by hilzoy
* Barack Obama won Mississippi. With 99% of precincts counted, he leads 60%-38%. As best I can tell, most of the outstanding precincts are in Obama-friendly areas.
* CNN has also called the Texas caucusses for Obama, and projects that he will get more delegates from Texas than Hillary Clinton.
* Marc Ambinder reports that "Democrats representing Florida in Congress" released this statement:
"We are committed to working with the DNC, the Florida State Democratic party, our Democratic leaders in Florida, and our two candidates to reach an expedited solution that ensures our 210 delegates are seated. Our House delegation is opposed to a mail-in campaign or any redo of any kind."
If we don't have a redo, I don't see how the Florida delegation can be seated. This is for two reasons: first, they ought to have a redo, with actual campaigning, organizing, and the like; and second, the whole reason this mess got started was that the Democratic party is trying to impose some sort of order on the primary system, so that everyone doesn't just rush to the first possible day. This cannot happen if they don't actually enforce their rules. I'd be happy with a redo of any kind, but just seating the delegates in the primary they held against the rules would wreck any hopes of having a remotely rational primary system next time, or even actually deciding, as a party, to just let everyone vote on the same day.
* Ezra Klein has the best comment on Geraldine Ferraro's idiotic comment that Obama is lucky to be black:
"Obama is not a woman, nor a white man. He's who he is. To say that if he were different, things would be different is to say nothing at all. As a white woman, maybe he would have led a military coup and established himself dictator. Who knows!? Hell, if he were a slightly less inspiring speaker, or had an off-night at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, he wouldn't be in this position either. Similarly, if Hillary Clinton were a black man, it's unlikely that she would have been a national political figure for the past 15 years, as it's unlikely that she would have married another man from Arkansas, and unlikely that the country would have put an interracial, same sex couple in the White House. But so what? This is an election, not Marvel's "What If?" series."
If I were Hillary Clinton, I would have asked Geraldine Ferraro to resign, since if I were Hillary Clinton, I would be running a different sort of campaign. And if I were a black man and had wheels, I would be the first black male trolleycar ever, not to mention the first being ever to be both a public transit vehicle and a mammal. Aren't counterfactuals fun?
For her next trick Clinton will try to appeal to Pennsylvania voters by making her own version of this ad.
Posted by: KCinDC | March 12, 2008 at 12:46 AM
I need help with my new web experiment. If you know Robert Ethan, you should hit the link below. If you spend anytime over at the Atlantic websites, you know who he is.
http://robertethanisatool.blogspot.com/
I am hoping to create a database of his amazing comments. He is the most commenter I know. (that is the grammar I intended).
Thanks to all. Please feel free to copy and link elsewhere. Let's build this up!! Don't worry, I am not trying to make any money on this. I just want to spread the gospel of Robert Ethan and his commenting empire to EVERYONE.
Posted by: swarty | March 12, 2008 at 12:55 AM
And if I were a black man and had wheels, I would be the first black male trolleycar ever, not to mention the first being ever to be both a public transit vehicle and a mammal. Aren't counterfactuals fun?
Brilliant mockery as always, hilzoy.
On a more serious note, though, I find this line of attack particularly rich coming from someone supporting, of all people, Hillary Clinton. If not for her to marriage to Bill, she'd probably be an anonymous corporate lawyer somewhere. Or maybe have gotten elected to the school board somewhere in Illinois, had she decided to run for public office. But to say that she'd be a serious contender for President, much less junior Senator from New York, if she weren't married to a former President, is ludicrous in the extreme. She's not remotely the most qualified person in the Democratic party based on her resume, nor was she remotely the most qualified Democrat to run for President this year. 90% of her candidacy is based on contingencies. Obama being black has undoubtedly helped him, but not as much as being Bill Clinton's wife has helped her.
Posted by: Xeynon | March 12, 2008 at 12:59 AM
Fun fact, from commenters at The Field: Obama's margin of victory in MS is about 4000 votes shy of Clinton's in TX.
Posted by: hilzoy | March 12, 2008 at 01:07 AM
Hilzoy, that trolleycar comment is pitch perfect. And truly inspired in a wacky 30 Rock sort of way.
The first Ferraro comment was a dog whistle. The one today was the dog attacking the owner. If she does not completely distance herself from this, there will be consequences that Clinton will not be able to control in the weeks ahead.
Posted by: swarty | March 12, 2008 at 01:20 AM
Referencing my earlier remark, I know that many folks around the web are down on Tina Fey these days, but 30 Rock is still the best show on any TV in this country.
Funny is funny. She is seriously funny. I defend and will never denounce her.
Posted by: swarty | March 12, 2008 at 01:24 AM
Yuppers. All success is comprised of talent, hard work AND luck. A man who didn't work as hard as Obama would not gotten this far; a woman with less talent than Clinton would not have gotten as far either.
Folks get opportunities in life, and it's up to them to make the most of them. If Obama had fallen on his face in February---and he well could have---we wouldn't be talking about him now.
Posted by: gwangung | March 12, 2008 at 01:24 AM
I should say: the trolleycar comment is a riff off a philosophy joke ("if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a trolleycar." Told to illustrate certain properties of if/then statements in logic classes.)
Pretty much OT: I note with interest that Donna Rose, an impressive transgender activist, has switched from Clinton to Obama. Wish I knew more of the backstory on that one.
Posted by: hilzoy | March 12, 2008 at 01:36 AM
Man, not a very good day for the Clinton campaign. Funny how it's not the end of the world like it was for Obama last Tuesday. Because he's such a media darling.
... I shouldn't be so sarcastic. But the Ferraro comment actually really ticked me off. Well, her second one, anyway. Not pleased.
Posted by: Adam | March 12, 2008 at 01:41 AM
Now MS is 61/37...
Posted by: hilzoy | March 12, 2008 at 01:48 AM
It seems pretty clear that Clinton's race-baiting has been successfull in a way--she got the racist vote in MS. On MyDD of all places there is a poster that explains how much of her support came from Republicans who either can't stand the thought of Obama as President or think that Clinton is the weaker candidate.
I hope to god she doesn't get the noimination. The last thing we need is a candidate who is both unscrupulous and inept.
Posted by: wonkie | March 12, 2008 at 02:32 AM
BTW, probably noted elsewhere, but in the final California count Obama picked up as many delegates as Clinton's small plus last Tuesday.
Posted by: Sebastian | March 12, 2008 at 02:46 AM
From CNN:
"Racism works in two different directions. I really think they're attacking me because I'm white. How's that?"
She told a FOX News interviewer, "I got up and the question was asked, 'Why do you think Barack Obama is in the place he is today" as the party's delegate front-runner?"
When faced with a hole, you do **NOT** dig it deeper. You especially do **NOT** go on GOP-TV to dig your hole.
Stupid, stupid Geraldine Ferraro.
(BTW, I believe it's statements like these that explains, to a large extent, blacks voting for Obama.)
Posted by: Jeff | March 12, 2008 at 04:18 AM
The Black Male Trolleycar hypothesis was delightful, especially because it hit me afresh, as I didn't remember the antecedent hilzoy explains in the comments.
Mark Schmitt made an interesting suggestion on the Florida/Michigan issue recently: Obama should seat the existing Florida slate, contingent on a Michigan revote. The argument, as I recall, is that the 60-odd net delegates Obama would lose by seating the Florida slate would be at most half to a third of Obama's lead even including announced superdelegates, so he can afford to concede them. A revote in Florida would likely yield a closer margin, but the public - and the superdelegates - would probably see a large swing state, late in the campaign, going for Clinton; and the effect that would have on the narrative and on the undeclared superdelegates could be damaging to Obama. And you'll note that Clinton supporters don't like to talk about Michigan nearly so much as they do about Florida, as Michigan is less of a swing state and the Clinton-only ballots are more obviously indefensible.
Of course, Schmitt's post seemed to be predicated on the idea that some sort of revote or delegate-seating would occur. At present, the officials in both Florida and Michigan seem to be determined to prevent the former, and the latter seems improbable absent a deal. This behavior by the MI and FL officials strikes me as cutting off their noses to spite their faces; still, if it's a choice between Schmitt's proposal and nothing, rather than between Schmitt's proposal and both voting, the argument is weaker.
Posted by: Warren Terra | March 12, 2008 at 04:37 AM
Assuming that Obama doesn't pick up any more delegates in Texas (as he might), by my count, Clinton gained 6 delegates in all on March 4th, all of which were rendered moot by Mississippi. If I've done the math right, Clinton picked up 203 delegates from the 4th through today, and Obama picked up 205.
I doubt that will be broadcast, or that any of the maps will be re-colored, to show that Obama actually "won" Texas.
Posted by: Jeff | March 12, 2008 at 04:48 AM
If not for her to marriage to Bill, she'd probably be an anonymous corporate lawyer somewhere.
. . . which is, in turn, more or less what Germaine Greer said about her. This is the weirdest primary in my adult life.
Posted by: Phil | March 12, 2008 at 06:15 AM
If not for her to marriage to Bill, she'd probably be an anonymous corporate lawyer somewhere. Or maybe have gotten elected to the school board somewhere in Illinois, had she decided to run for public office. But to say that she'd be a serious contender for President, much less junior Senator from New York, if she weren't married to a former President, is ludicrous in the extreme.
Well, it's a good thing that sexism is so much more acceptable than racism. Oh, wait, no, this is of course based upon your knowledge of Hillary as a person.
I still rember how angry I was when Hillary had to more or less accept the name Clinton instead of the Rodham she preferred because of the political forces in Arkansas. Because in those days it was not really accepted that she wasn't the loyal little wife that most of the current commenters on ObWi describe her as.
She was quite active in student politics. From the introduction of her speech in 1969:
She worked for several organisations that aided children's and women's rights. Children, education and healthcare have always been on her agenda and she has achieved quite a lot for those. She founded ARKANSAS ADVOCATES FOR CHILDREN & FAMILIES, she did a lot to make HIPPY a succes (which is the kind of program I promote in the Netherlands too, for disadvantaged children).
Here is an article about her time in Arkansas.
I think she could have started (or even continued) her own political career much earlier if she hadn't been married to Bill Clinton. I also think that people who say that they are swayed by how honest the Obama campaign is (incorrectly imho) could do better than falling back on repeating every smear, no matter how ludicrous, as long as it is negative for HRC. They would be more believable if they managed to judge both candidates with the same level of scrutiny.
I think that they both have very good qualities and area's where I'm not happy with them. If Obama becomes the nominee (and that seems to be likely) I'd be much happier if I felt that he was a known quantity, to be trusted warts and all. I still have trouble accepting that I can't get that level of intellectual honesty here. But a big portion of the readers here are intelligent and educated women and I am amazed how they not only let sexist remarks slip by, but even repeat them.
Posted by: dutchmarbel | March 12, 2008 at 06:36 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.