-
Website
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/ -
Original page
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2008/03/obama-wins-wyoming-caucus/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
Submitted by BuzzFlash on Fri, 03/07/2008 - 7:04pm. Reader Contribution
A BUZZFLASH READER CONTRIBUTION
by Dave Shaw
Fallacy 1: Clinton could win OH the same way she won it against Obama, by capturing the rural vote. Truth: those votes will be McCain's, which
leaves her with the cities, which Barack won. So who votes for Clinton
in Ohio?
Fallacy 2: Barack didn't beat Hillary in swing states. Wisconsin, Iowa,
Missouri, Colorado, etc. prove that wrong.
Fallacy 3: Some states that were blue last time aren't trending red and
are safe if Hillary is the nominee. There's Hawaii: poised to be red in
the fall, unless the native son runs.
Fallacy 4: Florida is a swing state. Florida now is actually a red
state, with the red apparatus in place, red rules, red voter
registration, and a red governor. The single smartest thing Democrats
can do in the fall is ignore Florida -- or make a show effort there that
forces McCain to splash out some cash. But Dems will NOT carry it.
Fallacy 5: Only Hillary can win the biggest true blue big states in the
Fall because she won them in the primary. Which of these big blues will
go to McCain: California, New York?
Fallacy 6: Hillary can turn out the vote to unseat a single traditionally
red state. Where? By contrast, Virginia, marginally red last time, looks
like a possible switch to blue with Barack at the top of the ticket. Even North Carolina and Georgia might be doable, but only if Clinton's
instant and automated GOP Get-Out-the-Vote isn't in play.
Fallacy 7: The candidates bring equal turnouts to the table. True -- but
not necessarily to the benefit of the Democratic Party. One candidate
brings new voters and motivated Democrats, the other brings termites out
of the woodwork to vote against her. One has crossover appeal without
Rush Limbaugh's help, the other doesn't. One can help downticket races,
the other drags down the ticket.
A BUZZFLASH READER CONTRIBUTION
Dave Shaw
By Toby Harnden in Washington
Last Updated: 9:30am GMT 08/03/2008Page 1 of 2
Hillary Clinton had no direct role in bringing peace to Northern Ireland and is a "wee bit silly" for exaggerating the part she played, according to Lord Trimble of Lisnagarvey, the Nobel Peace Prize winner and former First Minister of the province.
I.E. MORE HILLARY LIES!
From:
The Coattails of Barack Obama And More Signs Of Bad Mojo For The GOP
Published March 9, 2008 in 2008 Election, Barack Obama and Democrats.
So, former speaker Dennis Hastert’s seat, in one of the redder districts in the country, with his hand-picked succesor as the candidate, is now in the hands of a Democrat - who received a last minute endorsement and commercial from Barack Obama.
In a stunning upset Saturday that could be a sign of trouble for Republicans this fall, a little-known Democratic physicist won the special election for a far west suburban congressional seat long held by former GOP House Speaker Dennis Hastert.
Rookie candidate Bill Foster scored a comfortable victory over Republican dairyman Jim Oberweis, who lost his fourth high-profile contest in six years, after an expensive and highly negative contest.
Foster had 53 percent to Oberweis’ 47 percent with all of the unofficial vote counted.
Yes, we can.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Here's the full story @ Chicago Tribune:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-special-election.09mar09,0,7304737.story
The Coattails of Barack Obama And More Signs Of Bad Mojo For The GOP
Published March 9, 2008 in 2008 Election, Barack Obama and Democrats.
So, former speaker Dennis Hastert’s seat, in one of the redder districts in the country, with his hand-picked succesor as the candidate, is now in the hands of a Democrat - who received a last minute endorsement and commercial from Barack Obama.
In a stunning upset Saturday that could be a sign of trouble for Republicans this fall, a little-known Democratic physicist won the special election for a far west suburban congressional seat long held by former GOP House Speaker Dennis Hastert.
Rookie candidate Bill Foster scored a comfortable victory over Republican dairyman Jim Oberweis, who lost his fourth high-profile contest in six years, after an expensive and highly negative contest.
Foster had 53 percent to Oberweis’ 47 percent with all of the unofficial vote counted.
Yes, we can.
Chicago Tribune Article:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-special-election.09mar09,0,7304737.story
Anyway, BO is bringing out the progressives this year. I think we could see a Dem majority in 09 thru 11.
You're really worried, aren't you? And with good reason too! Because Obama will hand McCain his @ss!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/sinbad-speaks.php
"What I want to know is this: WTF, Talking Points Memo? You guys seem to be running stories straight from the Clinton camp's daily conference call. Finally I get my name back in the news and I'm sitting here asking myself: where is the love? Sinbad's been trying to get back in the spotlight for ten years, and now that people are starting to look into the fact that Hillary isn't being as truthful about foreign policy experience as she lets on, you guys SIT ON IT!! What's the deal! Give Sinbad some love! Throw me a BONE here!
Look, facts are facts. So let's look at them. Sinbad risked his neck in Kosovo. Sinbad saved his best jokes for the troops. Sinbad got a kick-ass haircut. Sinbad wore his best Karl Kani shirt. Those are just FACTS."
There's more and it's Sinbad signifyin' all the way,..
"Article published Sunday, March 9, 2008
The Clinton victory
NOBODY can deny that Hillary Rodham Clinton forged a clear and decisive victory in Ohio's Democratic presidential primary, winning 54 percent of an unusually high turnout.
That victory was somewhat tainted, however, by clear evidence of thousands of Republican crossover voters, who, inspired by the braying of at least one right-wing talk-show host, padded her totals.
More upsetting was Senator Clinton's decision to resort to the Karl Rove playbook by turning negative, making snide remarks about Barack Obama's ability to lead......"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030702825_pf.html
Have you seen it? Bill Clinton FAILED Hillary's "Denounce and Reject" litmus test on Farrakhan in 2005 interview.
They now refuse to speak of Barack Obama's position a year ago. They now refuse to speak of Barack Obama's insurmountable lead in delegates. They refuse to speak of Barack Obama's ability to show up in a state and obliterate once insurmountable leads that Clinton once had.
I watched Meet the Press today, and the entirety of the show was on what it was going to take for Hillary Clinton to win, and whether she'd tap Barack as her VP running mate -- NEVERMIND THAT BARACK SAID JUST THE OTHER DAY, THAT HE WON'T BE ANYBODY'S VP. The MSM has not only jumped on the Clinton wagon; they're taking turns driving
Where are the Black journalists and commentators? I realize that they're primarily locked out of the Sunday Morning circuit, but they should at least be outside the gates shouting and protesting the lockout!
There is no way I could ever vote for Hillary in a general election. I would rather punish the Democratic party and get it back to what it should be. Sometimes things have to get worse before they get better.
I would not vote for Hillary even if Obama were on the ticket. That would be doing Obama a favor; his career would be torn down by being associated with the Clinton sleaze and scandals.
I do agree that the media seems to be back in Hillary's pocket. We all need to write the media, write advertisers. We also need to get the word out ourselves, through word of mouth.
I also agree that the uncovered story in the media is that Hillary won the popular vote in TX and OH only due to the Limbaugh voters, who really were committing a form of vote fraud. This needs to be played up a whole lot more, and if the superdelegates have any brains, they will notice.
Finally, I have heard reports that the Clinton people actually have private detectives out trying to dig up dirt on the superdelegates to blackmail them into voting for them. That wouldn't surprise me.
"Hillary Clinton, Not So Good on Genocide
By Marc Cooper, Huffington Post. Posted March 8, 2008.
Obama adviser Samantha Power exposed the Clinton administration's indifference to genocide -- she got the boot for stating it on the campaign trail. Tools
The Barack Obama campaign is about to pay a very high price for the inopportune words of one of its most distinguished foreign policy advisors. The dazzlingly brilliant journalist, Pulitzer-prize winning author, and Harvard professor, Samantha Power, has been forced to resign from the campaign after she recklessly told a reporter that Hillary Clinton is a "monster."
In the pungently hypocritical game of American politics, this is just something outside the rules. Whether it's true, or not, matters little. Nor does it matter that the object of Power's derision has just finished spending millions on TV ads implying that Obama would be responsible for the countless deaths of millions of American children sleeping at 3 a.m. Tut, tut. Nothing monstrous about that.
Power was rightfully awarded the Pulitzer for her finely written and downright horrifying book A Problem From Hell which, in macabre detail, describes the calculated indifference of the Clinton administration when 800,000 Rwandans were being systematically butchered. The red phone rang and rang and rang again. I don't know where Hillary was then. But her husband and his entire experienced foreign policy team -- from the brass in the Pentagon to the congenitally feckless Secretary of State Warren Christopher -- just let it ring.
And as more than one researcher has amply documented the case, the bloody paralysis of the Clinton administration in the face of the Rwandan genocide owed not at all to a lack of information, but rather to a lack of will. A reviewer of Power's book for The New York Times, perhaps summed it up best, saying that the picture of Clinton that emerges from this reading is that of an "amoral narcissist."
Former Canadian General Romeo Dallaire, who commanded the UN forces in Rwanda at the time of the genocide, tells us a similar story in his own memoir. General Dallaire recounts how, at the height of the Rwandan holocaust, he got a phone call from a Clinton administration staffer who wanted to know how many Rwandans had already died, how many were refugees and how many were internally displaced. Writes Dallaire: "He told me that his estimates indicated that it would take the deaths of 85,000 Rwandans to justify the risking of the life of one American soldier." Eventually, ten times that many would die. And our response? A handful of years later, at a photo-op stopover in Kigali airport, Bill Clinton bit his lip and said he was sorry.
Therein resides the richest and saddest irony of all. Samantha Power has actually lived the sort of life that Hillary Clinton's campaign staff has, for public consumption, invented for its candidate. Though not quite 40 years old, Power has spent no time on any Wal-Mart boards but has rather dedicated her entire adult life rather tirelessly to championing humanitarian causes. She has spoken up when others were silent. She took great personal risks during the Balkan wars to witness and record and denounce the carnage (She reported that Bill Clinton intervened against the Serbs only when he felt he was losing personal credibility as a result of his inaction. "I'm getting creamed," Power quoted the then-President saying as he fretted over global consternation over his own hesitation to act).
We gave Power the Pulitzer for exposing the, well, monstrous indifference of the Clinton administration as it stared unblinkingly and immobile into the face of massive horror. But we give her a kick in the backside and throw her out the door when she has the temerity to publicly restate all that in one impolite word. Monstrous, indeed."
Keep the faith! Yes we can!!!!
If she and Massa were willing to use a whole race of people just to win a contest, imagine what they will do if they get in.
All sides agreed to the rules of the nominating process before all this started. Now that Hillary needs the rules to be broken in order to win, everyone talks about a re-vote if it's the most sensible thing in the world. the bald, shameless audacity of it is never noted.
I'm heartsick that the mainstream press is going along with this instead of telling the truth: "Hillary is trying to cheat her way to the nomination." Isn't that what it is if you break the rules that everyone's agreed to before the game started? cheating?
a black man of great quality has played by the rules and achieved an insurmountable lead. now, the rules are being changed by a white majority party to install a white person in the position that the black man has won? you have got to be kidding me. are they serious? is this america? is this the democratic party?
i am angry.
Dems have been fighting against 'disenfranchisement' and 'making every vote count.' They tried to change the rules in FL 2000, and they will change them because the nomination battle is so close.
The canidates will have to agree on a solution and Obama is in a tight spot because he cannot be seen as wanting to disenfranchise voters.
The Dems have created a nightmare with this proportional representation nomination process. they have always wanted 'fairness' and now they have effectively split the party right in half.
He's very calm when he discusses his delegate lead. Make no mistake about it, he's right to feel as confident as he does.
But there's a big problem that's become more and more obvious over the past few days:
1. If it were'nt already clear, Hillary Clinton does not, and has no intentions of playing by the rules. Indeed, she makes up her own rules as she goes along. SHE tells the media which states are important and which are not. No one ever calls her on this. Obama must take some responsibility for this.
I guarantee you, Hillary would have the media believing that GUAM is a make or break contest if she wanted it to be. Why is PA so important? Why is Ohio more important than Missouri? Obama has got to raise some of these issues.
2. The MSM is disturbingly gullible. Everyone knows that we pick the Democratic nominee through delegates. Hillary, herself, has been quoted as saying that the only thing that counts is the delegates. Yet the MSM has reduced this race to one of spin, perception and momentum. Thus you hear the growing chorus that claims the nominee will be whomever has the momentum at the end - REGARDLESS OF THE MATH.
3. The Democratic Party has always and will continue to be SPINELESS. The DNC has been bullied into accepting the possibility of do-overs in MI and FL. Sadly, even Obama's campaign has left the door open for such do-overs. This is disturbing when one considers the fact that many of these super delegates are the same SPINELESS politicians that have grown so accustomed to being bullied into a host of other issues - the same Democrats who get pimp-slapped every news cycle by the Republicans.
4. The MSM has completely bought Hillary's latest spin: i.e., neither candidate can get 2025, so the rules don't apply. The mainstream media is completely ignoring the delegate math. This is the same delegate math that has made EVERY CANDIDATE (with the exception of Huckabee) drop out of the race. But again, Hillary makes her own rules. And we allow her to do it.
I guarantee you that, if Hillary were in Obama's position, she'd be screaming the math so loud that there would be NO discussion of an Obama comeback.
finally,
It hurts to say this, but it has to be said: Barack is DROPPING the ball.
True talk, Obama can't pass gas without some Hillary surrogate jumping down his throat. But Obama's surrogate game is WEAK! And he let's Hillary get away with murder in the hopes that the American people will opt for hope over fear and dirty politics. My brotha, don't give the people too much credit.
THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO REASON TO FEEL LIKE A LOSER NOW! But it's time to fight back and make the American people and the MSM understand that Hillary's method of winning the nomination is UNDEMOCRATIC! I've heard Keith Olbermann, Randi Rhodes, Ed Shultz, Stephanie Miller, Bill Maher and a host of others state the obvious and make a clear and convincing argument that Hillary is tearing the Democratic Party apart. THEY ARE DOING OBAMA's JOB FOR HIM. Why hasn't Obama stepped up to the plate?
Message to Obama: WAKE UP! Stand up for yourself, your supporters and your message!!!
Hillary has mocked you; she's ignored your impact. SHE DOES NOT RESPECT YOU OR WHAT YOU STAND FOR! My brotha, it's one thing to lose, but it's another thing to lose like this! It's another thing to have something STOLEN from you while they spit in your face and mock your message.
The American people deserve better, but it won't happen unless you throw caution to the wind and speak your mind.
What happened to the "fierce urgency of now???" Well, the time IS now. But you've got to fight for it!
And to all the people on this board. Don't give up. This is OUR time. Whether you've walked door-to-door, spread the message, or simply written a donation, don't give up now. We've worked TOO hard to get where we are and we ain't gonna take a defeatist attitude just because Ms. Hillary turned up the heat. Throw it right back in her face.
Listen, we all know the story. This is supposed to be the time where we fall in line and act like sheep. DON'T DO IT. Re-double your efforts. No one said it would be easy.
Obama '08 - YES WE CAN!
And if she said it enough times. If she beat it into your heads. She could get you to believe it. Repitition = truth. It's sad, but that's how it works.
The Clinton campaign is repeating their talkingpoints. Their beating their message into our collective skull. I've even memorized a few of them myself. I could name you a list of Clinton surrogates and identify them. That's because the Clintons have got them all over the media. You can't flip a channel without seeing one of them.
Why can't Obama do this?
Hillary knows the game: A lie becomes the truth when it goes uncontested.
And Obama is letting her walk all over him. He's letting her say whatever she wants without consequence.
She's got the media saying the delegates don't matter; the math is irrelevant; it's ok to let the super delegates reverse the will of the people; and that the only important states are states that she wins.
It's like we're in the frickin' twilight zone.
Don't let Hillary steal this thing.
DON'T LET THEM DO IT!
Every day spread the truth about Obama and Hillary...at work, school, church, etc. Point out the many positives of Obama, and how Hillary is trying to use corrupt ways to steal the nomination. We are the grassroots and we can make a difference.
Yes we can...yes we can. We always knew it was never going to be easy, and that it would require each of us to make an effort. We always knew we'd have to overcome evil, and yes, that is what Hillary is using, it is evil, in the true sense of the word. Evil is that which deceives, and that which seeks to bring people down. That is Hillary's campaign in a nutshell.
Somebody else gets what is REALLY Going On!
".....Daschle saw the running-mate argument as rather unusual.
"It's a rare occurrence that the person running number-two would offer the person running number-one the number-two position," he said. "Hillary Clinton was a great first lady ... but it would be hard for me to draw some degree of connection between being the first lady and having the experience to be commander-in-chief."
Obama supporter Sen. John Kerry (Mass.) reinforced the point on CBS.
"So on the one end, they are saying, he's not prepared to be president. On the other hand, they're saying, maybe he ought to be vice president. You can't have the argument both ways," Kerry said. "That's exactly the politics that Barack Obama is running to change."
Yes!!!!!!
so it's entirely reasonable to not seat these delegations in the convention. that was the whole point. besides, 96% of the states could figure out a way to abide by the rules and will get their voices heard. if florida and michigan are seated, the democratic party loses its organizational power. which large state will try to get in front of iowa next time? might as well start drafting bylaws for the bull moose party, because the democratic party will be finished.
i agree with b-serious that we need a more aggressive surrogate out in force in the airwaves (rahm emanuel! please get off the fence and join the good guys!). but, i like obama's style. cool and easy. kinda like last fall when he kept his head through a season of criticism (he sucked at debates, he was too wonkish at the town halls, he wasn't taking it to hillary, no movement in the polls) and then ramped things up in the winter. i like how he gives people the benefit of the doubt. he wants to practice a different, more real, kind of politics. that's why i liked him in the first place.
he'll state his case and argue against false and mistaken assertions. but the guy's going to keep things civil. he's not an attack dog like wolfson or ickes.
This is what I think will happen. I think it is possible that Hillary will close in on Barack's delegate lead (possibly by PA, or by cheating her way with Michigan and Florida).
Right now they are acting so gracious and enthusiastic about Obama being VP, and their surrogates are saying that in such a tight race that the only "right" thing for the winner of the nomination to do would be to offer the other the VP spot. When Hillary closes in on Barack, but he remains the clear winner in terms of delegates, popular vote, etc, they will essentially FORCE Barack to give Hillary the VP spot so the Clintons can keep a hand in power. If he refuses, which is what any sane person knows he should do, they will automatically portray him as "arrogant", not a teamplayer, and not being fair to the Clinton camp, and of course the gullible media and American public will fall for it. I've ALREADY seen this attitude by Hillary supporters on comment threads regarding Obama's statement that he's NOT running for VP.
Maybe I'm just being paranoid, but I know the Clintons are totally manipulative and they are just laying the groundwork right now with the whole talk about the VP spot.
And obviously, if by some evil miracle Hillary wins the nomination, she will want to USE Obama to churn out votes for her.
Sometimes I can't believe that back in January, I was undecided between the two. It's so clear to me now. I only hope others see the light.
I see a big problem with this. We know that thousands of ballots from predominantly black districts will get lost in the mail.
I hope Obama's team sets some ground rules in advance and demand that election officials prevent this from happening in FL.
Are there any FL peeps out there? You need to contact your election board and tender your concerns now before the Clintons steal this one.
It would be a waste of time and money
when all we end up with is a split.
Plus in the general, FL always goes
Republican!
Amen. You are 100% correct in your suspicions of a "mail-in" primary. I was thinking the exact same thing.
There is no way I'd trust a mail-in primary. You're absolutely correct. There'd be a ton of black and young voters whose ballots would mysteriously get lost in the mail. No thank you.
And how would the state determine who gets a ballot? Does every resident get a ballot? Just registered Democrats? Only people who voted in late January?
It's complete garbage. But, once again, where's the Obama campaign on this??? This "mail-in" idea began floating around on Friday. Once again, if you don't jump on it, it begins to take on a life of its own.
Good point about how Obama is going to seem ungracious by turning down the VP spot (that the Clintons are not in a position to offer!).
There was also a time for me when Clinton didn't seem so bad - but after thinking more about her wrong, short-sighted vote on the war in Iraq, plus after seeing her extremely unprincipled campaign tactics (do you *renounce, repudiate, denounce, and destroy* your tax records, HRC??), there is no way I'd ever vote for her.
If I were advising the Obama campaign, I'd suggest the following:
Obama needs to schedule a public press conference. He needs to make it unequivocally clear: He will not accept a V.P. slot. He should tell the public that we need to make a choice . . . that, as hard as it may be for some (not hard for me at all), the Democratic Party needs to make a clear and decisive CHOICE between he and Hillary. There is no "two-for-one." It's either/or. End of story.
He should then restate that the purpose of his campaign is to shift away from the negative, divisive politics of the past two decades.
He should then present a laundry list of Hillary's tactics and DRAW A LINE IN THE SAND. Challenge the people. Put Hillary on the spot.
Finally (and I've said this before on my blog) Obama needs to highlight Hillary's praise of McCain at the expense of a fellow Democrat. Take every crazy comment McCain's ever made and tie it to her endorsement of McCains supposed "presidential threshold experience." HE SHOULD MAKE HER WEAR THAT LIKE A SCARLET LETTER! He should note that no other Democrat in this campaign has ever praised a republican nominee at another democrat's expense.
Define her as placing herself above the party. MAKE HER OWN IT. Debunk her assertion of experience (read direct quotes from her speech on the senate floor leading up to the Iraq invasion) and publically state that she should apologize for giving the RNC its first political add of the general election.
I saw someone say the following on a comment board earlier. Obama should list Hillary's negative tactics. And, in response, Obama's new slogan should be: "WE'RE BETTER THAN THIS." Simple as that. A great slogan from a message board.
That's not negative. But it's strong. It's direct and to the point.
Obama definitely needs a strong surrogate. I'm thinking liberal talk show host, Randi Rhodes.
She'd be an unconventional choice with the potential for greater influence than a political insider.
In case you didn't hear it, Randi went on a tirade Friday. She finally came out of her neutral stance and called it like she saw it.
Like a lot of us. She said that people should do everything in their power to DEFEAT Hillary in PA. She went all out.
Randi is tough. She holds no punches. She has an inside track to politics and perhaps the largest audience in all of progressive radio.
Even more, she's an assertive, intelligent middle aged white woman (I hate to go to identity politics here, but it's a definite advantage). She can hopefully identify with Hillary's strongest base of support and soften her strangle-hold on that demographic.
Obama doesn't have to use her as an attack dog (i.e., Stephanie Tubbs-Jones style). But he could utilize her talents to show that you can be a strong, middle-aged white feminist who doesn't think Clinton is best for this country. Randi doesn't hate Clinton (I think that's important because I find Hillary's use of black surrogates to be highly offensive). She's one of many feminists who think a woman President would be great . . . just not this particular woman.
Randi's criticsm can focus on Hillary's harm to the Democratic Party(that's not personal or gender specific). Randi can describe in detail how she's grown disgusted with her tactics. Randi has unequivocally stated that Hillary needs to be stopped before she destroys the party.
Have Randi go around PA with Senator Claire McCaskill and Arizona Governor, Janet Napolitano.
Next Obama should have Tom Daschle, Edward Kennedy and Chris Dodd camp out in PA for the next month. Have them focus on economic issues in rural PA. Once again, soften Hillary's advantage in one of her stronger demographics - working class whites (particulary working class white men).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/08/obama-you-wont-see-me-_n_90560.html
They will go into the convention with the race all but tied and the superdelegates will weigh the arguments. Popular vote lead vs. delegate lead. Big Blue states vs. small red states...etc. Both arguments are strong.
It was a mistake by the Dems to have two 'historic' candidates from the two largest factions battle over the nomination. Either one would easily be the nominee if they were running against a white man.
Now, both will be forced to create a 'Dream Ticket' and the Dems will lose to another white man. Blue collar, white males in the Democrat party will feel left out and crossover to McCain.
Obama should have stayed with original plan to run for Illinois governor in 2012 and then for the Presidency. He got ahead of himself, and he naively misjudged the ruthlessness of the Clintons.
Anti-Clinton liberal pundits are insisting that her campaign is still a lost cause, because of "the math," i.e., Obama will have more pledged delegates. That will supposedly force the super-delegates to go with Obama. But if the race is essentially a tie and Obama has won a lot of delegates in caucuses that are less representative than the primaries, why should super-delegates be bound by Obama's tiny lead in pledged delegates? It isn't written in the rules anywhere that that's what they have to do—in fact, the opposite. They can decide on whatever grounds they like. This Washington Post piece suggests many of them will decide on the basis of who would be the strongest candidate against McCain and be the best president.
That's why this race is wide open. Perceptions of the candidates are still in flux and can change over-night, as we saw last Tuesday. If Hillary finishes with a strong kick—winning Pennsylvania and re-votes in Florida and Michigan—she's going to look even stronger than she does now, and Obama even weaker. The race will be an absolute toss-up, and super-delegates are going to look for a deal.
The obvious one is putting Obama and Clinton on the same ticket. But who goes on top? This is the question that could be a real gut check for Obama. We know Hillary is willing to go all the way to the convention, and if necessary, damage Obama's candidacy with a destructive floor fight. Would Obama do the same thing? Does he have the same undeniable will to power and the willingness to put aside all considerations of decorum and party interest to fight for the nomination? I doubt it. And I imagine the Hillary people doubt it; they probably think they can stare Obama down in a monumental game of chicken, that ultimately he blinks and takes the number two slot.
Such a deal would make a lot of sense: Obama would be getting a vice-presidential nomination that he presumably would have been delighted with a year ago, that suits his experience level, and that would probably keep him from having to go back to the U.S. Senate, which he doesn't appear to relish. And he could convince himself that this is the right thing for his party and the country (Hillary wouldn't be so moved by such considerations). It would be the only way to end the race cleanly before the convention.
Will Obama blink?
Obama will NOT blink and this race is not "wide open". He is still in the lead with the popular vote and the delegate count and the ONLY way the Clintons overcome this is by cheating. Period. End of story.
And, as Obama has stated repeatedly, he will NOT accept a VP spot - especially under Hillary "He's not a Muslim as far as I know" Clinton. All of the VP talk is pure Clinton spin and no one is falling for it except the willfully blind and ignorant (also known as HRC's voting base).
Woo Hoo---you tell it!
1. If Obama's lead is so "tiny," then Hillary would have no problem overcoming it. But she can't do that - she can't overtake Obama in pledged delegates. Therefore, Obama's lead is not "tiny," at all; it is quite substantial. That spin don't work.
2. Hillary has an outside shot at the popular vote total. But it's still unlikely.
Even if the DNC caved in to Clinton and counted the elections in MI and FL as is, Hillary would have a slim popular vote lead of about 50,000 or so.
Now, you give do-overs and Obama adds to his popular vote total. Don't forget, Obama got zero votes in MI because 40% of the people voted "uncommitted." They voted uncommitted in the dead of winter with no name on the ballot. That 40% is likely to increase once its just Obama and Clinton. Plus, where do those Edwards supporters go? Obama could get a healthy portion of those votes as well.
Same goes for Florida. Hillary would probably still be the favorite there, but things have changed since January. It wouldn't be a vote on name recognition. Both candidates would likely campaign there. And, again, where do those Edwards supporters go.
3. Hillary would still have to blow Obama away in PA, MI, and FL to make up that popular vote gap. She won Ohio by 10% (roughly 230,000 votes). She'd have to repeat that type of performance in at least two of those three states just to draw even. Once again, it's not like Obama stops getting votes. He's going to be getting large vote totals as well.
He'll also have an opportunity to pad his leads by taking Mississippi and North Carolina.
4. If caucuses were less representative (or as some Clinton supporters claim, undemocratic) then the DNC would simply hold a nation-wide primary.
But they don't. And states have the right to either hold primaries or to caucus. Those states award their delegates based on their system.
Hillary doesn't get to ignore caucuses just because she's not organized enough to win them. Hillary has the same opportunity to win a caucus as Obama. But she loses because it's clear that caucuses never factored into her campaign plans. That's on her.
Her arguments against caucuses are weak. She claims that people can't get off of work when a majority of the caucuses were held on Saturdays. She claims that the elderly can't get out of their homes to caucus, but somehow can (amazingly) muster the exact same amount of energy to get out of the house to vote in a primary.
One could argue that caucuses are more democratic. It's more than pulling a lever. You have to actually argue your case and, at times, even persuade others to vote for your candidate.
5. All of this is besides the point because the nominee is not chosen by way of the popular vote. The nominee is chosen by DELEGATES. Hillary Clinton has gone on record saying that it's all about the delegates.
Issues like momentum, etc., only come into play if the frontrunner does a complete tank-job (meaning some type of scandal, etc.,) making the candidacy unworkable and unwinnable.
And Hillary can't try the Al Gore argument. Think back to 2000. The problem people had did not center around the popular vote; it focused on the electoral college.
People were upset that Bush stole Florida from Al Gore via the Supreme Court. Democrats didn't argue the popular vote because everyone knew it all came down to the electoral college.
In essence, Bush used a biased Court to steal Florida, which gave him the necessary electoral votes to win the White House. It had nothing to do with the popular vote.
Even if I conscede the popular vote argument, Obama's still got twice as many states and more elected delegates. That's a best 2 out of 3 scenario - which means a stronger argument both on a practical and moral basis.
6. I conscede that the super delegates are within the rules to use "judgment."
But know this . . . there will be hell to pay if they reverse the will of the people.
Give the nomination to Hillary on those grounds and watch half of the Democratic Party stage a walk-out on national television at the Democratic Convention in Denver.
Go ahead. Alienate your strongest base (African-Americans) prompting a shift in American politics not seen since blacks began moving to the Democratic party after the passing of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Go ahead. Lose an entire generation of young voters (ages 18-30) just to please Hillary Clinton.
Go ahead. Alienate Democrats in red states and watch Democratic candidates fall like dominos on the down ticket. Let's see Hillary pass universal health care after she (like her husband) loses the Senate.
Sure, super delegates are within the rules. But you'll destroy the Democratic Party in the process. Super delegates know this. The only question is whether enough of them will be strong enough to stand up to the Clintons and do what's right.
7. Finally, Clinton's "big blue state myth" requires a suspension of all logic and critical thinking.
Mark Penn has gone on record as saying that winning a primary doesn't equate to winning in the general (I think he used this argument when Hillary was losing 11 straight by an average of 33%).
If you give the "big state" argument, then you must convince the super delegates that Obama can not win Democratic strongholds like NY, CA, MA, NJ, etc.
Fact is, the second place Democrat has often received more votes than the first place Republican in a lot of these contests. So it's disingenous to suggest that Obama couldn't beat McCain in these Democratic strongholds.
As for swing states, I'll see your Ohio and raise you Missouri. And don't forget about Virginia, and Colorado (just to name a few).
Where do Clinton's rural working class white voters go in the general election? My guess is McCain has just as good, if not better, an opportunity to peel them away from Hillary.
In a McCain/Clinton matchup, add those rural white voters to McCain's strong hold on Independents; an anti-Clinton Republican base; and depressed Democratic turnout in the African-American community and you've got the perfect formula for defeat in November.
A lot of these arguments have already been shot down:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/clintons-big-state-myt_b_90115.html
@ black american princess
Thanks, I'll see what I can do.
I think they've got something on Barack, and they (the Clintons and their media surrogates) are holding it over his head until he eases off the gas, and lets Clinton pass him.
How can you win the nomination when the math looks so bleak for you?
It doesn't look bleak at all. I have a very close race with Senator Obama. There are elected delegates, caucus delegates and superdelegates, all for different reasons, and they're all equal in their ability to cast their vote for whomever they choose. Even elected and caucus delegates are not required to stay with whomever they are pledged to. This is a very carefully constructed process that goes back years, and we're going to follow the process.
She is just so brazen...makes me think ronnie b may be on to something. Being from Chicago, I know how politics work in that town...they keep it all in the family...but it doesn't mean you still won't get 'whacked.'
Offering the VP spot is a way of saying, take this or I'll have to take you out.
It just makes no sense for her to be speaking this way, unless...
I think the best thing *we* can do is focus on winning in PA.
One uncommitted superdelegate, for example, told The Washington Post, "If the pledged-delegate total is within 100 votes or whatever, I don't think there's a great deal of significance in that."
Cutting his lead to fewer than 100 is realistic, and it's why Clinton is pushing hard to get do-overs in Florida and Michigan. Those states offer her a chance to close the gap in both the popular vote and delegates.
That's her game. Get it close in delegates and maybe win the popular vote, then turn to the supers for a majority. Meanwhile, she wants to get the party faithful salivating about a happy ending where they can have both Obama and her, as long as she's on top.
"African American, 50 years old and elected last year as mayor of Philadelphia on a reform platform, Nutter has in many ways experienced a political rise similar to that of the Illinois Democrat vying for his party’s presidential nomination.
But presidential elections aren’t fought on paper, and Nutter isn’t a supporter of Obama’s. Instead, he has endorsed Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and insisted in an interview late last week with The Fix that she is well positioned to clean up in both Philadelphia and Pennsylvania in general when the Democratic race makes its way there on April 22.
“There’s the regular season, and then there’s the playoffs,” Nutter said of the nomination fight. “We’re now in the playoffs.” Extending the football metaphor, Nutter compared Obama to the New England Patriots, who were undefeated during the regular season and the playoffs, and Clinton to the New York Giants, who ended that winning streak in the Super Bowl. [snip]
Despite that history, Nutter said he weighed his options carefully before deciding to endorse either candidate. He spoke with Obama and Clinton several times, knowing that he wanted to make an endorsement. (”You are either on the field or on the sidelines,” Nutter said. “I am an on-the-field guy.”) In the end, he went with Clinton because “I thought she had the best ideas [and a] tremendous track record.”
Nutter’s endorsement of Clinton in December seemed inconsequential at the time. After all, no one in the political world believed the race would last beyond Feb. 5, Super Tuesday.
But, as the race has gone on (and on), Pennsylvania has become more and more relevant, and Nutter has emerged as a far more central figure in the ongoing debate over whether black elected officials should line up behind Obama and his potentially history-making candidacy.
Asked how much pressure he has come under to reconsider his endorsement of Clinton, Nutter responds curtly “none” before noting: “I don’t know if anyone is asking Senator Kennedy or Senator Kerry, who happen to be white, whether they are getting any pressure from their constituents for their endorsement of Senator Obama.”
Nutter takes it as a point of personal pride that he plans to stick with Clinton no matter what the future holds for her candidacy. “I take my time, think about what I am doing and then stick with it,” he said. “I don’t care whether it’s just me and them left.”
I think what the Obama people know is that nothing they can say or do now is going to get Clinton to drop out the race before at least Penn and probably the convention.
So since this battle is destined to be fought over the next 6-16 weeks there is no need to unleash all the heavy weaponry at once.
And just FYI as other have talked about one of those new weapons is Bill Foster, a new Congressman from IL that won in no small part because of Obama's help.
Don't think Obama is going to take that victory to the supers as an example of what he can do for them.
Clinton's Rush-powered wins in Texas and Ohio can't obscure Clinton's awful record in match-ups against Obama in more than a dozen states, and she cannot possibly catch him in delegates before Denver.
So either she concedes or the the Dems writhe right through the first ballot in Denver, more than five months from now. Obama has won the voting, and his lead in total votes cast like his lead in delegates won in elections cannot be erased.
The only way for Hillary to win the nomination is to destroy Obama's reputation among the super-delegates to such an extent that they will fear a ticket led by him will result in a crushing loss in November. Team Clinton has to be digging deep into all things Rezko as well as every aspect of Obama's life and political career.
Clinton's only way to win is to bleed Obama. The best way to do that is via the obvious stage that the Rezko trial presents. With so much attention focused on Tony, Team Clinton may be able to slip the dagger in without anyone noticing that the info surfaces in a strange way. The path to a superdelegate's vote is through a Chicago courtroom.
MZ, you're likely correct. I should know better.
Barack is doing his thing, and doing it the right way.
Mon Mar 10 2008
Departments
Election Issues
Did Republicans give Hillary her victory in Ohio?
by Bob Fitrakis & Harvey Wasserman
March 8, 2008
Hilary Clinton's larger-than-expected victory in Ohio may have been won with votes from Republicans, and from independents who usually vote Republican.
Much has been made of Rush Limbaugh’s other far-right commentators’ pleas to Republicans to cast their ballots for her in open primary states like Ohio and Texas. Part of the strategy is to slow down Barack Obama, who analysts argue will be harder for John McCain to beat this fall. Others, like Ann Coulter, have gone so far as to say they actually PREFER Clinton to McCain. Such voters would certainly also prefer the former first lady to Obama.
Whatever the case, there is concrete evidence in Ohio that Republican cross-over voters did, in fact, play a significant role in delivering the Buckeye primary votes to the Senator from New York.
Ohio has a classic open primary. Party affiliation can be whatever a voter states upon entering the polls. Both of this article’s writers, who usually vote Democratic or independent, chose to vote Republican in the 2006 primary, essentially because of a desire to oppose J. Kenneth Blackwell, the sitting Secretary of State, because of his role in his voter suppression during the 2004 election. In 2006, though our previous party affiliations were Democratic, each writer merely informed poll workers that we wished to cast a Republican ballot. Raised eyebrows notwithstanding, there were no problems getting them. The same opportunity allowed voters to cross-over last week.
There is clear statistical evidence that many Republican voters did cross-over. The Democratic Party “won at least 141,785 new voters in the four-county region” of Warren, Clermont, Hamilton, and Butler counties according to the Cincinnati Enquirer. Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner told the New York Times that in Clermont and Summit Counties, paper ballots ran out mostly due to a large number of independent and Republican voters crossing over to vote in the Democratic primary.
In Warren and Clermont counties, in southwestern Ohio, the number of votes cast in the Democratic primary are telling. The Cincinnati Enquirer reported that in Warren County, for example, there were 12,440 registered Democrats (9.49%) and 41,377 registered Republicans (31.57%) and 77,237 nonpartisan voters (58.94%). In Tuesday’s primary, 27,855 voters (48.53%) asked for Democratic ballots, representing 223.91% of the registered Democrats in that county.
Warren County is notorious for a “homeland security” alert called by county officials on Election Day 2004, causing the ballots to be diverted to and counted in a restricted unauthorized warehouse.
In Clermont County, there were 14,496 are registered Democrats and 37,714 registered Republicans, as reported by the Enquirer. In the primary, 26,279 people voted Democratic. One Clermont County presiding judge reported running out of Democratic ballots and turning away at least 30 people, according to the Cincinnati Enquirer.
Election observers on 2004 claimed that 100 or so ballots in Clermont County has stickers over John Kerry’s name, that would have caused the vote scanner not to register a marked Kerry vote.
In 2004, Warren, Clermont and nearby Butler County gave Bush some 140,000 more votes than Kerry. Bush’s entire margin of victory in Ohio was less than 119,000 votes.
Dr. Richard Gunther, professor of political science at Ohio State University suggests that other factors are in play in Ohio. He sees a likely shift of independent voters, similar to the elections of 1930, 1932 and 1934. In those elections, spurred by the Great Depression, independent and Republican voters shifted their loyalties to the Democratic Party and Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, causing a fundamental realignment in politics that lasted for fifty or so years.
There were some technical issues with voting machines in Tuesday’s election. The Enquirer reported on power outages in Darke and Hamilton counties and reports of electronic touch-screen voting machines problems in Montgomery County. Voters at one precinct in Lucas County (Toledo) voted on paper ballots after the electronic voting machines failed, according to the Toledo Blade.
Secretary of State Brunner has made significant strides toward guaranteeing freer, fairer and more transparent elections. In the wake of massive irregularities under Former Secretary of State Blackwell in the 2004 election, Brunner has committed the state to paper ballots. In Cuyahoga County (Cleveland), she forced the resignation of Republican Board of Elections (BOE) Chair Bob Bennett, along with the rest of the board. Bennett forced the county to spend $20 million on electronic touch-screen voting machines, which proceeded to crash in the 2005 primary. Among other things, they registered a 14% vote count error, according to a BOE study.
This spring Brunner ditched the machines in Cuyahoga County in favor of paper ballots. Ironically, the county ran out of the Democratic ballots, indicating a higher than expected turnout of voters for the Democratic primary. In response, a federal judge ordered several Cleveland polling stations to stay open until 9pm so everyone could vote.
In Franklin County (Columbus) a survey by the 16-member election protection team from the Columbus Institute for Contemporary Journalism showed that it took an average of 15 minutes to vote in inner city precincts such as ward #5 and #55. These two precincts had lines between three to seven hours long in 2004.
Restrictions on absentee and early voting were not present in this year's voting as they had been in 2004. Co-author Harvey Wasserman got his absentee ballot in the mail without incident this year, whereas it took four phone calls in 2004. The Franklin County Board of Elections opened with extended hours on the Monday before the primary to give voters greater flexibility.
Two days before primary election day, Brunner forced the resignation of Franklin County BOE Chair Matt Damschroder. Election officials told the Free Press that Damschroder met with Bush, Blackwell and Karl Rove on election day 2004. Misallocation of voting machines and other irregularities caused inner city residents to wait up to five hours to vote in his bailiwick. Prior to that election, in his BOE office, Damschroder accepted a $10,000 check for the Franklin County Republican Party from a representative of the Diebold voting machine company. Inexplicably, after Damschroder resigned, the Franklin County BOE, including two Democrats, voted to retain him as a "consultant" at over $11,000 per month salary.
Anecdotal evidence from Texas, where Clinton won the popular vote in the Democratic primary, also indicates Republican and Republican-leaning independent cross-over voting may have had an impact. While losing the popular vote by a narrow margin, Obama won that state's caucuses, and emerged from Texas with more Democratic delegates than did Clinton.
Evidence in general would suggest that the intrusion of normally Republican voters into the Democratic primary may signify what statisticians call an “asymmetrical entrance” of new voters. Such a phenomenon could signal malicious cross-over voters or signs of a Democratic realignment, or both. This would also cause errors in pre-election polls. The post-election exit polls may have been affected by the so-called "Bradley Effect," in which white voters casting ballots in an election where a white candidate is running against a black one tend to mislead exit pollsters about how they cast their actual vote.
This fall it is virtually certain that Ohio will once again play a key role in choosing the next president. Except for John Kennedy in 1960, no candidate has won the presidency without carrying the Buckeye State since the 1840s.
This spring, the Buckeye State has also played a critical part in the race for the Democratic nomination. And it would appear that Ohio Republicans and independents who generally vote Republican were key in handing the state to Hillary Clinton.
--
Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman are co-authors of HOW THE GOP STOLE AMERICA'S 2004 ELECTION & IS RIGGING 2008 (www.freepress.org). With Steve Rosenfeld they co-wrote WHAT HAPPENED IN OHIO? from the New Press. This article was originally published by freepress.org
I think if the Clintons had something on Obama, they would've dumped it on him already. Have we not forgotten the pictures from Obama's Kenya visit and their Kitchen Sink Strategy?
The Clintons wanted this thing over by Super Tuesday, but it didn't happen. If they had something on Obama, they would've released it by now to secure the nomination so they could begin working on McCain. This extended race, as much as Hillary lies and says it's fun, doesn't benefit her and is only driving up her negatives.
There are a lot of folks who like Obama, but have concerns about his experience. By telling these voters that Obama will be in the White House in some capacity, the Clintons are "alleviating" these voters guilt, and the Clintons hope these folks will vote for Hillary in the primaries instead of Obama.
Also, offering the VP to Obama is a psy-ops tactic. The Clintons are pushing the narrative that Obama is not really the frontrunner. If this narrative is repeated, people begin to believe it.
I don't think the Clintons are monsters or zombies, as Samantha Power and Andrew Sullivan claim, but they are great politicians.
I have faith in Obama and Axelrod, though--hell, they weren't supposed to be this far. These guys are on top of things. Obama's surrogates (Kerry, Daschle, and Hart) were on the Sunday Morning News shows questioning Clinton's experience as First Lady and nixing the idea of Obama being VP. Just sit tight everbody. Do what we can do. For example I just fired off an email to the DNC asking them to reconsider the mail-in do over for Florida and Michigan (I mentioned my concerns in an earlier post). Let the Obama camp do what it can do. And pray.
I agree with so much that has been said. I believe that Obama likes to appear naive and 'unfamiliar' with the political game. Since the 'end' is afar off, I think he's choosing his 'battles' carefully. It's not urgent to him to 'fight' 'verify/deny' every sentence the Clinton/camp spews. I hope this strategy works. He has a narrow road to manage on...he can't appear too naive or too aggressive, yet I think the country is ready to see a candidate that doesn't always have to argue over/about each little thing.
Thru BBC only you will find this "fear" disguised in bad journalism, often partial toward Clinton.
Ironically, there are plenty of European Americans who are just as afraid of an Obama presidency. And they also are part of our news agencies.
If he was financially involved, that's significant. Spitzer was and is a HUGE supporter of Hillary Clinton's campaign.
Did Spitzer make monetary donations to Clinton's campaign?
Did he co-mingle state and personal funds in his involvement?
Did Hillary Clinton have any knowledge--even unconfirmed--of Spitzers actions?
They should simply split the delegates. You CANNOT reward these 2 states for not following the rules!
Other states would then follow suit
and move their primaries up. Even if there is a re-vote, the delegates will most likely be split. It is a waste of time and money
Did you guys see this? http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Oba... is starting to respond to Clinton nonsense
“Now first of all with all due respect, with all due respect," he said here during a town hall meeting. "I won twice as many states as Sen. Clinton. I won more of the popular vote than Sen. Clinton. I have more delegates than Sen. Clinton. So I don’t’ know how someone in second place can offer the vice presidency to someone in first place. If I was in second place I could understand but I am in first place right now."
On a subway, a woman saw me staring at her newspaper as I was coming to the realization that Obama may have won (I don't read french). She had a bemused look on her face; I couldn't tell if it was fear or hostility, though.
Billary's correct that the Repubs are going to be worse (hah!). They will be using the same material (muslim, tribal stuff) against him (see Mark Steyn and H. Hewitt).
This long contest helps him cover all 50 states. His team is well managed, organized and getting better daily. I believe they will be ready for the general election, unlike Billary's team (see NYT on the disorganization), or even McCain (no money).
McCain's problem right now is a disappearing news cycle. As someone remarked before, the longer Billary stays the more hate she generates. I know some wm who are seething with rage at her, and they are die-hard former supporter Dems.
Frankly, I've been stunned by how well Obama has run this race. A year and half ago I never heard of this guy, and now he's beating the "inevitable" candidate(s). For a novice, he's giving the Billary team a damn good fight, and as a nice guy.
This is a campaign for the history books. He'll do alright.
Two things:
1) The talking heads are already saying that Obama will be back on a roll if he wins in Mississippi. They are also saying that Obama may have a bigger pledged delegate lead than he had before March 5. And we need to start telling the truth: Obama will win Texas when all is said and done.
2) The Clintons are just as connected to Tony Rezko as is Obama, if not more so. That's why they haven't really pushed that line of attack too much. Tony Rezko's fingers are deep in both the Dems and Repugs cakes and there's no two ways about it. He's a corrupt figure who's associates have donated to the Clintons as well. And the Clintons have to answer to all the income from Canada, Saudi Arabia and China.