Jenna’s whereIstand Blog

We know that Hillary Clinton won the Texas primary. Fine. That’s nice. That’s only one part of the whole weird unwieldy Texas Primacaucus, though.

And here’s the thing — after CNN declared Hillary to have won Texas, after the state was turned Hillary blue (a sort of periwinkle) instead of Obama blue (that’s more navy) — Obama seems to be winning the caucus part.

Which so counts.

This is why Bill Clinton kept urging supporters to “vote twice” — once in the primary, once in the caucus. This is why he said, “The doors open at 7 and they close at 7:15. It would be tragic if Hillary were to win this election in the daytime and somebody were to come in at night and take it away.”

Well, this tragedy seems to be taking place.

Many different tallies seem to indicate that a) Obama is winning the caucus, by a good amount, and b) with the delegates that are apportioned via the caucus, Obama has more delegates from Texas than Hillary does.

Yet all I have been seeing is “Big win,” “Hillary Wins Texas,” “Texas Win Changes the Race,” and on and on. Nobody seems to be questioning whether Hillary ACTUALLY won Texas.

I understand that not all caucuses have reported and, maddeningly, they aren’t required to. CNN’s results page has been hovering at about 40% reporting for the last day or so. But those results are in Obama’s favor, 56% to 44%. A 12-point lead!
Isn’t this an open question at the very least?

Giuliani’s words of wisdom and compassion in the Republican debate yesterday:

WASHBURN: So, Mayor, you’ve said you would cut nonmilitary spending 10 percent, across the board.

What sort of sacrifices would that require from people who use those government services?

GIULIANI: Well, that would require their trying to figure out other ways to do it.

So much for a safety net. You can figure it out! Bye!

SEN. CLINTON: Well, Wolf, I’ve just been personally attacked again.

At last night’s debate in Las Vegas, Hillary claimed that she had just been personally attacked by Edwards.  She followed that up with:

And I don’t mind taking hits on my record, on issues, but when somebody starts throwing mud, at least we can hope that it’s both accurate and not right out of the Republican playbook…

Gosh, that Edwards, attacking poor Senator Clinton.  Slinging that mud.  Shameful.

What did he actually say, though?  Did he bring up Vincent Foster, or perhaps make a cutting comment about her clothing?  No, he said this:

MR. EDWARDS: Well, can I say first, nobody on this stage is perfect, and that certainly includes me. (Cross talk.) And I don’t claim perfection, far from it.

What I would say is that the issue is whether we can have a president that can restore trust for the American people in the president of the United States. (Applause.) Because I think this president has destroyed that trust, and I think there are fair questions to be asked of all of us, including Senator Clinton.

Senator Clinton says she will end the war. She also says she will continue to keep combat troops in Iraq and continue combat missions in Iraq. She says she will turn up the heat on George Bush and the Republicans. But when the crucial vote came on stopping Bush, Cheney and the neocons on Iran, she voted with Bush and Cheney. (Applause.)

On the issue of Social Security, she said, standing beside me on the stage, that she would not do anything about the cap on Social Security taxes. And she has said privately to people, because it’s been reported in the press, that, in fact, she would consider raising that cap. And the most important issue is, she says she will bring change to Washington while she continues to defend a system that does not work, that is broken, that is rigged and is corrupt, corrupted against the interest of most Americans…

Hey Hillary… where is the mud?  Where is the personal attack?  Do you really expect that when you show up at a debate nobody will, you know, debate you?

The talking heads seemed dismayingly ready to take her accusations at face value, and chattered on about those mean, mean people attacking her, and how she came out fighting — she’s a tough one, that Hillary!  But if you look at what Edwards actually said, there’s no real substance to her accusations.   If she had some factual correction to make, she could have made the factual correction.  (As Obama did when making sure Chris Dodd realized that his support for the trade agreement with Peru had been in fact been unwavering, contrary to Dodd’s impression.)

I don’t know if this woman-in-peril act will restore the hit she took in the polls after the last debate.  But I find it distasteful on several levels, not least as a feminist.  I think it’s great that a woman has a real chance to become president — just don’t play the victim to get there.