Santorum Won?!

Well where the hell does this put the GOP presidential nomination race? It would seem that after a recount of the Iowa caucuses that gave Mitt Romney a slim eight vote victory shows that Rick Santorum actually won with a 34 vote edge. And it's still a clusterfuck.

Republican officials indicated Santorum finished ahead of Romney by 34 votes on Thursday. The Des Moines Register reports that votes from eight precincts will never be counted, however, and therefore the ultimate tally remains inconclusive.

...Officials found inaccurate counts in 131 precincts, including one that had an error by 50 votes, the Des Moines Register reported on Thursday.

Chad Olsen, the party’s executive director, told the Register that the results showed "a split decision." The final tallies, exempting the eight precincts that will not be tallied, were 29,839 for Santorum and 29,805 for Romney, according to the Register.

Boy, the Republican party is in such disarray that they can't even rig their own elections properly. And now what happens in South Carolina? With a couple of days left and Newt Gingrich's negative carpet bombing of Romney cutting his poll lead in half, anything can happen when you combine the fact that the GOP still can't stomach Newt.

One more thing: after this complete debacle in which the votes of eight precincts will never be counted, and errors exposed in practically every other precinct, can someone please explain to me why it is that we give a shit about Iowa?

Eight Votes

Oh, to be a fly on the wall of Romney campaign headquarters... What must they be saying behind the scenes after watching the results of the Iowa caucuses and realizing that they ended up in a statistical dead heat with Rick Santorum? Not Newt Gingrich. Not Ron Paul. Not Even Michele Bachmann or Rick Perry. RICK SANTORUM!

After Mitt Romney spent the equivalent of about $113 per vote compared to Santorum's $1.65 in the state, Mitt won the caucus by eight votes. EIGHT. He is so despised by the Republican establishment and the average GOP voter at large, that he can't even win the Iowa caucus in commanding fashion. He's been the perennial second place choice over Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich, Perry... hell, even Donald Trump was a front runner topping Mitt in early polls. But Romney has always been the bridesmaid, never the bride... until last night. And it was a shotgun wedding.

To put things in perspective, basically after four years of Iowa campaigning, Mitt did no better than he did in 2008. Actually, he did do better. He gained a total of 66 votes since 2008 when he finished in, you guess it, second place.

Did Clinton Really Win Texas?

By now we've all seen Tuesday's results, but who was voting?

A Rude Reader from Texas has some very interesting insight:

I can tell you that Clinton did not *win* the popular vote in Texas. We are the state of the 19-percenters, Huckabee-lovers and Hagee. Republicans knew that McCain would win Ohio and since in Texas we have open primaries, the RNC, Texas Repubs and Rush had been telling all their zombies to vote Clinton because they think they can beat her. My own mother, who hasn't voted for a Democrat for 40 years, told me that she voted for Hillary because 'you know, I support McCain, so I voted for her like everyone else up here.' My mother wasn't our only contact to verify our suspicions. All those rural counties with few votes...Republicans to the core and they HATE Hillary with the fiery passion of a thousand suns. Although I live in an Obama county near the George HW Bush Presidential Library, we must have had a huge number of crossovers ourselves because Huckabee nearly beat McCain here.

... Watch the caucus results. Those are going to be far more accurate because only the true-blue Democrats return for the meetings after the polls close. The delegate representation is determined by how many supporters for each candidate show up for the caucus. The popular vote has nothing to do with how these delegates are chosen. At the caucus we vote on delegates to the county and state conventions as well as resolutions for the party platform, so the Republicans stay away lest they be outed or contaminated with our Democratic ideals."

For a while now, Rush Limbaugh and other wingnuts have been terrified of an Obama nomination and have pulled out all the stops. They're urging their listeners to vote for Hillary in the open primaries because the GOP has a better shot running against her than Obama in November.

Taking a look at the Texas Caucus poll numbers, as "CW" suggests, shows that Obama leads Clinton 56%-44% with 40% of precincts reporting with final reports due by Saturday. Meanwhile, Obama supporters are going all out, helping his campaign raise a record $55 million in February. That doesn't sound like buyer's remorse to me.

So did Hillary Clinton really "win" Texas? If she did, it was by the thinnest of margins. Thinner than the actual 101,000 vote difference suggests. Were there at least 101,000 Republicans voting in the Democratic Texas primary? I have no doubt.

Hillary Wins Three Out of Four

Clinton takes Rhode Island and Ohio handily. Ohio, ... sigh. Texas was called for her at about 12:40am but it's a squeaker 51%-48% as of this post. Obama looks like he'll win the caucus vote there an he won in Vermont by a wide margin.

Delegates? Negligible. Obama still leads by 150 or so.

I didn't think this was going to happen, but I now believe that this thing is going all the way to Denver. Jeebus help the Democratic Party.

Clinton Campaign Trying To Control Texas Caucus

Well, it looks like someone is pulling something "right out of Karl Rove's playbook."

As reported in the Dallas Morning News:

Hillary Clinton and her campaign is pushing for precinct captains for Texas' 8,000 Democratic polling places. They need to train folks to lead the caucus sessions that will determine more than 60 delegates after the primary voting is over.In training materials being handed out by the Clinton campaign, it is clear that they want to control those caucus sessions.

The materials say in part, "DO NOT allow the supporter of another candidate to serve in leadership roles."It goes on to say, "If our supporters are outnumbered, ask the Temporary Chair if one of our supporters can serves as the Secretary, in the interest of fairness."

The control of the sign-in sheets and the announcement of the delegates allotted to each candidate are the critical functions of the Chair and Secretary. This is why it is so important that Hillary supporters hold these positions."

As Glenn Smith writes at BurntOrangeReport.com:

Now there can be only one purpose in trying to control the tally of votes under circumstances in which a campaign knows it's outnumbered, that it will lose an honest counting of the votes: to alter the true vote. To cheat. To steal. To suppress the votes of Texas caucus attendees and subvert the caucus process.

The phrase, "if our supporters are outnumbered," means, in simpler language, "If we lose the vote, take control of the vote tally and change the numbers."

So shame on you, Hillary Clinton! It is time you ran a campaign that is consistent with your messages in public. That is what Democrats around the country expect from you, not voter suppression.

DailyKos has more.

Super Tuesday Jr?...

That's what I heard the "pundits" calling tomorrow's primaries. And with a couple of big states up for grabs, the Clinton camp continues to suggest that nothing but an Obama sweep will deter them from swinging away til the bitter end.

Meanwhile, Obama had some swinging of his own to do.

"What precise foreign-policy experience is she claiming that makes her qualified to answer that telephone call at 3 a.m. in the morning?" Obama asked of the former first lady at a town-hall meeting. It was a reference to dueling television ads over who would exercise superior judgment in responding to a national emergency in the middle of the night.

...Obama criticized Clinton expressly for failing to read the classified National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons capabilities, a report available at the time of her October 2002 vote authorizing the Iraq war.
"She didn't give diplomacy a chance. And to this day, she won't even admit that her vote was a mistake — or even that it was a vote for war," Obama said.

"When it came time to make the most important foreign policy decision of our generation the decision to invade Iraq Senator Clinton got it wrong," Obama said.

Why, Hillary? Why?

So after taking a deep breath and stepping back to look at the overall campaign situation and the history of the last couple of weeks, here's my take on the Clinton campaign going all out negative on Barack Obama: desperation.

1 - Obama has won 11 straight contests, beating Clinton by wide margins.

2 - Clinton going negative (but not all the way) in Wisconsin was viewed by their campaign as a boost for them. They've been quoted as saying the didn't lose by as much (17 points) as they thought they would.

3 - Her closing statement in the Texas debate was viewed by many as conciliatory, which probably prompted the Clinton campaign heads to work overtime to negate that view, else be perceived as giving up.

4 - The Obama mailers on health care and NAFTA caused Hillary's campaign to see red and go off the deep end.

Now, it's one thing to challenge Obama and call him out on it: "Shame on you, Barack Obama. It is time you ran a campaign consistent with your messages in public — that's what I expect from you... Meet me in Ohio, and let's have a debate about your tactics."

It's another matter entirely to mock his message and compare him to the second coming of Jeebus. And here, in my opinion, is where the flaw with Clinton's reactionary attacks get the best of her.

Does she not remember the painting of Howard Dean in 2004 as unhinged because of his overenthusiastic "YAAARRR!" during a rally that sunk him? Seeing the anger in her eyes (scary) reminds me of the Dean incident, not in seeming like a nut, but in how it may be perceived.

The latest polls show Obama beating Clinton or in a statistical dead heat in Texas and Ohio after Clinton had 20 point leads in both states just two weeks ago. The Clinton campaign is not conceding and actually turning 180° in the attacks, looking for a fight to the bitter end.

One thing's for sure: it's going to be a very interesting debate on Tuesday in Cleveland.

Obama Wins Hawaii Handily

Time is running out. It's now ten straight states for Barack Obama, as he easily beat Clinton in Hawaii by an amazing 52 points, 76-24! O-mentum is sweeping the nation. I don't know how the Clinton campaign can stand it.

And can we all please stop with the "false hope", "pladitudes" and "all rhetoric, no experience" crap now? It's obviously not working. He's the right person at the right time with the perfect message after all this country's been through the last seven years.

Hope and optimism will beat trepidation and entrenched experience every time at this point because of the lack of confidence our country has towards its "experienced" leadership.

Obama Leading In Maine - Edwards Meets With Candidates

With 59% of the precincts reporting, Barack Obama is leading Hillary Clinton 57%-42%.

I think that'll seal it for Obama in Maine. Meanwhile, CNN reports that John Edwards met with Hillary Clinton Thursday, and is meeting with Barack Obama Monday, to discuss a possible primary endorsement.

Obama Wins Nebraska, Washington & Louisiana...

...and the Clinton Camp spins.

The latest Clinton Campaign spin, straight from the press office, in an email to reporters that seeks to set the expectations for the night:

Tonight there are contests in three states that the Obama campaign has long predicted they would win by large margins. According to a spreadsheet that was obtained by Bloomberg News, the Obama campaign predicted big victories in Washington State, Nebraska and Louisiana.
The Obama campaign has dramatically outspent our campaign in these three states, saturating the airwaves with 30 and 60 second ads. The Obama campaign has spent $300,000 more in Louisiana on television ads, $190,000 more in Nebraska and $175,000 more in Washington.
Although the next several states that hold nominating contests this month are more favorable to the Obama campaign, we will continue to compete in them and hope to secure as many delegates as we can before the race turns to Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania.

And this through Bob Cesca from the Obama website:

The Obama campaign submitted an urgent request for assistance to the Secretary of State's Division of Elections today, after receiving widespread reports from Democrats across Louisiana who reported that they were not allowed to vote because their party affiliation had been switched.

Is this being reported? Why is it that we worry ourselves about every fucking Iraqi purple finger but we let this shit happen in our own country while shugging our shoulders?! It's disgusting.

Looks like Huckabee is ahead in LA too.

Is Giuliani Done?

The 9/11 bloodsucker came in a dismal 6th place last night in the Iowa Caucuses. Let me repeat that: 6th place with a measly 4%. He's already using his fearmonger trump card with the latest ad campaign in Florida and New Hampshire.

He's not going anywhere soon enough, and I know it's still early (i.e. Howard Dean in Iowa 2004) but does he even have a shot anymore?

Steve Benen at C & L tries to cut through the candidates spin on the Iowa results and this one just cracked me up:

Rudy Giuliani — What Giuliani fans are saying: 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! What Giuliani critics are saying: “Frontrunners” don’t come in a humiliating sixth place, with one-third the support of a libertarian gadfly, in a state where he was once in the lead.
Who’s right? Take a wild guess.

I believe Benen is right. It's not like Mr. 9/11 came in 2nd place with 25% like Romney did. He didn't even make a showing. And Rudy fans will say he stopped campaigning in Iowa to concentrate on Florida and New Hampshire. That's all well and good if you look at it through Rudy-colored glasses.

Chances are that the constiuents in Iowa, when meeting Giuliani face to face, saw through his weak, one message platform and didn't like what they saw, heard or smelled. That's the one thing in these early states that doesn't happen anywhere else. It's not like you can sit in the same living room with these candidates three months before their respective conventions and try to make an informed decision by meeting them personally. Rudy is not a likable character and being in the same room with him reveals that.

Also, the fact remains that he had the lead in Iowa. The lead! Rudy was polling at 30% a few months ago. But then he actually went to Iowa. If you didn't click on the link above, take a look at this chart:


Put on your goggles and grab your skis, Rudy, because that purple line is you and it's going straight downhill! New Hampshire is in four days and there probably isn't enough bounce in the Giuliani campaign to make a decent showing even if Rudy had ten pounds of SuperBalls® surgically implanted in his ass.

I may be wrong, but it's my opinion.

Obama's Iowa Victory Speech

Iowa Chooses Obama And Huckabee

The country, or at least Iowa, wants change. Barack Obama took the Iowa Caucuses handily with 38% of the vote.

Here's the breakdown:

Obama 38%
Edwards 30%
Clinton 29%
Richardson 2%
Biden 1%
Dodd 0%
Gravel 0%
Kucinich 0%

Soon after, Biden, Dodd and Gravel have all announced that they were dropping out of the race.

Obama: “They said this day would never come. They said our sights were set too high. They said this country was too divided, too disillusioned, to come together over a common purpose. You have done what the cynics said you couldn’t do. You have done what the state of New Hampshire can do in five days. You have done what America can do in this new year, 2008. We are one nation, we are one people, and the time for change has come.”

Edwards: “The one thing that’s clear with the results in Iowa tonight is the status quo lost and change won.”

Clinton: “We are going to have change, and that change is going to be a Democratic president in the White House in 2009.”

Clinton's quote was a response to the overwhelming numbers of registered Democratic voters that came out. MSNBC was just reporting 236,000+ voters (80% Dems) and counting turned out for the Democratic Caucus; over 100,000 more than in 2004 and more than twice the amount that came out to vote for Republicans.

On the Republican side, Huckabee easily kicked Romney in the magic underpants. Here's how it breaks down on the GOP side with 86% of the precincts reporting as of this writing:

Schmuckabee 34%
HAL-9000 26%
Frederick of Hollywood 13%
Maverick McStraight Talk 13%
Ron "Read My Lips, No Taxes Period" Paul 10%
Ghouliani 4%
Duncan "Why Am I Still Running?" Hunter 0%

Huckabee: "A new day is needed in American politics, just like a new day is needed in American government... It starts here, but it doesn't end here. It goes all the way through the other states and ends at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue."

I do kid, but it really is an historic moment when you stop and think that Democrats in Iowa, with a population that is 97% caucasian, voted for a man of color as their choice to lead the country. Talk about an about face for the staus quo!

Could this really be the start of something big? The turning of the page? Who knows what is going to happen in the weeks and months to come and how this will all play out?

As Arianna Huffington wrote: "...this moment may not last. But, for tonight, I am going to savor it -- and cross my fingers that it may stand as the day that fear as a winning political tactic died. Killed by an "unlikely" candidate -- as Obama called himself again and again -- who seized the moment, and reminded America of its youth and the optimism it longs to recapture. "

UPDATE: Gravel Still In The Race

Commenter Dan brought this to my attention:

MSNBC pundit Keith Olbermann has incorrectly declared that Sen. Gravel has dropped out of the race following the January third caucus in Iowa. This is not true, and Sen. Gravel is still an active member in this race. We are requesting that MSNBC and Keith Olbermann retract their statement, and issue an apology to the campaign for promoting blatantly false misinformation.

Again, Sen. Gravel has not dissolved his campaign, and has no intentions of doing so.

I would expect a retraction if this is true and according to the Gravel website, it is. But the language is a little harsh, don't you think? "Promoting blatantly false MISinformation?" I'll let that one slide. It's not like Olbermann is the tool of the Republican devil, and with all due respect to Sen. Gravel, it's been over for him for a while now.