ojai news at The Ojai Post :: blog, newspaper, events in Ojai, California

Alabama, Georgia, Kansas, Minnesota, North Dakota, Colorado, Idaho, Utah. What do these states all have in common? Well, it isn't their large African American populations. Obama won all of them. So much for the hype that he couldn't win in white bread america.

I live in such a sheltered, liberal world - I never dreamed Huckabee could win so many states.

Natch I've been pouring over results and it's mostly really good. However, I'm a native Californian and I'm starting to become alarmed. This could very well turn out to be the night California killed the hope of the world. I really wish that isn't true, and it's not over till it's over, but with nearly 17% reporting Clinton appears to be winning by 22%. Seriously out of step with the rest of the country tonight. As a native, it shames me tonight. I've been looking into the results so far tonight and I have many thoughts and I will go into them in detail later. Suffice it to say, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa is largely responsible and I can only hope he will be held responsible.

Interesting night on the Democratic side. Hillary took the big states, Barack took many more states than expected. Looks like the delegate split will be extremely close, with perhaps a small break towards Obama. This sets him up well for the coming contests, as he has huge advantages in small donors and polls are trending towards him.

spk - I read somewhere tonight that mayoral endorsements seem to carry far more weight than other political/celebrity endorsements in terms of actual voter results. And that certainly seems to be the case in LA, contrasted with Massachusetts, for instance.

My prediction - Obama will have a huge fundraising day tomorrow, giving him momentum going into the next few contests. I think we'll see this so tight that it will go to the convention (in June, right?).

Heather-
I would say you are the winner tonight for the profound self-insight you have had.
It's sorta fun livin in a dream, but it's really super-dandy when you finally wake up!

SPK,

I’ve been away for a while and coming back to get caught up here was really disappointing to me when I landed on your comments. No offense, but several of your comments really come off (to me, anyway) as boorish, petulant and oozing of “sour grapes”. Yeah, we get it – you can’t stand Hilary. But what purpose is served by accusing her of election fraud (geez, seemingly moments after reports circulated of potential problems – when many of us were probably quite willing to let all the facts come out before jumping to conclusions – you jumped on a hysterical bandwagon assuming she was involved in vote “theft”.

We ALL are very passionate about who we are endorsing. But in the spirit of trying to construct a united, formidable front in which to block another Republican victory, wouldn’t it be better to lay off the Clinton-bashing. Or at least rethink the verbal histrionics: “This could very well turn out to be the night California killed the hope of the world” – you can’t really be serious…Uh, can you? This is a dead heat - just as many people voted for Clinton as they did for the candidate you support. Your vicious hyperbole is insulting to all of us who support her and her chances of taking on the Republican Machine.

There is no republican machine. A liberal will be in the white house no matter which side wins. McCain is a liberal and a liar. He's trying to appeal to conservatives now by aligning himself with Reagan, which he has nothing in common. Wrong on immigration, wrong on tax cuts, wrong on global warming, he's a true lefty and is betraying conservatism. Might as well put Obama or Hilary in there and see where the country goes, I can tell you if we don't start building nuclear power plants real fast we will be looking at $6.00/ gal gas in the near future. We will probably be looking at that in any event because of the global warming taxes that will be invoked. I wonder how much money will be diverted to solar panels? Should be interesting to watch. It will be interesting to see how the left deals with another terrorist attack, especially if it's a nuke.

Just talked to some family in the South. One of my nieces (17) was lying out watching the stars last night with a bunch of her friends discussing politics. Awww, I never thought I would hear that coming from this particular set of teenagers. (That, hands down, is due to Barak Obama!! Right on!!!).

But THEN I hear that they are all being told at their various Churches (Baptist) that Obama (“Osama”) is a Muslim / “secret Muslim” and if he wins he “won’t even swear on the Bible”, something else about terror attacks, etc. etc. etc. This group was questioning/debating all this brainwashing (again, awww!!) and then the mother of the kid whose home they were at comes out and starts giving them a piece of her mind about her thoughts on the subject (let’s just say – not an Obama fan).

When one of the Anonymous’ wrote the post about this, I truly thought he/she was over- exaggerating the threat of this happening, but now…..? How do you feel about THAT segment of your party, Brian?

Whichever candidate happens to end up with the nomination, he or she better start sharpening their claws!!!

Brian,

It looks like you are getting your political views, along with your views about climate science, from your man with the Masters Degree in Applied Physics and Electronics from the Linköping University of Technology.

I don't put anything past McCain, obviously that is on par with spiking redwood trees or something similar on the left.

David, at least I don't get my info from Al Gore who is a polititian and probably got an F in science.

Brian,

Your point about Al Gore would be well-taken if he were bucking the entire scientific establishment with his views. Then you would be entitled to ridicule him all you like. Fact is, though, his views correspond with the consensus of real scientists -- so much so that he won a NOBLE PRIZE for them.

It seems like if you want to buck the entire science establishment in the field of climate science you ought to have at least a few publications to your name....

failing that, perhaps a professorship in the field, in however humble a university....

failing that, you might at least have an education in the field....

in any case, if you want to argue that the consensus of climate scientists is all wrong, seems like you would want to have some teensy-weensy better credentials than a MASTERS degree in APPLIED PHYSICS AND ELECTRONICS from the LINKOPING UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY..........

any Noble prizes on the horizon for your friend from Linkoping University of Technology??

Given that the nomination is still up for grabs;

Given that between Barack and Hillary, there is not a millimeter of difference as far as policy;

Given that the overlap between Barack and Hillary donors shows they are both "beholden" to the same people;

It seems reasonable to focus on LTOR's point. This country desperately needs to get the Republicans out, and start the process of turning them into a permanent fringe party. That means, between Barack and Hillary, we need to soberly assess and pick the candidate who will win, and who can start the process of creating a permanent center-left to progressive majority, which is the only thing that can save this country.

Here are the anonymous comments that LTOR was referring to:

"But if he [Obama]is the nominee, you better believe they [the Republican attack machine] will be able to whip their base into an unreasoning hatred of him twice over in no time. It's easy to get Repugnicans whipped up into a crazed state of hate and fear, esp over a black man whose middle name is Hussein.

Hillary is a woman and wife of Bill. That's all they've got, and they've thrown everything they can whip up at her already. We are presently looking at the worst it will be for her.

Barack is an African American whose middle name is Hussein. He lived abroad as a kid. He's light on national-level experience. He's got shady backers from Chicago under indictment. He has not done anything nationally except run for President - nobody knows him. He is easy pickings for the Repugnicans.

Repugnicans haven't gotten too crazed over Obama yet because they don't really believe he will be the candidate. For a Repugnican, a white woman, wife of Bill, is as far out as we can get. In their minds, no party would nominate a black man named Hussein.

If we do nominate him, is Ojai such a bubble that people cannot imagine just how ugly things are going to get? The Repugnicans will play race, they'll play Muslim terrorist, they'll play inexperience, they'll play dirty Chicago politics, alleged shady backers, alleged shady deals. They'll play "big government liberal with no real world experience."

But mostly, they'll play terrorist. And they will have registered Repugnicans in a fervor, believing he is actually an agent of Osama. Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter will be all over the airwaves - "See? We told you these Democrats were terrorist traitors in league with Al Qaeda! My website has photos showing Obama training in Pakistan with Osama himself!" Fox News will duly report. "Obama trained under Osama!" The Bush White House will release email intercepts between Osama and Obama. Heck, if he's doing OK in the polls, they'll probably annouce he's plotting to dirty bomb the White House and send him to Gitmo. (Then, they'll say he's not a U.S. resident, and have him pulled off the ballots. Or, maybe they'll just use the excuse to declare martial law and suspend the elections entirely.)

Obama even rhymes with Osama.

What do you bet in Florida and Ohio ballots will actually read "Osama" instead of Obama?

(Oops, sorry, just a spelling error. The Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision will call it harmless error, and anoint President McCain. Who, unlike Hillary, is not just ready to lead on Day One, but ready to bomb China, Iran and Russia on Day One.)

Bill and Hillary can deal with that kind of crap and win. Can Obama?

Or is he another good guy who will follow in the footsteps of Gore and Kerry?

Seems to me since Barack and Hillary will do the same things as President, we ought to play it safe and stick with Hillary. Let Barack run in 2016, after Hillary's put Osama in jail and Al Qaeda is a distant memory of a dark time."

If we are going to anoint Obama as the candidate, we need to be very comfortable that we can deal with the kinds of attacks that are coming. (And others we won't even think of - could anyone have imagined before the 2004 election that war hero, "who will be the last man to die for a mistake?" Kerry would be vilified as a coward and bad soldier? Let me suggest that Ojairans imaginations, broad as they are, cannot even anticipate the kinds of things that will be thrown at Barack by the shameless Repugnicans, from pulpits, newspaper headlines, TV and radio, from "respectable" business, religious and political leaders, from all their organs of hate, fear and misinformation.)

So, my question: If Barack is our nominee, how are we going to fend off these attacks? How are we going to keep control of the debate?

And: Is it not true that, unlike Obama, Hillary has nowhere to go but up? Haven't they thrown everything they've got at her already? At this point, isn't Hillary teflon to new attacks? Immune? Seems to me everyone who will be swayed by attacks on her already is. And she is still winning.

Re Comment #12 above:

Obama and Clinton themsevles are addressing this point:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080206/ap_on_el_pr/obama

Obama is quoted as saying:

""I assure you that having engaged in a contest against them [Clinton] for the last year that they've pulled out all the stops. And you know I think what is absolutely true is whoever the Democratic nominee is the Republicans will go after them. The notion that somehow Senator Clinton is going to be immune from attack or there's not a whole dump truck they can't back up in a match between her and John McCain is just not true."

It wasn't the only point at which he said he would do better against the Republicans in the fall.

"I have no doubt that I can get the people who vote for Senator Clinton. ... It's not clear that Senator Clinton can get all the people I'm getting," he said.""

The first part of the quote is the kind of statement that concerns me. If Obama really believes that the softballs he has gotten from the Clintons over the last year are even in the same universe as what is coming from the Repugnicans if he is the nominee, we all need to be concerned.

On the other hand, can he really draw out enough new voters, and keep enough of the misguided people who say they will vote for him but not Hillary, to make up for people the Repugs will draw out based on their attacks?

(I say "misquided" advisedly: supporting Obama, but refusing to vote for HIllary seems misguided because there is not a peep of difference between what Clinton and Obama promise to do if elected.)

The danger is that he will be a Kerry or Gore, tack to the Repugnican right and look weak in response to the attacks. That will lose a bunch of us, will not gain anyone from the dark side, and potentially tip enough undecideds to the Repugs to let them steal the election once more.

Brian, I just wanted to echo and join in your post #7. You are right. McCain is a real liberal, and he can't be trusted. I hope you will tell everyone you know how bad he is and to just stay away from the polls if he is the nominee. And please, join me in this pledge: If McCain is the nominee, I will vote for the Democrat.

Hey, Brian -- maybe you should think about supporting Obama: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03exelon.html?_r=3&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Worth the free registration.

Small amounts of tritium occur naturally in most surface water. A nuclear reactor, however, produces higher concentrations of tritium in water. The bottom line is that it poses absolutly no danger.

Now that the dust has settled from the primaries, looks like it's time to re-think things a bit. The Republican nominee is now clear, and he will have the luxury of sitting back and gathering his resources for months while the Democrats engage in long, drawn-out internecine trench warfare.

The Democratic primaries are over in early June, and the convention is not until late August. Seems clear no one will have the necessary 2025 delegates by end of primaries.... so that will leave the whooooole summer for backroom deals and infighting. Not a pretty picture.

It's all shaping up to be a perfect recipe for getting another war-mongering Republican into the White House.

Okay, to keep this simple I'm only going to use actual pledged delegates. In other words, delegates that the candidates got because of the voting or caucusing. "Super" delegates can do whatever they want including change their affiliation on a whim at any time. Until they vote at the convention, we do not really know where they stand.

Near as I can tell, right now Obama is leading the delegate count.

Obama - 883
Clinton - 862

That's 50.6% to 49.4%. Basically a tie. There are still 47 delegates from Alabama, Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, and New Mexico from Feb. 5th still being counted to see where they go. If we assume the same exact split, then the final totals will be:

Obama - 907
Clinton - 885

There are 1461 pledged delegates left between tomorrow and June 7th. If we assume a continuing tie, something I don't think will happen, but for sake of argument. we end up with:

Obama - 1646
Clinton - 1607

To be the nominee they need 2025 delegates. The above totals do not include the delegates from Florida and Michigan, of which there are 313. The whole Democratic party and all the candidates agreed that those delegates would not count back in Aug. Now Clinton is reneging on that agreement and suggesting that they be seated. There's also talk that those two states could hold "do-over" caucuses in March to solve the problem. Either way, it's unlikely that all of those two states delegates will go to one or the other candidates. Most likely they will be split. Even if they were all to go to one of the candidates, it would still not bring their total into nominee status. Again assuming the same split, we end up on June 5th with:

1804 - Obama
1762 - Clinton

That leaves the "super" delegates. There are 796 "super" delegates that can change their minds as often as they like right up to the convention. Howard Dean and the party officials DO NOT want to go all the way to the convention. They know that a brokered convention would benefit Clinton. Because of the Clinton machine, it's likely that Hillary Clinton would get the majority of the "super" delegates if this scenario were to come to pass.

Earlier I stated that I don't think the remaining votes will be split along the same lines they are right now. I think Obama has all the momentum and that he will win the majority of the remaining states. However, to give you an idea of just where we are, if Obama were to win 75% of the remaining delegates that would give us the following by June 5th:

Obama - 2003
Clinton - 1250

If Edwards were to endorse Obama and give his 26 delegates, Obama wins on June 5th. I think this is the likely outcome. The "super" delegates could still give the lead to Clinton, but I seriously doubt that they would do that.

As far as I can tell, I think Obama will likely win the next few primaries (the states with a small number of delegates). But don't forget - Pennsylvania, Texas and Ohio should (in theory, anyway from what I've heard and read) be Hilary territory. Will the momentum and the likely bump from the next month or so carry him through? Who knows. I say, it ain't over til it's over.

Hillary needs to bow out now. If it is a tie or 75% to 25% as SPK says in the upcoming states, it will do a lot damage if she stays in the race. It should be obvious to everyone by now that Hillary is leading a campaign while Barack is leading a movement. Hillary has no chance of winning the nomination through anything other than back room dealing and connections. If that happens, John McCain becomes the next President. She has to stop and retain some dignity.

Stop the violence - that made zero sense.

#21 are you ESL? Barack has all the momentum. He has a movement behind him. Hillary is running a good campaign machine and that\'s all. If she drags her feet all the way to the convention, she will destroy the chances of the democrat party to win. If she gets all the super delegates in back room dealing, she will shurely lose.

I understood the words of what you were saying, thanks. But surely you must understand that just because you think and feel something it doesn't necessarily follow that it's true.

"If it is a tie or 75% to 25% as SPK says in the upcoming states, it will do a lot damage if she stays in the race". Stop right there. Surely, you don't mean to imply that the percentage of people who voted for Hilary (the same percentage who voted for Obama, btw) have no say or value in this race! Surely, you can understand that an equal number of people feel that Obama won't be able to win come election time. Surely.

It's not just about winning !

That's right. It's not just about winning. It's also about losing. The consequences of losing to a Republican would be game over for this country, this generation, and perhaps the world. Remember, the Republican candidates are uniformly eager to start World War III. That's their platform. War, fear and hate. With tactical nukes.

Friends, its 1940, we are Germany, and we have one chance to turn around what's already underway. Hillary or Barack are equally up to the task, and committed to dealing with it exactly the same way. There is not the slightest meaningful difference in program or policy between them. So the ONLY question is, which one can definitely win, IF we all get behind HER.

Maybe Barack has a movement. Certainly he is inspiring. He got my primary vote. But he needed to do better than he has done to carry the day as the nominee. 51% to 49% ain't cutting it, that's no movement that will beat the Republicans when you consider all the issues.

Hillary's the one who we know can beat the Republicans. If Barack ends up as the nominee, his entire much-vaunted "movement" could sink as fast as Kerry did when the Swift-boating starts. Or faster. Can we take that risk? Especially when there is not the teensiest sliver of policy difference between these two candidates?

For those who have not been paying attention, have you seen that the Barack strategy and phenomenon continues to include this idea that he can get disaffected Republicans to vote for him, as well as independents?

That's just Kerry redux, without the credentials. Republicans will not vote for Barack Obama in a general election. Independents will be more likely to swing to Hillary before all is said and done.

The Democratic Party leadership is full of wimps and weakasses, but they aren't completely stupid. The ticket should and will be Hillary/Barack, unless fools, disruptors and the misguided prevent that from happening.

Let's start getting behind the combined ticket that makes sense. That gives us the movement and the winner. Let's not get so caught up in Barack-worship that we start giving him the idea not to take the VP slot, or God forbid, to push to the convention floor the idea that he might be the front-runner. Dividing between these two candidates is just stupid. Put them together, Hillary at the front, and let's get the Republicans OUT.

I'm afraid if we are so focused on just "winning" that we are missing the bigger picture which is being true to our convictions. Only by being true to our convictions can we ultimately be at peace within ourselves.

Well, Barack had a good day yesterday, but the real action in the delegate count is already behind the scenes. This race is going to be decided by the superdelegates, not by the voters. SPK's vision of 75% of the remaining elected delegates going to Obama is just a fantasy. And the idea that Howard Dean can do anything to stop the superdelegates from thwarting the will of the people is another fantasy. Bill Clinton and his machine are working the phones day and night and they don't give a rat's ass what a wreck it will make of the Democratic party if Obama wins the most states, the most popular votes, and the most elected delegates, and still loses the nomination, which is exactly what is on track to happen.

So there is no hope?

no hope for hope

Bill can call day and night, but it just doesn't matter. Okay, not 75%, but how about 70%. A clean sweep. And I think that number will continue getting closer to 75% in the upcoming primaries and caucuses. The Democrats are not the Republicans, they are not unable to see reality. If Obama wins all or even most of the states between now and June 5th, the super delegates will vote for him. The party officials will see to it that he gets the nomination because any other outcome would be suicide for the party as a whole. There's plenty of hope. I only hope Obama is who everyone hopes him to be and not another ivy league big business shill like Bill Clinton.

On the Chelsea "slur". This is a perfect example of what is wrong with the whole Clinton campaign. Hillary Clinton comes out infuriated that someone would suggest that the campaign was "pimping out" Chelsea to help Clinton's low numbers among the young. It seems disingenuous and calculated. The real response to this admittedly poor choice of words is for Chelsea to come out and say that she believes in her Mom and that no one is "pimping her out". She is not a little girl. She is a graduate of Stanford University. She's no dope and she doesn't need to be protected from the big bad MSNBC. I can't help but think that the Clinton campaign believes it will get more milage out of their outraged response than they would from Chelsea standing up for herself. Calculated