Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Obama Speaks: "The Eyes of the... | Re: Clinton Takes Texas, Ohio ... »

Tuesday, March 4, 2008

Clinton Takes Texas, Ohio Primaries

posted by on March 4 at 21:57 PM


Says CNN.

RSS icon Comments


That should read "Takes Texas Primary" - BO can still win the caucus, which is 1/3 of the delegates.

Posted by stinkbug | March 4, 2008 10:02 PM

I look forward to the flood of commentary tomorrow, from all the same folks who said that Clinton should drop out, as they explain to us why Obama should drop out.

Posted by eclexia | March 4, 2008 10:05 PM

Anyone else find it mind-blowing that Texas and Ohio wield so much power for the DEMOCRATIC nominee? Ugh.

Posted by kid icarus | March 4, 2008 10:07 PM

Holy Fuck would they just pick someone already!? I don't fucking care! Obama, Clinton, the reanimated corpse of JFK himself, JUST GET IT OVER WITH!

Posted by brandon h | March 4, 2008 10:08 PM

obama needs to drop out for the good of the party. he's basically handing the presidency to mccain.

Posted by yeswedid | March 4, 2008 10:11 PM

Hooray! Chalk up another victory for the fearmongers and the racebaiters! And Clinton still can't win without the superdelegates overruling the will of the people. Yet she's totally willing to dip into the Karl Rove playbook, tearing down Obama and her party's chances in November, all to placate... what, her ego? Politics at it's worse. I doubt McCain would stoop this low in the general election.

Posted by Mr Me | March 4, 2008 10:16 PM

This is like a Monopoly game gone boring where Obama and Clinton are the only two left, but Obama owns both Boardwalk and Park Place, so you just have to wait forever to probably see Obama win anyway.

Posted by mackro mackro | March 4, 2008 10:17 PM

really #5? I think it's the opposite. Watch McCain beat Clinton like a drum in November. It will be a bloodbath. But hey then all the obese people of Ohio and Texas that voted for Clinton tonight can enjoy their unemployment and "sugar diabetus". Boom. The Republican majority continues....

Posted by hosono | March 4, 2008 10:19 PM

Also, why are people giving Hillary the credit that she can "tear down" Obama moreso than the GOP will? Even a crippled GOP will have access to every dirty trick in the book. Hillary doesn't own that book. What a strange conspiracy theory.

Meanwhile, Iraq and the economy get worse. And McCain is going to alienate many of his potential voters whether he chooses Huck as VP or not.

But if you guys wanna keep thinking that the Democrats are going to destroy themselves, *at least* wait until after the conventions to say that. What's happening right now is just the boring clown sideshow.

Posted by mackro mackro | March 4, 2008 10:19 PM

Oh, and Yes We Did (@5), are you kidding me? He's gonna drop out when he has an insurmountable lead in pledged delegates. Of course, this probably will be the new line out of the Clinton camp.

Posted by Mr Me | March 4, 2008 10:20 PM

If Clinton wins, I'm sitting this one out. She doesn't represent me.

Posted by bma | March 4, 2008 10:21 PM


Posted by Justin J | March 4, 2008 10:21 PM

It may seem absurd but now I can't help but wonder about a split ticket, with either as the headliner. Hmm...

Posted by Madashell | March 4, 2008 10:21 PM

@6: I'm with you man. I keep wondering (aloud) if McCain would be a better choice than Hillary and my friends keep flipping out at me...

Posted by Mike | March 4, 2008 10:23 PM

@8 - Nice dig on the obese stereotype. Classy.
@ 11 - You sound like a petulant child.

Posted by Madashell | March 4, 2008 10:24 PM

But it's about the delegates and Obama might walk off with the most delegates tonight ( if it's not a wash).

Posted by Todd | March 4, 2008 10:30 PM

@9: Even if Hillary's skin-darkening, Muslim-insinuating, scary-terrorist attack against Obama doesn't tear him down, the superdelegates overruling the popular vote will turn off so many people the democrats won't stand a chance in November. This is no conspiracy. And yes, Obama's lead is as good as insurmountable. Hillary has to win all the remaining states by 16 points or so to overtake him. If she cared about the party, she'd drop out-- in fact, she'd have dropped out a while ago. Instead she's gonna slash-and-burn her way to a disputed nomination that will be worthless in November against McCain (who would beat her anyways, btw-- Independents hate her).

Posted by Mr Me | March 4, 2008 10:30 PM

#15: Have you ever been to Texas or Ohio?

Posted by hosono | March 4, 2008 10:34 PM

You sound like a petulant child.

Point being?

I think that Clinton is a lousy candidate, and she hasn't said anything that would make me think that she would represent my opinions in the Oval Office. So, if it were to come down to McCain versus Clinton, why should I have to choose between two candidates that are quite undesirable to me?

Posted by bma | March 4, 2008 10:40 PM

"You sound like a petulant child."

we are a nation of petulant children which is why we deserve everything we get
the patriot act
project runway

Posted by linus | March 4, 2008 10:45 PM

I'll take Eli's reporting any day. ECB needs to hit the showers - her currency is plummeting faster than the dollar.

Posted by ho' know | March 4, 2008 10:51 PM

@ 19 - Great logic there. Oh yeah, Clinton and McCain are so alike.
Voted for Nader last couple of times around?

Posted by Madashell | March 4, 2008 10:53 PM

One comment on all the caucus brou-ha-ha that I've been wanting to make for a long time.

Here's my take: Caucuses are great - grew up with them. It's Democratic/Republican Party members choosing the DEMOCRATIC/REPUBLICAN PARTY nominee. To busy to get out to DEMOCRATIC/REPUBLICAN PARTY caucus with other party members? No probs, maybe you're just not that committed. There's plenty of union folk, plenty of activists, plenty of goateed technocrats, plenty of people down at the tavern, local church and the Dunkin Donuts that actually give a shit about choosing their party's nominee.

As for the bullshit notion that everyone should get to vote on the nominee, like it's some kind of constitutional right? Bullshit. That's what the fucking general is for. It's called an election.

Posted by ho' know | March 4, 2008 11:01 PM

@20 - I hate to sound like Irrelevant Will of Seattle, but you hit the nail on the head. Let's just text message our votes in and end this democratic agony. We have lives to live, coffee to drink, beige thoughts to entertain, cretinous celebrities to idolize.

Americans are indeed a nation of Petulants nowhere better evidenced that on this Slog.

It's hard for me to imagine a more idiotic statement than "I won't vote for her, I'm sitting this one out, she doesn't represent me."

Who the fuck does represent you? What will make you happy? You so lucky living America.

Posted by BELMONT PLACE | March 4, 2008 11:11 PM

I'm joining the "won't vote for her" team -- earlier today I said I'd rather vote for McCain than Clinton but was persuaded to abstain instead. @20, 22, 24 -- Would you rather I voted for McCain than no one?

And yes, I voted for Nader in 2000 but I was living in a strong Democratic state that went Gore regardless.

Posted by Mike | March 4, 2008 11:16 PM

@3 wins the thread. Fuck those states. The only worse combo would be FL & OH handing it to Clinton.

Posted by Anon | March 4, 2008 11:18 PM

There is so much back and forth and 'now it comes down to this primary... oh wait, now it comes down to this state.... oh, they split the delegates here, now it comes down to THIS Sorta-Super Tuesday' that I'm starting to wonder if this whole thing is staged for publicity.

Seriously, though, I just don't give a shit anymore. Just let us know when you donkeys decide on a candidate.

Posted by Gomez | March 4, 2008 11:18 PM

I'm sure Karl Marx Rove is happy he got the conservative Prime Minister of Canada break Canadian law and phone Sen Obama's campaign - something his legislative aide has just been fired for, pending legal charges.

Way to go Sen Clinton - you did Karl Rove's dirty work!

Posted by Will in Seattle | March 5, 2008 12:01 AM

i wont vote hillary in november because any strong point she is playing up now, mccain does better than her.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | March 5, 2008 12:17 AM

obama needs to go back to sleep for eight years and reappear when he's been in the senate longer.

Posted by angelfish | March 5, 2008 7:13 AM

Look at all the liberal white men who would rather have McCain win than a woman, even though she has the most liberal social policies. Shocking.

Posted by misogyny in 2008 | March 5, 2008 9:09 AM

@31: I've worked and volunteered for a number of progressive feminist causes. Let me say that I am judging Hillary for her integrity not for her gender.

Posted by Mike | March 5, 2008 9:32 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).