Defeats for McCain and Clinton in US primaries


This video from the USA is called John McCain vs. John McCain.

From British weekly The Observer:

Barack Obama inflicted shattering defeats on Hillary Clinton tonight in Washington state and Nebraska, beating her by a margin of two to one.

He was also won Louisiana, though by a narrower margin.

Although votes were still being counted, the projected gap between Obama and Clinton was large enough for US television companies to call all three contests in his favour.

To complete his night, he also picked up a win in a caucus in the US Virgin Islands.

In the Republican race, there was embarrassment for John McCain only days after declaring himself to be the Republican nominee. He suffered an overwhelming defeat in Kansas at the hands of Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas, and was involved in a race too close to call in Louisiana.

Obama’s victories tip the balance in his favour in the battle to rack up delegates, who will choose the Democratic nominee at the party convention in August.

Update: McCain lost Louisiana to Huckabee as well.

See also here. And here.

Obama victory in Maine: here. And here. And here.

3 thoughts on “Defeats for McCain and Clinton in US primaries

  1. Posted by: “DJ. Nash” vintageries@yahoo.com
    Sun Feb 10, 2008 6:40 pm (PST)

    Next Up for the Democrats: Civil War
    By FRANK RICH
    Published: February 10, 2008

    WHAT if a presidential candidate held what she billed
    as “the largest, most interactive town hall in
    political history” on national television, and no one
    noticed?

    The New York Times
    Frank Rich

    The untold story in the run-up to Super Tuesday was
    Hillary Clinton’s elaborate live prime-time special
    the night before the vote. Presiding from a studio in
    New York, the candidate took questions from audiences
    in 21 other cities. She had plugged the event four
    days earlier in the last gasp of her debate with
    Barack Obama and paid a small fortune for it: an hour
    of time on the Hallmark Channel plus satellite TV
    hookups for the assemblies of supporters stretching
    from coast to coast.

    The same news media that constantly revisited the
    Oprah-Caroline-Maria rally in California ignored
    “Voices Across America: A National Town Hall.” The
    Clinton campaign would no doubt attribute this to
    press bias, but it scrupulously designed the event to
    avoid making news. Like the scripted “Ask President
    Bush” sessions during the 2004 campaign, this town
    hall seemed to unfold in Stepford. The anodyne
    questions (“What else would you do to help take care
    of our veterans?”) merely cued up laundry lists of
    talking points. Some in attendance appeared to trance
    out.

    But I’m glad I watched every minute, right up until
    Mrs. Clinton was abruptly cut off in midsentence so
    Hallmark could resume its previously scheduled
    programming (a movie promising “A Season for
    Miracles,” aptly enough). However boring, this show
    was a dramatic encapsulation of how a once-invincible
    candidate ended up in a dead heat, crippled by
    poll-tested corporate packaging that markets her as a
    synthetic product leeched of most human qualities.
    What’s more, it offered a naked preview of how nastily
    the Clintons will fight, whatever the collateral
    damage to the Democratic Party, in the endgame to
    come.

    For a campaign that began with tightly monitored Web
    “chats” and then planted questions at its earlier
    town-hall meetings, a Bush-style pseudo-event like the
    Hallmark special is nothing new, of course. What’s
    remarkable is that instead of learning from these
    mistakes, Mrs. Clinton’s handlers keep doubling down.

    Less than two weeks ago she was airlifted into her
    own, less effective version of “Mission Accomplished.”
    Instead of declaring faux victory in Iraq, she starred
    in a made-for-television rally declaring faux victory
    in a Florida primary that was held in defiance of
    party rules, involved no campaigning and awarded no
    delegates. As Andrea Mitchell of NBC News said, it was
    “the Potemkin village of victory celebrations.”

    The Hallmark show, enacted on an anachronistic studio
    set that looked like a deliberate throwback to the
    good old days of 1992, was equally desperate. If the
    point was to generate donations or excitement, the
    effect was the reverse. A campaign operative, speaking
    on MSNBC, claimed that 250,000 viewers had seen an
    online incarnation of the event in addition to “who
    knows how many” Hallmark channel viewers. Who knows,
    indeed? What we do know is that by then the “Yes We
    Can” Obama video fronted by the hip-hop vocalist
    will.i.am of the Black Eyed Peas had been averaging
    roughly a million YouTube views a day. (Cost to the
    Obama campaign: zero.)

    Two days after her town-hall extravaganza, Mrs.
    Clinton revealed the $5 million loan she had made to
    her own campaign to survive a month in which the Obama
    operation had raised $32 million to her $13.5 million.
    That poignant confession led to a spike in
    contributions that Mr. Obama also topped. Though
    Tuesday was largely a draw in popular votes and
    delegates, every other indicator, from the candidates’
    real and virtual crowds to hard cash, points to a
    steadily widening Obama-Clinton gap. The Clinton
    campaign might be an imploding Potemkin village itself
    were it not for the fungible profits from Bill
    Clinton’s murky post-presidency business deals. (The
    Clintons, unlike Mr. Obama, have not released their
    income-tax returns.)

    The campaign’s other most potent form of currency
    remains its thick deck of race cards. This was all too
    apparent in the Hallmark show. In its carefully
    calibrated cross section of geographically and
    demographically diverse cast members — young, old, one
    gay man, one vet, two union members —
    African-Americans were reduced to also-rans. One black
    woman, the former TV correspondent Carole Simpson, was
    given the servile role of the meeting’s nominal
    moderator, Ed McMahon to Mrs. Clinton’s top banana.
    Scattered black faces could be seen in the audience.
    But in the entire televised hour, there was not a
    single African-American questioner, whether to toss a
    softball or ask about the Clintons’ own recent
    misadventures in racial politics.

    The Clinton camp does not leave such matters to
    chance. This decision was a cold, political
    cost-benefit calculus. In October, seven months after
    the two candidates’ dueling church perorations in
    Selma, USA Today found Hillary Clinton leading Mr.
    Obama among African-American Democrats by a margin of
    62 percent to 34 percent. But once black voters met
    Mr. Obama and started to gravitate toward him, Bill
    Clinton and the campaign’s other surrogates stopped
    caring about what African-Americans thought. In an
    effort to scare off white voters, Mr. Obama was
    ghettoized as a cocaine user (by the chief Clinton
    strategist, Mark Penn, among others), “the black
    candidate” (as Clinton strategists told the Associated
    Press) and Jesse Jackson redux (by Mr. Clinton
    himself).

    The result? Black America has largely deserted the
    Clintons. In her California primary victory, Mrs.
    Clinton drew only 19 percent of the black vote. The
    campaign saw this coming and so saw no percentage in
    bestowing precious minutes of prime-time television on
    African-American queries.

    That time went instead to the Hispanic population that
    was still in play in Super Tuesday’s voting in the
    West. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa of Los Angeles had a
    cameo, and one of the satellite meetings was held in
    the National Hispanic Cultural Center in Albuquerque.
    There’s nothing wrong with that. It’s smart politics,
    especially since Mr. Obama has been behind the curve
    in wooing this constituency.

    But the wholesale substitution of Hispanics for blacks
    on the Hallmark show is tainted by a creepy racial
    back story. Last month a Hispanic pollster employed by
    the Clinton campaign pitted the two groups against
    each other by telling The New Yorker that Hispanic
    voters have “not shown a lot of willingness or
    affinity to support black candidates.” Mrs. Clinton
    then seconded the motion by telling Tim Russert in a
    debate that her pollster was “making a historical
    statement.”

    It wasn’t an accurate statement, historical or
    otherwise. It was a lie, and a bigoted lie at that,
    given that it branded Hispanics, a group as
    heterogeneous as any other, as monolithic racists. As
    the columnist Gregory Rodriguez pointed out in The Los
    Angeles Times, all three black members of Congress in
    that city won in heavily Latino districts; black
    mayors as various as David Dinkins in New York in the
    1980s and Ron Kirk in Dallas in the 1990s received
    more than 70 percent of the Hispanic vote. The real
    point of the Clinton campaign’s decision to sow
    misinformation and racial division, Mr. Rodriguez
    concluded, was to “undermine one of Obama’s central
    selling points, that he can build bridges and unite
    Americans of all types.”

    If that was the intent, it didn’t work. Mrs. Clinton
    did pile up her expected large margin among Latino
    voters in California. But her tight grip on that
    electorate is loosening. Mr. Obama, who captured only
    26 percent of Hispanic voters in Nevada last month,
    did better than that in every state on Tuesday,
    reaching 41 percent in Arizona and 53 percent in
    Connecticut. Meanwhile, the Clinton campaign’s attempt
    to drive white voters away from Mr. Obama by playing
    the race card has backfired. His white vote tally
    rises every week. Though Mrs. Clinton won California
    by almost 10 percentage points, among whites she beat
    Mr. Obama by only 3 points.

    The question now is how much more racial friction the
    Clinton campaign will gin up if its Hispanic support
    starts to erode in Texas, whose March 4 vote it sees
    as its latest firewall. Clearly it will stop at
    little. That’s why you now hear Clinton operatives
    talk ever more brazenly about trying to reverse party
    rulings so that they can hijack 366 ghost delegates
    from Florida and the other rogue primary, Michigan,
    where Mr. Obama wasn’t even on the ballot. So much for
    Mrs. Clinton’s assurance on New Hampshire Public Radio
    last fall that it didn’t matter if she alone kept her
    name on the Michigan ballot because the vote “is not
    going to count for anything.”

    Last month, two eminent African-American historians
    who have served in government, Mary Frances Berry (in
    the Carter and Clinton years) and Roger Wilkins (in
    the Johnson administration), wrote Howard Dean, the
    Democrats’ chairman, to warn him of the perils of that
    credentials fight. Last week, Mr. Dean became
    sufficiently alarmed to propose brokering an
    “arrangement” if a clear-cut victory by one candidate
    hasn’t rendered the issue moot by the spring. But does
    anyone seriously believe that Howard Dean can deter a
    Clinton combine so ruthless that it risked shredding
    three decades of mutual affection with black America
    to win a primary?

    A race-tinged brawl at the convention, some nine weeks
    before Election Day, will not be a Hallmark moment. As
    Mr. Wilkins reiterated to me last week, it will be a
    flashback to the Democratic civil war of 1968, a
    suicide for the party no matter which victor ends up
    holding the rancid spoils.

    Like

  2. John McCain argues forcefully for immediate withdrawal of our troops

    Posted by: “bigraccoon” bigraccoon@earthlink.net
    Mon Feb 11, 2008 8:27 pm (PST)

    John McCain argues forcefully for immediate withdrawal of our troops… from Haiti.

    Yes, he says all the things then that he says are treason now. But that’s just because he’s a worn-out, befuddled nut:

    PS — Think it’s just a fluke? Watch him do the same on Somalia:

    Can You Say Flip Floping On The Double Talk Express

    Like

  3. Pingback: Hillary Clinton, Sanders and Flint town in the USA | Dear Kitty. Some blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.