Wow...Obama Wins Missouri

[javero]

Posted: 2/6/08 at 12:47am

I'm stunned and pleased that FoxNews is calling it in Obama's favor in the bellwether state of MO. That has voted for the winner in every U.S. Presidential election beginning in 1904 except in 1956.

Also, as I predicted Obama picked up victories in critical mid-western Red states and Georgia. Alabama was a big surprise.

At this point no Clintonite wants to read this but I sincerely believe that Obama is more electable than Clinton in the general election against McCain. Hillary and McCain picked up basically the same states but Obama and the GOP contenders nabbed the mid-western and old south states.

Obama and a sitting Governor from the mid- or southwest can flip Kansas, Missouri and Minnesota in the general election. Either Obama or Clinton will carry the same blue states Kerry-Edwards picked up last time. However, both Clinton and McCain are vulnerable in the midwest and that scares the heck out of me where Clinton is concerned. This only fortifies my support for an Obama-Sebelius ticket.

Updated On: 2/6/08 at 12:47 AM

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 2/6/08 at 12:48am

I think it's Missouri's proximity to Illinois that won it for him.

[javero]

Posted: 2/6/08 at 12:49am

I agree!!!

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 2/6/08 at 12:51am

As did the population of St. Louis and Kansas City - they went huge for Obama, and made the difference. For all you know, they could end even on delegates in Mo.

It is all about the delegates. I wonder how close Obama will make California.

[javero]

Posted: 2/6/08 at 12:56am

Let me add that the upcoming MD-DC-VA primaries trend towards Obama. My MD ballot bulletin arrived in the mail today.

You're doggone right it's all about the delegates!

Updated On: 2/6/08 at 12:56 AM

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 2/6/08 at 12:57am

I would be happy with either candidate.

If it is Obama, I hope he has someone with some more foreign policy experience on his ticket.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 2/6/08 at 1:00am

As did the population of St. Louis and Kansas City - they went huge for Obama, and made the difference.

Right. Those cities usually do skew blue.

I'm finding this neck and neck nonsense to be annoying. There's just not that much difference between the two of them. Wake me when we've decided.

[javero]

Posted: 2/6/08 at 1:02am

"If it is Obama, I hope he has someone with some more foreign policy experience on his ticket."

Honestly, conventional wisdom is bouncing around my head now. My colleagues keep trying to sell me on an Obama-Webb ticket (alternate: Obama-Biden). If Obama-Sebelius is really d.o.a then I'd have to go with gasp...Obama-Webb. Webb barely won his VA Senate seat though.

Updated On: 2/6/08 at 01:02 AM

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 2/6/08 at 1:07am

I actually like Biden - he is a loose cannon, but a thoughtful, experienced man.

I actually thought of Biden as a running mate after he won Iowa.

Who knows what the next few weeks will bring.

If the GOP Candidate is McCain, then Obama will need someone on the ticket that can provide some credentials of defense and foreign policy.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 2/6/08 at 1:08am

I'm still hoping it turns out Clinton/Obama.

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 2/6/08 at 1:17am

Actually, so am I.

I think it would be an amazing ticket.

But, Clinton would not run as Obama's VP - I cannot see that happening.

[javero]

Posted: 2/6/08 at 1:17am

I don't want Hillary to sink his chances in 2012 if she's the eventually party nominee but fails to win in the general election. A losing running mate is instant damaged goods ala Edwards. Obama is young enough to wait out a Clinton victory/defeat.

Like I wrote before, I'll support Hillary if she's the nominee but nobody's calculus can convince me after tonight that she and running mate will pick up those 270 electoral votes against some permutation of McCain/Huckabee.

Many online posters elsewhere are depicting a McCain-Clinton showdown as a "worst case scenario" for the country. That aside, you could write in one of Frank Perdue's chickens on the ballot and I'd vote for it if that was the only choice against the GOP machine come Nov.

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 2/6/08 at 1:28am

I think the only way Clinton could win it is if she asks Obama to be her VP. He draws crowds and votes that she simply does not. She has the faithful democratic base, he energizes new voters, swings, independents. Without Obama I think a Clinton-McCain ticket will create only apathy (and disillusionment) for Democrats while mobilizing Republicans to prevent the reelection of the Clinton duo.

I think the record number of democrats voting this year is very telling...

I'm not sure Obama wants VP though. If he doesn't win the nom this year he's a shoo-in next time. I almost feel that a term or two as VP could only lessen his impact, and it doesn't do much for Hillary in any practical sense--they're very similar politicians.

[StickToPriest]

Posted: 2/6/08 at 2:08am

Ew. While I see the strategy in Obama-Webb, it really turns me off.

[Dame Fanadette]

Posted: 2/6/08 at 10:12am

Electability at this point really is a non-issue. The energy in the primaries for the Democrats in general is just amazing and I really would like some more back-up to his electability then him just winning Missouri which was extremely close. Lets look at Clinton winning California where as of Monday in polls she was behind by double-digits in some, also her commanding victory in Massachusetts where Obama got the backing of Kennedy. Clinton is still the frontrunner.

[robbiej]

Posted: 2/6/08 at 10:30am

I'm wondering...IF Obama does get the nomination (and I'm a supporter...Black and Blue, baby! I'm gonna keep saying that till it sticks), do we think it's possible to see him tap Richardson? Lots believe he is exceedingly qualified, he'll do well in the Western battleground states and he'll shore up the Latino vote.

Is it, as I feel about UPS, just too much brown?

[South Fl Marc]

Posted: 2/6/08 at 10:31am

I think its amazing that Clinton won Massachusetts. Obama not only got the endorsements of both of the popular senators (Kery and Kennedy) but also the governor.

[robbiej]

Posted: 2/6/08 at 10:32am

But wasn't she also up by 40 points a few weeks ago in Mass?

[javero]

Posted: 2/6/08 at 11:43am

I caution against dismissing the electability concerns at this juncture in the primary race. Hillary was supposed to win CA, NY, NJ, MA by default; no news there. She's been running as the front-runner since last year. It would have been a colossal upset had Obama nabbed CA and the larger contiguous northeast states. Instead he picked up DE and CT from that northeast liberal strongholdk. Whoever wins the party nomination will carry the northeast block and CA.

The most telling tale last night though was the outcome of the mid western races and the two Old South states AL and GA in particular. The mid western states allowed Obama to claim the most states. Yes Virginia,it's all about the delegates but last night's referendum on Hillary revealed that support for her in the mid west is soft. Obama has become a formidable opponent and her air of both inevitability and invincibility has been shot all to ...

The Repubs are keenly aware of this and are scrambling to capitalize. They will put their differences aside and rally around McCain-Huckabee at the most opportune moment. Last night, MS Governor and GOP power broker Haley Barbour subtly released the marching orders to the troops to quit the quibbling and fall into formation. After the MD-VA-DC primaries, most of the ultra right wing fringe of the GOP will be over the mourning of the political passing of the standard bearer Bill Frist, who Romney has failed to replace in their hearts. Fred Thompson never gained traction. My point is that “electability” has always been an issue on the other side since day one. Bill Frist was destined to be the GOP savior this election cycle but got short circuited.

We Dems must move past gender/identity politics and embrace a winning strategy for the long haul. A Senator/Governor ticket is needed to tackle McCain/Huckabee. Both our hopefuls had better be beyond moral reproach and at least one of them has to have some serious foreign policy credentials without too much blood on his or her hands. I was holding out for Obama-Sebelius but have shifted to Obama-Webb out of political expediency. Not even McCain wants to lock horns with Webb on foreign policy. Obama-Richardson has a built in liability that's already been pointed out by another poster.

If Hillary picks up the nomination, she'll have a herculean task ahead of her. She is the opponent of choice for the GOP.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 2/6/08 at 11:50am

Whoever wins the Democratic nomination is the targetr of choice for the Republicans. Do not dream for a second that they would "go easy" on Obama. They will say awful, horrible nasty things about him. They will attack him with anything they can find and/or make up. Remember they ran against an absolutely cerified war hero in 2004 and called him a liar and a coward.

And if Clinton wins, Obama would be the dream running mate- but would he? If Obama wins, Richardson will be the VP. (Clinton will NOT accept #2.)

[javero]

Posted: 2/6/08 at 11:55am

Joe,

I can accept the Obama-Richardson scenario you describe if Hillary doesn't make it over the wall. Richardson is a sitting governor from the southwest with impressive foreign policy credentials. It's dicey but in my mind a better ticket than any featuring Hillary. With all due respect to Clintonites, I still think that she's the 2nd most polarizing figure in US politics today after Dubya without placing any blame at her feet.

[Calvin]

Posted: 2/6/08 at 12:01pm

What I don't understand is the logic of how these talk-radio types who loathe, LOATHE McCain -- Have you read the sludge on FreeRepublic lately? Forums on blogs like Michelle Malkin's? -- are going to suck it up and vote for him after being tossed a VP bone like Huckabee, who many of them aren't huge fans of either, while Hillary Clinton is so polarizing that a bunch of Democrats are going to sit on their hands come November.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 2/6/08 at 12:16pm

Javero's going to push this senator/governor thingy until his face turns blue.

Why did you remover Sibelius from you signature? Lose faith in her winning ability?

[Midnight Radio]

Posted: 2/6/08 at 12:17pm

javero, your posts are full of inaccuracies and spin. First of all, Obama only won over Clinton in Missouri by 1%, a difference of less than 10,000 votes; in a state he was already expected to win because of the close proximity to his home state of Illinois. Some news networks even had declared it for Hillary earlier in the night, calling it a huge win for her. Clearly, this is not surprising or monumentous win for Obama. Please do not try and spin it like that.

Also, it was not a given that she would win NY, NJ, and California. Most expected her to win 2 of the 3 and still survive in the race, but this certainly was an unexpected accomplishment. Also, to the extent that she womped Barack in California was also very unexpected, when we were told all along it was likely to be neck and neck.

And to say she was expected to win in MA is an all out lie. Perhaps you forget but Barack got the coveted Kennedy endorsement, which should have all out taken that race. The Kennedys are treated like American royalty in that state and the fact that Hil came from behind for a total surprise win is HUGE.

Clinton is leading Barack now 41% to 36% in delegates needed to win. It is by no means decided yet, but it is CLINTON who leaves Super Tuesday with the momentum, not your boy Barack.


Updated On: 2/6/08 at 12:17 PM

[javero]

Posted: 2/6/08 at 12:21pm

I'll get back w/ you later Midnite!