Wisconsin, Iowa..."


They do and they generally voted for Hillary. What South Carolina, Virginia and Mississippi have is black votes by the bunches. Wisconsin and Iowa and Maryland have rich white liberals by the bus loads. Look Joe, everyone who acts and thinks like you has a schoolgirl crush on Obama. But not everyone is like you. Why were Texas and Ohio Clinton strongholds? Because both states are full of working class white and Hispanic voters that Clinton does well with. If Obama did well with those voters, he would have the nomination right now. Do you honestly believe that every Clinton voter is an evil Republican causing mischief? Are you really that crazy?

joe | March 5, 2008, 3:08pm | #

Meanwhile, of course, Oregon and Mississippi are meaningless. Wisconsin in meaningless.

It's funny how the Obama must-wins can only been recognized in hindsight, after Hillary wins them.

Cesar | March 5, 2008, 3:09pm | #

Joe if you're the challenger running against the insider candidate its not good enough to win small states or big states by close margins. You have to have a big enough victory that the party apparatus comes around, particularly in a close race.

Roscoe3000 | March 5, 2008, 3:09pm | #

Whatever she says, according to the delegate allocation rules in the 12 remaining Dem primaries (or at least according to the Slate.com calculator), Hillary needs to win every single one by fifteen percentage points (e.g. 58-42) OR MORE to surpass BO's pledged total. That's a tall order and is surely weighing on her and Bill at this stage...

Cesar | March 5, 2008, 3:12pm | #

Roscoe3000-

Florida and Michigan.

John | March 5, 2008, 3:12pm | #

Joe,

Somebody is voting for Hillary besides Republicans following Rush Limbaugh's orders. We know it is not blacks, whom Obama wins by a huge margin and we know it is not affluent whites. So just who the hell is voting for Clinton if not Hispanics and working class whites?

Cesar | March 5, 2008, 3:15pm | #

Speaking of hispanics and the election, the Republicans may not realize it yet but nominating McCain really saved their bacon. Had they nominated some "no amnesty" candidate who ranted about the impending Reconquista hispanics would have ended up voting for Democrats for the next 40 years.

Since they have a Southwesterner who believes in immigration reform and--since he lives in a state with hispanics--realizes they're not secret foreign agents Republicans now have the chance to make inroads.

joe | March 5, 2008, 3:19pm | #

Joe look at Secretary Rice's 2007 travel itinerary linked above.

The debate, of course, has been about presidential meetings with the foreign head of state.

As far as Iran goes, he has done exactly what the Dems say he should do, which is work China and Russia and the UN and try to get bilateral commitment to sanctions.

The debate, of course, has been about presidential meetings with the head of state.

Every President Democrat or Republican engages in Diplomacy and talks to these people If talking worked, Even you, John, typtically include at least a punctuation mark between contradicting yourself. Bush has been like every president and carried out extensive diplomacy but diplomacy doesn't work.

North Korea and Iran and their ilk wouldn't be a problem. Ah, thank you for bringing up North Korea - the state we didn't have any talks with, the state that the lack of talks demonstrated Bush's superior grasp of the realities of foreign poilicy, the state that developed a functional nuclear weapon during the period that Bush was not talking to them, the state that ceased it nuclear weapons program after we reoped negotiations.

Not that I expect you to understand that since you are lunatic about these things. Yes yes, of course, why can't I just be nice and sane and realize that we have strong diplomatic ties with Eurasia and we have always had strong diplomatic ties with Eurasia, and why can't I just be sane and realize you're right.

Shall I go back and start pulling up your quotes about how smart is for not engaging hostile states diplomatically? Because you've written literally hundreds of them since you started commenting here.

Cesar | March 5, 2008, 3:24pm | #

Look at it this way, joe. Barack Obama has had two oppourtunnities to knock Hillary out of the race and he failed both times. He didn't win New Hampshire which could have secured the nomination early, and he didn't win last night which would have made him the presumptive nominee. Whats behind his inability to close to deal?

joe | March 5, 2008, 3:27pm | #

Look Joe, everyone who acts and thinks like you has a schoolgirl crush on Obama.

Actually, he was my third choice, but do go on.

Why were Texas and Ohio Clinton strongholds? Because both states are full of working class white and Hispanic voters that Clinton does well with. That's a fair point, but you overstate it. Obama has won white men, working class voters, and other elements of Hlllary's base in numerous states. Really, it's only Hispanics and old voters who have been dependable for Clinton.

Do you honestly believe that every Clinton voter is an evil Republican causing mischief? Oh, look everybody, it's a magical "every." Gee, when you add an absolute into a statement you can make it look irrational. That IS impressive, John.

BTW, did anybody else notice John lauding Hillary Clinton's strength, and how reasonable it is for Republicans to cross over and support her, before Rush Limbaugh told his ditto-heads it was a good idea? I sure didn't.

joe | March 5, 2008, 3:28pm | #

Joe if you're the challenger running against the insider candidate its not good enough to win small states or big states by close margins.

Apparently it is, since he's winning the race by over a hundred delegates, even after her latest "firewall," and it's getting late in the game.

joe | March 5, 2008, 3:31pm | #

John,

So just who the hell is voting for Clinton if not Hispanics and working class whites?

Hispanics, yes, in most states. Older voters. Women of a certain age. And a respectable, but not overwhelming or even dependable, chunk of working class white men.

And no, you're not going to change the argument from "Republican crossover provided a margin for Clinton" to "Only Republicans vote for Clinton."

Cesar | March 5, 2008, 3:35pm | #

Apparently it is, since he's winning the race by over a hundred delegates, even after her latest "firewall," and it's getting late in the game.
When does Obama close the deal, joe? After what state?

bookworm | March 5, 2008, 3:36pm | #

"Apparently it is, since he's winning the race by over a hundred delegates, even after her latest "firewall," and it's getting late in the game."

I have read the argument that if she maintains the momentum and goes ahead in the popular vote, that she will have a moral case for getting enough super delegates to vote for her and put her over the top.

joe | March 5, 2008, 3:37pm | #

Cesar,

Barack Obama has had two oppourtunnities to knock Hillary out of the race and he failed both times. He didn't win New Hampshire which could have secured the nomination early, and he didn't win last night which would have made him the presumptive nominee. Whats behind his inability to close to deal?

It's a close race, and each candidate has states that are strong for them. As everyone realized for a month (and some managed to suddenly forget last night), Texas and Ohio are particularly strong states for Clinton.

Using my psychic powers, I predict that Cesar will have absolutely no problem remembering that Mississippi and Oregon are very strong states for Obama that he is expected to win, but will come down with amnesia about Pennsylvania being a strong state for Clinton.