Obama Wins Wisconsin

I am told that, demographically, Wisconsin seemed good for HRC. But she doesn't seem to have made much of an effort to contest it. And I have just been told that Obama has won Wisconsin 58%-41%.

And John McCain says:

I will fight every moment of every day in this campaign to make sure Americans are not deceived by an eloquent but empty call for change.

John McCain: for the status quo; against hope.

Comments

[Josh]

Castro was for change too. I don't think there's much the government can do besides just stand out of the way... The status quo is not sexy, but a lot better than any kind of new make-work program.

[al white]

What's the status quo? It keeps changing. Endless war wasn't always the case. Nor does it need to be. Giving the treasury away to friends has always been done, but not always to this degree. The only thing reassuring about the status quo is that it will change.

[andres]

However, even more egregious than the above McCain statement is his comment that after a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, Al Qaeda would unfurl its banners and say it defeated the U.S. occupation. Ergo, supporters of withdrawal want victory for Al Qaeda. He is in many ways as morally disgusting as Bush and Cheney.

[NE1]

Yes, good point Josh. I bet Jesse Jackson was for change too.

Here's what change means to me: electing a first-term senator with some capacity for reasonable positions. Saying to all the beltway powerbrokers, lobbyists, and veterans "we don't serve your kind here" [which is, unfortunately, why the superdelegates will never let it happen], and pressing the reset button after 8 years of hypocrisy, fiscal intemperance, self-important piety, and lies.

And frankly, I'd rather not encourage an aristocracy either. I make a point of voting against the incumbent every chance I get.

[Ralph]

Exactly Prof Delong. McCain stands for a continuation of the Bush policies in Iraq and in economics. Obama's recent speech on the economic policies he will pursue shows that his call for change is not empty words. Larry Kudlow has declared war on Obama's candidacy because of the liberal tinge of his policy proposals. So far the media (other than Kudlow) have ignored Obama's announcements but as his nomination as the Democratic nominee becomes clearer we can expect an explosion of analysis and criticism to begin as more people become aware of the radical departure from the right wing Republican policies of the past 8 years. Will Wall Street continue to pour money into Obama's campaign or will it shift to McCain?

[anne]

Barack Obama has been truly spectactular and I am simply thrilled that we have such a demonstrably brilliant candidate for such a time. Thank you, Barack Obama.

[anne]

Andres:

"However, even more egregious than the above McCain statement is his comment that after a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, Al Qaeda would unfurl its banners and say it defeated the U.S. occupation. Ergo, supporters of withdrawal want victory for Al Qaeda."

The perpetual war-mongering intimidation of a perpetually intimidating war-monger.

[zinc]

I don't think I can tolerate another 8 years of lousy music. Can we have a rock and roll revival here, sonny. Is that too much to ask ? ( and not the glam band shit that ruined the golden age like Kiss (my ass)). Our children are at risk.

I heard John McCain is a lover of old tunes (I thought it was ba, ba, ba not bomb, bomb, bomb). Although, I sometimes have a secret desire to send that little obnoxius Iranian guy a bunker buster or two.

[zinc]

.... or maybe a skudlow.

[save_the_rustbelt]

Wasn't Jimmy Carter for "hope." Hope is an inexpensive commodity.

I think Obama will win, and I really, really hope he does well for himself and more importantly the country. We cannot lose another four years in the wilderness.

Hillary and Bill, who had an almost certain path to the White House, must be saying "what was the number of the truck that just hit us."

[Slocum]

"John McCain: for the status quo; against hope"

If McCain is smart, the legacy he'll be promising to protect from misguided 'change' is that of...Bill Clinton's -- free trade, an open, dynamic economy. McCain might as well claim Clinton's legacy as it's become quite clear that Obama wants no part of it.

As for 'change', Obama's suggestion that, but for NAFTA, we'd still be in a golden era of good, industrial union jobs in places like Youngstown, Ohio, strikes me as much more pessimistic, nostalgic and reactionary than optimistic, future-oriented, and 'progressive'. The idea that things could just the way they always were in Youngstown if not for free trade is also BS (and dangerous BS at that). Helping people adapt to changes in the global economy? Great. Anti-trade demagoguery? Gack.

There's a lot I don't like about McCain, and overall, I'd have to say I'm still leaning toward Obama, but the more I hear him talk about economics, the more nervous he makes me (Austan Goolsbee notwithstanding).

[MattF]

So, what's McCain to do? He won't have Hillary (or Bill or Chelsea) to kick around. If he goes racist, he -might- lose the favorable media. "All war all the time" is a loser. Poor John.

[Letuce]

Are you from Wisconsin?

You've spent time here?

Why would Mr. Obama not have a greater role here than Mrs. Clinton? He's FROM Illinois, he a candidate more closely linked to the black community, he's better in the university towns... That takes in Milwaukee, Madison, Green Bay and a bunch of other places...

I nearly voted for Clinton (but saw that John Edwards was still on the ballot), but I wasn't shocked.

[Jacob]

"Hope". Obama can promises everybody whatever he want, and talk as much as wants about his dream, but its strange that everybody seems to buy it. The American people look to the government too much for help; all presidential candidates look at themselves as saviors, ready to ride into office and save the US like they thing FDR did. Change has to come from within; stop trusting an omnipotent government to protect you during the day (domestic spying, universal health care), and put you to bed at night (social security). I imagine individual Americans and groups of Americans helpign each other and helping themselves, not the government carryying out someone's will through the use of force. Every problem the govenrment creates through new legislation is solved by further legislation which causes 10 new problems.

McCain would be a nightmare as president, Hillary and Obama would be bad but not too horrible. The best I can hope for is that Obama give us back civil liberties, and then Congress creates a stalemate for every other domestic act he tries.

[Barkley Rosser]

Letuce,

So, if you are in Wisconsin, are you not aware of how strong the anti-Illinois prejudice is in Wisconsin? Indeed, the closer one gets to the border the worse Obama did, although Hillary did win some rural counties in the far north. But he barely took Kenosha in the southeast corner by 51% to 48%.

Of course he did very well in progressive university town, Madison, winning in Dane County by more than 2 to 1. And he also won by 29% in Milwaukee, which has the largest black population in the state, although the ethnic working class population on the southside way outnumbers the black population there. Maybe those folks like people from Illinois...

[Mike D]

I'll vote for Obama over McCain due to (among other things) the hopeless national-greatness militarism of McCain, but I think picking on that particular quote is a straw man.

Presumably the contrast McCain is trying to draw is
Obama: "Eloquent but empty promise of change"
vs.
McCain allegedly being "Prosaically phrased promise of change, but one that will actually be delivered."

So, essentially, he's making the same argument as Hillary makes.

[David W.]

Obama was expected to win a close contest in Wisconsin, so it was a much bigger win than most thought would happen, with him taking every congressional district in the state over Hillary. Even Mike Huckabee took one congressional district from McCain, who didn't win that big given that Ron Paul took 5% and the also-rans even took 4% of the Republican vote.

[Queequeg]

"So, essentially, [McCain's] making the same argument as Hillary makes."

Yep. Exactly. And, as Dr. Phil would say: "How's that workin' out for ya?"

Why is he adopting a losing strategy? It's mind-bogglingly stupid, but maybe that's all McCain has got. His campaign boils down to this:

a) Perpetual war!
b) I'm more experienced!
c) Don't get your hopes up!

Obama will crush McCain like a cockroach. When have we seen this before? A Democrat with mad political skillz, running against a sour, sarcastic, bitter Republican crippled by war. Oh, yes, in 1996. McCain's nomination is a gold watch given by his party for long years of service, just like Dole's nomination in 1996. It was as obvious on this date 12 years ago that the Republican would lose the election as it is now.

[Movie Guy]

Let's Just Say Obama's the Nominee. So, Who's the Running Mate?

By Al Kamen
Friday, February 22, 2008

Let's face it. It's over. Teamsters President James P. Hoffa may have provided the last bit of muscle Wednesday with his union's endorsement of Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.). Barring a serious meltdown in the debates -- or a sensational revelation -- Obama will be the Democratic presidential nominee this fall.

The punditry agrees that a victory for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) is at best improbable at this point. Ever-helpful Bill Clinton says that if Hillary doesn't win Texas and Ohio, she's toast. Our most recent poll shows a virtual tie in Texas and Clinton with a seven-point lead in Ohio.

Problem is, looking at the numbers, Clinton has to win both of them big. Obama has a lead of 150 elected or "pledged" delegates, according to NBC's calculation (The Washington Post uses a different formula to count). Clinton needs to win 58 percent of all remaining pledged delegates simply to get her lead back, NBC political director Chuck Todd notes. But that's hypothetical. The reality is worse.

If Obama wins the remaining states he's favored in, such as Vermont, Mississippi, North Carolina and Oregon, then Clinton will need to win 65 percent of the vote in places such as Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania, Todd said.

Most observers are beginning to focus on the numbers of elected, or pledged, delegates because they've concluded that those are almost sure to be the only ones who will matter -- unless Clinton can persuade the superdelegates at the nominating convention to overrule the voters and destroy the Democratic Party once and for all.

By the way, Obama holds a lead of nearly 1 million votes -- that's 1 million-- in the popular vote, according to the Web site Real Clear Politics. Of course, that doesn't really count -- ask Al Gore-- but it's worth noting. If you throw in Florida and even Michigan -- where his name wasn't on the ballot -- Obama still leads by 300,000 votes.

So it's time for the In the Loop Obama Veep contest to guess who Obama will pick as his running mate. First 10 entrants who guess correctly will win a coveted navy blue "In the Loop" T-shirt. Winners will be announced shortly after Obama decides. One entry per person, please.

Send your pick to obamaveep@washpost.com. Deadline is midnight Wednesday. (Obama, his aides and anyone with a good excuse may, of course, enter on background.) To be eligible, you must include a cell, work or home telephone number.

Don't delay. (And don't worry: If Clinton's campaign somehow miraculously resuscitates, we'll do a Clinton veep contest.)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/21/AR2008022102712.html?hpid=topnews

>>>