Saturday, January 26, 2008

Obama Wins South Carolina (yawn)


As expected, Senator Barack Obama pulled off a victory today in South Carolina. Not to take anything away from Obama but even Jesse Jackson won South Carolina. This was a must win for Obama and he pulled it off. It's now time for Senator Clinton to move forward to Super Tuesday, were millions of Americans will be able to pick their candidate for President. I'm confident now more than ever that Hillary will be the Democratic nominee.


48 comments:

Richard T. Cahill Jr. said...

Jeremy, Obama did not just win. He won huge by 28 or 29 points. That's an old fashioned butt kicking. That's a bigger lead than Hillary has in New York. (21 per Zogby and 26 per Quinnipiac)

Anonymous said...

Anyone who is "more" confident in Hilary after her abyssmal showing in SC is either ignorant or stupid.

Expect NY to be a lot closer than Zogby is guessing.

And when it comes to the convention, and Edwards and Obama join forces, Hilary will be toast.

Anonymous said...

Not only did Obama kick butt, he did it across perceived differences of race, gender and age.

The voters rejected the negative attacks of Bill Clinton and other surrogate's and Obama came out even stronger and more tested.

Watch the NY race tighten up, that should cure the yawning.

Anonymous said...

I wonder . . .

Does the fact that Cahill seems pleased that Obama won so big in South Carolina mean that he is less of a racist than he is a sexist?

little dick, we really do not care about your assessment of the democratic primaries.

We also don't care about your assessment of the choices for Ms. Ringwood's replacement.

Despite your own self-promotion, you have no insight or inside information about either of these issues.

By the way, I understand that replacing toilet cookies in urinals can be a very tricky task for an attorney.

Anonymous said...

Please, NY and every other state does not have a black majority in the democratic party. Iowa was an eye opener, SC is just a pathetic joke. Even if NY is closer,you'd have to be retarded to think that Edwards would back Obama. (Or uneducated enough to spell Hillary with one "l" or abysmal with more than one "s".) Obama won by tricking blacks to vote for him by telling them not to believe what the news is reporting about his involvement with Rezko. He wrote letters on senate letterhead urging government grants to Rezko and his crooked companies to scam by allowing the buildings to foreclose. He's got no chance in hell of surviving the onslaught of republican attack ads even if he doesn't get indicted himself. He lied at a nationally televised debate! He got exposed two days before SC on CNN. There's over a week before the super tuesday and you can't keep this quiet now.

Richard T. Cahill Jr. said...

To 4:00 p.m.,

I do not care whether you like or dislike my postings. Last time I checked, this was still America and citizens had First Amendment rights that were not infringed upon because said is a Republican or Democrat.

Second, my name is Rich or Rick. Continuing to call me Dick is just demonstrating juvenile stupidity on your part.

Finally, your urinal cake comment is absurd and ridiculous.

Anonymous said...

Jeremy,
As an old JFK Democrat, who took 40 years to get over the cynicism, this thing with Caroline and Ted for Obama is huge for some people.
Just a comment and I sure don't know all of what it means.
Good talking to you Sat. and wishing you the best...smitty

Anonymous said...

5:10 PM said - "(Or uneducated enough to spell Hillary with one "l" or abysmal with more than one "s".)"

...or think that first sentence is an actual sentence? ...or be too stupid to realize that Senate, Republican and Tuesday are all capitalized?

Your pathetic attempts at spin leave me completely underwhelmed, as do your "abyssmal" attempts to paint Clinton as Presidential. I'll match Obama's veracity, integrity and class against "Hilary" anytime, and win every time.

You're wasting your time supporting such an unlikable, uninspiring phony.

Anonymous said...

Does someone protest too much about those urinal cookies?

I am glad that last weeks lessons from Yankee Jim about the first amendment seem to have had an impact on your understanding of the concept.

Does that mean you are going to start posting comments on your blog that are critical of your own narrow and shallow perspective on issues.

I didn't t hink so.

Anonymous said...

9:55-Go back to school and check your grammar books. Maybe you should try getting a GED. There's no spin involved in Obama's lying. Is that presidential? Trust me I lie? Obama's veracity is non-existent as is your education. Capitalization obviously wasn't your strong point in english. Also, conversational english has presumptive subjects. Blogs are not subject to strict literary writing.

Anonymous said...

You can't just say "trust me,I'm telling the truth" when the letters are evidence to the contrary. I would have supported him if he won,but now it would be ignorant and stupid to support a loser in the general. The reds impeached a great president over an extra-marital affair. They'll have a field day impeahing a bona-fide crook. I guess that's why they're salivating over Barack.

Anonymous said...

Clinton knows damn well she took a good beating in SC. She knows so well, she is BREAKING her pledge with the other candidates regarding campaigning in Florida. This was NOT a 'yawn', Jeremy. It was more like an 'ouch'.

Anonymous said...

The use of capitalization is contingent upon usage. "Super Tuesday" was not capitalized in a dismissive tone, while "senate" and "republican" were being used as adjectives. If I were to refer to the Senate or the Republican party,then capitalization is required. I still wouldn't capitalize "republican" though because they're not deserving of any respect.

Anonymous said...

Wake up Jeremy--The Clintons could be the Bradley candidate for president.

Check out columnist Frank Rich:

The New York Times

January 27, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
The Billary Road to Republican Victory
By FRANK RICH

IN the wake of George W. Bush, even a miracle might not be enough for the Republicans to hold on to the White House in 2008. But what about two miracles? The new year’s twin resurrections of Bill Clinton and John McCain, should they not evaporate, at last give the G.O.P. a highly plausible route to victory.

Amazingly, neither party seems to fully recognize the contours of the road map. In the Democrats’ case, the full-throttle emergence of Billary, the joint Clinton candidacy, is measured mainly within the narrow confines of the short-term horse race: Do Bill Clinton’s red-faced eruptions and fact-challenged rants enhance or diminish his wife as a woman and a candidate?

Absent from this debate is any sober recognition that a Hillary Clinton nomination, if it happens, will send the Democrats into the general election with a new and huge peril that may well dwarf the current wars over race, gender and who said what about Ronald Reagan.

What has gone unspoken is this: Up until this moment, Hillary has successfully deflected rough questions about Bill by saying, “I’m running on my own” or, as she snapped at Barack Obama in the last debate, “Well, I’m here; he’s not.” This sleight of hand became officially inoperative once her husband became a co-candidate, even to the point of taking over entirely when she vacated South Carolina last week. With “two for the price of one” back as the unabashed modus operandi, both Clintons are in play.

For the Republicans, that means not just a double dose of the one steroid, Clinton hatred, that might yet restore their party’s unity but also two fat targets. Mrs. Clinton repeatedly talks of how she’s been “vetted” and that “there are no surprises” left to be mined by her opponents. On the “Today” show Friday, she joked that the Republican attacks “are just so old.” So far. Now that Mr. Clinton is ubiquitous, not only is his past back on the table but his post-presidency must be vetted as well. To get a taste of what surprises may be in store, you need merely revisit the Bill Clinton questions that Hillary Clinton has avoided to date.

Asked by Tim Russert at a September debate whether the Clinton presidential library and foundation would disclose the identities of its donors during the campaign, Mrs. Clinton said it wasn’t up to her. “What’s your recommendation?” Mr. Russert countered. Mrs. Clinton replied: “Well, I don’t talk about my private conversations with my husband, but I’m sure he’d be happy to consider that.”

Not so happy, as it turns out. The names still have not been made public.

Just before the holidays, investigative reporters at both The Washington Post and The New York Times tried to find out why, with no help from the Clintons. The Post uncovered a plethora of foreign contributors, led by Saudi Arabia. The Times found an overlap between library benefactors and Hillary Clinton campaign donors, some of whom might have an agenda with a new Clinton administration. (Much as one early library supporter, Marc Rich’s ex-wife, Denise, had an agenda with the last one.) “The vast scale of these secret fund-raising operations presents enormous opportunities for abuse,” said Representative Henry Waxman, the California Democrat whose legislation to force disclosure passed overwhelmingly in the House but remains stalled in the Senate.

The Post and Times reporters couldn’t unlock all the secrets. The unanswered questions could keep them and their competitors busy until Nov. 4. Mr. Clinton’s increased centrality to the campaign will also give The Wall Street Journal a greater news peg to continue its reportorial forays into the unraveling financial partnership between Mr. Clinton and the swashbuckling billionaire Ron Burkle.

At “Little Rock’s Fort Knox,” as the Clinton library has been nicknamed by frustrated researchers, it’s not merely the heavy-hitting contributors who are under wraps. Even by the glacial processing standards of the National Archives, the Clintons’ White House papers have emerged slowly, in part because Bill Clinton exercised his right to insist that all communications between him and his wife be “considered for withholding” until 2012.

When Mrs. Clinton was asked by Mr. Russert at an October debate if she would lift that restriction, she again escaped by passing the buck to her husband: “Well, that’s not my decision to make.” Well, if her candidacy is to be as completely vetted as she guarantees, the time for the other half of Billary to make that decision is here.

The credibility of a major Clinton campaign plank, health care, depends on it. In that same debate, Mrs. Clinton told Mr. Russert that “all of the records, as far as I know, about what we did with health care” are “already available.” As Michael Isikoff of Newsweek reported weeks later, this is a bit off; he found that 3,022,030 health care documents were still held hostage. Whatever the pace of the processing, the gatekeeper charged with approving each document’s release is the longtime Clinton loyalist Bruce Lindsey.

People don’t change. Bill Clinton, having always lived on the edge, is back on the precipice. When he repeatedly complains that the press has given Mr. Obama a free ride and over-investigated the Clintons, he seems to be tempting the fates, given all the reporting still to be done on his post-presidential business. When he says, as he did on Monday, that “whatever I do should be totally transparent,” it’s almost as if he’s setting himself up for a fall. There’s little more transparency at “Little Rock’s Fort Knox” than there is at Giuliani Partners.

“The Republicans are not going to have any compunctions about asking anybody anything,” Mrs. Clinton lectured Mr. Obama. Maybe so, but Republicans are smart enough not to start asking until after she has secured the nomination.

Not all Republicans are smart enough, however, to recognize the value of John McCain should Mrs. Clinton emerge as the nominee. He’s a bazooka aimed at most every rationale she’s offered for her candidacy.

In a McCain vs. Billary race, the Democrats will sacrifice the most highly desired commodity by the entire electorate, change; the party will be mired in déjà 1990s all over again. Mrs. Clinton’s spiel about being “tested” by her “35 years of experience” won’t fly either. The moment she attempts it, Mr. McCain will run an ad about how he was being tested when those 35 years began, in 1973. It was that spring when he emerged from five-plus years of incarceration at the Hanoi Hilton while Billary was still bivouacked at Yale Law School. And can Mrs. Clinton presume to sell herself as best equipped to be commander in chief “on Day One” when opposing an actual commander and war hero? I don’t think so.

Foreign policy issue No. 1, withdrawal from Iraq, should be a slam-dunk for any Democrat. Even the audience at Thursday’s G.O.P. debate in Boca Raton cheered Ron Paul’s antiwar sentiments. But Mrs. Clinton’s case is undermined by her record. She voted for the war, just as Mr. McCain did, in 2002 and was still defending it in February 2005, when she announced from the Green Zone that much of Iraq was “functioning quite well. ” Only in November 2005 did she express the serious misgivings long pervasive in her own party. When Mr. McCain accuses her of now advocating “surrender” out of political expediency, her flip-flopping will back him up.

Billary can’t even run against the vast right-wing conspiracy if Mr. McCain is the opponent. Rush Limbaugh and Tom DeLay hate Mr. McCain as much as they hate the Clintons. And they hate him for the same reasons Mr. McCain wins over independents and occasional Democrats: his sporadic (and often mild) departures from conservative orthodoxy on immigration and campaign finance reform, torture, tax cuts, climate change and the godliness of Pat Robertson. Since Mr. McCain doesn’t kick reporters like dogs, as the Clintons do, he will no doubt continue to enjoy an advantage, however unfair, with the press pack on the Straight Talk Express.

Even so, Mr. McCain hasn’t yet won a clear majority of Republican voters in any G.O.P. contest. He’s depended on the kindness of independent voters. Tuesday’s Florida primary, which is open exclusively to Republicans, is his crucial test. If he fails, his party remains in chaos and Mitt Romney could still inherit the earth.

That would be a miracle for the Democrats, but they can hardly count on it. If Mr. Obama has not met an unexpected Waterloo in South Carolina — this column went to press before Saturday’s vote — the party needs him to stop whining about the Clintons’ attacks, regain his wit and return to playing offense. Unlike Mrs. Clinton, he would unambiguously represent change in a race with any Republican. If he vanquishes Billary, he’ll have an even stronger argument to take into battle against a warrior like Mr. McCain.

If Mr. Obama doesn’t fight, no one else will. Few national Democratic leaders have the courage to stand up to the Clintons. Even in defeat, Mr. Obama may at least help wake up a party slipping into denial. Any Democrat who seriously thinks that Bill will fade away if Hillary wins the nomination — let alone that the Clintons will escape being fully vetted — is a Democrat who, as the man said, believes in fairy tales.

Anonymous said...

I do find it funny that Clinton supporters can even accuse another candidate of questionable ethics or behavior with a straight face. I know, I know all the Clintons past dealings were the product of right wing conspiracies.

Anonymous said...

9:12-You're lying again. Hillary is NOT campaigning in Florida and you're lying about it because Obama IS campaigning by running ads there. Every attempt you make to pre-empt Obama's failings are backfiring because most people are watching and reading the news. Just like the "strongarming" in Iowa and Nevada. If you don't want your sleazy tactics highlighted, you should stop making mis-direction your policy. Smitty- there's going to be a racist backlash by blacks fueled by the sore loser Obamans that a lot of democratic politicians want to avoid by endorsing the black guy.

Anonymous said...

I think if the Clintons haven't been "fully vetted" by now, there isn't much meaning in the phrase fully vetted. I think we know which candidate hasn't been vetted. It' a shame for our party that he wasn't. A serious asset turned to trash. As always, the mis-direction campaign by Obamans comes back to bite them in the ass. If he keeps making attacks that destroy himself,he might not last his term in the Senate.

Anonymous said...

Accusing your opponent to deflect your own cheating is just infantile. The Obama campaign acts like third graders. Every surrogate they have just brings more shameful activity to light. You'd think they'd tell them to shut up already. Denial and obfuscation is just a temporary escape. Didn't that finger wagging "I did not have sex with woman..." remark teach them anything? Every day Barack stalls in coming clean about Rezko, his chances shrink. Scooter Libby didn't get indicted for outing Plame, he got indicted for lying about it.

Anonymous said...

Tony Rezko arrested. Obama might lose more than just the nomination and his senate seat. His home and even his freedom are at risk now.

Anonymous said...

Funny, I think we could substitute Bradley for Obama and Sennett for Clinton, and many of these threads would be repeats of those threads posted in October and November, 2007.

'3rd grade tactics'. 'cry baby'. Can't you guys come up with something new? Or do you take 'recycling' to a whole new level.

FACT: Hillary flew to FLORIDA, for some fundraisers and photo ops. Why would Obama campain in Florida, when the Florida delegates WILL NOT BE COUNTED at the national convention. Or is Hillary going to take care of that too?

Anonymous said...

I guess Ted Kennedy is an infantile 3rd grader. I can't imagine the look (shade of red) on Bill Clinton's face right now. Hillary must be throwing a FIT! There will be a few firings at the Hillary HQ this week.

Anonymous said...

12:31- Flying to Florida for a fundraiser is not campaigning. She's not running ads in Florida,Obama is. Those are facts and your previous claims are lies. If you consistently lie then I guess being a "third grader" is a little too light a comment. How about pathological liar? Every time you state a "fact" that doesn't back-up your previous lies, you confirm your stupidity. Keep it up loser. Obama is tied to Rezko at the hip and he just got arrested today. That's a FACT.

Anonymous said...

Hilary was in Florida personally. She is without question campaigning in Florida. Why? Who knows. But I find it entertaining to hear Hillary supporters still try to throw mud at Obama. Stick to the facts and stop trying to muddy the waters. Obama may have a questionable association....as I would imagine anyone who ran for Senate would...but that association pales in comparison to the dozens of questionable associations the Clintons had, and continue to have, so best to let it go. At any rate this negative campaigning by the Clintons is now hurting her badly and alienating voters. Just plain stupid to keep perpetuating it.

Anonymous said...

1:36 -I guess you missed the memo. Kennedy authored the "no child left behind" bill that's universally condemned by educators. Cheers and laughter at Hillary's HQ is more like it. Again, Obama shoots himself in the foot. The Kennedys have been out for a long time now.

Anonymous said...

4:02, that's not the story I heard from inside the Clinton Camp. No, they lobbied HARD to keep Kennedy from choosing Obama. Even started a phone campaign, calling the Kennedy office. No sir, I think heads are rolling. And it's not from too much laughter.

Anonymous said...

I expect there to be some major fallout against Senator Kennedy's endorsement. 900 FBI files must have something on poor Teddy. Glad he took the high road, instead of being bullied by the Clinton Machine.

Anonymous said...

3:56-"she is without question campaigning in Florida"??? That's an outright lie. It is a fact that Obama has been running ads on national cable channels in violation of the DNC agreement. So no amount of sleazy lies that you put out are going to overturn the facts. Obama has already admitted being a close friend to Rezko and has already admitted buying his home at a price $300,000 under market value from him and again accepting a pay-off in the way of a "sliver" of property. Rezko was thrown in jail today because he was a flight risk. He's been indicted for,among other things, peddling influence. Influence in the form of letters written by Barack on senate letterhead. This guy is an albatross chained to Obama's neck and he has no chance what-so-ever of winning now. No intelligent person with the intent of getting the WH in democratic hands could possibly support this sleaze. He's a loser.

Anonymous said...

Dozens of different people come to this blog to (legitimately) criticize Hillary...and the same pendantic, pompous ass comes back over and over again, critcizing spelling and crying "lies," with no semblance to reality in his responses.

Unfortunately, you suffer from that common republican disease, "if-I-say-it-then-it-must-be-so." Keep repeating the same nonsense long enough, and people think it's the truth.

Are you on the payroll or what? If so, Hillary's wasting her money on a dope like you...Ulster County is going to Obama.

Anonymous said...

6:06 If you actually think that Obama will win UC,then I think you're a fool. Spreading lies that anyone can dispute by reading news reports is despicable. Go on CNN.com and read the reporting yourself. You can come back here endlessly with your Hillary hater rants but all you will do is waste your time. Time you obviously are either getting paid for or are spending to recoup foolish donations. "Dozens of people"? Two maybe? If so you're both morons for not reading the news before spreading false Obama propaganda. At least the last "dope" knows how to spell. Come back with "legitimate" criticism instead of blatant lies and I'd be agreeing with you. There are plenty of legitimate things to criticize. All of your supposed "legitimate" gripes are garbage. I'm not here to defend Hillary, just to ridicule you. So come up with something that doesn't sound like a grade schooler without cutting and pasting.

Anonymous said...

Hey there's a poll on Lou Dobbs about the effect of Kennedy's endorsement. Only 11% so far think it's a positive, 33% negative. Those phantom "dozens" should go vote.

Anonymous said...

Hey, how many of you Obama supporters (if more than one) favor amnesty for illegal aliens and driver's licenses for them? I don't think I saw "dozens" of you on here when Spitzer was trying to give out licenses. Do really want him for president? Or are you just anti-Hillary? For that matter are for anyone?

Anonymous said...

Only 19% positive. Ha ha ha ha. And Ted Kennedy was trying to contact Hillary for weeks while she blew him off. 5:05- I guess that screws your credibility as well. I hear champagne and cheers,bbl.

Anonymous said...

Marist poll-NYS Hill-48% Barack-32%

Anonymous said...

Hillary's campaign lobbied hard for Kennedy. They lobbied for him to stay away! You McCain people think you're slick supporting Obama. Everybody knows that Obama is the only democrat that would LOSE to McCain. Even NYS would go to McCain if Obama was the nominee. Bad news for John today in Fla. Romney is pulling ahead. I guess all that talk about Romney pulling troops out of Iraq is really helping him. Here's the new democratic plan; exile all the evangelicals TO Iraq and let them fight it out on cable TV PPV.

Anonymous said...

Wow Jeremy, you're getting some attention here. The McCain/Obama campaign has targetted this blog for their spam. The mis-direction policy tipped everybody off when they accused another poster of being paid. This cut and paste multiple blog spam routine is laughable.

Anonymous said...

Hillary's downward spiral, STARTED with the immigration issue! Hillary was FOR driver licenses for illegals when Spitzer seem to have control over that ball. While Spitzer was fumbling the ball, Hillary couldn't answer. Then finally, when the play was dead (as was the issue), Hillary came out against. Remember, you Hillary lovers wanted to kill Mathews for challenging Hillary on it.

I may not like everything Obama says, but at least he says what he means. Hillary can have 2 positions in the same sentence, just as Edwards pointed out.

Just remember, as Edwards numbers have been dropping, Obama's has been rising. Meaning, those not supporting Hillary right now, their votes will go to Obama when it comes down to 2 candidates.
National: 39/31/17 Clinton/Obama/Edwards.

Anonymous said...

6:57 - 7:17 - 7:29 - 8:15 - 8:42

all written by the same poster....how sad is that...one person trying to pretend to be multiple....

you need a friend man...go buy a dog

Anonymous said...

It is unclear that any endorsement for president by Ted Kennedy will make much of a difference, but the endorsement created a bunch of media hoopla. Looks like Obama has and will continue to get added press coverage which creates some added momentum toward "super Tuesday." As the camera remains fixed on the Obama-Kennedy lovefest it eclipses Clinton and Edwards. It will be a greater challenge for them to get their message out, to draw the attention their campaign needs from the press.

Note: Agree with him or not, Ted Kennedy is by every measure certainly the most influential US Senator of the second half of the last century. He accomplished more in lasting legislation than any other Kennedy including JFK.

Anonymous said...

a 16 point lead in her home state is rather small and nothing to brag about.

dathV said...

Does anyone have Al Gores phone number?

Anonymous said...

8:36 I must object to the content of your post. I'm no PETA member but to stick an animal with that loser is just wrong if not criminal. You would be better off sending the dog to the big house with Michael Vick. At least Fido would then have a fighting chance :>) LOL

Anonymous said...

Lou Dobbs is a closet racist (and not very securely closeted, at that). His supporters, that watch him and respond to his polls, are not much better.

That guy on the Hillary payroll that keeps trying to pretend to be multiple people had better try a different tactic.

Anonymous said...

Yep there's the mis-direction again. Confirmation you have an McCain/Obama troll pretending to be "dozens" of posters. Obama is the only candidate that loses against McCain. A vote for Obama is a vote for McCain.

Anonymous said...

Lou Dobbs is openly xenophobic, not closeted, and that's exactly my point. The paid troll with the cut and paste,fill in the blank responses that are on here in triplicate, is one of his ilk. That's why he can't be a supporter of Obama's. He's a Hillary-hater from the McCain campaign. His only purpose is to spew phony charges and insults. He has no democratic candidate to support in reality. These "moles" are everywhere. He attacks me for fact-checking, not for supporting Hillary. I never said I supported Hillary. I just don't like the sleazy lying tactics of these excremental apertures. If the Hillary or Edwards campaigns were doing it, I'd be doing the same.

Anonymous said...

Btw, I had lots of fun jerking that idiot Toscano around for doing the same hatchetwork on Werner and I never supported him either. One thread was over a hundred posts before his payroll ran out. I was just DEFENDING Obama on another blog! I've never told any of you who I support.

Anonymous said...

Before you react,I was defending Barack against that muslim slur campaign.

Anonymous said...

Bill Schnieder's projection of Super Tuesday's vote shows Obama not breaking 30%. It's not possible for him to win the nomination. As far as other polling goes, Colorado,Georgia, and Illinois are the only states he might carry going forward. I think it's safe to start writing the obits. I take it by the new tone from Barack that he's eyeing up a chance at VP. He's getting very conciliatory.

Anonymous said...

Makes lot of sense. Put the black man on the same ticket as the white woman, stir up every racist and sexist in the country and watch as the white male chief justice swears in the white male President McCain.

If we don't start getting realistic and recognize that the rest of the country is not as accepting and open minded as us New Yorkers, we are going to blow an election that should be a cakewalk.