Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Clintonistas Ready For Their Date With the Washington Caucus



Today someone from the Obama campaign doorbelled me.

Choices, choices - go with the campaign that got more delegates (Obama) or go with the one that has been involved in insider politics for 35+ years (Clinton).

Hmm, wonder how Edwards will do?

Posted by Will in Seattle | January 19, 2008 6:31 PM

hey we all love Obama but we all aren't drinking the kool aid -- Here's the delegate scorecard:

Clinton 210, Obama 123.

Posted by unPC | January 19, 2008 6:57 PM

How about going with the candidate who can grab independents and doesn't poll worse than the generic democrat in polls?

Posted by karst | January 19, 2008 7:18 PM

So are they training them on the same voter suppression tactics that Clinton's team used in Nevada?

Also, the Culinary Union's endorsement just became worthless. If you can't deliver the votes, why bother courting you?

Posted by Gitai | January 19, 2008 7:20 PM

I was there all day today. If it seemed low energy towards the end it was mainly because most of us were becoming tired after having called Nevada and Washington voters all morning... a 8 am start is early for a Saturday, but it worked! Go Clinton!

Posted by go clinton | January 19, 2008 7:29 PM


The problem with posting essentially the same exact thing on three separate threads (as you did regarding the delegate count) is that when your comment is found to be in fact incorrect (as yours was), you look 3x less credible.

Better luck next time!

Posted by Big Sven | January 19, 2008 7:35 PM

I was there too... by the end of the day there were about 70 people there!

And what's with the "suppression techniques" crap? Since when can you hold a caucus where it's most convenient for your candidate of choice? bullshit.

Posted by watcher | January 19, 2008 7:41 PM

@7--Watcher. Read what went down in NV. It's slimy and not befitting a Democrat. Of course, seeing that the Clintons are behind it doesn't surprise me. It's a shame, really.

Posted by Michigan Matt | January 19, 2008 7:58 PM

Whoops. Now the NV Dems are backtracking. WiS is probably right about the count.

Posted by Big Sven | January 19, 2008 7:59 PM

Yeah, you'd never think a campaign with an advisor who specializes in union busting would ever have anything to do with suppressing union vote. Gosh!

Posted by karst | January 19, 2008 8:05 PM

Of course Sen. Margarita Moneytree was there. Corrupt minds think alike.

Posted by Mike of Renton | January 19, 2008 8:24 PM

As far as I know, "Clintonista" was a term invented by Dick Morris about 8 years back. It's used by people who believe every trumped-up rumor about the Clintons, from Whitewater to gun-running. It doesn't really make me happy to see it here.

Posted by eclexia | January 19, 2008 8:42 PM

@3 Did you mean to link to the straw poll results?

Posted by Anon | January 19, 2008 8:47 PM

The spin is amazing.

Going to court -- to ask a judge if the voting system violates your rights -- is now "voter suppression techniques."

What sanctimonious bullshit.

Posted by unPC | January 19, 2008 8:48 PM

Nobody at my caucus site better try to pull that "present votes" bullshit. Lame! Maybe I'll photocopy and highlight this New York Times article just in case.

Posted by annie | January 19, 2008 8:53 PM


So filing a lawsuit is now "asking a judge"? Pot and kettle.

Posted by Mike of Renton | January 19, 2008 8:54 PM

Annie, I think the "present" votes bs might be the least of the problems.

Posted by Mike of Renton | January 19, 2008 8:58 PM

According to CNN's main website, Obama has 2 more delegates than Clinton on a national level.


Don't bring a knife to a gunfight.

Posted by Will in Fremont | January 19, 2008 9:46 PM

Total Delegates:
Clinton 210
Obama 123

Posted by Will is an Idiot | January 19, 2008 10:18 PM


What a bunch of fuckin' crybabies. I guarantee you, we Clinton supporters won't be such touchy grumpy douches if she loses in SC.

Posted by Big Sven | January 19, 2008 11:49 PM

Just to be clear: I'm not talking about annie or Will in Seattle or elenchos or any of the other sane people. I'm talking about the kind of oversensitive under-contextuals who would, for instance, quote the dailykos blog of a paranoid Obama supporter.

Posted by Big Sven | January 19, 2008 11:51 PM

Nice one Sven...

What is with Obama supporters and their inability to lose gracefully?

If you keep thinking you are winning, you'll continue to lose.

Posted by I heart Big Sven | January 20, 2008 9:44 AM

Hey Annie, maybe you should take a look at this snappy NY Times article (since you are so fond of "facts").

People that support people THINK they are actually voting for Bill Clinton (the return.)

I wish I could find an older poll (from the fall) that asked GOP voters who they supported and Obama placed 3rd or 4th with the GOP. If the Democrats are going to clearly win (remember there are more Katherine Harris & Ken Blackwell's out there), we will need the independents and Republicans that Obama will pull in. Clinton will NEVER have the support of the GOP base.

Posted by Shawn Fassett | January 20, 2008 2:08 PM

Yes, Jim Kainber is "buoyant".

(Hi, Jim, if you're reading this...)

Posted by michael strangeways | January 21, 2008 10:30 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).