Thursday, March 6, 2008

Barack Obama likely to Win Texas

Things may not be as bad for Obama as they seemed Tuesday night. In the Texas primary Hillary Clinton leads in primary delegates by 65 to 61. But Obama is leading by a whopping 12% in the Caucus count. So far only 40% caucus results have come in and he is greadually increasing his lead. Even if the ultimate caucus result remains the same i.e. Obama's 56% to Clinton's 44%, Obama will win Texas overall (not counting the Super delegates). This is how the math works out:

Delegate Allocation:
Primary (99% results in) Clinton 65 Obama 61
Caucus (40% results in so far
Obama 56% Clinton 44%
assuming total 67 delegates
allocated on this basis) Clinton 29 Obama 38

Total Delegates Clinton 94 Obama99

Once all the caucus results are in, Obama should claim victory in Texas.

Also he needs to fire his advisor Goolsbee who damaged him tremendously in the Ohio primary by telling a Canadian Consulate employee in Chicago that Obama does not mean what he says about NAFTA. Obama should also address this issue in his next speech and take it head on to put this controversy to rest.

6 comments: said...

it appears that the HRC CAMP may have been lying about NAFTA as well

Ajaz Haque said...

Canadain newspaper The Globe & Mail has editorially condemned the Harper Government and the Canadian Consulate staff in Chacago for making public some internal memos on this subject.

It seems that Obama's advisor Goolsbee did speak to someone at Canadain Consulate, but what he said is unknown. I think Obama should distance himself from such an advisor who has cost him primaries and attack this issue head on.

Anonymous said...

OTTAWA (AFP) - US presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton's campaign, while rapping rival Barack Obama for telling US voters he is anti-NAFTA and saying otherwise to Canada, tried to reassure Canada too, local media said Thursday.


A top aide of Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper meanwhile was identified as the likely source of an alleged leak that provoked a diplomatic fiasco involving both US Democratic presidential contenders.

Last month, Harper's chief of staff, Ian Brodie, purportedly made impromptu remarks to journalists about Clinton's US presidential bid, said Canadian reports.

The offhand comments apparently sought to downplay the potential impact on Canada of Clinton and Obama's attacks on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) during stops in the US state of Ohio.

Brodie told reporters that the Clinton campaign had called the Canadian embassy in Washington to tell officials to take her anti-NAFTA rhetoric "with a grain of salt," said local media.

Around the same time, a news agency reported that a Canadian government memo detailed a meeting between Obama's chief economic advisor Austan Goolsbee and officials from the Canadian consulate in Chicago.

ANOTHER CHEAT LIE FROM CLINTONS change the role this the kind president we want...worse LIER

Anonymous said...

Sen. Obama’s decision to go explicitly negative suggests that he is unable to make an affirmative case for his candidacy beyond ad hominem attacks. Why isn’t he discussing the hearings that he held on the Foreign Affairs subcommittee that he chairs? Why isn’t he talking about his travel through Latin America? Why isn’t he briefing the public on his comprehensive plan to address the foreclosure crisis now? Why isn’t he stumping on his universal plan health care plan? Because he can’t and so he is advancing a campaign strategy premised on process and personal attacks.

Cherri B said...

Obama is about change? And how does $55 million in one month indicate a change? $55 million would go a very long way to solving some very big problems.

What change?

Ajaz Haque said...

anonymous and cherry b
you both make excellent points.

There is no doubt that Obama was stung by the NAFTA/Canada affair, even Hillary Clinton has admitted that. But as anonymous you point out, Hillary's people were also busy making calls to Canadian Embassy trying to reassure them.

The question for Obama is, where does he go from here. Does he attack Hillary on the bogus 35 years experience she claims (she has held public office for only 6 years) or talk about his policies and plans and how to make things better in America. Personally I think the latter option is better as going negative may turn some people off.

cherry b, Obama needs to raise money to get nominated and to get elected so he can make the change. I have no doubt that if he is in office, he will definitely run a different type of administration than Bush or Hillary, but he has got to get there first.