Obama: 14,937,687 / 47.4%
Clinton: 15,057,479 / 47.8%               

From the newspaper that introduced us to Whitewater and trumpeted Weapons of Mass Destruction and led us into war. That gave us front page articles on Al Gore's earth tone sweaters, John Edward's $160 haircuts, John Kerrey's cowardice in Vietnam, and oh yeah...the Clinton's marriage. This campaign is giving you the vapors? The Democrats are such pansies now that hard fought campaigns are anathema? I've seen every campaign since 1952, and this one is a great one; and certainly not among the dirtiest. Effete intellectuals...The Times editorial board has no standing in Democratic politics. Everyone ignores you now anyway. Bill Kristol has more credibility.

-----

In many counties, Obama struggled to clear 30% totals.  Hillary racked up some impressive 70% margins in several places.

David Lightman | McClatchy Newspapers
Posted on Tuesday, April 22, 2008

Basically both attorneys, one male, one female, (the male a former prosecutor) agree that the 5 second law can be abusive.

The female attorney thinks the law is outrageous, will open the floodgates to frivolous claims and says the court is literally crawling in bed here to micromanage the act of sex. The male attorney, the former prosecutor defends the law, but in doing so states that women can already abuse the law to victimize the man in many many ways as it is, so adding one more way to abuse the law is presumably not a big affront to liberty.  And he asks us to trust that prosecutors will do the right thing.

Anyway, food for thought.

And a terrific night for Hillary Clinton!

Since he's behind in the votes of the people, he oughtta step aside for the good of the country. /snark   If he continues he'll just keep handing the Rs more video opps every few days for their attack ads. "Would rather eat his waffles than discuss the implications of former President Carter meeting with Hamas."  

ALL THE MONEY

and

ALL THE MEDIA

You kept me sane.  I so appreciate you and the people on this site, I started to think that everything was upside down.  

Thanks to you, we won a critically important victory tonight in Pennsylvania. It's a giant step forward that will transform the landscape of the presidential race. And it couldn't have happened without your generous support.

There will be much more to do beginning tomorrow. But tonight, let's just celebrate the fact that you and I are part of a remarkable community of people tough enough, passionate enough, and determined enough to win big when everything is on the line.

Thanks so much for all you do.

Sincerely,

Hillary Rodham Clinton

Was Race a Strong Factor in Clear Clinton Win in Pennsylvania?

I had long suggested that many understate the number of older Democrats who are (still) racist and who would tip many contests to Clinton. But I closed yesterday's post by saying that if Obama won or came close in Pennsylvania that might put the issue to rest.

Didn't happen. And the exit polls show, again, that one in four Clinton voters claim they would not vote for Obama in November. For whatever reason. And she got 70% of the white, blue-collar vote in most regions, including the area of central Pennsylvania where I spent a lot of time growing up and heard many a racist remark.

Other details from polling turn up other troubling numbers along those lines.

And once again, the old phenomenon of exit polls proven wrong, because people with racist views do not tell pollsters the truth on election day, again reared its head. The final exit polls today indicated only a 4% Clinton win. Now it looks like 10%. That difference is largely the racial vote, I'd guess. I call them the true "late deciders" -- they decide to show their bigotry in the privacy of the voting booth.

Tim Russert reported tonight that the GOP in North Carolina is now going to play the race card against Obama in primary ads there, which can only help Clinton.

How they said they wanted to make it less than 10% and pretty please let her get less than 10%. To hear some say well at least we bankrupted her only to have her raise 2.5 mil a few hours after her win. I almost could see the egg on their faces. I could almost hear the silence, it was deafening.

Thanks all who posted tonight; I've had great fun reading all the comments, and look forward to joining the discussion soon.

Donated $20.44 tonight. ;)

10 points, 200+K victory in the popular vote.

Yep, that's a butt-kicking by any measure. It is particularly so when you have outspent your opponent by a margin of 3+ to 1 and your fabled campaigning skills have landed you on the losing end of a lopsided beatdown even with 6 weeks to close the gap.

Damn it's a great night. And when and if Obama wins North Carolina, he will only further the narrative of his being the niche candidate that he is.

I wanted to let people know that I have put up a front-page video and introduction to same over at my website that I think many here will appreciate. I don't want to give too much away, so I'll just leave it at that. The link:

http://www.villarrealsports.com

The "Front Page Video" section is the third category down. If you feel like a chuckle, I think this will do the trick.

She's back, and she's ready. Barack is fading, and he has shown how unbelievably weak he is on several levels. As you would expect, superdelegates have much to think about after this evening.

I can see the developing meme here is this statement:  

Clinton won cause of race.  

Which is the flip side of:  

Obama was winning cause of race.  

All I can say is that if one argument, the latter argument must be condemned, then so should the former arguement.

Clinton won cause people in PA want her to be president.  NOT because there's something wrong with the people in PA.  NOT because she's white.  Or that Obama is black.  They liked her message and trust her to bring about the change America is desparate for.

What I would like to happen is for the first statement above, that Clinton won cause of race, to be considered AS VERBOTEN as the second argument.

In fact, I will point out that if one argument is considered more verboten than the other then that itself proves Geraldine Ferrarro's point.

The fact remains, though, that Clinton at this point looks stronger in the states that make the biggest difference in who wins and loses the White House: Ohio, whose primary she won by 10 points; Pennsylvania, where the average of recent polls shows her leading by about 6 points; and Florida, whose officially meaningless primary she won by 17 percentage points.

Florida is a trickier question, as neither candidate campaigned in the state. But show me a candidate struggling to win over Hispanic voters and Jewish voters, as Obama has, and I see someone with dubious prospects in the Sunshine State.

The party isn't in trouble because of Hillary Clinton. The party is in trouble because it's split. Hillary didn't make it split; it just is. The narrative, since the beginning of the primaries, has been that Obama is the preferred nominee and Hillary keeps getting in his way. The problem with that narrative is that it ignores a key role: the voter. In Ohio, PA, and New Jersey, the voters have chosen Hillary over Barack by ten points. In Indiana next week, they'll probably do the same--ignoring the "but Obama is the nominee!" narrative just like most PA voters did.

Most Democratic voters would prefer to settle the nomination sooner rather than later; it's just that we differ on who should be the nominee. There is considerable passion for Obama, but what the media has failed to get is that there is equal passion for Clinton. There's been a really annoying "blame Hillary" tack in the press that holds that she just won't give up, dammit, even though she can't win by the numbers (ignoring that, despite his 2% lead, neither can Obama). But it's not that Hillary won't give up: Hillary supporters won't give up. It seems that some of us are committed to the idea that Hillary Clinton would make a good president. I know I can't let go of that idea, and I've tried--for the sake of my own blood pressure.

She wants the SD to end it now. And she believes that all the "I won't vote" for your candidate if he/she is the nominee is just primary rhetoric that will fade as we get together to defeat McCain.

I don't think so. I think that many supporters of Obama and many supporters of Clinton loathe each other and their candidate more than they loathe McCain.

The problem is that no matter how many times people try to make McCain just like Bush, the media has painted him as a maverick and a straight talker for too many years. He isn't loathed like Bush and thus many Dems won't have a problem voting for him or not for Obama who they truly do loathe.

I think I deserve to be congratulated.

However just like I said Obama would still be the nominee.

The thing is this, you can say what ever you want about "getting out the kitchen".  When it comes down to it, Hillary won't drop out because Obama is black (mixed, what ever Jim Crow).  Her feeling is that she does not trust the American people to put a black man in office.  I'm willing to bet that comes out before November too.

This may upset a lot of you, but Clinton could care less who the next President ends up if she doesn't get the nomination.  She unlike us, is very well off.  Policies of the next President won't effect her, so why should she?  If she did care, she wouldn't try to "destroy" Obama every chance she gets.  He is by far no where near as negative as her.  All night her campaign manager and spokespersons have been trying to say how negative Obama is compared to her, and commentator after commentator have had to set each one of them straight.  Its obvious that Obama wants to talk issues, but it was very evident the last debate as well as the last few weeks Clinton is all about the attack.  Will it pay off?  We will see by May.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/opinion/23wed1.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

I left the following response, which is likely to not see the light of the comment board but which need to be said:
.
.
.

An embarrassing and untoward editorial from The Old Gray Lady. To put it mildly, you are far better than this.

There is a very good reason why you are writers and editors and the high-priced political consultants have their own jobs. To put it bluntly: Stay in the shallow end of the political pool and stick with spliced commas.

Senator Obama has not been properly vetted, much as your paper failed in its duty to help Americans vet the supposed intelligence which led up to the Iraq War, or failed to capture fabricating employees.

There are numerous reasons why the Times is slipping without any hopes of righting itself in terms of advertising revenue and distribution. This editorial is a succinct display of those reasons.

If you decide it is your obligation to play the new Pat Leahy to Mrs. Clinton, do not be surprised when your readers decide to mimic Dick Cheney to your Leahy.

Hillary won an enormous victory tonight, and your desire to have the referees prematurely stop the contest demonstrates the same lack of resilience and strength which has just seen Obama both turn down a debate in North Carolina and decide not to talk with reporters for 10 days.

John Adams would be disgusted with both you and the Illinois senator.

My question to all is this;
                  Who in this race has been winning Big states against all odds?  Who is still winning Big states even though being attacked by the so called big hitters in the Democratic Party?

I smell an upset in the air.

I predict Hillary winning IN by about 6% and Obama winning NC by only 4% or less.  Hillary is picking up speed and Obama can't land the knock out punch.  If he can't take out Hillary, he can't take out McCain.

Clinton and Republican John McCain have suffered scrutiny. The only one treated as an infant in swaddling clothes by the national media--until quite recently--is Sen. Change.

So let's wait until Labor Day, when Broadway Baby may become a catchphrase. Here's why: According to a 1982 New York Times report, Broadway Baby was implicated in an investigation of a series of violent armed robberies in New York--netting more than $2 million over a two-year span--committed by former Black Panthers and Weather Underground members in the early '80s.

Their aim? Global revolution, naturally. They needed cash, but the rich white parents weren't in a giving mood. So their privileged offspring grabbed guns, pointed them at the faces of the working man and, sometimes, they pulled the trigger.
At Broadway Baby, customers often paid by check and used driver's licenses for identification. On Dec. 28, 1979, information from two customer files was used to apply for two driver's licenses at the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles. The fraudulent licenses were used to rent getaway cars for the gang.

Investigators tracked the identities on two licenses for the getaway cars. The names belonged to women who had shopped at Broadway Baby in December 1979. But they weren't robbers.

And who was the manager of Broadway Baby during that period of the customer ID theft?

Dohrn, the future wife of Ayers, identified by investigators as taking customer information from one, and possibly both, of the women shoppers. Dohrn was never charged in that case.

Registered dems only. ID code is your social security number.