Guess What? Obama Is Winning Texas
When the media proclaimed Clinton the victor in Texas, the caucus results were simply not part of the equation. But now that more than 24 hours have passed, something fascinating is happening.Edit: You can follow the current Texas caucus results on this NYTimes Texas Primary Results page.
Obama appears to be winning Texas.
10 comments:
Oh, I love this, from the article:
This also isn’t the first time the press has denied Obama a delegate victory.
In Nevada, the press crowned Clinton the winner, despite the fact that Obama won the delegate count.
In New Hampshire, Obama was handed a loss, even though the delegates were equally split between Obama and Clinton.
Somebody get Clinton a pillow.
it's not fair to take Texas away from Clinton after the media clearly gave it to her. I cry foul!!!
Seriously, she has gotten a lot of mileage out of the perception of unfair media treatment. It's been dominating political humor for two weeks. She specifically (bewilderingly) complained about it in the middle of a debate.
So here you go, Maggie, as an example of what Clinton can do to make her a better president and candidate. She is an expert media manipulator. I say this seriously, as it is a good trait for a leader to have... so long as you agree with that leader's philosophy. It's not a trait you want to see in your political enemies.
Even more detail about the Texas caucus results on the party's own website. It's a shame they don't total the thirty-one Senate districts.
Unofficial Results: Texas Democratic Party Precinct Conventions
Following up on this story, here's one of many recent articles about Texas' convoluted caucus system. They won't know the final results of the caucus until the end of March, by which time the media's attention will almost certainly be focused elsewhere.
The state Democratic Party is claiming Obama will win Texas, coming out ahead by 3 delegates.
The Clinton camp is threatening to take legal action because it says it won the state. The Obama campaign is trying to retroactively claim victory in a place which many news organizations had already reported that Clinton won.
It's as if the media reporting it somehow means something.
Okay, another reason the Clinton campaign drives me crazy: the litigation. Does she really think that people are going to accept a victory because lawyers said so? Anything she doesn't like, she tries to challenge legally.
A person who takes a problem to the courts is socially suspect, I think. A person of my acquaintance is constantly fighting the school system over her sons' education. Now I know first hand what she's going through, but before I thought she was a little loopy. When you take things to the extreme in fighting for your rights, you really need a lot of justification for doing so, IMO. Otherwise people consider you to be "frivolous" and "unable to get along."
What's she going to do as president if she doesn't like something congress does -- take them to court?
I think she's a little too rule-based and fact-based and there's not a lot of common sense or people skills there. She really is the opposite of Bill in that regard. I think Julie had some good reasons for wanting to support her if she gets the nomination, but folks, she's not "a Clinton" any more that dubya is "a Bush." He's "a Bush" in the sense that they're all rich and in bed with the oil companies, but after that he doesn't have a quarter of the brains his father had, and double the charisma. I don't know if Hillary is as intelligent as Bill -- they're both really smart, and way smarter than what we've had -- but she doesn't have a tenth of the people skills.
Like those statistics? Yeah, I made 'em up. :-P
Seriously. I'm sorry... seriously? She's seriously going to sue to take back the "victory" that she thought she had before the results were completely counted? Seriously... what the fuck is that? I'm sorry, guys, she's a jerk.
I think your comment button is stuck. :P
Oh, yeah, I'm totally sitting here talking to myself. It's the Three Faces of Me.
Post a Comment