May 17, 2008
Please wait, your request is processed...
BitJam
Recent comments by this user
Massive Blowback To NARAL's Obama Endorsement
Six Reasons Why Obama and Clinton Would Each Say "Yes" to VP
Great attempt to re-frame the issue Kathleen!
The key question is not whether Clinton would accept an offer to become VP. The key question is whether or not it would be wise (and good for the party) for Obama to offer it to Clinton.
The answer to this much more important question is a resounding NO! Clinton **repeatedly** endorsed McCain over Obama saying things such as:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience that he will bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It would be political suicide for the Democats to allow Clinton to be on the same ticket as Obama.
Scorched earth leads to burned bridges. posted 05/13/2008 at 21:35:43
The key question is not whether Clinton would accept an offer to become VP. The key question is whether or not it would be wise (and good for the party) for Obama to offer it to Clinton.
The answer to this much more important question is a resounding NO! Clinton **repeatedly** endorsed McCain over Obama saying things such as:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience that he will bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It would be political suicide for the Democats to allow Clinton to be on the same ticket as Obama.
Scorched earth leads to burned bridges. posted 05/13/2008 at 21:35:43
Why You Should Be Optimistic About November
The truth is that Obama *defended* the Clintons when they were accused of using race as an issue:
http://cdn.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/18/MNSNUH7GC.DTL
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On the issue of race, Obama also said key differences in outlook and experience define the two campaigns.
"I actually don't think that the comment that Sen. Clinton made about Dr. King was a racial comment," he said, referring to a recent flareup in which she noted that President Lyndon Johnson had pushed the 1964 Civil Rights Act through Congress, a comment that some African American leaders took as downplaying contributions of Dr. Martin Luther King.
"I think it was illustrative of how she thinks change happens," he said. "She was arguing that Lyndon Johnson, his skill set was what was critical to getting the Civil Rights Act done - as opposed to a movement on the streets. And that indicates a difference in emphasis on how change occurs. But I don't think the comments were racial."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ posted 05/13/2008 at 02:40:56
http://cdn.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/18/MNSNUH7GC.DTL
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On the issue of race, Obama also said key differences in outlook and experience define the two campaigns.
"I actually don't think that the comment that Sen. Clinton made about Dr. King was a racial comment," he said, referring to a recent flareup in which she noted that President Lyndon Johnson had pushed the 1964 Civil Rights Act through Congress, a comment that some African American leaders took as downplaying contributions of Dr. Martin Luther King.
"I think it was illustrative of how she thinks change happens," he said. "She was arguing that Lyndon Johnson, his skill set was what was critical to getting the Civil Rights Act done - as opposed to a movement on the streets. And that indicates a difference in emphasis on how change occurs. But I don't think the comments were racial."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ posted 05/13/2008 at 02:40:56
The Obama Democrats' Ostrich Moment
Please, can we get even one Hillary supporter who can blog here without spreading lies?
Hillary DOES NOT have more popular votes than Obama. Even if you count Florida. Even if you count Florida and Michigan. Even if you count Florida and Michagan but don't count, Iowa, Nevada, Maine, and Washington.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html posted 05/09/2008 at 03:20:54
Hillary DOES NOT have more popular votes than Obama. Even if you count Florida. Even if you count Florida and Michigan. Even if you count Florida and Michagan but don't count, Iowa, Nevada, Maine, and Washington.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html posted 05/09/2008 at 03:20:54
Obama's Got His Groove Back
If you look at Smartey's profile you will see that she/he is not a Clinton supporter. This person is just trying to stir up dissent among Democrats. posted 05/08/2008 at 18:38:43
Remaining Superdelegates Will Outnumber Pledged Delegates After Tuesday Votes
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
i am for neither candiate ...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
H'mm. If that's true then you had better change your password here because someone has been using your account to post a lot of anti-Obama stuff including:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If Obama is the nominee I as a democratic will do everything in my power to convince anyone who has supported Sen Clintonto vote John Mcain or don't vote at all. This man is a embarrassment to our country!!!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ posted 05/05/2008 at 13:23:27
i am for neither candiate ...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
H'mm. If that's true then you had better change your password here because someone has been using your account to post a lot of anti-Obama stuff including:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If Obama is the nominee I as a democratic will do everything in my power to convince anyone who has supported Sen Clintonto vote John Mcain or don't vote at all. This man is a embarrassment to our country!!!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ posted 05/05/2008 at 13:23:27
Iraq Backs Off Allegations That Iran Is Behind Violence
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki ordered the formation of a committee to look into foreign intervention in Iraq.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Foreign intervention in Iraq?
Foreign intervention in Iraq?
Here's a clue: there are 150,000 heavily armed US troops in Iraq. AFAIK, none of them have become Iraqi citizens so that is probably the bulk of your foreign intervention right there. posted 05/05/2008 at 01:31:48
Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki ordered the formation of a committee to look into foreign intervention in Iraq.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Foreign intervention in Iraq?
Foreign intervention in Iraq?
Here's a clue: there are 150,000 heavily armed US troops in Iraq. AFAIK, none of them have become Iraqi citizens so that is probably the bulk of your foreign intervention right there. posted 05/05/2008 at 01:31:48
Early Indiana turnout heavy in strong Obama counties
There have been seven primaries since February 19th and Obama has won most of them: Vermont, Wyoming, Mississippi, and Texas. His pledged delegate lead has **increased** during this time (according to RCP) from 155 to 156 today. At the same time, Clinton's lead in super delegates has been cut from 42 down to 18 today.
This means that Obama's overall lead has increased by 22% from 113 (before Ohio) to 138 today.
You're about as accurate as the MSM. posted 05/03/2008 at 00:25:39
This means that Obama's overall lead has increased by 22% from 113 (before Ohio) to 138 today.
You're about as accurate as the MSM. posted 05/03/2008 at 00:25:39
299 Superdelegates On The Wall...
There will be nasty attacks from the right no matter who the Democratic nominee is. If you think they won't come regardless of who gets the nod then you have a naivety the Democratic party cannot afford.
An army marches on its stomach. A campaign marches on its monetary donations. Obama is the only major candidate left in the race who hasn't been forced to get a multimillion dollar loan in order to stay in the game. He orchestrated a brilliant campaign and came out of nowhere to seize a lead in: money raised; states won; pledged delegates; overall delegates; and national popularity.
Take a look at this graph of the average of the national polls:
http://www.pollster.com/08-US-Dem-Pres-Primary.php
In late 2007, Clinton had a 20 point lead that evaporated when the primaries started and now Obama is up by 9 points (as of 4/25/08).
One of the main justifications for the three ring circus we call the nomination process is that it allows us to judge how candidates will preside based on how they campaigned. If we are to judge the candidates by their campaigns then clearly Clinton is the one who is not yet ready while Obama is raring to go. posted 04/29/2008 at 01:46:54
An army marches on its stomach. A campaign marches on its monetary donations. Obama is the only major candidate left in the race who hasn't been forced to get a multimillion dollar loan in order to stay in the game. He orchestrated a brilliant campaign and came out of nowhere to seize a lead in: money raised; states won; pledged delegates; overall delegates; and national popularity.
Take a look at this graph of the average of the national polls:
http://www.pollster.com/08-US-Dem-Pres-Primary.php
In late 2007, Clinton had a 20 point lead that evaporated when the primaries started and now Obama is up by 9 points (as of 4/25/08).
One of the main justifications for the three ring circus we call the nomination process is that it allows us to judge how candidates will preside based on how they campaigned. If we are to judge the candidates by their campaigns then clearly Clinton is the one who is not yet ready while Obama is raring to go. posted 04/29/2008 at 01:46:54
TV SoundOff: Sunday Talking Heads
The esteemed Jason Linkins said:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dickerson says the long campaign is bad for the Democrats and good for McCain. Yeah...I'll believe that when I see evidence that McCain is not currently tied with the two candidates.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Your logic is faulty here. It is like saying "I'll believe I'm spending more than I'm earning when I see evidence that I've run out of money". The key thing is the change in the polls, not the absolute level. When your numbers go up it is a sign that you are doing the right things. When your numbers go down it is a sign that you are doing something wrong (or your opponent is doing something right).
Pollster.com shows graphs of the average of almost all available polls. These graphs show that during the month of March (roughly) both Obama and Clinton took a beating when matched up against McCain:
http://www.pollster.com/08-US-Pres-GE-MvO.php
http://www.pollster.com/08-US-Pres-GE-MvC.php
I admit that they have both fought their way back but it seems obvious that the dip in their poll numbers was due to all the negative campaigning in the Democratic primary. The Dems were well poised to have a stunning landslide victory in November with large coattails. The margin of victory is important and the negative campaigning in the primary seems to be having an adverse effect. posted 04/28/2008 at 03:38:47
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dickerson says the long campaign is bad for the Democrats and good for McCain. Yeah...I'll believe that when I see evidence that McCain is not currently tied with the two candidates.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Your logic is faulty here. It is like saying "I'll believe I'm spending more than I'm earning when I see evidence that I've run out of money". The key thing is the change in the polls, not the absolute level. When your numbers go up it is a sign that you are doing the right things. When your numbers go down it is a sign that you are doing something wrong (or your opponent is doing something right).
Pollster.com shows graphs of the average of almost all available polls. These graphs show that during the month of March (roughly) both Obama and Clinton took a beating when matched up against McCain:
http://www.pollster.com/08-US-Pres-GE-MvO.php
http://www.pollster.com/08-US-Pres-GE-MvC.php
I admit that they have both fought their way back but it seems obvious that the dip in their poll numbers was due to all the negative campaigning in the Democratic primary. The Dems were well poised to have a stunning landslide victory in November with large coattails. The margin of victory is important and the negative campaigning in the primary seems to be having an adverse effect. posted 04/28/2008 at 03:38:47
Obama "unelectable"? Tell me another one.
Don't blame Nancy Pelosi for facing the facts. It was Hillary Clinton who shot down the dream ticket by endorsing McCain over Obama multiple times. If Obama and Clinton were on the same ticket we would endlessly hear Clinton's endorsements of McCain:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[McCain has] never been president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience that he will bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Of course, well, you know, I've got a lifetime of experience. Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience. And you know, Senator Obama's whole campaign is about one speech he made in 2002.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ posted 04/26/2008 at 00:26:20
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[McCain has] never been president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience that he will bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Of course, well, you know, I've got a lifetime of experience. Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience. And you know, Senator Obama's whole campaign is about one speech he made in 2002.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ posted 04/26/2008 at 00:26:20
Why Not Move The Democratic National Convention?
The truth is exactly the opposite of what Kathleen Reardon said. The longer Clinton stays in the race and attacks Obama, the longer the Democratic frontrunner has to defend himself against the combined forces of Clinton and the Republicans.
The Republicans have already developed and implemented a laser focused strategy: help Clinton in order to create chaos in the Democratic party. The only reason the Republicans have been able to do this is because Clinton has stayed in the race well past her expiration date.
Clinton has benefitted greatly from the Republicans and the Right knowing Obama is the leader. They have been helping her in every way they can (which is mostly dirty tricks). According to the exit polls published by the Boston Globe, Rush Limbaugh's Operation Chaos gave Clinton her victory in the Texas primary and accounted for almost half her margin of victory in Ohio.
The right-wing Nafta-gate smears coming out of Canada in the days before Ohio and Texas voted were designed to hurt Obama and help Clinton. The night those two states voted, there was unanimous agreement on the Charlie Rose Show that Nafta-gate was a major mistake by Obama and a sign that his campaign was falling apart. It was only after TX and OH voted that the Canadian Prime Minister debunked the Nafta-gate lies as blatantly unfair to Obama.
Without the help of these right-wing dirty tricks, Clinton would have dropped out after losing Texas and Ohio. posted 04/26/2008 at 07:11:08
The Republicans have already developed and implemented a laser focused strategy: help Clinton in order to create chaos in the Democratic party. The only reason the Republicans have been able to do this is because Clinton has stayed in the race well past her expiration date.
Clinton has benefitted greatly from the Republicans and the Right knowing Obama is the leader. They have been helping her in every way they can (which is mostly dirty tricks). According to the exit polls published by the Boston Globe, Rush Limbaugh's Operation Chaos gave Clinton her victory in the Texas primary and accounted for almost half her margin of victory in Ohio.
The right-wing Nafta-gate smears coming out of Canada in the days before Ohio and Texas voted were designed to hurt Obama and help Clinton. The night those two states voted, there was unanimous agreement on the Charlie Rose Show that Nafta-gate was a major mistake by Obama and a sign that his campaign was falling apart. It was only after TX and OH voted that the Canadian Prime Minister debunked the Nafta-gate lies as blatantly unfair to Obama.
Without the help of these right-wing dirty tricks, Clinton would have dropped out after losing Texas and Ohio. posted 04/26/2008 at 07:11:08
Clinton had a lead of more than 20 points in late 2007.
http://www.pollster.com/08-US-Dem-Pres-Primary.php posted 04/26/2008 at 06:48:31
http://www.pollster.com/08-US-Dem-Pres-Primary.php posted 04/26/2008 at 06:48:31
It's even worse than that. Governor Granholm quietly worked behind the scenes to PREVENT a re-vote in Michigan because she was afraid a re-vote would favor Obama. While at the same time Clinton was screaming bloody murder about Michigan voters being disenfranchised.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-treul/michigan-superdelegates-t_b_89110.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Brewer has been heavily criticized for his organization's bungling of its primary, and, like Gov. Granholm, is quietly resisting calls for a "do-over" - a caucus that analysts predict would heavily favor Obama.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ posted 04/26/2008 at 06:45:54
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-treul/michigan-superdelegates-t_b_89110.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Brewer has been heavily criticized for his organization's bungling of its primary, and, like Gov. Granholm, is quietly resisting calls for a "do-over" - a caucus that analysts predict would heavily favor Obama.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ posted 04/26/2008 at 06:45:54
Report: Key Superdelegates Set To Endorse Obama When Time Is Right
So that makes the lie okay? Would it be okay for me to fib and say she got less than 9%? That would be a much smaller lie.
Also, according to the NYTimes and RCP, her margin was only 9.29%. Anything less then 10.000... is single digit. If the margin was 9.5% or greater than there might be some (very dubious) justification for rounding it up to 10 and then claiming it was double digit. But to round 9.3 up to 10 is wrong. Claiming 9.3 is double digit is an outright lie.
They said she needed a double digit win. She didn't get it. So they lied and said she did and then crowed about her double digit win exceeding expectations. I expect the candidates to lie but it is truly revolting that the news media would lie about the results of an election, especially in a case like this where their lies might be the only thing keeping a candidate in the race. posted 04/25/2008 at 21:01:39
Also, according to the NYTimes and RCP, her margin was only 9.29%. Anything less then 10.000... is single digit. If the margin was 9.5% or greater than there might be some (very dubious) justification for rounding it up to 10 and then claiming it was double digit. But to round 9.3 up to 10 is wrong. Claiming 9.3 is double digit is an outright lie.
They said she needed a double digit win. She didn't get it. So they lied and said she did and then crowed about her double digit win exceeding expectations. I expect the candidates to lie but it is truly revolting that the news media would lie about the results of an election, especially in a case like this where their lies might be the only thing keeping a candidate in the race. posted 04/25/2008 at 21:01:39
Good point. Also, switching from pledged delegates to "popular vote" severely disenfranchises everyone in the 12 states that decided to hold caucuses instead of primaries. Had those states known that the "popular vote" was going to be the deciding criterion then many (perhaps all) of them would have switched over to primaries.
Those 12 states followed all the rules. Their only crime was that the vast majority of them chose Obama over Clinton. posted 04/25/2008 at 20:06:46
Those 12 states followed all the rules. Their only crime was that the vast majority of them chose Obama over Clinton. posted 04/25/2008 at 20:06:46
That is why the MSM lied and said she did. posted 04/25/2008 at 19:59:32
She is not gaining momentum although the media seems to be pushing the lie that she is.
Before Ohio voted, Obama had a lead of 155 pledged delegates. Now that Hillary has had "big wins" in Ohio, Texas (?), and Pennsylvania, Obama's lead in pledged delegates has actually increased to 156. His lead in overall delegates has blossomed from 100 before Ohio to 134 now.
During this same time period, the number of remaining pledged delegates has dwindled from almost 1000 down to 408. Before Ohio, Clinton needed to win with 16% delegate margins in order to catch Obama. She now needs 38% margins in the remaining races in order to catch up. She got 6.5% margins in Pennsylvania and Ohio and lost ground in Texas.
The article explained why the SD's are waiting to endorse Obama:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
... the prevailing thinking is to allow the race to play out, avoiding a confrontation with Clinton and her backers ...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
IMO, if they endorse Obama before all the voting is over then some Clinton supporters will whine and complain that the men are trying to oust Clinton unfairly and this could work against Obama in the remaining races. posted 04/25/2008 at 19:30:03
Before Ohio voted, Obama had a lead of 155 pledged delegates. Now that Hillary has had "big wins" in Ohio, Texas (?), and Pennsylvania, Obama's lead in pledged delegates has actually increased to 156. His lead in overall delegates has blossomed from 100 before Ohio to 134 now.
During this same time period, the number of remaining pledged delegates has dwindled from almost 1000 down to 408. Before Ohio, Clinton needed to win with 16% delegate margins in order to catch Obama. She now needs 38% margins in the remaining races in order to catch up. She got 6.5% margins in Pennsylvania and Ohio and lost ground in Texas.
The article explained why the SD's are waiting to endorse Obama:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
... the prevailing thinking is to allow the race to play out, avoiding a confrontation with Clinton and her backers ...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
IMO, if they endorse Obama before all the voting is over then some Clinton supporters will whine and complain that the men are trying to oust Clinton unfairly and this could work against Obama in the remaining races. posted 04/25/2008 at 19:30:03
The article says it will most likely be in June after the last primary elections are held early that month but it may be sooner if, for example, Obama wins both NC and IN. posted 04/25/2008 at 17:54:45
Clinton Debt $5 Million Higher Than Reported
According to RCP, Obama's lead in pledged delegate has _increased_ despite Hillary's "big wins" in Ohio, Texas (?), and Pennsylvania. Before Ohio voted, Obama's lead was 155. Today it is 156. His overall delegate lead grew by 34%, from 100 to 134.
At the same time, the number of delegates left has been reduced by more than half, from 981 down to 408. Before Ohio, Clinton needed to net 16% more delegates than Obama to catch up. In Ohio, she got 6.5%. In Pennsylvania she got 6.4% and in Texas she lost ground. Now she has to win all the remaining contests by 38% in order to catch Obama.
If Clinton won all the remaining contests by twice her Ohio and Pennsylvania margins, she would still trail Obama by over 100 pledged delegates.
I guess we are all happy. Most Obama supporters can do simple math so they are confident that he is going to win. The remaining Clinton supporters believe her spin and disregard the facts so they are happy too. posted 04/24/2008 at 23:41:29
At the same time, the number of delegates left has been reduced by more than half, from 981 down to 408. Before Ohio, Clinton needed to net 16% more delegates than Obama to catch up. In Ohio, she got 6.5%. In Pennsylvania she got 6.4% and in Texas she lost ground. Now she has to win all the remaining contests by 38% in order to catch Obama.
If Clinton won all the remaining contests by twice her Ohio and Pennsylvania margins, she would still trail Obama by over 100 pledged delegates.
I guess we are all happy. Most Obama supporters can do simple math so they are confident that he is going to win. The remaining Clinton supporters believe her spin and disregard the facts so they are happy too. posted 04/24/2008 at 23:41:29
Obama Set To Announce New Superdelegates After Pennsylvania Primary
Quote of the day from that article:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Democrats are divided, too, about whether the contest has become too negative. Among the half who say it has, 43% blame Clinton, 3% blame Obama. Fifty-three percent blame both equally.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ posted 04/22/2008 at 14:46:59
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Democrats are divided, too, about whether the contest has become too negative. Among the half who say it has, 43% blame Clinton, 3% blame Obama. Fifty-three percent blame both equally.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ posted 04/22/2008 at 14:46:59
GOP Strategist Says Racism Would Give McCain 15% Edge on Obama
Explain Maine.
My point is that the polls have been wildly off this year. In general, Obama has been doing better than Clinton in outperforming the poll predictions. If you take Greg Mitchell's model seriously then you would have to say that there was some sort of anti-woman bias (or whatever) that explains why Obama outperformed Clinton in many mostly-white states.
There is no doubt that the demographics are different in different states. Mitchell's model was assuming that racist bias was the ONLY reason Clinton would outperform the poll predictions in Pennsylvania despite the fact that the polls have been wildly off in many other states. Simply stating the obvious (that the demographics vary) does not help Mitchell's case. It makes it worse because you are saying that even if by some incredibly lucky chance, Mitchell is correct about PA, this result can't be used to predict what happens in any other state.
If you use "outperforming the polls" as an indication of some sort of bias then the current facts say that there is a bias AGAINST Clinton and in FAVOR of Obama even if Clinton outperforms the polls in PA. If you just pick and choose the data you use, ignoring the data that doesn't fit your model, then your results are meaningless because you can "prove" almost anything you want. posted 04/22/2008 at 21:39:57
My point is that the polls have been wildly off this year. In general, Obama has been doing better than Clinton in outperforming the poll predictions. If you take Greg Mitchell's model seriously then you would have to say that there was some sort of anti-woman bias (or whatever) that explains why Obama outperformed Clinton in many mostly-white states.
There is no doubt that the demographics are different in different states. Mitchell's model was assuming that racist bias was the ONLY reason Clinton would outperform the poll predictions in Pennsylvania despite the fact that the polls have been wildly off in many other states. Simply stating the obvious (that the demographics vary) does not help Mitchell's case. It makes it worse because you are saying that even if by some incredibly lucky chance, Mitchell is correct about PA, this result can't be used to predict what happens in any other state.
If you use "outperforming the polls" as an indication of some sort of bias then the current facts say that there is a bias AGAINST Clinton and in FAVOR of Obama even if Clinton outperforms the polls in PA. If you just pick and choose the data you use, ignoring the data that doesn't fit your model, then your results are meaningless because you can "prove" almost anything you want. posted 04/22/2008 at 21:39:57
You claim that if Clinton outperforms the polls in mostly-white Pennsylvania, it will show that racism really is an issue among Democrats. Have you forgotten about mostly-white Wisconsin? Obama was up by an average of 7% in the polls (according to Pollster.com) yet he won Wisconsin by over 17% (according to RCP). He outperformed the polls by over 10%! He has also significantly outperformed the polls in other mostly-white states. If Clinton significantly outperforms the polls in PA then the only conclusion we can draw is that the polls sucked this year (which we already knew). The only way it would indicate that racism is an issue is if you can explain why Obama overcame your alleged racism bias in other mostly-white states and then beat the polls by significant margins.
I posted a comment similar to this over an hour ago but it never showed up. posted 04/22/2008 at 16:05:57
I posted a comment similar to this over an hour ago but it never showed up. posted 04/22/2008 at 16:05:57
The problem with the argument you propose is that half (or more) of the electorate is female. Clinton's losses among males may be compensated for by gains among females. posted 04/22/2008 at 13:57:42
Dear American Voter...
The cost of the campaigns pale in comparison to the cost of the war. One or two days of the Iraq war would cover all the campaign expenses to date.
Obama is certainly saying he will dramatically change our foreign policy. He provides plenty of specifics in this speech but I can only give you a small sample.
The War We Need to Win
http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/remarks_of_senator_obama_the_w_1.php
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As President, I will make it a focus of my foreign policy to roll back the tide of hopelessness that gives rise to hate. Freedom must mean freedom from fear, not the freedom of anarchy. I will never shrug my shoulders and say -- as Secretary Rumsfeld did -- "Freedom is untidy." I will focus our support on helping nations build independent judicial systems, honest police forces, and financial systems that are transparent and accountable. Freedom must also mean freedom from want, not freedom lost to an empty stomach. So I will make poverty reduction a key part of helping other nations reduce anarchy.
.
In the first 100 days of my Administration, I will travel to a major Islamic forum and deliver an address to redefine our struggle. I will make clear that we are not at war with Islam, that we will stand with those who are willing to stand up for their future, and that we need their effort to defeat the prophets of hate and violence.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ posted 04/22/2008 at 00:23:44
Obama is certainly saying he will dramatically change our foreign policy. He provides plenty of specifics in this speech but I can only give you a small sample.
The War We Need to Win
http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/remarks_of_senator_obama_the_w_1.php
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As President, I will make it a focus of my foreign policy to roll back the tide of hopelessness that gives rise to hate. Freedom must mean freedom from fear, not the freedom of anarchy. I will never shrug my shoulders and say -- as Secretary Rumsfeld did -- "Freedom is untidy." I will focus our support on helping nations build independent judicial systems, honest police forces, and financial systems that are transparent and accountable. Freedom must also mean freedom from want, not freedom lost to an empty stomach. So I will make poverty reduction a key part of helping other nations reduce anarchy.
.
In the first 100 days of my Administration, I will travel to a major Islamic forum and deliver an address to redefine our struggle. I will make clear that we are not at war with Islam, that we will stand with those who are willing to stand up for their future, and that we need their effort to defeat the prophets of hate and violence.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ posted 04/22/2008 at 00:23:44
Bill Clinton: Hillary Would Be Winning Under GOP Primary Rules
Hillary (and Bill) would be whining under ANY set of rules if they were behind. posted 04/21/2008 at 21:53:48
Who is Hillary Clinton?
But she hoped the bankruptcy bill she voted for wouldn't pass. Doesn't that make it all better? posted 04/21/2008 at 18:11:51
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
... the issue is not how the candidates can win; the issue is still what they would do if they did.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In other words: the ends justify the means. posted 04/21/2008 at 14:45:49
... the issue is not how the candidates can win; the issue is still what they would do if they did.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In other words: the ends justify the means. posted 04/21/2008 at 14:45:49
Swiftboated or Suckered -- It Still Means Losing
Senator Clinton should have consider the "dream ticket" possibility before she *repeatedly* endorsed McCain over Obama. Here is just one example:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience that he will bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Scorched Earth = Burned Bridges posted 04/21/2008 at 23:22:39
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience that he will bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Scorched Earth = Burned Bridges posted 04/21/2008 at 23:22:39
Clinton Needs Record Margins And Turnout To Catch Obama
Correction: 103 of the 158 delegates get assigned as per the article you read. The remaining 55 get split according to the popular vote. Therefore if Clinton wins PA by 20% she should get a net of 3 + 11 = 14 delegates. A 10% win would probably give her fewer than 10 net delegates. posted 04/21/2008 at 02:09:24
Over at Pollster.com they say ARG should really be called RNG (Random Number Generator) because their results are so erratic. For example, two weeks ago ARG said the race in Pennsylvania was tied at 45%, then one week ago they said she was up by 20%.
If you cling to the results of the most favorable poll, you will probably be disappointed election day. Pollster.com says that if you average all the recent polls, Clinton is up by 6.1%. I expect Clinton to win the state with a margin between 5% and 10%. This will net her about 10 more delegates than Obama, cutting his pledged delegate lead down to 150. Obama will probably boost his lead by more than 10 delegates when North Carolina and Indiana vote two weeks after Pennsylvania. posted 04/21/2008 at 02:00:52
If you cling to the results of the most favorable poll, you will probably be disappointed election day. Pollster.com says that if you average all the recent polls, Clinton is up by 6.1%. I expect Clinton to win the state with a margin between 5% and 10%. This will net her about 10 more delegates than Obama, cutting his pledged delegate lead down to 150. Obama will probably boost his lead by more than 10 delegates when North Carolina and Indiana vote two weeks after Pennsylvania. posted 04/21/2008 at 02:00:52
McCain in 2008 = Clinton in 2012
Hillary Clinton will be very lucky if she even manages to hold onto her seat in the Senate. Another presidential run in 2012 will be impossible for her. There are several reasons for this. First, whether Obama wins or loses in November, people will not easily forget Clinton's betrayal of the Democratic party. Scorched Earth == Burned Bridges.
Second, four years from now everyone will be four years older. Clinton is already past her prime demographically. She gets most of her support from the oldest voters. In four years time her demographics will be even worse. If Obama does not win in November then someone of his generation (or younger) will be the Democratic nominee in 2012. posted 04/20/2008 at 00:19:18
Second, four years from now everyone will be four years older. Clinton is already past her prime demographically. She gets most of her support from the oldest voters. In four years time her demographics will be even worse. If Obama does not win in November then someone of his generation (or younger) will be the Democratic nominee in 2012. posted 04/20/2008 at 00:19:18
Clinton Faces Steady Erosion Of Support
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Clintons know the game is over. They are simply using every opportunity now to damage Barack and the Party out of anger and revenge.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I disagree. I think they are suffering from hubris. They've been dealing out lies for so long, they've lost touch with the truth. They've started believing their own PR. posted 04/19/2008 at 16:59:48
The Clintons know the game is over. They are simply using every opportunity now to damage Barack and the Party out of anger and revenge.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I disagree. I think they are suffering from hubris. They've been dealing out lies for so long, they've lost touch with the truth. They've started believing their own PR. posted 04/19/2008 at 16:59:48
Who Will be Thrown Under the Clinton Bus Next?
You have totally missed the point. The problem isn't that Clinton *noticed* that MoveOn endorsed Obama over her, the problem is that she decided to *trash* MoveOn after she found out. The same thing happened when Governor Richardson announced his endorsement of Obama. A Clinton surrogate compared Richardson's endorsement to Judas' betrayal of Jesus Christ.
The Clinton camp has demeaned group after group for the "crime" of supporting Obama instead of Hillary. You have captured this Clinton meme perfectly: "either support Hillary or stay the hell out of our way". posted 04/20/2008 at 15:11:43
The Clinton camp has demeaned group after group for the "crime" of supporting Obama instead of Hillary. You have captured this Clinton meme perfectly: "either support Hillary or stay the hell out of our way". posted 04/20/2008 at 15:11:43
Let me see if I understand you. Lies to get us into an obscene war in Iraq are fine. Lies to keep us in that war are fine. Lies to start a new war with Iran are fine. But when someone dares speak the truth to stop this madness, they are shooting themselves in the foot?
I agree with you that the corporatist media is a big part of the problem we face. I believe it is the biggest part of the problem but I very much disagree that appeasement is part of the solution. The appeasement approach you advocate has made the problem worse, not better. It has allowed the corporatist media to frame issue after issue and drag the entire political debate to the right because the American people are only presented a centrist viewpoint and a far right view point and we end up compromising ourselves further and further to the right. posted 04/20/2008 at 14:53:20
I agree with you that the corporatist media is a big part of the problem we face. I believe it is the biggest part of the problem but I very much disagree that appeasement is part of the solution. The appeasement approach you advocate has made the problem worse, not better. It has allowed the corporatist media to frame issue after issue and drag the entire political debate to the right because the American people are only presented a centrist viewpoint and a far right view point and we end up compromising ourselves further and further to the right. posted 04/20/2008 at 14:53:20
When Bill Richardson endorsed Obama instead of Clinton, the Clinton supporters thought loyalty was the most important quality a person could have and slammed Richardson for being disloyal to the Clintons. Yet, time and again the Clintons show disloyalty to others without blinking an eye. Richardson put loyalty to his own conscious and to his party above loyalty to the Clintons and he got slammed.
The Clintons seem to have forgotten that loyalty is supposed to be a two-way street. Ask not what your party can do for you. Ask what you can do for your party. posted 04/19/2008 at 16:37:37
The Clintons seem to have forgotten that loyalty is supposed to be a two-way street. Ask not what your party can do for you. Ask what you can do for your party. posted 04/19/2008 at 16:37:37
Obama Draws Largest Crowd Of His Campaign At Philadelphia Rally
Once Obama wins the nomination, Clinton can make use of her "I'm not bitter" bumperstickers. posted 04/19/2008 at 02:02:10
A nationwide Newsweek poll released April 18th says Obama is up by 19%.
Poll: Obama Pulling Away
http://www.newsweek.com/id/132721 posted 04/19/2008 at 02:00:42
Poll: Obama Pulling Away
http://www.newsweek.com/id/132721 posted 04/19/2008 at 02:00:42
If we are to believe the Clinton surrogate, Tom Buffenbarger, then this would be a good time to invest in Birkenstock sandals and Prius automobiles. posted 04/18/2008 at 23:44:28
Clinton Slams Democratic Activists At Private Fundraiser
MoveOn does not spread nasty, discredited, right-wing lies about Democrats. Clinton does. She continues to spread the right-wing Nafta-gate lies even though they were debunked by the Canadian Prime Minister as blatantly unfair to Obama almost six weeks ago. posted 04/18/2008 at 21:26:05
Clinton's Odds: Time And Delegate Math Not In Her Favor
Hillary Clinton is nothing, if not a whiner!
I fixed the obvious typo for you. posted 04/18/2008 at 15:14:03
I fixed the obvious typo for you. posted 04/18/2008 at 15:14:03
Superdelegates Unswayed By Clinton's Attacks
With the caption: "I'm not bitter". posted 04/18/2008 at 15:41:20
Obama Going Negative? Mailer Hits Clinton On Trade
The front page of the Gallop Poll Web site http://www.gallup.com/ has a wonderful picture that captures the difference between the Obama and Clinton campaigns.
Here is a direct link to the picture:
http://media2.gallup.com/jpg/080417dems.jpg posted 04/17/2008 at 15:34:30
Here is a direct link to the picture:
http://media2.gallup.com/jpg/080417dems.jpg posted 04/17/2008 at 15:34:30
The ABC Debate: A Shameful Night for the U.S. Media
Exactly. The first 45 minutes was a debate about nothing. posted 04/17/2008 at 01:24:59
Hunters and Shooters Support Obama: He "Gets It"
Right now America is by far the most heavily armed nation in the history of mankind. Obama was saying he would slow down the rate of increase of our military technology. Slowing down the rate of increase is not the same thing as disarming.
Why is it that no one seems to have anything bad to say about Obama without using lies and distortions? Is he really such a perfect human being that you must twist the truth in order to criticize him?
If you truly believe the words you wrote above then maybe you should form a new group callled: Delusional Paranoids Against Obama. posted 04/16/2008 at 16:21:23
Why is it that no one seems to have anything bad to say about Obama without using lies and distortions? Is he really such a perfect human being that you must twist the truth in order to criticize him?
If you truly believe the words you wrote above then maybe you should form a new group callled: Delusional Paranoids Against Obama. posted 04/16/2008 at 16:21:23
Bitter? Frustrated? Welcome to American Politics
It means people vote based on "religious" issues such as abortion or homosexuality instead of voting for their own economic self-interest. This is not a new idea. Take a look at the book "What's the Matter with Kansas: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America". posted 04/16/2008 at 02:29:41
Jenna Bush Tries Not To Flash Pope Benedict XVI: Video
Stories like this make the Huffington Post look bad. posted 04/15/2008 at 19:14:04
Harry Reid On Dems Race: It Makes Me Bitter
They should stock up on the "I'm not bitter" bumper stickers so they can use them after the Democratic nomination is decided. posted 04/16/2008 at 01:14:04
Bittergate-Wake Pennsylvania Polls Trickling In
Gandhi's philosophy and practice of nonviolent resistance is called "Satyagraha". I was taught that the literal translation of this Sanskrit term is "cling to the truth". posted 04/16/2008 at 23:48:07
Why Hillary Clinton's Slash-and-Burn Politics May Hurt Her More Than Obama
They are waiting because they know that if they endorsed now, a bunch of Hillary supporters would whine and complain that people in the remaining states didn't get a chance to vote. posted 04/15/2008 at 20:07:49
Pa. Voters Divided Over Obama Remarks
The poll said 56% *disagreed* with what Obama said. The last time I checked, "disagree with" is not at all the same thing as "offended by".
The poll also said that 56% agreed with Obama's statement that "People are fed up. They're angry and they're frustrated and they're bitter, and they want to see a change in Washington." posted 04/15/2008 at 00:43:19
The poll also said that 56% agreed with Obama's statement that "People are fed up. They're angry and they're frustrated and they're bitter, and they want to see a change in Washington." posted 04/15/2008 at 00:43:19
Got Bitter?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I do not understand why Obama supporters do not want him to be scrutinized.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Having your words taken out of context and endlessly repeated is not the same thing as being scrutinized. posted 04/14/2008 at 20:13:05
I do not understand why Obama supporters do not want him to be scrutinized.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Having your words taken out of context and endlessly repeated is not the same thing as being scrutinized. posted 04/14/2008 at 20:13:05
Hillary Get Your Gun
Does anyone else remember the Julie Brown song: "The Homecoming Queen's Got a Gun?"
She looked so pretty in pink chiffon
Riding the float with her tiara on
Holding this humongous bouquet in her hand
She looked straight out of Disneyland
You know, like the Cinderella ride
I mean definitely an E ticket
Everybody run
The Homecoming Queen's got a gun
Everybody run
The Homecoming Queen has got a gun posted 04/14/2008 at 03:58:52
She looked so pretty in pink chiffon
Riding the float with her tiara on
Holding this humongous bouquet in her hand
She looked straight out of Disneyland
You know, like the Cinderella ride
I mean definitely an E ticket
Everybody run
The Homecoming Queen's got a gun
Everybody run
The Homecoming Queen has got a gun posted 04/14/2008 at 03:58:52
Buchanan On McLaughlin: Fifty-Fifty Chance We Bomb Iran By Fall
The Democrats already voted for war with Iran via the Kyl-Lieberman amendment last fall. Here is a fuller analysis by Buchanan on antiwar.com which includes this point:
Petraeus Points to War With Iran
http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=12673
I agree with you that all hell would break loose if we attacked but I think that is part of Rovian plan. It will make national security a big issue and thus give McCain a shot at the White House. I'm not saying it is a good plan, but I think it is clear to the Bush cabal that they will certainly lose the White House if they don't do something.
Heck, if things get really bad, Bush can declare martial law and suspend the elections. posted 04/14/2008 at 01:59:22
Petraeus Points to War With Iran
http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=12673
I agree with you that all hell would break loose if we attacked but I think that is part of Rovian plan. It will make national security a big issue and thus give McCain a shot at the White House. I'm not saying it is a good plan, but I think it is clear to the Bush cabal that they will certainly lose the White House if they don't do something.
Heck, if things get really bad, Bush can declare martial law and suspend the elections. posted 04/14/2008 at 01:59:22
I totally agree with what Buchanan is saying. I (not Buchanan) think Bush wants to attack Iran so he can become relevant again and possibly throw the election to Clinton/McCain. Here is a fuller analysis by Buchanan on antiwar.com:
Petraeus Points to War With Iran
http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=12673 posted 04/13/2008 at 20:49:02
Petraeus Points to War With Iran
http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=12673 posted 04/13/2008 at 20:49:02
Noteworthy Political Scientist Says Clinton Was For Characterization Of Working-Class Voters Before She Was Against It
I hope Clinton saves some of her "I'm not bitter" bumper stickers so they can be used after she loses the nomination. posted 04/13/2008 at 18:50:49
Tim Russert Nails Hillary Clinton Over Bosnia Trip Falsehoods
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Obama's entire campaign has been built on getting as close to Hillary as he can ...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You're kidding, right? Here are three quick examples of exactly the opposite.
Social Security: Obama's plan is to remove the cap so people earning more than $100,000/year pay the same percentage into the system as everyone else. Clinton's plan: form a committee to investigate the problem. She criticized Obama's plan as an increased tax on the middle class.
US Mercenaries in Iraq: Obama took the lead on this issue last Fall while Clinton stayed mum. Clinton hopped on board about a month ago.
War: Not only did Clinton vote for the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq" in 2002. She repeated her blunder and voted for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment (giving Bush the green light to attack Iran) in the Fall of 2007. It was only after Clinton realized that her consistent pro-war votes were one of the reasons she was no longer "inevitable" that she moved her position closer to Obama's. posted 04/13/2008 at 13:47:44
Obama's entire campaign has been built on getting as close to Hillary as he can ...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You're kidding, right? Here are three quick examples of exactly the opposite.
Social Security: Obama's plan is to remove the cap so people earning more than $100,000/year pay the same percentage into the system as everyone else. Clinton's plan: form a committee to investigate the problem. She criticized Obama's plan as an increased tax on the middle class.
US Mercenaries in Iraq: Obama took the lead on this issue last Fall while Clinton stayed mum. Clinton hopped on board about a month ago.
War: Not only did Clinton vote for the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq" in 2002. She repeated her blunder and voted for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment (giving Bush the green light to attack Iran) in the Fall of 2007. It was only after Clinton realized that her consistent pro-war votes were one of the reasons she was no longer "inevitable" that she moved her position closer to Obama's. posted 04/13/2008 at 13:47:44
He actually said: Get elected or LIE trying.
Even better. posted 04/13/2008 at 13:31:42
Even better. posted 04/13/2008 at 13:31:42
Hillary Clinton Support Among White Women Slipping In Pennsylvania
Pollster.com has a graph of all the Pennsylvania polls. It was updated yesterday (April 13):
http://www.pollster.com/08-PA-Dem-Pres-Primary.php
Hillary' 20 point lead at the beginning of this year has been declining. It has been slipping since April 3rd as well and was down to 4.1% as of yesterday.
They also looked at a recent Quinnipiac poll and saw the same decline in Hillary's support among white women which dropped by 5% among white women who did not go to college and dropped by 10% among white college educated women.
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/another_update_pa_results_by_r.php
The poll used in the article may be a little stale but Hillary's declining support is still fresh. posted 04/14/2008 at 13:26:15
http://www.pollster.com/08-PA-Dem-Pres-Primary.php
Hillary' 20 point lead at the beginning of this year has been declining. It has been slipping since April 3rd as well and was down to 4.1% as of yesterday.
They also looked at a recent Quinnipiac poll and saw the same decline in Hillary's support among white women which dropped by 5% among white women who did not go to college and dropped by 10% among white college educated women.
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/another_update_pa_results_by_r.php
The poll used in the article may be a little stale but Hillary's declining support is still fresh. posted 04/14/2008 at 13:26:15
There is no question that there is tremendous scatter in the various poll results. But you can see all of the poll results plotted here along with the average trend:
http://www.pollster.com/08-PA-Dem-Pres-Primary.php
Clinton had a 20 point lead at the beginning of 2008 and that lead has now shrunk down to 6.1%. Her support must be slipping somewhere. Let's see what Quinnipac says about the change in her support among white women.
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/another_update_pa_results_by_r.php
If we drill down into the recent cross tabulated Quinnipac poll, we find that since March 16th, Clinton has lost 5% of her support among non-college white women and 10% of her support among women who went to college.
The Huffington Post headline was accurate and once again the Clinton supporters are either lying or mistaken. It seems that reality has a distinct anti-Clinton bias. posted 04/14/2008 at 07:10:35
http://www.pollster.com/08-PA-Dem-Pres-Primary.php
Clinton had a 20 point lead at the beginning of 2008 and that lead has now shrunk down to 6.1%. Her support must be slipping somewhere. Let's see what Quinnipac says about the change in her support among white women.
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/another_update_pa_results_by_r.php
If we drill down into the recent cross tabulated Quinnipac poll, we find that since March 16th, Clinton has lost 5% of her support among non-college white women and 10% of her support among women who went to college.
The Huffington Post headline was accurate and once again the Clinton supporters are either lying or mistaken. It seems that reality has a distinct anti-Clinton bias. posted 04/14/2008 at 07:10:35
Clinton's eroding support is a fact.
Clinton is losing support in PA (6% and shrinking):
http://www.pollster.com/08-PA-Dem-Pres-Primary.php
Obama is gaining support in NC (17% and growing):
http://www.pollster.com/08-NC-Dem-Pres-Primary.php
I think you might have meant "February's primaries had lined up quite well for Obama" since he WON ALL ELEVEN primaries in February after super Tuesday. It's true that Obama did better than Hillary in March as well, but February was his big month. There is no doubt that any month where Hillary wins at least one race will be better for her than post-super-Tuesday February when she lost eleven in a row, but she is so far behind now that needs to win ALL the remaining 10 races by an average of 30% just to catch up.
Right now it looks like Obama is on track to increase his delegate lead after PA, NC, and IN vote. This is better for Clinton than losing all three states by wide margins, but it looks like she might still be moving in the wrong direction and she is nowhere near the landslide victories she requires to become competitive. posted 04/13/2008 at 15:14:29
Clinton is losing support in PA (6% and shrinking):
http://www.pollster.com/08-PA-Dem-Pres-Primary.php
Obama is gaining support in NC (17% and growing):
http://www.pollster.com/08-NC-Dem-Pres-Primary.php
I think you might have meant "February's primaries had lined up quite well for Obama" since he WON ALL ELEVEN primaries in February after super Tuesday. It's true that Obama did better than Hillary in March as well, but February was his big month. There is no doubt that any month where Hillary wins at least one race will be better for her than post-super-Tuesday February when she lost eleven in a row, but she is so far behind now that needs to win ALL the remaining 10 races by an average of 30% just to catch up.
Right now it looks like Obama is on track to increase his delegate lead after PA, NC, and IN vote. This is better for Clinton than losing all three states by wide margins, but it looks like she might still be moving in the wrong direction and she is nowhere near the landslide victories she requires to become competitive. posted 04/13/2008 at 15:14:29
SNL Notices Petraeus, Mocks Clinton's Iraq War Vote
We Obama supporters have to have a sense of humor when confronted with the absurdities spewing from the Clinton campaign.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
But before the breakfast crowd had a chance to digest that, they were served another, stranger course by Clinton campaign spokesman Phil Singer. Asked about an accusation on the Drudge Report that Clinton staffers had circulated a photo of Barack Obama wearing Somali tribal dress, Singer let 'er rip.
"I find it interesting that in a room of such esteemed journalists that Mr. Drudge has become your respected assignment editor," he lectured. "I find it to be a reflection of one of the problems that's gone on with the overall coverage of this campaign." He went on to chide the journalists for their "woefully inadequate" coverage of Obama, "a point that has been certainly backed up by the 'Saturday Night Live' skit that opened the show this past Saturday evening, which I would refer you all to."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Then Clinton dismisses Sinbad's eyewitness account of her Bosnia trip based solely on the fact that "he's a comedian". She uses a SNL comedian skit as a critique of the media but insists we ignore the eyewitness account of a comedian. Obama supporters could not survive such logical backflips without a good sense of humor.
References:
Phil Singer's SNL reference:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/25/AR2008022502501_pf.html
Clinton vs. Sinbad:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/03/clinton-vs-sinb.html posted 04/14/2008 at 06:51:35
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
But before the breakfast crowd had a chance to digest that, they were served another, stranger course by Clinton campaign spokesman Phil Singer. Asked about an accusation on the Drudge Report that Clinton staffers had circulated a photo of Barack Obama wearing Somali tribal dress, Singer let 'er rip.
"I find it interesting that in a room of such esteemed journalists that Mr. Drudge has become your respected assignment editor," he lectured. "I find it to be a reflection of one of the problems that's gone on with the overall coverage of this campaign." He went on to chide the journalists for their "woefully inadequate" coverage of Obama, "a point that has been certainly backed up by the 'Saturday Night Live' skit that opened the show this past Saturday evening, which I would refer you all to."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Then Clinton dismisses Sinbad's eyewitness account of her Bosnia trip based solely on the fact that "he's a comedian". She uses a SNL comedian skit as a critique of the media but insists we ignore the eyewitness account of a comedian. Obama supporters could not survive such logical backflips without a good sense of humor.
References:
Phil Singer's SNL reference:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/25/AR2008022502501_pf.html
Clinton vs. Sinbad:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/03/clinton-vs-sinb.html posted 04/14/2008 at 06:51:35
Clinton Falsely Praises Gordon Brown For Joining Olympic Boycott
The headline says "Clinton Falsely praises Gordon Brown ..."
The UK article says Brown was "wrongly praised by Hillary Clinton" with a headline that says "Clinton Embarrasses Brown ..."
ISTM the Huffington Post headline is spot on and slightly less provocative than the UK headline. But maybe you think that unintentionally embarrassing Britain's Prime Minister is a *good* thing. posted 04/12/2008 at 19:56:55
The UK article says Brown was "wrongly praised by Hillary Clinton" with a headline that says "Clinton Embarrasses Brown ..."
ISTM the Huffington Post headline is spot on and slightly less provocative than the UK headline. But maybe you think that unintentionally embarrassing Britain's Prime Minister is a *good* thing. posted 04/12/2008 at 19:56:55
Neither the Huffington Post summary nor the headline mention "lie". The headline says "falsely praises" which is accurate.
Unlike her Bosnia lies and her many Nafta lies, etc, etc., this one is obviously a mistake. But the fact that it is a mistake and not a lie doesn't make it any less bone-headed. She complains about Obama not being "vetted" and yet she makes gaffes like this day after day. Clearly no one on her team is vetting what she says.
It must be very embarrassing, especially when she is working overtime trying to twist everything Obama says into something it's not. Your misdirected anger is understandable. I'm sorry for you loss. posted 04/12/2008 at 19:48:28
Unlike her Bosnia lies and her many Nafta lies, etc, etc., this one is obviously a mistake. But the fact that it is a mistake and not a lie doesn't make it any less bone-headed. She complains about Obama not being "vetted" and yet she makes gaffes like this day after day. Clearly no one on her team is vetting what she says.
It must be very embarrassing, especially when she is working overtime trying to twist everything Obama says into something it's not. Your misdirected anger is understandable. I'm sorry for you loss. posted 04/12/2008 at 19:48:28
We're All On The Same Team Folks!
Hillary Clinton, March 3, 2008:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I think that I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Your defense of her vote for war is a joke. If she was fooled by Bush into giving him authority to attack Iraq in 2002, then why in hell did she vote in 2007 to give him the green-light to attack Iran? Does she have a learning disability? No. Of course not. Both votes for war were calculated political decisions to position herself for the general presidential election in 2008.
The problem was not just her 2002 vote for war. The problem was that for over 5 years she refused to admit her vote was a mistake. Like every every important issue she has had to deal with, she wants to take both sides. We've suffered through over 7 years with a president who lies to us about war in the Mideast. Why would we want another 4 more? posted 04/17/2008 at 01:47:26
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I think that I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Your defense of her vote for war is a joke. If she was fooled by Bush into giving him authority to attack Iraq in 2002, then why in hell did she vote in 2007 to give him the green-light to attack Iran? Does she have a learning disability? No. Of course not. Both votes for war were calculated political decisions to position herself for the general presidential election in 2008.
The problem was not just her 2002 vote for war. The problem was that for over 5 years she refused to admit her vote was a mistake. Like every every important issue she has had to deal with, she wants to take both sides. We've suffered through over 7 years with a president who lies to us about war in the Mideast. Why would we want another 4 more? posted 04/17/2008 at 01:47:26
"Big Tent" Re-Opens: Obama Campaign Reverses CA Delegate Purge
Of course the states that didn't vote for Hillary must be punished! If they are not disenfranchised then Hillary cannot win.
The math is very simple. If we only count the 14 races Hillary won and we ignore the 30 races that Obama won then Hillary wins every race! Next, we kick the math up a notch and concoct some cockeyed criteria that include a few of the races Obama won as well in order to prove that the new set of rules is fair and balanced. posted 04/11/2008 at 14:39:30
The math is very simple. If we only count the 14 races Hillary won and we ignore the 30 races that Obama won then Hillary wins every race! Next, we kick the math up a notch and concoct some cockeyed criteria that include a few of the races Obama won as well in order to prove that the new set of rules is fair and balanced. posted 04/11/2008 at 14:39:30
Don't Be Fooled: Obama Is Actually Leading Hillary By 1-2 Million Votes
I disagree. I think it is inappropriate to compare the popular vote count in primaries to the popular vote count in caucuses because this severely disenfranchises the states that chose to hold caucuses. The only fair way to compare caucuses and primaries is with the pledged delegates.
Using the popular vote is changing the rules in the middle of the game in order to give one candidate an unfair advantage. It is trivial to verify that this rule change would be unfair. If the caucus states were warned of this rule change beforehand, can there be any doubt that some of them would use primaries instead, in order to avoid being disenfranchised? posted 04/10/2008 at 19:12:29
Using the popular vote is changing the rules in the middle of the game in order to give one candidate an unfair advantage. It is trivial to verify that this rule change would be unfair. If the caucus states were warned of this rule change beforehand, can there be any doubt that some of them would use primaries instead, in order to avoid being disenfranchised? posted 04/10/2008 at 19:12:29
Shawn,
I think the analysis you present here is very weak. A much better attempt was recently posted here:
Study: Hillary's Popular Vote Hope a Mirage
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/glenn-hurowitz/study-hillarys-popular-vo_b_95846.html
You need to read the 6-page pdf to understand exactly what they did. They used the demographics from the caucus states to estimate what the results would have been had those states held primaries instead. Their study also gives Obama a boost in the "popular vote" but it is much smaller than the boost you arrived at. posted 04/10/2008 at 19:01:21
I think the analysis you present here is very weak. A much better attempt was recently posted here:
Study: Hillary's Popular Vote Hope a Mirage
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/glenn-hurowitz/study-hillarys-popular-vo_b_95846.html
You need to read the 6-page pdf to understand exactly what they did. They used the demographics from the caucus states to estimate what the results would have been had those states held primaries instead. Their study also gives Obama a boost in the "popular vote" but it is much smaller than the boost you arrived at. posted 04/10/2008 at 19:01:21
The Way Out of Iraq
Why is the Hoover Institution party line published on the Huffington Post? Don't we get enough of this stuff through the MSM? I would much rather see, for example, Patrick Cockburn's latest article on Muqtada al-Sadr:
Riding the Tiger Muqtada al-Sadr and the American Dilemma in Iraq
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174916/patrick_cockburn_petraeus_s_ghost posted 04/10/2008 at 14:24:01
Riding the Tiger Muqtada al-Sadr and the American Dilemma in Iraq
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174916/patrick_cockburn_petraeus_s_ghost posted 04/10/2008 at 14:24:01
Obama Avoids Olympic Boycott Discussions
You can denigrate it all you want, but listening to others and then finding common ground amongst disparate positions is a very good skill for a president to have. It's probably the most important skill a president could have.
This is fundamentally different from following focus groups and polls. Obama's genius is his ability to come up with solutions that are acceptable to diverse groups of people that help them work together for their own common good. posted 04/09/2008 at 17:58:00
This is fundamentally different from following focus groups and polls. Obama's genius is his ability to come up with solutions that are acceptable to diverse groups of people that help them work together for their own common good. posted 04/09/2008 at 17:58:00
Obama Camp Won't Pull Oil Ad That Clinton Calls Misleading
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It adds credibility to her saying she disagreed with NAFTA when Bill supported it when he was president.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Huh? How does this add credibility?
She is on record for publicly supporting Nafta on numerous occasions and then she lies to the American public and says she *never* supported it. Then when she is caught in this lie, she says that we should ignore her public support for Nafta and give her credit for her private thoughts and conversations against it.
This tells me she has zero credibility. Whenever she tells the public she supports X, how can we know she's not going to pull a Nafta and reverse herself a year later saying that she was privately against X the whole time? posted 04/10/2008 at 00:24:32
It adds credibility to her saying she disagreed with NAFTA when Bill supported it when he was president.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Huh? How does this add credibility?
She is on record for publicly supporting Nafta on numerous occasions and then she lies to the American public and says she *never* supported it. Then when she is caught in this lie, she says that we should ignore her public support for Nafta and give her credit for her private thoughts and conversations against it.
This tells me she has zero credibility. Whenever she tells the public she supports X, how can we know she's not going to pull a Nafta and reverse herself a year later saying that she was privately against X the whole time? posted 04/10/2008 at 00:24:32
Study: Hillary's Popular Vote Hope a Mirage
If you had actually read the 6-page pdf then you would have realized that this study did NOT ignore the decision by Clinton to give up on the caucus states. The study uses the **demographics** of the caucus states to predict the outcomes of hypothetical primaries. Certainly Clinton's lack of campaigning in those states didn't alter the demographics. posted 04/10/2008 at 19:00:05
Petraeus Ready To Talk To Iran Again
Or maybe they're still miffed about that whole Shah of Iran thing we imposed on them. posted 04/09/2008 at 14:12:08
Enough with your lies about Kyl-Lieberman!
The truth is that Harry Reid tabled the vote on KL indefinitely so Obama went to New Hampshire to campaign. While he was there, Reid put KL back on the table with only one hour's notice. It was physically impossible for Obama to get back in time to vote so he did the next best thing, he came out publicly against KL. So the truth is he actually did take a stand on KL, ON THE RECORD. He is against it.
You must think Obama is darned near perfect if you have to resort to lies like this in order to say something bad about him. posted 04/09/2008 at 14:05:18
The truth is that Harry Reid tabled the vote on KL indefinitely so Obama went to New Hampshire to campaign. While he was there, Reid put KL back on the table with only one hour's notice. It was physically impossible for Obama to get back in time to vote so he did the next best thing, he came out publicly against KL. So the truth is he actually did take a stand on KL, ON THE RECORD. He is against it.
You must think Obama is darned near perfect if you have to resort to lies like this in order to say something bad about him. posted 04/09/2008 at 14:05:18
What the heck does "counter-malign" mean?
From the Democracy Now! transcript of a portion of the testimony:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
GEN. DAVID PETRAEUS: ... a failed state in Iraq would pose serious consequences ... for the efforts to counter-malign Iranian influence.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That was not a typo. If you listen, it is clearly the word he used. I suspect that this is the world's biggest Freudian slip. posted 04/09/2008 at 13:57:59
From the Democracy Now! transcript of a portion of the testimony:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
GEN. DAVID PETRAEUS: ... a failed state in Iraq would pose serious consequences ... for the efforts to counter-malign Iranian influence.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That was not a typo. If you listen, it is clearly the word he used. I suspect that this is the world's biggest Freudian slip. posted 04/09/2008 at 13:57:59
General Petraeus: "We Haven't Turned Any Corners. We Haven't Seen Any Lights At The End Of The Tunnel"
His age would be a total non-issue. posted 04/09/2008 at 00:43:35
Pelosi: Reduce Number of Superdelegates
As Speaker of the House, she is also Chair of the Democratic National Convention. So this dealing with this mess *is* part of her job. posted 04/08/2008 at 19:50:13
Obama's Star Turn At The Petraeus Hearing
I thought his question about how we measure success was utterly brilliant. First, it caught Crocker in his lies (or vast distortions) of how good the current situation actually is. It was like Obama was asking "if this current situation is really as good as you claim it is then can we use it as a yardstick for our success when we draw down the troops?" It is no wonder Crocker ducked the question. He had no answer that would not expose his lies and distortions.
The second reason I thought the question was so good was that it showed that Obama is really looking for a middle path that will be acceptable to the great majority of people on *both* sides of the issue of our presence in Iraq. Some say "stay 100 years" others say "troops out NOW" but this question from Obama really got me thinking about the practicalities of winding down the Iraq war. Ending the war became real for me. posted 04/09/2008 at 22:46:36
The second reason I thought the question was so good was that it showed that Obama is really looking for a middle path that will be acceptable to the great majority of people on *both* sides of the issue of our presence in Iraq. Some say "stay 100 years" others say "troops out NOW" but this question from Obama really got me thinking about the practicalities of winding down the Iraq war. Ending the war became real for me. posted 04/09/2008 at 22:46:36
What a hoot!
Clinton complains that Obama is all style and no substance and now here you are complaining about his style so you can ignore the substance of what he said.
Here is the crucial question he asked:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If we were able to have the status quo in Iraq right now without US troops, would that be a sufficient definition of success? It"s obviously not perfect. There"s still violence. There"s still some traces of al-Qaeda. Iran has influence more than we would like. But if we had the current status quo, and yet our troops had been drawn down to 30,000, would we consider that a success?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It is most disingenuous of you to claim this question is empty and vague. You're letting Ambassador Crocker off the hook for ducking this crucial question. Can we use the current post-surge status quo as a yardstick to measure our success in Iraq? Crocker ducked the question because any answer would expose either his lies about the status quo or his wildly unrealistic measure of true success. posted 04/09/2008 at 22:29:53
Clinton complains that Obama is all style and no substance and now here you are complaining about his style so you can ignore the substance of what he said.
Here is the crucial question he asked:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If we were able to have the status quo in Iraq right now without US troops, would that be a sufficient definition of success? It"s obviously not perfect. There"s still violence. There"s still some traces of al-Qaeda. Iran has influence more than we would like. But if we had the current status quo, and yet our troops had been drawn down to 30,000, would we consider that a success?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It is most disingenuous of you to claim this question is empty and vague. You're letting Ambassador Crocker off the hook for ducking this crucial question. Can we use the current post-surge status quo as a yardstick to measure our success in Iraq? Crocker ducked the question because any answer would expose either his lies about the status quo or his wildly unrealistic measure of true success. posted 04/09/2008 at 22:29:53
Obama Supporter: Goolsbee Should Clarify NAFTA Comments To Canada
It is not surprising that Mr. Hoffa was confused. The MSM gives Clinton a free pass every time she repeats these right wing Nata-gate lies even though they were debunked by the Canadian Prime Minister over a month ago as blatantly unfair to Obama.
It seems that all the networks have adopted a "fair and balanced" approach to the news, where "fair and balanced" means never having to say "you're lying". posted 04/08/2008 at 18:04:35
It seems that all the networks have adopted a "fair and balanced" approach to the news, where "fair and balanced" means never having to say "you're lying". posted 04/08/2008 at 18:04:35
Obama Delegate Forced To Quit After Remark
I agree that this is silly but I don't think Obama had much of a choice. His opponents take every little thing he says or doesn't say and twist it around as much as possible. Just look at a few of the false article headlines here at the Huffington Post that were recently used to attack Obama.
Obama Hijacks Clinton's Web site. This was an outright lie. No one from the Obama camp touched the Clinton Web site. The actual complaint was about Obama spending more on Internet ads than Clinton.
Obama's Lobbyist Fib. Another lying headline. Obama truthfully said that he does not accept money from federal lobbyists. The article admits what he was saying was true. I don't understand why they said it was a fib.
Obama Uses MLK Assassination to solicit funds. This was also false. The complaint stemmed around an email the Obama campaign sent out commemorating MLK with a link to a video. There was NO REQUESTS FOR FUNDS. Some copies of the email had a "donate" button at the bottom as part of a standard email template. But a single donate button does not a solicitation make.
I don't think it is entirely fair to blame the Obama camp for trying to stay squeaky clean. They get blamed regularly in the media for things where they did absolutely nothing wrong. Worse, the MSM (and even the Huffington Post) do a terrible job at correcting these false charges against Obama. posted 04/08/2008 at 12:51:46
Obama Hijacks Clinton's Web site. This was an outright lie. No one from the Obama camp touched the Clinton Web site. The actual complaint was about Obama spending more on Internet ads than Clinton.
Obama's Lobbyist Fib. Another lying headline. Obama truthfully said that he does not accept money from federal lobbyists. The article admits what he was saying was true. I don't understand why they said it was a fib.
Obama Uses MLK Assassination to solicit funds. This was also false. The complaint stemmed around an email the Obama campaign sent out commemorating MLK with a link to a video. There was NO REQUESTS FOR FUNDS. Some copies of the email had a "donate" button at the bottom as part of a standard email template. But a single donate button does not a solicitation make.
I don't think it is entirely fair to blame the Obama camp for trying to stay squeaky clean. They get blamed regularly in the media for things where they did absolutely nothing wrong. Worse, the MSM (and even the Huffington Post) do a terrible job at correcting these false charges against Obama. posted 04/08/2008 at 12:51:46
Hillary's Last Charge
The Canadian Prime Minister refuted the charges against Obama as well as those against Clinton. He said the original "leak" and "memo" were blatantly unfair to Obama.
I don't know why the MSM lets Clinton keep repeating this right wing smear without correcting her. posted 04/08/2008 at 12:31:45
I don't know why the MSM lets Clinton keep repeating this right wing smear without correcting her. posted 04/08/2008 at 12:31:45
Historian Sean Wilentz And The Latest Nutty Scenario From Clinton Supporters
Oliver Willis used that dirty, sneaky, underhanded tactic of quoting Sean Wilentz and then making a cogent argument that refutes what Wilentz said.
Obama supporter uses rational argument, Clinton supporter cries "foul!" posted 04/08/2008 at 11:30:12
Obama supporter uses rational argument, Clinton supporter cries "foul!" posted 04/08/2008 at 11:30:12
Clinton Hospital Story May Actually Be True
Since the woman had health insurance and since it was illegal for the hospital to turn her away even if she was uninsured, how would Senator Clinton's healthcare plan have fixed this problem?
It wouldn't. posted 04/07/2008 at 18:52:03
It wouldn't. posted 04/07/2008 at 18:52:03
Should Democrats Eliminate Superdelegates and Caucuses in 2012?
The conventional wisdom is that all those delegates and intermediate conventions you want to get rid of are useful for energizing and organizing the party. These are the things that bring people into the party. I think that if you got rid of all that stuff you would be basically getting rid of the party. posted 04/08/2008 at 01:56:27
Let me try to clarify. The idea is that the caucus process brings new people into the party and gets them more involved. It also measures the strength of the ground forces of each candidate. The superdelegates serve neither of these functions. I think the choice for having caucuses and the choice for having superdelegates are indpendent.
Before the big kerfuffles spawned by the current race, I had heard that the one of the reasons to have superdelegates was as a safety measure to protect the nomination from being highjacked by people from other parties in the open primaries. This made sense to me. If this is truly one of the reasons we have superdelegates then I would ask them to take a good hard look at the Limbaugh votes in Ohio, Texas, and Mississippi. posted 04/08/2008 at 01:44:40
Before the big kerfuffles spawned by the current race, I had heard that the one of the reasons to have superdelegates was as a safety measure to protect the nomination from being highjacked by people from other parties in the open primaries. This made sense to me. If this is truly one of the reasons we have superdelegates then I would ask them to take a good hard look at the Limbaugh votes in Ohio, Texas, and Mississippi. posted 04/08/2008 at 01:44:40
Obama's Lobbyist Fib
Your headline is a much bigger fib than the fib you accuse Obama of. He said he does not take money from Washington lobbyists, which is true. Yet your headline screams that he is lying about it. What he said was not nearly as misleading as you claim. Obama is not going to fix the problem of Washington lobbyists overnight. But he is certainly taking a step in the right direction by refusing to take their money. Yet you attack him for taking it.
This is part of a disturbing pattern. Recently we were subjected to the false headline that Obama was using the MLK assassination to solicit funds. But the email in question did not mention money. At worst, some copies had a "donate" button at the bottom as part of a standard email template. A "donate" button does not a solicitation make.
Last week we had an even more shocking headline claiming that Obama hijacked Hillary Clinton's Web site. If it were true, Obama would be facing jail time. Breaking into someone else's computer is a serious crime. But the story merely complained that the Obama campaign bought more Google ads than Clinton's did.
If you want to quibble that Obama is not doing *enough* to short circuit Washington lobbyists, even though he is doing more about the problem then either Clinton or McCain, that's fine. But don't use it as an excuse for a shocking headline that lies about him being a liar. posted 04/07/2008 at 13:09:50
This is part of a disturbing pattern. Recently we were subjected to the false headline that Obama was using the MLK assassination to solicit funds. But the email in question did not mention money. At worst, some copies had a "donate" button at the bottom as part of a standard email template. A "donate" button does not a solicitation make.
Last week we had an even more shocking headline claiming that Obama hijacked Hillary Clinton's Web site. If it were true, Obama would be facing jail time. Breaking into someone else's computer is a serious crime. But the story merely complained that the Obama campaign bought more Google ads than Clinton's did.
If you want to quibble that Obama is not doing *enough* to short circuit Washington lobbyists, even though he is doing more about the problem then either Clinton or McCain, that's fine. But don't use it as an excuse for a shocking headline that lies about him being a liar. posted 04/07/2008 at 13:09:50
John McLaughlin's Eternal Struggle
I take it you've never watched the McLaughlin Group. posted 04/06/2008 at 18:37:38
Fighting Erupts In Baghdad After Week Of Relative Calm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Funny, is this the same Obama who promised to still have troops in Iraq at the end of his term in 2012?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nope. It was not Obama that said that, it was one of his many advisers. It is trivial to find out what Obama himself says on this issue:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you disagree with Obama's position, that's fine, tell us why. But don't simply spread lies about him. Ron Paul has the luxury of being a non-serious contender for the White House. This means he can make promises that would be impossible to fulfill and not catch a lot of grief for it.
Obama has a serious and realistic plan to get us out of the mess Bush created in Iraq. But he is not God and he is not superman so there will always be contingencies and caveats when dealing with such a colossal mess. posted 04/07/2008 at 13:45:44
Funny, is this the same Obama who promised to still have troops in Iraq at the end of his term in 2012?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nope. It was not Obama that said that, it was one of his many advisers. It is trivial to find out what Obama himself says on this issue:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you disagree with Obama's position, that's fine, tell us why. But don't simply spread lies about him. Ron Paul has the luxury of being a non-serious contender for the White House. This means he can make promises that would be impossible to fulfill and not catch a lot of grief for it.
Obama has a serious and realistic plan to get us out of the mess Bush created in Iraq. But he is not God and he is not superman so there will always be contingencies and caveats when dealing with such a colossal mess. posted 04/07/2008 at 13:45:44
Here is the story from the London Telegraph:
British fear US commander is beating the drum for Iran strikes
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/05/wiran105.xml
IMO, the US instigated the renewed violence in Iraq to serve as a "Gulf of Tonkin" excuse to attack Iran. I expect that attack to start before the Pennsylvania primary. posted 04/06/2008 at 23:31:40
British fear US commander is beating the drum for Iran strikes
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/05/wiran105.xml
IMO, the US instigated the renewed violence in Iraq to serve as a "Gulf of Tonkin" excuse to attack Iran. I expect that attack to start before the Pennsylvania primary. posted 04/06/2008 at 23:31:40
Clinton Makes False Claim About Her Iraq Record Vs. Obama's
The American occupation was the reason the Mahdi Army refused to lay down their arms as requested. Sadr said they would not give up their arms to a government that supports the US occupation. posted 04/06/2008 at 13:37:07
Hillary Clinton: I Started Criticizing Iraq War Before Obama
Clinton tells the truth about as well as Obama bowls. posted 04/06/2008 at 03:16:20
Barack can bowl better than Clinton can tell the truth. posted 04/06/2008 at 00:50:03
Oh come on, give her a break. Don't you remember that she told us to forget her public support for Nafta because she was actually against it in her personal thoughts and conversations? I'm sure that is what is going on here too. We should ignore her public support (and vote!) for the war because she was actually against it in her private thoughts.
Or maybe she simply misspoke because she was sleep deprived like she did with the Bosnia sniper story she made up. Or maybe she misheard the question like when she denied telling Governor Richardson that Obama couldn't win. Or maybe it was the fault of her staff for not vetting her speech, like when she kept slandering the hospital that actually took care of that poor woman who tragically died.
The point is that she has plenty of years of experience explaining away why the words coming out of her mouth don't match reality. I'm sure she will find a creative excuse for this most recent lapse. Or perhaps it was a deliberate ploy to distract the media away from her attempt to disenfranchise North Dakota voters by getting their pledged delegates to defect. posted 04/05/2008 at 23:31:35
Or maybe she simply misspoke because she was sleep deprived like she did with the Bosnia sniper story she made up. Or maybe she misheard the question like when she denied telling Governor Richardson that Obama couldn't win. Or maybe it was the fault of her staff for not vetting her speech, like when she kept slandering the hospital that actually took care of that poor woman who tragically died.
The point is that she has plenty of years of experience explaining away why the words coming out of her mouth don't match reality. I'm sure she will find a creative excuse for this most recent lapse. Or perhaps it was a deliberate ploy to distract the media away from her attempt to disenfranchise North Dakota voters by getting their pledged delegates to defect. posted 04/05/2008 at 23:31:35
No Re-Vote In Michigan A Blow To Clinton
Actually it was Clinton surrogates who were working for weeks behind the scenes to prevent a re-vote in Michigan.
Michigan Superdelegates Tense As March 4 Primaries Near http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-treul/michigan-superdelegates-t_b_89110.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Brewer has been heavily criticized for his organization's bungling of its primary, and, like Gov. Granholm, is quietly resisting calls for a "do-over" - a caucus that analysts predict would heavily favor Obama.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Clinton surrogates also worked against a re-vote in Florida. On March 5th, Geraldine Ferraro was on the PBS news hour saying that there was no reason for a re-vote in Florida because the unofficial results were perfectly fair. It was only after it became clear that the unofficial results from MI and FL would not be counted that Clinton changed gears and started working for re-votes instead of against them. posted 04/05/2008 at 17:18:51
Michigan Superdelegates Tense As March 4 Primaries Near http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-treul/michigan-superdelegates-t_b_89110.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Brewer has been heavily criticized for his organization's bungling of its primary, and, like Gov. Granholm, is quietly resisting calls for a "do-over" - a caucus that analysts predict would heavily favor Obama.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Clinton surrogates also worked against a re-vote in Florida. On March 5th, Geraldine Ferraro was on the PBS news hour saying that there was no reason for a re-vote in Florida because the unofficial results were perfectly fair. It was only after it became clear that the unofficial results from MI and FL would not be counted that Clinton changed gears and started working for re-votes instead of against them. posted 04/05/2008 at 17:18:51
Clinton Under Fire Over False Story Of Health Care Horror
It is exactly like a tall tale. The problem is that it slanders the hospital that actually treated the poor woman who died. This story wasn't dug up by the Obama campaign or even by the media, it originated with the hospital that was maligned by Hillary's repetition of this slanderous lie.
This story demonstrates her reckless disregard for the truth. It speaks directly to perhaps the most important issue of any candidacy, can we trust that what she is telling us is the truth? You want us to treat her major stump speech as if it were idle gossip around the water cooler.
In the aftermath of the Bosnia sniper lies that blew up in her face, you would think that her team would be a little more diligent in vetting her major speeches especially the anecdotes like this one that slandered an entire hospital. Instead, they spend their time digging through what Obama wrote in kindergarten and analyzing the handwriting on papers he touched 12 years ago looking for anything the can use against him.
I reject your false dichotomy that we must accept Clinton's lies, distortions, and bungling in order to get universal healthcare. Both Democratic candidates offer us universal healthcare. The lies, bungling, and distortions are entirely optional. posted 04/05/2008 at 17:09:18
This story demonstrates her reckless disregard for the truth. It speaks directly to perhaps the most important issue of any candidacy, can we trust that what she is telling us is the truth? You want us to treat her major stump speech as if it were idle gossip around the water cooler.
In the aftermath of the Bosnia sniper lies that blew up in her face, you would think that her team would be a little more diligent in vetting her major speeches especially the anecdotes like this one that slandered an entire hospital. Instead, they spend their time digging through what Obama wrote in kindergarten and analyzing the handwriting on papers he touched 12 years ago looking for anything the can use against him.
I reject your false dichotomy that we must accept Clinton's lies, distortions, and bungling in order to get universal healthcare. Both Democratic candidates offer us universal healthcare. The lies, bungling, and distortions are entirely optional. posted 04/05/2008 at 17:09:18
Hillary Clinton has NOT been vetted.
This story proves that Hillary Clinton is not being vetted by either the Obama campaign or by the news media. This story didn't originate from some Obama staffers digging into everything Clinton has said. It didn't even originate from the news media in the aftermath of her Bosnia sniper lies. No, this story originated from the hospital she maligned when it was trying to defend itself against her slanderous lies.
On the other hand, the Clinton campaign has been poring over Obama's entire life history looking for the smallest thing they might trip him up with. They went back to an essay he wrote in kindergarten to try to catch him in a lie. They even analyzed the handwriting on papers he had touched 12 years ago in search of proof he was lying.
Clinton got a free pass from the media for her Bosnia lies until Sinbad (who was on the trip with her) stepped up and spoke the truth. Clinton got a free pass from the media for these lies until the hospital she was slandering finally stepped up to defend itself. She continues to get a free pass from the media for repeating the right wing Nafta-gate lies three weeks after they were debunked by the Canadian Prime Minister as being blatantly unfair to Obama.
For the good of the nation, it is time for the news media to finally start vetting Senator Clinton. posted 04/05/2008 at 15:57:27
This story proves that Hillary Clinton is not being vetted by either the Obama campaign or by the news media. This story didn't originate from some Obama staffers digging into everything Clinton has said. It didn't even originate from the news media in the aftermath of her Bosnia sniper lies. No, this story originated from the hospital she maligned when it was trying to defend itself against her slanderous lies.
On the other hand, the Clinton campaign has been poring over Obama's entire life history looking for the smallest thing they might trip him up with. They went back to an essay he wrote in kindergarten to try to catch him in a lie. They even analyzed the handwriting on papers he had touched 12 years ago in search of proof he was lying.
Clinton got a free pass from the media for her Bosnia lies until Sinbad (who was on the trip with her) stepped up and spoke the truth. Clinton got a free pass from the media for these lies until the hospital she was slandering finally stepped up to defend itself. She continues to get a free pass from the media for repeating the right wing Nafta-gate lies three weeks after they were debunked by the Canadian Prime Minister as being blatantly unfair to Obama.
For the good of the nation, it is time for the news media to finally start vetting Senator Clinton. posted 04/05/2008 at 15:57:27
You're right that it would make no sense for Hillary to purposefully lie about this. Just like it made no sense for her to purposefully lie about sniper fire in Bosnia. On the other hand, even though she didn't make up the right wing Nafta-gate lies, she was certainly willing to repeat them for three weeks after they were debunked by the Canadian Prime Minister as blatantly unfair to Obama.
This story is yet another example of Clinton's reckless disregard for the truth. Just like she has been slandering Obama for week after week, with this story she repeatedly slandered the hospital that actually took care of the poor unfortunate woman who died.
The problem is not that the story turned out to be false. The problem is that it was never even vetted by the Clinton campaign even though it casts an entire hospital in a very negative light. You present us with a false dichotomy when you say that unless we accept more lies and slanders from Clinton we are helping the right wing attack healthcare reform. With Obama we can get healthcare reform without the lies and secrecy of the Clintons. posted 04/05/2008 at 14:24:54
This story is yet another example of Clinton's reckless disregard for the truth. Just like she has been slandering Obama for week after week, with this story she repeatedly slandered the hospital that actually took care of the poor unfortunate woman who died.
The problem is not that the story turned out to be false. The problem is that it was never even vetted by the Clinton campaign even though it casts an entire hospital in a very negative light. You present us with a false dichotomy when you say that unless we accept more lies and slanders from Clinton we are helping the right wing attack healthcare reform. With Obama we can get healthcare reform without the lies and secrecy of the Clintons. posted 04/05/2008 at 14:24:54
Obama Raises Funds In Email About 'Tragic Assassination' Of MLK
Another lie from presto.
It was not a solicitation for funds. There was no mention of money in the email at all. Some copies of the email had a standard "donate" button on the bottom. My copy didn't even have that, just the standard "unsubscribe" link.
I get emails from the Obama campaign regularly. It is always perfectly clear when they are asking for money and I always send them money when they ask. They didn't ask for money in the email under discussion so I didn't send any.
If you feel so strongly about Clinton that you are willing to repeat lies to help her, why don't you simply tell us why you think she would make a great president instead of smearing Obama with lies and distortions? posted 04/05/2008 at 13:25:21
It was not a solicitation for funds. There was no mention of money in the email at all. Some copies of the email had a standard "donate" button on the bottom. My copy didn't even have that, just the standard "unsubscribe" link.
I get emails from the Obama campaign regularly. It is always perfectly clear when they are asking for money and I always send them money when they ask. They didn't ask for money in the email under discussion so I didn't send any.
If you feel so strongly about Clinton that you are willing to repeat lies to help her, why don't you simply tell us why you think she would make a great president instead of smearing Obama with lies and distortions? posted 04/05/2008 at 13:25:21
Presto,
The Canadian Prime Minister said the memo was also blatantly unfair to Obama. Obama was telling the truth when he denied the accusation of the first meeting. No one from the Obama camp contacted Canada about Nafta.
The phony memo was concocted after both Canada and Obama truthfully denied that a Nafta specific meeting took place. The phony memo mischaracterized remarks made in a totally different meeting.
Obama never claimed that his camp never met with Canada. That would be absurd. The key point is that Obama and his team have always been consistent about Nafta while on the campaign trail and in discussion with Canada.
The reason the Clinton repetition of these lies is so irksome is because they will continue to echo in the blogosphere long after the official Clinton team stops spreading them.
The original smear was debunked and the second smear in the memo that you refer to was debunked as well. These lies were debunked over a month ago and yet here you are continuing to spread them. posted 04/05/2008 at 13:10:01
The Canadian Prime Minister said the memo was also blatantly unfair to Obama. Obama was telling the truth when he denied the accusation of the first meeting. No one from the Obama camp contacted Canada about Nafta.
The phony memo was concocted after both Canada and Obama truthfully denied that a Nafta specific meeting took place. The phony memo mischaracterized remarks made in a totally different meeting.
Obama never claimed that his camp never met with Canada. That would be absurd. The key point is that Obama and his team have always been consistent about Nafta while on the campaign trail and in discussion with Canada.
The reason the Clinton repetition of these lies is so irksome is because they will continue to echo in the blogosphere long after the official Clinton team stops spreading them.
The original smear was debunked and the second smear in the memo that you refer to was debunked as well. These lies were debunked over a month ago and yet here you are continuing to spread them. posted 04/05/2008 at 13:10:01
Popular Stories on HuffPost
On Tuesday night's "Colbert Report," Stephen Colbert had fun with...
From the AP: Democrat John Edwards endorsed former rival Barack Obama on Wednesday, a...
*** UPDATED BELOW *** President Bush has said repeatedly that he would not insert himself into the...
As the odds get longer and longer, the obvious question is: Why doesn't Hillary Clinton gracefully concede...
Utterly insane goings-on tonight on...
It's a pretty well known fact that most women - attractive women -...
NEW UPDATE BELOW As violence in Iraq continues -- clashes today left 11 dead and 19 injured -- President...
Just off the House floor today, the Crypt overheard House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers tell two...
Tonight, Keith Olbermann unleashed what may well have been his...
The Democratic Party has finally decided who's going to break it to Hillary that it's time...
George W. Bush is unworthy of the presidency. He is a disgrace to himself,...
http://www.naral.org/elections/election-pr/pr_05042008_obamaendorsement.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Obama has been a strong advocate for a woman's right to choose throughout his career in public office. He steadfastly supports and defends a woman's right to make the most personal, private decisions regarding her reproductive health without interference from government or politicians.
Sen. Obama has been a leader on this issue in the United States Senate. Since joining the Senate in 2005, he has worked to unite Americans on both side of this debate behind commonsense, common-ground ways to prevent unintended pregnancy. Sen. Obama supports legislation to provide our teens with comprehensive sex education, prevent pharmacies from denying women access to their legal birth-control prescriptions, and increase access to family-planning services.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The former President of Chicago NOW, Brett Howard, also disagrees with you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVuMYKs8iJs posted 05/15/2008 at 22:32:14