Much of the democratic primary has been counter-intuitive. Obama won Montana 58% to 40% for Clinton but yet Obama lost in South Dakota 55% to 45%. You would think by just looking at the map that the results would be similar.
I know that there is a huge anti Hillary Clinton sentiment in Montana. That might explain Montana's vote. I can't really explain Clinton's win in SD, but it might be that race has something to do with it, but that's only a guess. I've only been to South Dakota once.
Tonight I even heard governor of Montana, Brian Schweitzer's name brought up as a potential VP for Obama. I doubt that will happen, even though Montana's former governor Marc Racicot became one of Bush's "closest friends and advisers" and was the chairman of the Republican National Committee from 02-03. Haven't heard a peep out of him lately though. Probably wanted to distance himself from Bush.
Lastly I thought Clinton's comments tonight praising Obama for bringing interest to the democratic party were condescending. Now it's 18 million people she says have voted for her and yet last weekend on Meet the Press Russert said it wasn't possible for her to have gotten even the 17 million that they were claiming last week. Ickes, when confronted by Russert said the numbers were based on AP projections and then wanted to quickly move on.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment