A Word On Yesterday's Hillary-Obama Delegate Dust-Up

Comments (137)

timbnyc wrote on January 20, 2008 10:25 AM:

These 'interim' contests could have been important if Iowa and NH left things muddy but as between Obama and Clinton it doesn't mean much. Each candidate is in it all the way, that's obvious, so momentum, etc., doesn't matter - no one claiming that mantle is going to be able to use it to starve their opponent of funds or press. Obama will win SC, and some will say the momentum has turned his way. It doesn't matter. It's all about campaign operations now.

bm wrote on January 20, 2008 10:25 AM:

There is no evidence she won the popular vote in the caucus.
She may have won more state delegates, but that may or may not equate to the popular vote in the caucus

hello_world wrote on January 20, 2008 10:28 AM:

Barack's camp was simply throwing Clinton's own spin back at them. It was mostly targeted through for voters like myself, who were saddened by yesterday's results, by letting Obama supporter know just how close these contests actually are right now, and how things can very much move decisively either direction still. I thought it was amusing to use the Hillary camp's own words to do this.

Mike Phillips wrote on January 20, 2008 10:40 AM:

The significance of Barack winning more delegates is also that he got these delegates because he won the rural areas outside of LV, which shows he will probably be a better GE candidate.

LynnDee wrote on January 20, 2008 10:43 AM:

bm, That's true.

"The percentages reported for this race, by the way, aren't popular vote figures. Truly bizarre. They're based on the number of state delegates awarded. So while no one thinks Obama will win the popular vote, the percentages should be a lot tighter when the actual popular vote numbers are released."

http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/19/19311/1279/671/439708

a wrote on January 20, 2008 10:46 AM:

Greg, if you have any information on the popular vote, please provide a link.

Otherwise, please refrain from making statements about the popular vote.

LiberalTarian wrote on January 20, 2008 10:49 AM:

It'll be interesting. I've decided I like Clinton. Please have enough respect for me, and the party, to refrain from using Republican talking points against her.

But, you want to try to sell me on Obama using the brilliance of his policies, feel free.

hadenough wrote on January 20, 2008 10:52 AM:

"hello_world wrote on January 20, 2008 10:28 AM:
Barack's camp was simply throwing Clinton's own spin back at them."

Sure. That's the audacity of a different kinda politics.

Anyway NV had 25 delegates. It’s possible obama will end up with one more. On Super Tuesday over 400 delegates will be up for grabs. So obama’s possible one more and $2.50 will get him a small coffee.

Now obama’s camp can claim by losing a battle he won a battle but here in the real world losing is losing. And I realize after obama’s second straight loss. After record numbers of Democrats came out to support Hillary obama’s true believers need something to hold on to. So I hope pretending a loss equals a win helps them through their derangement.

Number of delegates by state:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29_presidential_primaries%2C_2008

bm wrote on January 20, 2008 10:53 AM:

Delegates have no relation to the popular vote.
I read that coin tosses were used in many precincts where there were ties.

eorse wrote on January 20, 2008 10:54 AM:

I am watching MTP on NBC and I wonder what if

Obama got Bloomberg to be his VP.

This would drive Clintons off the wagon. I love it.

Let us hope Obama beats the two Clintons. But, I know, this is an impossible reality.

The power of Clintons' attack machine is that you will vote for it, even when you do not want to do so. The reason is race, gender, and ethnicity baiting.

JimS wrote on January 20, 2008 10:54 AM:

I'm really a Democrat. Really, Really, Really. And until today I was going to vote for Hillary. Reading (whatever you were talking about) has changed my mind and I will never vote for Hillary even in the general election. As I said I'm really a Democrat and this proves that she will lose in the general election. Sincerely, a long term Democrat. Really.

Greg wrote on January 20, 2008 10:56 AM:

in response to your comments about the popular vote, I made a small change to the text above.

bm wrote on January 20, 2008 10:58 AM:

JimS

Glad you have seen the light
I cant see how any true Democrat can vote for the corrupt compulsive liars - THE CLINTONS

JimS wrote on January 20, 2008 10:59 AM:

bm is REALLY REALLY REALLY a democrat too - all the way back since yesterday when he registered Dem. in Northern Nevade in order to elect the preferred GOP target Obama.

paul wrote on January 20, 2008 11:05 AM:

I am NOT a Democrat. I am an independent who is left-leaning. I do not have to have allegiance to the Clinton's. I saw how to they undermined progressive politics in the 90s, and especially how their ineptitude turned over Congress to the Republicans. I will make a judgment on what is in the best short term and long term interests of the country. I would not be that uncomfortable with a McCain presidency and a Democratic congress - especially as the alternative could be another Clinton presidency with a Republican Congress.

Anonymous wrote on January 20, 2008 11:06 AM:

Barracks support.

1) GOP who want him as easily destroyed Dem nominee.
2) All Mommies little soccer boys who never read a single word about Politics or American history but think Obama is the only candidate who could possibly appear on a GQ cover.
3) Black people who have been sold by the MSM that Hillary is racist.

Coalition of the conninving and the easily fooled.

Interloper wrote on January 20, 2008 11:20 AM:

Anonymous, feel free to keep popping off, but the Republicans themselves feel otherwise. The following was in the National Review this morning:

And as for who best to unify the various constituencies of the Republican party, we’ve already found that candidate: Hillary Clinton

CalD wrote on January 20, 2008 11:31 AM:

Can you imagine the extent to which Democrats would be climbing all over each other right now to lay claim to Bill Clinton's legacy if Hillary wasn't running? You can bet your ass no one on the Dem side would be speaking in glowing terms of Ronald Reagan, either.

Anon. wrote on January 20, 2008 11:38 AM:

Interloper....I know I always believe everything I read in the National Review. Do you really think the main mouthpiece of the GOP would broadcast who the candidate is who could beat them? These are the same lying Republican dogs you think that Obama is making peace with. LOL. You are so naive. National Review and the GOP lauded Kerry over Dean to the point they got him the nomination by convincing weak minded Dems that Kerry was electable. They then skinned and flayed Kerry, like they will Obama, and left a hollow shell. Apparently you'll follow the GOP again as they set up the Dems for defeat.

Keith wrote on January 20, 2008 11:42 AM:

Both camps are right. Clinton won the most state delegates, but based on the convulted calculations used by the Nevada Democratic Party, Obama will receive more national delegates-the only event that changes that is him dropping out of the race and endorsing Clinton.

The larger issue, at least to me, is where each of the candidates turns in the coming weeks. Clinton's success, has largely come on her ability to successfully distort Obama's record in a way that it drives low information voters to support her as the viable candidate. Being the relatively unknown candidate, it is easier to accept these distortions of his records. The problem for Clinton, however, is that she is significantly alienating a significant portion of potential democratic voters in the fall. Moreover, she risks killing the excitement and momentum for the eventual Democratic nominee. At some point, she needs to address this lest her eventual Democratic nominee victory is a pyrrhic one.

For Obama, this is the test. The Clintons are doing exactly what any Republican will do to him. Whatever you think of the Clinton's tactics, they are effective, especially against a candidate that has voluntarily decided to campaign above board. The most obvious tactic is to focus the medias attention on Clintons tactics. One point, Obama can't be the one to do it. Now is the time for his surrogates to hit the airwaves. While Obama is on the trail, he needs Kerry, Leahy and others who the media consider honest brokers to hit the teevee pushing back on the Clintons bs. If he can't handle this, then he doesn't deserve to be the nominee in the fall. And I say this as an ardent Obama supporter.

dcshungu wrote on January 20, 2008 11:42 AM:

On the other hand, though final tallies aren't yet available, all indications are that the Hillary campaign enjoyed a clear electoral win last night, which the political opinion-making class, and perhaps also the voters, will likely see as having a good deal more significance than Obama's one-delegate advantage.

To continue talking about this as if it had any direct implication toward determining the nomination is absolutely mind-numbing. Does anyone really believe that this is about delegates? Hello!? We are talking about a difference of a single, uno, one freaking delegate out of more than 2k needed to win the nomination! There is little doubt that this was a calculated move by Obama's camp to try to keep the "narrative" from going south on him just before the SC primary, which he now absolutely must win. With Edwards now getting single-digit support, Hillary might have a chance to pull another rabid out of the hat in SC by carrying the lion's share of the white vote and getting just 15-20% of the black vote. Thus, Obama must simply keep Clinton from appearing to now be marching inexorably toward the nomination, and what is the best way to do that than to spin a clear NV loss into a "win"? Nice try, but the perception out there is that Obama has now lost two elections in a row, after seeming unstoppable after IA... There is no way to suppress headlines screaming a Hillary Nevada win!

I believe that there is a real chance that Obama might actually lose SC or just barely carry it, in which case it would be seen as a loss going into Super Tuesday... I believe that Hillary is now going to go all out for at least a narrow loss... A victory for her in SC would effectively end the contest.

rg wrote on January 20, 2008 11:43 AM:

Reading Paul above confirms my worst fears. A vote for Clinton in the primary is a vote for McCain in the general. For those of you democrats who are undecided, or supporting Kucinich or Edwards and are able to vote in SC or on Feb 5th - please - help the democrats win by electing not only a brilliant person, but the candidate who can win independents - Obama. Please use your vote. Kucinich and Edwards cannot help the country if they can't win. But you can!

Bill Clinton is completely freaking me out right now. I just heard a guy from Newsweek say they call him King Lear in the office. He's raging and wagging that finger. Hillary either can't control him or chooses not to - while he damages the democratic party. He always put himself first and although I was happy to have him as a president - I am so so sick of him now. No more Bush or Clinton presidencys - please!

loki wrote on January 20, 2008 11:53 AM:

Being the relatively unknown candidate, it is easier to accept these distortions of his records.

Good god. Keith you've definitely jumped the shark. And speaking of "tactics"...you've really got to stop perpetuating the "Obama The Pure Myth." Ugh.

eorse wrote on January 20, 2008 11:59 AM:

Let us hope Obama beats the two Clintons. But, I know, this is an impossible reality.

The power of Clintons' attack machine is that you will vote for it, even when you do not want to do so. The reason is race, gender, and ethnicity baiting.

Go Obama!

CalD wrote on January 20, 2008 12:00 PM:

The Las Vegas Sun's back story on Clinton's win in Nevada is a must-read for political junkies.

Victoria wrote on January 20, 2008 12:02 PM:

For those who say they are true democrats but will not vote for Clinton vs Mc Cain and the same goes for those who would not vote for Obama vs Mc Cain.
I will vote for who the party choices. Mc Cain promise another 100 years in Iraq. Can we really afford the lives that will be lost and the money they are spending over there. The longer we stay the longer we are hated by the rest of the world. Anyone but a Republican

Keith wrote on January 20, 2008 12:03 PM:

Loki:

I'm not sure what your point is with your comment. From the perspective of the low information voter, Obama's record and acommplishments is completely unknown; especially compared to Clinton's. I'm not talking name recognition, I'm talking record.

So it's easier to pump a mailer out claiming that he hasn't always protected a woman's right to choose. Nevermind that he has a 100% rating from most, if not all, pro-choice groups.

And when these same charges are being pushed by a former president, one of the most popular Democratic presidents, they have extra-weight.

I'm not pushing any myths here, as my above post should demonstrate. Whatever I think of the Clintons tactics (and that's precisely what they are), Obama has to address them or take his ass back to the Senate for the remainder of his term.

If there is some factual inaccuracy in what I wrote, by all means point it out. Otherwise, I'm just calling it like I see it. They both have challenges going forward.

hello_world wrote on January 20, 2008 12:04 PM:

Keith, while I agree that this type of campaign that Obama is seeing from the Clinton's is exactly what he'd see from the Republicans in the general, I've come to the conclusion that these tactics are much more effective coming from within the party during the primary. Especially when you think of how emotionally invested so many Democrats have been over time to the Clintons. When the President of the United States and former leader of our party dismisses Obama as a kid and characterizes his record on the war as a fairy-tale, that carries weight, fairly or not. When he says that the media hasn't been treating the Clintons fairly, people who haven't been paying attention look at the couple numbnuts that had been overboard in announcing Hillary DOA after Iowa, and think, "omg, the media all hate the Clintons!"

The Republicans will attack Obama on experience, and rely on distorting his record. They'll try to subtly (and grossly) play racial politics and they'll outright lie about his past history and background. But they've been at that forever, and diminishing returns along with a general distrust of Republicans would go a long way toward combating these tactics. I honestly believe they'd only work with people and in areas that would never, ever vote Democratic anyway.

The problem comes when you when you see people within your own party spread the Muslim and medrasa garbage, play one race against another, and suggest that Obama was a "roll of the dice" who was a drug-addled, neophyte who harbored a secret conservative ideology despite his lifelong dedication to progressive ideals and goals, that will move some people.

When it's Bill Clinton vs someone they're just getting to know, as much as I'd like to think differently, that's a tough matchup for the new guy to win. Republicans could never hope to get that kind of legitimacy in their smear campaign.

markg8 wrote on January 20, 2008 12:06 PM:

Can someone explain to me how Bill Clinton wasn't just plain lying to that TV reporter in the Bay Area when he flipped out and got in his face proclaiming that those strip caucuses were weighted 5 times as heavily in delegate counts than the rest of the state.

Last I saw Hillary won 6 of 9 of those caucuses yet she got 12 of the state's delegates to Obama's 13. How does that work and why should I believe anything that comes out of Bill Clinton's mouth anymore? Seriously, anybody know how the delegate count works in NV?

eorse wrote on January 20, 2008 12:21 PM:

The 2008 campaign adage or axiom --

The power of Clintons' attack machine is that you will vote for it, even when you do not want to do so. The reason is race, gender, and ethnicity baiting.

++++

On MTP today, this power was agreed upon by all the panelists.

Thus, the power of Clintons' attack machine is known by all except the voters.

How to share this power of Clintons' attack machine with the people?

FlyOnTheWall wrote on January 20, 2008 12:22 PM:

Actually, it's pretty damned clear that Hillary Clinton won substantially more than 50% of the popular vote. Under the convoluted delegate allocation formulas, it took more votes to elect a state delegate in urban counties than in rural areas. In Clark County (read: Las Vegas), every 50 votes elected a delegate. That's where Hillary ran most strongly - she has hundreds more of these '50 vote' delegates. In rural areas, it took as few as 10 votes per delegate - and that's where Obama was strongest. Sure, there's rounding error, but it should roughly balance out when averaged over all the precincts. The upshot is that Hillary probably won something more like 54% of the popular vote, even though we'll never know exactly.

Of course, that's irrelevant. The numbers, at this point, are pretty clear. Unless Hillary can win better than 45% of the delegates awarded on Super Tuesday - and for a variety of complex reasons, that's extremely improbable, and would certainly take a win in South Carolina to pull off - then she's unlikely to amass enough delegates to have a majority entering Denver. (She'd need to win better than 80% of the delegates in contests after Super Tuesday, even though a number of those states are heavily black - or she'd need hundreds of super delegates currently sitting on the sidelines to break her way, despite the fact that she's been running for years and they haven't yet endorsed her.) So all that really matters coming out of Nevada is the delegate count, and they're effectively tied there - just like they were after Iowa, just like they were after New Hampshire. This one's going right down to the wire, and it's tough to see how it adds up to a Hillary win in Denver.

dcshungu wrote on January 20, 2008 12:26 PM:

Keith wrote on January 20, 2008 11:42 AM:

The larger issue, at least to me, is where each of the candidates turns in the coming weeks. Clinton's success, has largely come on her ability to successfully distort Obama's record in a way that it drives low information voters to support her as the viable candidate.

That was a balanced post that recognized and then tried to address what will be Obama's GE problem, since he won't be able to just whine about the GOP smear machine's "lies and distortions" of his record. It is a problem that Obama simply must address if he is to be a credible GE candidate that can be trusted to push back effectively against the smear machine.

Recycling and amending slightly from one of my posts on another thread:

If you can prove that Hillary's purported "lies and distortions" are so egregious as to be out of bounds of politics as usual, then you might have a point. Otherwise [which I think is more to the point], if Obama cannot handle the tame stuff that has been thrown at him (i.e., if that is indeed why he has already lost twice in a row), then doesn't that make him a terrible candidate for the Dems to field in the GE against the Atwater/Rove Smear Machine? Think about that [I do mean THINK ABOUT THAT!] and tell me how Obama can possibly win in November if he has already crumbled twice under mild assaults from his opponents? Just before Iowa, Obama had similarly gone after Edwards and whined because some 527 groups had been airing positive ads on behalf Edwards! But here's the good part that should remind people of how hypocritical Obama is: when the Culinary Workers Union in NV ran ads which were not only false but were also insulting to Hillary personally, Obama refused to denounce them! It is bad when groups supporting Edwards do it, but good when groups supporting Obama do the same thing but only in a nasty way!

Obama won't win by whining. He'll win by fighting, but how can he fight without inviting derisive attacks from his opponent, having staked his candidacy on being above the fray and practicing the "politics of hope"? He is in a straight jacket, in a bind, because he put himself there. Do you, in fact, realize that Obama's straight jacket would continue to hamper his ability to attack the GOP nominee if he wins the nomination? The Rove election playbook calls for the opponent's perceived strength to be turned against him, which means that Obama would be forced to abandon the "politics of hope" and fight dirty. But this would be a lose-lose situation for him: if he attacks his opponent, he'll be derided as a phony who has masqueraded as a "new kind of politician" but was in reality just a garden variety politician; just like that the man's "mystique" would be gone. But if he does not hit back, then it would be 2004 all over again. To have surrogates do Obama's push back 24/7, as you suggest, might backfire as it might make him seem weak and wimpy, and might bring to the fore questions about whether he is ready to make tough decisions or take the fight to the enemies of America...

I feel your pain and Obama's, but it is self-inflicted...

CalD wrote on January 20, 2008 12:28 PM:

Can someone explain to me how Bill Clinton wasn't just plain lying to that TV reporter in the Bay Area when he flipped out and got in his face proclaiming that those strip caucuses were weighted 5 times as heavily in delegate counts than the rest of the state.

Casino caucus delegate allocation was attendance based, whereas for everyone else it was precinct-based. It was a complicated formula and I do think that was an extreme example, but one that was technically possible if relative attendance numbers stacked up just right.

hello_world wrote on January 20, 2008 12:36 PM:

Markg8, unfortunately this campaign has proven to me once and for all that you cannot believe anything that comes from Bill Clinton's mouth. He is convinced that this primary is a referendum on his presidency, and it's clear that both him and Hillary are willing to to any length and even seriously damage the party in order to win. I'm sick of it, and no amount of post-campaign "true democrat" guilt trip will get me back on board with the Clinton's at this point.

I've mentioned here before about how I needle Republicans that I know who want to disavow neo-cons as not being "conservative", and I tell them that they listened to their lies, and excused their morally bankrupt tactics and philosophy. Republicans turned to neo-cons to help them win elections, and in the end they let them lead. It's too late for them to disavow the neo-cons.

In a very real way, the way I see it, the Clinton's are our neo-cons. And I'm not just talking about their support for the war and Hillary's vote for Iran. I'm talking about a group that promises electoral success at the cost of legitimate and moral tactics. If Bush II taught me anything, its that as they campaign, they will govern. Along that same vein, Bill's campaign taught me that seemingly small lies during a campaign (I couldn't inhale) turn into huge ones later (I did not have sex with that woman).

I'm willing to fight for my party against what I consider to be a rot. But if that rot wins out, I don't look back in 4 or 8 years and think, "I can't believe that I actually supported them". I don't want to feel as foolish as many otherwise sensible Republicans that I know now feel. It give me no pleasure to say it, but count me out in November if Clinton is the nominee.

CalD wrote on January 20, 2008 12:42 PM:

Fly (@12:22 PM): I would not be at all ready to rule out the possibility that Clinton might win SC outright. Barack Obama on the other hand, is painted into another corner and extremely unlikely to be able to exceed expectations there. It's also very likely that Clinton will end up with more than 45% of the pledged delegates up for grabs on Super Tuesday, irrespective of how SC plays out.

Interloper wrote on January 20, 2008 12:43 PM:

A heartfelt thanks to CalD for being consistently the most sane of the anti-Obama faction. No capital letters, no soapbox, just good points.

So, a question for you. A large part of my frustration with the process is that HRC's lack of integrity, and the hollowness of the "experience" argument are so glaringly obvious. Can you give your view on why her faction does not fell this way?

Interloper wrote on January 20, 2008 12:48 PM:

Btw, Anon: Unlike CalD, your defence of HRC is gibberish. Ignoring the extensive evidence that HRC would unify the Repubs is delusional but, by all means, cast your vote in favor of the destruction of your party.

Anon wrote on January 20, 2008 12:54 PM:

Interloper. All in all a good strategy - anyone you disagree with is delusional, unity of repubs is based on "extensive evidence" and voting for HRC is voting in favor of destruction of party. I'll let you Obama fans continue your circle jerk. Post after post of self congratulations. But on Feb 5, I think Obama will be done.

Interloper wrote on January 20, 2008 12:59 PM:

Providing exact quotes from the republicans is a "strategy"? I'd term it "evidence", but it appears we disagree on a lot of things.

I agree with your prediction of Obama being in big trouble, though. Edwards will drop out and his supporters will likely go to HRC. This has nothing to do with HRC losing the GE to the Republicans, however, which is a foregone conclusion.

squenz wrote on January 20, 2008 12:59 PM:

Nevada was a tie. N.H. was a tie. Iowa was indeed a three-way tie.

Enough of this "electoral college" type of winner-takes-all thinking when it simply doesn't apply!

CalD wrote on January 20, 2008 12:59 PM:

Interloper:

Either Hillary Clinton was personally responsible for everything the Clinton administration did that anyone didn't like or she spent the entire 8 years in the White House kitchen trying out new brownie recipes. In the former case the experience counts. In the latter, one could hardly look at the impressive progressive pe3rformance record she's built up during 8 years as a US Senator and call her a "DLC Democrat." So which is it going to be?

CalD wrote on January 20, 2008 1:03 PM:

Speaking of "DLC Democrats," I might add that Hillary Clinton isn't the one who's been paying homage to Ronald Reagan lately. Yikes.

Keith wrote on January 20, 2008 1:08 PM:

dcshungu:

I think the point you either overlook or otherwise dismiss is that these attacks (however tame in your view) have enhanced credibility because they come from the Clintons, in particular Bill Clinton. Obama, unfortunately, is constrained in his response because he would essentially have to destroy the Clintons' image as honest brokers to rebutt their tactics. He wouldn't have that problem in the GE, because folks EXPECT Republicans to distort the position of their Democratic opponent.
At best, he's going to have to get out surrogates and hope that the media pushes back on the Clintons. If not, he's not going to win.

That being said, the Clintons may be losing far more than they are winning and seriously jeopardize their ability to win the GE. So, there's a lot on the line for both of them, but on the Clintons' side the implications are much larger and have far greater implications for the Democratic Party's future.

Tithonia wrote on January 20, 2008 1:10 PM:

There's a diary on Kos with a transcript of Obama's speech @ Ebenezer Baptist in Atlanta today. Everybody go read it.

Interloper wrote on January 20, 2008 1:12 PM:

CalD: if HRC was running on her record as senator that would be more intelligible to me, but its the "35 years", repeated ad infinitum, that i take issue with. It might even be accurate, but the reluctance to open the Clinton WH records should be more closely examined. Her campaign itself is increasingly uncomfortable with the experience argument, adopting BHO's "change" rhetoric.

This brings up another point - the fact that the HRC campaign is changing focus along with their underwear ("experience" to "change" to "listening to your feelings")but no one seems to find this relevent. Its not surprising given the stakes, but they are drifitng with the wind. Other than being female - what does the campaign realy care about enough not to discard it for tactical reasons?

Look, i swear to you i'm not concern trolling here, I'm actually curious as to how HRC supporters are thinking.

Tithonia wrote on January 20, 2008 1:13 PM:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/20/115840/058/343/440020

Daniel wrote on January 20, 2008 1:15 PM:

More important than either the state delegates or the convention delegates, Hillary wins because the Headlines say she does and that drives momentum more than facts. It further helps her that the media keeps referring to the state delegate count as "popular vote."

jimijazz wrote on January 20, 2008 1:18 PM:

This is democratic establishment B.S. Trying to appear as though the primary vote wasn't split right down the middle. The democratic establishment is trying to ease Obama out and clearly backing Hillary. But these are the primaries, and clearly the DLC controls the party and hasn't learned the lesson from its past failures. People who are backing Hillary are going to have a rude awakening in November because people are fed up with the status quo. The more people complain about Hillary, the tighter the DLC tries to control the outcomes of these primaries. But thats not going to work in the general election. People have had enough of the Clintons. It can't get any more simple than that. This nasty game Hillary and the DLC is playing is going to come back in November. Intstant Karma. And the pain the Clintons are going to feel will be self-inflicted. If Obama eventually endorses Hillary, don't expect that to transfer to the general election. You are taking the general mood of the country for granted. It's not a mood or sentiment that supports Hillary, and you are deluding yourselves.

colonpowwow wrote on January 20, 2008 1:19 PM:

Interloper:

If you choose to ignore the extensive evidence that most voters will choose the Democrat in this year's GE and suffer the delusion that you and the rest of the progressiver-than-thous won't be the ones that lose the election, thus causing "the destruction of your party (see Nader 2000).

Anybody remember the name of that politics-as-usual holdover from the Bush-Clinton dynasty - Al somebody?

If we unite behind the nominee - both fine progressives and Democrats - no way we loseto a rightwing war apologist in today's political environment.

You ready to support the nominee of (all) our party?

Common Sense wrote on January 20, 2008 1:20 PM:

CalD:

So this isn't paying homage:

Her list of favorite presidents - Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Truman, George H.W. Bush and Reagan - demonstrates how she thinks.

Of course, your response will be to push the bullshit response put out by the Clinton campaign. If you believe it, fine. It's a silly response (on par with the dog ate my homework), but if it works for her supporters fine.

Look you can try and distort Obama's words, but you aren't dealing with low information voters on these threads. And the fact that you have no interest in accurately reproducing Obama's statements just furthe undercuts your credibility on this point.

CalD wrote on January 20, 2008 1:21 PM:

I actually think that any really honest assessment would show Barack Obama has run a much more negative campaign than Clinton has, up to and including using gender-based attacks on Clinton and touching off a race war on January 9th to blunt try and blunt Clinton's momentum from her NH win. He's just gotten away with a lot more than she has, by virtue of being the MSM's favorite shiny new toy for so many months. Lately though, as buyers remorse started setting in a little after Iowa and his coverage began trending a little less lopsidedly favorable, you may note that we're hearing less and less from Obama about the politics of hope and catching him pulling out the brass knuckles more often.

lombard wrote on January 20, 2008 1:24 PM:

Keith:

"Clinton's success, has largely come on her ability to successfully distort Obama's record in a way that it drives low information voters to support her as the viable candidate. Being the relatively unknown candidate, it is easier to accept these distortions of his records."

My reply

What record? He started running for president two years into his first Senate term. Obama's problem is that he thought his one-note Messiah routine would be enough to propel him to the nomination and has yet to develop a convincing second act. The more people see of him the more people realize that there isn't much "there" there.

Personally, I don't think you'll have to worry about how Obama will respond to Republican attacks in the Fall because the majority of the Democratic electorate will not be inclined to nominate him at this point.

Interloper wrote on January 20, 2008 1:27 PM:

Wait a minute. Obama's more dirty than the last minute "he's not pro-choice" email or the Nevada lawsuit? Please. The issue of race was inevitable, but the exectuion, particularly the "hip black friend" quote in the Guardian was slimy.

if anything, i fault the Obama campaign for bringing a knife to a gunfight, hamstringing themselves by committing to a clean campaign.

I must have missed the Obama-led gender war comments, can someone post?

eorse wrote on January 20, 2008 1:29 PM:

May be it is not clear to many, but it is to me. CalD is another tool for the two Clintons, just like Rangel, Kerrey, Shaheen.

Why not, CalD, say more nasty things?

On CNN, there was a critical commentary on the historic speech by Obama.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/20/115840/058/343/440020

On MTP, there was a thorough discussion by more than 4 political analysts on the Clintons baiting (race, gender, and ethnicity).

CalD, still sore about Obama.

lombard wrote on January 20, 2008 1:29 PM:

Interloper wrote:

"This brings up another point - the fact that the HRC campaign is changing focus along with their underwear ("experience" to "change" to "listening to your feelings")but no one seems to find this relevent."

Bill Clinton was also a flexible president who had the ability to adjust quickly. That personal quality kept him from being a one-term president. I admire Hillary's ability to adjust to circumstances because I know that will improve her chances of winning and governing effectively.

CalD wrote on January 20, 2008 1:30 PM:

Common:

No, in fact. Respecting someone's political skills is one thing. Getting all gushy about how Reagan "put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it," is something I can do without from Democrats.

lombard wrote on January 20, 2008 1:33 PM:

Interloper wrote:

"This has nothing to do with HRC losing the GE to the Republicans, however, which is a foregone conclusion."

Nothing is a foregone conclusion. Your words reveal the certainty of the immature. I'd bet many expressed those sentiments about Nixon in 1968.

lombard wrote on January 20, 2008 1:38 PM:

CalID wrote:

"No, in fact. Respecting someone's political skills is one thing. Getting all gushy about how Reagan "put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it," is something I can do without from Democrats."

I'm a Clinton supporter but I don't have trouble with Obama's comments. Many Democrats may not like these sentiments, but the country at the time was ready for Reagan. The fact that he won an overwhelming ratification for a second term only a year or two from the low point of a brutal recession clearly evidences the nation's belief in his leadership.

Interloper wrote on January 20, 2008 1:40 PM:

The Reagan reference discussion is ridculous. I'm 41, old enough to remember that the 1970s truly sucked. The economy was awful and the reasons, mainly OPEC, were not fixable from here. Add the Iran hostages to that, and the Carter administrationlooked pointless and lost. Reagan restored confidence long before he started ruining the country. Its only people 30 and under who don't understand the reference and freak out. Its my guess that BHO was looking to peel some older voters away from Hillary with the reference.

BHO never even remotely suggested he supported Reagan policies and CalD, you know better than to suggest otherwise. He did not list Reagan as one of his favourite presidents on his website now did he?

Its a non-issue. let it go.

Interloper wrote on January 20, 2008 1:43 PM:

CalD: just saw your last post. My bad on the "suggest otherwise". timing issue.

markg8 wrote on January 20, 2008 1:49 PM:

From what I've read this morning in some sparsely populated rural NV areas delegates to the county conventions were selected yesterday with as little as 5 voters per delegate. In Vegas at the strip caucuses it took 50 voters per delegate. This apparently is a system much like the electoral college devised by state party honchos to keep Vegas- the biggest city in the state - from utterly dominating the whole process. I can see how that makes sense.

But that's the exact opposite of argument Bill Clinton made last week when he defended the vote suppression lawsuit. Sadly the only conclusion I can draw is Bill Clinton is a liar I no longer can trust.

Hillary had the support of the whole Nevada Democratic party apparatus. In some caucuses they outnumbered Obama operatives two to one. There's nothing unfair about that advantage, she probably worked hard to win Harry Reid's support.

From what I've read about Hillary's campaign use of underhanded, undemocratic tactics yesterday I'm very disappointed. I'm a Democratic precinct committeeman, will be 52 next Thursday. I'm no babe in the woods, I've been working my ass off for Democratic candidates for decades on my time and my dime. I'd quit before I'd engage in those kind of tactics. If this keeps up and she wins the nomination pulling that crap she'll have find someone else to turn out votes for her in my precinct. I won't do it.

She said she found "her own voice" after NH, (btw finding her own voice at age 60? She's just now "finding herself" and learning how to present herself to voters? That's some 35 years of experience she's got going there. Sounds more like after
years of trying everything under the sun she was just happy to find something that finally clicked in NH.) Now she wants to be my voice. I'm sorry Hillary nobody who does the things your campaign does speaks for me.

dcshungu wrote on January 20, 2008 1:51 PM:

Keith wrote on January 20, 2008 1:08 PM:

dcshungu:

I think the point you either overlook or otherwise dismiss is that these attacks (however tame in your view) have enhanced credibility because they come from the Clintons, in particular Bill Clinton.

I did not overlook the fact that the Clintons are still beloved by many people in the Dem party, which their detractors, in the active throes of their Clinton derangement syndrome, simply cannot fathom. If they still hold the power to sway Dem voters, doesn't that really go against your view of how despised the Clinton's are. You seem to be arguing that it is the Clintons' fault that many voters seem to be willing to be swayed by their "attacks" (LOL. Like the MLK/LBJ or fairytale "racist" attack that got some folks all bent out of shape), but do you have any respect for voters who just simply do not see things the way you do?

Obama, unfortunately, is constrained in his response because he would essentially have to destroy the Clintons' image as honest brokers to rebutt their tactics.

LOL. Stop drinking the kool-aid. Do you really think that Obama or his surrogates would have any qualms about destroying the Clintons if they could do so effectively? What constrains Obama personally is that he foolishly stuck himself into straight-jacket by claiming to be a different kind of politician. Now that the going got tough, he finds himself unable to fight back because of a handicap of his own making!

He wouldn't have that problem in the GE, because folks EXPECT Republicans to distort the position of their Democratic opponent.

He would still have that problem because Obama's appeal to many of his kool-aid drinking supporters is that he is above the fray. Remember that he is supposed to be the guy who would make peace with the Repubs and make bipartisanship the new motto in DC; but how would he be able to accomplish that lofty goal if he engages the Repubs in a nasty fight for the presidency? See the problem?

At best, he's going to have to get out surrogates and hope that the media pushes back on the Clintons. If not, he's not going to win.

It could backfire as I had suggested in my preceding post: Only wimps let other people do the fighting for them.

That being said, the Clintons may be losing far more than they are winning and seriously jeopardize their ability to win the GE. So, there's a lot on the line for both of them, but on the Clintons' side the implications are much larger and have far greater implications for the Democratic Party's future.

Conjectures and suppositions based upon personal animosity for Hillary cannot be passed for reasoned analysis or statements of facts, but I would not expect anything else from Clinton's detractors. If Hillary wins the nomination, it would quite simply mean that the majority of Dem voters preferred her over her opponents to lead the Dem party, the country and the world in the post-Bush era. The future of the party, the nation and the world will depend upon what kind of POTUS she would be, and that is unknowable at this point, but I would wager that she would be a terrific first ever woman POTUS. Interloper wrote on January 20, 2008 1:53 PM:

Lombard: Point taken. I'll back off on the "foregone conclusion". I will not back off on BHO being exponentially more electable than HRC in the GE, though.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on January 20, 2008 2:03 PM:

Some folk see a woman and a black candidate.

Some folk see two self-possessed assholes posturing for an ego trip.

Some folk see two Republicans spatting over who gets to call itself the Democratic Nominee.

Anyway we cut it the American people and the Democratic Party looses.

quasar wrote on January 20, 2008 2:04 PM:

Keith wrote on January 20, 2008 11:42 AM:

Keith, just this morning before I logged on I was thinking of the EXACT same points that you outlined in the post cited above.

Obama is a good strategist. I believe that he klooks at things long term.

lombard wrote on January 20, 2008 2:06 PM:

Interloper,

Fair enough. The truth is that none of us know who is more electable at this point although I suspect that McCain is more electable than either of the Democratic leaders.

quasar wrote on January 20, 2008 2:08 PM:

CalD wrote on January 20, 2008 12:59 PM:

In the latter, one could hardly look at the impressive progressive pe3rformance record she's built up during 8 years as a US Senator and call her a "DLC Democrat." So which is it going to be?

Bill Clinton was President of the DLC from 1990-1991.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Leadership_Council

Hillary and Edwards are current members.
http://www.nndb.com/group/269/000093987/

dcshungu wrote on January 20, 2008 2:09 PM:

Interloper wrote on January 20, 2008 1:53 PM:

Lombard: Point taken. I'll back off on the "foregone conclusion". I will not back off on BHO being exponentially more electable than HRC in the GE, though.

With a simple back-of-the-envelope electoral vote calculus could you provide a scenario that would support the oft-heard canard that BHO would be "exponentially more electable than HRC in the GE"?

We'll be waiting with bated breath to be enlightened...

FlyOnTheWall wrote on January 20, 2008 2:16 PM:

Fly (@12:22 PM): I would not be at all ready to rule out the possibility that Clinton might win SC outright. Barack Obama on the other hand, is painted into another corner and extremely unlikely to be able to exceed expectations there. It's also very likely that Clinton will end up with more than 45% of the pledged delegates up for grabs on Super Tuesday, irrespective of how SC plays out.>>

CalD,

Sure, Hillary might win SC. If we've learned anything this year, it's that the polls are inconsistent. On the other hand, yesterday in Nevada, it turned out that polls had actually *underestimated* the extent of the support among black voters for Obama. That's one of the critical distinctions among the recent spate of polls with a variable spread - the gap among black voters is the largest determinant of the spread. These are folks who (rightly or wrongly) feel aggrieved toward the Clinton campaign, or feel a historical imperative to vote for a black man. That makes them awfully tough to sway in the final week. Bottom line: Hillary's support in SC looks weaker than Obama's, and he's the one with a lead. But like I said, I could be wrong.

I'd love to know why you think Hillary could exceed 45% of the delegates on Super Tuesday. Obama enjoys a number of built in advantages, most notably the fact that he's running stronger than Hillary in rural areas - witness Nevada - whereas she tends to excel in decaying industrial towns. That's largely a function of his crossover appeal to independents in states with open primaries, and to marginal Democrats in states without. Most states load their delegate selection processes heavily toward these rural areas - that's how Obama managed to win more delegates in NH and NV, despite winning fewer votes. That dynamic is liable to repeat itself. Also, only seven of the Super Tuesday states are caucuses. Irrespective of whether Obama wins or loses those states, Hillary stands to do better there, because in many precincts Edwards won't hit the threshold. But in the remaining Feb Five states, Hillary has to win two battles - she has to outpoll Obama, and she needs to shut down Edwards, who's lately been drawing on her core demographics for the bulk of his support. Even if he polls less than 10% in many states, that'll be enough to secure a chunk of the statewide apportioned delegates. To recap: Obama tends to win more district delegates because of the breakdown of his support (rural areas, liberal suburban enclaves, and majority-black districts); Hillary may win more votes statewide, but will have to contend with Edwards for delegates at that level; and Obama will likely win some states outright, particularly in the south. It all adds up to an uphill climb.

Unless, of course, Hillary can win SC and widen the gap in the national polls. Then, all bets are off.

snicker-snack wrote on January 20, 2008 2:18 PM:

Speaking of "DLC Democrats," I might add that Hillary Clinton isn't the one who's been paying homage to Ronald Reagan lately. Yikes.

As a Canadian sticking his nose in here can I just say that this is an astonishingly dishonest comment. Where did Mr. Obama ever 'pay homage' to Reagan with regard to Mr. Reagan's policies which is what you seem to be insinuating? What Mr. Obama did argue was that Mr. Reagan changed the landscape in a way that Mr. Clinton did not. You may see this as unfortunate (and I do and did at the time) but it remains a truth. In contrast the triangulating Mr. Clinton treaded water for a few years and pushed back the Republican onslaught here and there where he could but he worked within a context largely crafted by Republicans. Perhaps thats all he could have done given his situation but that's an argument for another thread. But the gist of Mr. Obama's statement is absolutely true from where I stand (and from where I think most other foreigners stand though I can of course only speak for myself). To paint what Mr. Obama said as a paean to Mr. Reagan is simply, flat out, a lie.

Interloper wrote on January 20, 2008 2:26 PM:

I'm not about to undertake a two hour research project to assuage your sensibilities. i will point out that every poll taken regarding apotential GE match-up between HRC and McCain (the Repub most palatable to independents) show HRC losing by between 4 and 11%:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_clinton-224.html

i'd also point out that the match-up increasingly favouring McCain over time. The more people see HRC as the campaign continues, the fewer like her.

Two of the Obama/McCain surveys show Obama winning.

Alan wrote on January 20, 2008 2:29 PM:

As I see the race now, and I am a Clinton supporter, Senator Clinton will probably lose South Carolina, but since she won Nevada, she will probably win Florida on the 29th and that would give her an advantage on Super Tuesday, where she will win not only the popular vote, but a majority of the delegates as well.

hadenough wrote on January 20, 2008 2:30 PM:

delegates:

Iowa
Obama 18
Clinton 18
Edwards 17
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/

So it looks like obama's only win, in Iowa, wasn't so massive after all.

georgia P wrote on January 20, 2008 2:34 PM:

dcshungu
Your point about Barack running anything but an honest campaign is ridiculous. Barack has taken the high road and is focused on building people up rather then breaking them down. Hillary cannot do this because she does not have the ability to elevate the country therefore she takes the road she know, break down you competitor to make yourself look better. We all work with people like this, the backstabbers, brown nosers, etc..and yes these people do sometimes win but at what expense?

snicker-snack wrote on January 20, 2008 2:39 PM:

So it looks like obama's only win, in Iowa, wasn't so massive after all.

Well, uh, yeah... Three states and so far you've had a three-way tie followed by a two-way tie and then another two-way tie. An exciting race!

(despite all the bloviating of supporters trying to paint things in a manner more favorable to their side; oh yeah, and that utterly execrable media you guys have to put up with)

Angry Vet wrote on January 20, 2008 2:42 PM:

I'm keeping my own personal journal of this campaign. I cannot wait to get back to it after the nomination is known, and later, after the GE.

Personally, I think the Dems are in serious danger. Of course, and as always, that will not stop me from trying my damnedest to get the Democrats elected.

But HRC might be trouble. This is going to be worth watching, dispassionately, one way or another.

Tapper wrote on January 20, 2008 2:45 PM:

Dear Canada, to paint Hussein Obama's Reagan comments as simply a sort of historic exegesis is absurd. The words were and were pointedly intended as a denigration of Bill Clinton and by extension HRC.
And that's fine as a campaign tactic.
Just don't piss on my feet and tell me it's raining.

That's exactly the sort of rope-a-dope the Hussein Obama campaign has come to embrace. In their book "fairy tale" becomes a racial insult and the same man who would claim MLK's mantle was, not many weeks ago, cavorting with homophobic black preachers and a woman who's pre Iraq support for the war puts HRC's vote in the shade.

Oops, here comes the rain again!

colonpowwow wrote on January 20, 2008 2:48 PM:

Comrade Richard L. Adlof wrote on January 20, 2008 2:03 PM:

"Some folk see a woman and a black candidate.

"Some folk see two Republicans spatting over who gets to call itself the Democratic Nominee."

Please name the Republican that sits within 20 points of Clinton's or Obama's 95% plus lifetime voting records on progressive issues before the Senate per the ADA (that is their "message to Washington" to quote JRE, the $400 haircut populist who managed a sparkling, Republican-lite 78% Senate voting record on liberal-progressive issues when he was in Washington).

Again, name the Republican(s) you're referring to with your dripping-with-sarcastic-irony "joke" about the two frontrunners.

Hahaha! We get it Richard. Try something new.

snicker-snack wrote on January 20, 2008 3:00 PM:

Dear Canada, to paint Hussein Obama's Reagan comments as simply a sort of historic exegesis is absurd. The words were and were pointedly intended as a denigration of Bill Clinton and by extension HRC. And that's fine as a campaign tactic.
Just don't piss on my feet and tell me it's raining

Something can be historic and can be a denigration and can be a campaign tactic all in on. This is called using the truth to denigrate someone. And is of course a different thing than lying about what someone has said and using this to denigrate them. I think this holds true in the U.S. as well :)

Jay wrote on January 20, 2008 3:01 PM:

"Dear Canada, to paint Hussein Obama's Reagan"

*BOING* Douchebag alert!

snicker-snack wrote on January 20, 2008 3:07 PM:

Dear Canada, to paint Hussein Obama's Reagan comments as simply a sort of historic exegesis is absurd. The words were and were pointedly intended as a denigration of Bill Clinton and by extension HRC.And that's fine as a campaign tactic.
Just don't piss on my feet and tell me it's raining.

Something can be historic and a denigration and a campaign tactic. They're hardly exclusive. And that using the truth to denigrate someone is one thing. Lying about what they said to denigrate them is quite another. I think this is true in the U.S. as well :)

Gus wrote on January 20, 2008 3:10 PM:

The delegates elected yesterday in NV were to the county conventions, not the tate convention. The Clark County convention will be next Feb 23. Between the fall-out from last week's lawsuit (brought by board members of the Clark County Demo central committee against the Nevada State Democratic party) and the prospect of an actual floor fight over the election of delegates to the state conventions (if the nomination is not resolved by that point), it should be an event not to be missed.

CalD wrote on January 20, 2008 3:12 PM:

Fly,

If this Tuesday was Super Tuesday, based on a combination of recent state and national polls, my gut feelings about the state of play and a couple of wild-ass guesses, I'd expect Clinton to get at least:

45% of California
60% of New York
30% of Illinois
50% of New Jersey
40% of Massachusetts

...and average at least 45% in the other states. Remember, there are no undecideds on election day.

That would work out to about 46% of the total for all states. If she were to significantly exceed expectations in SC, and do as well as recent polls might lead one to expect in the Florida beauty contest, I might be inclined to revise that upward just a little.

That's also why I'm expecting Barack Obama to drop another nasty-bomb today or tomorrow, BTW. I don't think he can get away with using race again this soon though, so I really have no idea what it's going to be.

Elizabeth wrote on January 20, 2008 3:19 PM:

Cal D -- since, as someone noted, you seem a very level-headed supporter of Sen. Clinton -- I would greatly appreciate your addressing 3 questions I have:

1) What specific statements or actions have Sen. Obama and his campaign done to be charged with running "a much more negative campaign than Clinton" which include "using gender-based attacks on Clinton and touching off a race war on January 9th"? I'll start by giving one example: Jesse Jackson Jr's regretable comments on Sen. Clinton's show of emotion. What else? --- I can think of only three other statements or acts originating with his campaign that could be considered negative or inflamatory -- and several that were very obviously done in an effort to *stop* the 'race war' as you call it. I'm curious about the facts on which you base your conclusionon.

2) Can you please defend Sen. Clinton's actions on three occasions (each 1-3 days before the Iowa, NH, and NV votes) in sending out mailers and e-mails that seriously and deliberately misrepresent Senator Obama's record on pro-choice and his proposal regarding Social Security? And, in addition, how can you defend her failure to be truthful with the prominant NH women whom she asked to sign one of those e-mail letters? (see Washington Post/Politics/The Trail Jan. 18, 2008 "Trying to Heal a Rift in NH")

3. Why do Sen. Clinton, Pres. Clinton - and, for that matter you - continue to blatently misrepresent what Sen Obama said about Ronald Reagan? He never said that Reagan had "better ideas" and he never gave him "adulation". Watch the tape: he said that Reagan and JFK had "changed the trajectory of the nation" (true) and that Reagan had had a message, a new approach, that resonated with the American people at that time (true). He also noted that that then-new approach has had its day, has been shown not to work. ----- And, perhaps the biggest disappointment, why did Sen Clinton have nothing to say about any of the substantive and important areas he touched on. Instead, she 'cherry-picked' (and distorted) the one statement that could be turned into a "Gotcha" moment. After 7+ years, don't you think the American people are beyond tired and fed up with that kind of 'conversation' from their leader?
(I belive Sen. Obama's interview and a similar interview with Sen. Clinton can still be found on the website for the Reno Gazette-Journal under "election news.")

Mike wrote on January 20, 2008 3:38 PM:

CNN is saying Hillary Clinton has 14 delegates.

NCSteve wrote on January 20, 2008 3:40 PM:

CalD,

You expect him to "drop another nasty bomb" today?

You mean like this?

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0108/Obama_at_Ebenezer_Two_calls_for_unity.html

Yes, very meanspirited, negative stuff, indeed. Not an uplifting speech like Hillary's willful distortion of his comments about Reagan.

el jefe wrote on January 20, 2008 3:48 PM:

Hey guys,

just wanted to know why Ralph Nader doesn't run for president this time.

Hounddog wrote on January 20, 2008 4:03 PM:

Reality check:
l. The Clinton campaign, not the Obama campaign, played both the gender card and the race card.
2. There is not a shred of gender-baiting that has come out of the Obama campaign. Barack Obama cannot be responsible for the virulent sexism in the media.
3. Folks who like to try to trash Obama by using his middle name are obviously riding through this election season on little slimeboats of bigotry. I pity them.
4. When one considers South Carolina, one should remember that South Carolina is a voting rights act pre-clearance state. This means it has a long and venerable history of discriminating against black voters. One should also remember that it has fewer polling places than it should--thus requiring voters to suffer long waits in line to vote. This certainly can suppress turnout among working folks. Of course, given thehigh unemployment rates that prevail, perhaps standing in line at the polls will be a diversion for some. Finally, S.C.is using new electronic, non-verified voting machines. The screen choices are apparently complicated. So, lots of things can go wrong. Any nasties down there are unlikely to come fromthe Obama campaign.
5. Some people just don't like Obama's positive message.

Tapper wrote on January 20, 2008 4:05 PM:

Thank you Canada for granting that an attack on the Clinton's (and by extension the Clintonistas) was intended by Hussein Obama; that is something his campaign has denied and that denial alone throws a bit of cold water on all his subsequent protestations.
Now to argue that Obama intended his remarks to be completely neutral, neither praising nor condemning Reagan, would tendentious in the extreme. They must be read in the context of his larger strategy, say his flirtation with Republicans, urging them to become Dems for a Day in Nevada for example. The man is running for President after all.
And were Hussein Obama's Reagan remarks "true" in any meaningful sense? It requires an incredibly narrow view, worse an ahistorical one, to credit Reagan with original or big ideas. Reagan mouthed right wing platitudes which were largely unchanged from the days of HUAC; many predated the first world war. His Welfare Queens driving Cadillacs was new only in that he updated the transport. In many ways he was a throwback, espousing notions of American exceptionalism, as just one example, that are part and parcel of the American Founding mythology.
To credit those bad ideas' longevity to Reagan is to simply ignore the long and deep rooted devils in our American natures.

And so it is not a lie to condemn Obama's remarks as mistakenly praising the Reagan Revolution. It would be foolish, indeed dishonest, to read them in any other way.

Certainly Bill Clinton's reading of Obama's Reagan remarks is more "true" than the Obama campaign's reading of Bill Clinton's fairy tale remark.
Both may be misplaced, both may be inaccurate, but to call them a lie, as you do Clinton's, is either disingenuous or else you have no knowledge of nor appreciation for American political discourse.

CalD wrote on January 20, 2008 4:10 PM:

No Steve, not like that. I already told you it wouldn't be the race card again this soon and I seriously doubt Barack Obama himself will be the delivery system. Keep an eye on Obama surrogates and watch the papers for an oppo drop.

dcshungu wrote on January 20, 2008 4:11 PM:

georgia P wrote on January 20, 2008 2:34 PM:

dcshungu
Your point about Barack running anything but an honest campaign is ridiculous. Barack has taken the high road and is focused on building people up rather then breaking them down. Hillary cannot do this because she does not have the ability to elevate the country therefore she takes the road she know, break down you competitor to make yourself look better. We all work with people like this, the backstabbers, brown nosers, etc..and yes these people do sometimes win but at what expense?

Where did I suggest that Obama was running a "dirty" campaign...au contraire, I had suggested that his "politics of hope", greater-than-thou mantra had emasculated him to where he could not push back effectively against attacks from his opponents without seeming like a hypocrite. But frankly, I am fed up with the whining by Obama and his kool-aid drinkers and really no longer give a fuck about stupid posts such as yours, where Obama is depicted as a saint and Hillary as hell personified. If you do not yet know it yet, there is a nomination contest for the two major parties' standard-bearers going on right now, and in the 200+ years of the Republic, people vying for the top spot have always duked it out. But suddenly, we have a self-anointed new "kind of politician", who vowed to stay above the fray in a clear scheme to have everyone else follow suit so that they would avoid asking him tough questions about his thin resume. It was a briliant ploy until Hillary decided after she lost in IA that she was going to "draw clear contrast" between herself and the "untouchable" messiah (since the MSM won't do its civic duty and scrutinize ALL the candidates the same way) and let voters choose. Lo and behold, what we have been hearing since then is how the Clintons are dishonest people who are engaging in "dirty politics." Suddenly the man hailed as the first "black president" has become a racist overnight, and Hillary's innocuous and historically accurate comment about MLK's and LBJ's roles in achieving civil rights progress in the mid-60s has been denigrated and characterized as race-baiting. Well, hardball politics is the way things have been done for 200+ years of the American democracy! If the "messiah" cannot stand the heat, the kitchen door is wide open!

Spare me the moralizing bullshit, because I have not dunk the kool-aid. I know an empty suit when I see one.

There.

stlounick wrote on January 20, 2008 4:31 PM:

Hillary and Obama are essentially even and I suspect that will be the case going into Super Tuesday and, perhaps, even after those results are in. Isn't this what is best for us? Hopefully, we can extend the race past Super Tuesday and into states where a vote for the presidential primary was meaningless in the past. Perk up, folks, we may have voters in the very last state deciding this nomination. I don't see much wrong with that.

Hounddog wrote on January 20, 2008 4:33 PM:

Take your empty suit theory to the University of Chicago law school--It's one of their hiring criteria. (joke) Barack Obama taught law there...editor of the Harvard Law Review. Please. Some folks just can't handle someone who has survived an elite education with his idealism intact.

nogop wrote on January 20, 2008 4:49 PM:

So Obama was hired as a professor in the University of Chicago, it does not mean he is qualified to be the president of US. He may not be completely empty, but he is pretty empty, like a motivational speaker to me.

Tapper wrote on January 20, 2008 4:49 PM:

Ah yes the Obama idealism, which led him where?
Oh yeah, to support EVERY bushit war appropriation and the Patriot Act for good measure.
Isn't that just the sort of "idealism" that Obama decries in his platitude laden stump speech?

CalD wrote on January 20, 2008 5:07 PM:

Elizabeth,

Seriously? Oh, let's see. Off the top of my head there were/are:

- repeated distortions of Clinton's fundraising practices
- ongoing attempts to conflate a vote for the AUMF Iraq with starting the Iraq war
- the dust-up over the Iran resolution that Obama didn't bother showing up for himself
- distributing fliers accusing John Edwards of involvement in the closing of a Maytag plant in Iowa
- recent attempts to distort/recast all criticism of himself as racism (the Fairy Tale remark, LBJ...)
- the SC memo detailing same
- Tears®

The Clinton campaign maintains a rather lengthy list themselves if you're really interested. Some of the incidents they call "attacks" are just a bit of a stretch of course, but I'd say maybe half of the list looks pretty defensible and it's a long list.

You'll have to find someone else to defend Clinton's mailers. I've seem at least a couple that clearly distort Barack Obama's positions and I'm certainly not suggesting that Hillary Clinton is any angel either. This is presidential politics. There are no angels. I'd be much happier if people ill-informed enough to be taken in by that sort of thing, whether it's Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama laying it down, would kindly refrain form voting. But as long as it keeps working, people will keep doing it.

The Jesse Jackson Jr. incident wasn't just regrettable though, it was arguably the single most remarkable performance of this campaign to date and any suggestion that Jackson was freelancing on that one doesn't pass the laugh test. Someone sat up all night thinking that one up. Probably several someones.

As for the Reagan thing, go and watch the video again. Obama was pretty obviously trying to thread the needle between doing a little well-placed pandering to Reagan Democrats and western independents and maintaining plausible deniability that he was praising Reagan's disastrous leadership. He deserves a spanking on principle for trying to blow that dog whistle.

Donald from Hawaii wrote on January 20, 2008 5:14 PM:

RealityCheck: "The Clinton campaign, not the Obama campaign, played both the gender card and the race card."

That's absolutely incorrect. It was the mainstream media that clearly instigated both those issues of gender and race, and not any of the campaigns or candidates themselves.

It was the media that chose to first characterize the debates as "the boys v. the girl".

It was the media that went over-the-top after the Iowa caucuses in portraying the Clinton campaign as on the ropes, culminating in that now-memorable scene in the New Hampshire diner, which the punditry tried to claim was something akin to an emotional meltdown on Mrs. Clinton's part.

And it was the media that first deliberately took select sentencess from both Mrs. Clinton and her husband completely out-of-context, and portrayed such as racially devisive, hoping to set of a Democratic range war.

In each instance, one or more of the campaigns sought to take advantage of those three story arcs proferred by the media -- Clinton with the first, Edwards the second, and Obama the third.

And while in each case the results initially looked promising, all three candidates ultimately did some level of harm to their own campaigns by allowing these false media memes to drive their respective campaigns' tactical decision-making.

CalD wrote on January 20, 2008 5:23 PM:

Correction. Last sentence of my previous comment should have read:

He deserves a spanking on principle for stepping over the line while trying to blow that dog whistle.

Mary wrote on January 20, 2008 5:29 PM:

From a Post on Huffpo:

Dear Bill:
We loved Bill Clinton as president.

When you told us you didn't inhale, with that little twinkle in your eye, we believed you and loved you even more.

When you got more than just a twinkle in your eye and a cigar in the -- well, we stuck by you. We rallied against the vast right wing conspiracy and ushered Newt and his fellow reptilians out of office.

Man, the 90s were fun - huh? The Macarena alone... But now we're in a new decade. Web 2.0, YouTube and camera phones; preemptive wars and terrorist attacks. It's a new era. And we've spent 8 years under the thumb of a royal son.

We're ready for change. We have some amazing Presidential Candidates. Edwards, Obama, and of course, the candidate like family to you - Clinton.

I know you want your wife to win. A lot of us want a Democrat in 2008. But you're getting mean Bill. That twinkle in your eye is starting to look more like crazy eye.

You're making accusations that Karl Rove & Co. will eat up and spit back out at us come time for the general election.

You're actually disenfranchising folks this time around, dividing the electorate at a time we need to come together.

And Bill, you're starting to make stuff up. And this time, we're noticing. It's a new era, Bill; everything you say is recorded and broadcast.

So what we're asking, Bill, is that you just shut up.

Just shut up.

Sincerely,

Pretty Much Everyone

Donald from Hawaii wrote on January 20, 2008 5:37 PM:

Tapper, please use the name that Sen. Obama chooses to go by, and by which others refer to him.

You sound very juvenile and disrespectful when you repeatedly refer to the senator by his middle name of "Hussein". Intelligent people can clearly see with whom you're trying to link the candidate. And I daresay, most of us -- regardless of our prefence in the primaries -- find what you're offering to be totally unacceptable political discourse.

"Hussein" is the name of Sen. Obama's father, and further, it's a rather common name in the Muslim world. Stop trying to demonize it.

Given your warped standards, would you now similarly attempt to hold New Orleans Saints' running back Reggie Bush accountable for the many sins of the current president?

Donald from Hawaii wrote on January 20, 2008 5:55 PM:

Mary, I sort of wish Bill Clinton would pipe down, too -- but lady, where do you get off signing the letter "Pretty Much Everyone"? You can't claim to speak for me, nor do I appreciate your trying to do so. Period.

If you really want to do something positive for Sen. Obama, then why don't you call up or go down to the Obama campaign HQ nearest your place of residence, and volunteer to both organize and walk your own precinct on his behalf?

That's the help he really needs right now, and it's the sort of action that -- were more of his supporters here to do it -- can potentially make a difference in a closely-contested primary election.

And surely, such would be a far more productive use of your time, than writing such missives that amount to nothing more than an exercise in mental masturbation.

Tapper wrote on January 20, 2008 6:15 PM:

Actually I'm not trying to link Hussein Obama to anyone. Do you think that I believe anyone on here would respond with anything but your objection to that silly idea?
I'm using it to point out one of the many obstacles The Divine One will face. And Obamaniacs need to acclimatize themselves and the country to the name on the chance that he wins the nomination.
But more to my point, it is a constant refrain that Obama's ethnicity, including his full name (see Sullivan, Zakaria, et. al.), will prove a boon to America's tarnished image in the world.
Is he to be a Hussein only overseas?
This is EXACTLY the sort of hypocrisy that Obama claims to decry but which seems to lie at the heart of his campaign.

Edwardsistrueleader wrote on January 20, 2008 6:24 PM:

Aside from the dirty tactic of trying to twist the arms of poor people into having to vote for you (Obama) and then encourage them to jeopardize their jobs (clinton) by not doing what union/management (Steve Wynn's Casino for chrissake--he's the evil character from all the ocean's 11 12 13) wanted them to (vote for obama--the two 100 million dollar candidates (doesn't that give you pause?) handpicked by the media cuz they'll get most of that money did something even worse.
THEY STOLE THEIR IDEAS FROM EDWARDS. Go on line and READ his 80 page platform. Published between Iowa and New Hampshire--right when O'Hilary changed their tunes strategically. To blacks: stop saying if we don't support Senator Graft and corruption that we're racist--we're merely INFORMED. To hard core Hilary supporters--ya gotta admit that neither she nor obama is gonna get the bubba vote until about 8 years from now (remember LJB's prediction of losing 2 generations of dems for signing the civil rights act) when they'll be:
1. dead
2. disabled-and then they change from repugs to democrats in a big way--ask any disability lawyer.
Obama could know nothing of this--he was a privileged grandson of a bank officer. Picture Edwards gramma taking time off from the mill to beg her for a loan. For chemotherapy. Obama and Hilary only mentioned 'access' to healthcare til John published his book.
Obama needs time to grow up and get over his messiah complex. "I come from Kings in Kenya." Yes. We revolted against those ideas.

CalD wrote on January 20, 2008 6:35 PM:

The first Obama nasty-bomb drops.

I heard on CNN a few minutes ago that the Obama campaign is asking the DNC to investigate charges of attempts to close the doors early at some caucuses. Of course the Obama campaign knows very well that a local newspaper screwed up the times, causing a lot of honest confusion. They'll be betting that people in SC don't know that though and they know very well African-Americans are understandably sensitive to issues of possible voter suppression.

I'd bet this isn't the only thing they'll be floating to try and taint NV for Clinton. Seems too easily debunkable and they have to know that Clinton will be expecting them this time.

ElectoPundit wrote on January 20, 2008 6:37 PM:

I've done an analysis of the Republican delegate race and what could happen in the remaining states. This nomination looks like it's definitely McCain's to lose... but it was interesting to map out on a spreadsheet and see where the important contests are likely to be.

I predict McCain will have a strong February 5th and then wrap things up on March 4th in Texas and Ohio. If Romney is doing better than expected, it could make Pennsylvania on April 22nd pretty important.

Here's the link to my analysis:

http://electopundit.blogspot.com/2008/01/republican-delegate-race.html

I've also done the Democratic race:

http://electopundit.blogspot.com/2008/01/democratic-delegate-race.html

Elizabeth wrote on January 20, 2008 6:43 PM:

Sorry, Cal -- I truly am.

I really was looking for facts - concrete, confirmed instances that might convince me that there was some basis for your conclusion about who started and prolonged the gender and race-baiting 'wars.'

"repeated distortions of Clinton's fundraising practices" doesn't doesn't have any relation to the gender/race charges that you had made (and sure as heck isn't specific or concrete) -- Same thing with Iraq questions, Maytag plant closings, etc.

"recent attempts to distort/recast all criticism of himself as racism"
What attempts? That's precisely what I wanted to know. What specific statements or actions coming from Sen. Obama or his campaign (NOT statements made by neutral parties who were offended, or supporters unconnected with the running of the campaign, or the media)? To my knowledge, the following are the ONLY things chargable (good and bad) to the Obama campaign during that 'race war' of which you spoke:
1) -- Statement by a spokesperson, I believe in S.C. and in response to a reporter's question, that there was some concern among those working on the campaign that there might be a "pattern" to the undue negative, personal comments and charges that had been made recently.
2) --- The list composed by the PR person in S.C., which was an *internal* list that she put together at someone's request (never heard if that was someone in the campaign or not). The list was never sent to the press by the campaign, Obama never denied that it had been doen by someone on his campaign, and she was told what she did was wrong and other workers were told they were to do nothing more like that.
(In any event, I gather it's okay for the Clinton campaign to maintain not just an internal list but a web page listing all their grievances. - Personally, I prefer the approach taken by Sen. Obama on his *official* web page, where he directly addresses criticisms or rumors about him and provides factual responses -- it's under "Learn" and "Know the Facts." I haven't thoroughly gone through that quite interesting cite but will do so. Question: if it's from the Clinton campaign, why don't they acknowledge it?

3) Sen. Obama's statement, in answer to a reporter's question on Sat I believe, that he was aware Sen. Clinton had made a perhaps ill-advised or awkward comment that some people found upsetting but that it was ridiculous for his campaign to be charged with interjecting race because of a statement that she had made which they had never commented on.

4) A statement from an S.C. black legislator (forget name) objecting to Bob Johnson's clearly out-of-line comments which was released by the Obama campaign on Sun.

5) Sen' Obama's putting a STOP to it all with his Mon. press availability and doing it in such a way that Sen. Clinton had no choice but to follow suit. (Actually, I call that damn fine leadership - she could have shown it on Sun on Meet the Press but chose to inflame the situation with charges like "clearly Sen. Obama's campaigh is pushing this")

Are there any other specific statements or acts that came from Sen. Obama or his campgaign (or - like Bob Johnson sitaution - that were said in his presence and implicitly condoned) that you can point to to support your conclusion that Obama was the one who started and inflamed this issue? If you can't come up with any, would you perhaps reconsider your position?

Mailers -- Whoa!!! You have to be kidding! You won't defend them but you do defend the candidacy of someone who intentionally and repeatedly uses them, directing them at "people ill-informed enough to be taken in by that sort of thing" whose you think shouldn't vote but whose votes Sen. Clinton is trying to get???? -- Could we have a logic check?? Maybe an ethics check?
But, okay, you obviously agree that there are some gullible voters who can be made afraid of the other candidate with dishonest campaign literature. less-informed Since you say there are no angels, please refer me to something that Sen. Obama's campaign has directed toward these voters so that he, too, can take advantage of their gullibility and fear? (And it has to be directly from his campaign, because these fliers were directly from Sen. Clinton's campaign. That's putting the credibility and integrity of the candidate behind them.)

Jesse Jackson, Jr. -- You think it was deliberate and crafted; I think it was a personal statement just from him, born out of anger and frustration. Reasonable people can differ, and neither of us knows the truth. But, as I acknowledged, it is a specific, concrete example of something said by a person formally connected to Sen. Obama that someone could legitimately point to as evidence that he was engaged in a gender-based attack on Sen. Clinton. (Against that, of course, could be stacked the comments of Shaheen, Bob Kerrey - which I personally think were non-malicious, Mark Penn, etc.)

Reagan comments. I've seen the video, several times, and my impression is obviously different than yours. To me it's just an intelligent and informed discussion of recent political history that all of the candidates would do well to consider. Just my view. -- However I don't know that you, or anyone, could reasonably consider his comments any more in 'adulation' of Reagan than the inclusion of his name in the list of favorite (logically read as "most admired") presidents on Sen. Clinton's own web site.

If you have any specific instances of statements or actions from Sen. Obama's campaign that I haven't considered, I'd be happy to know about them. But so far I simply haven't heard or read anything to make me change MY conclusions: that Sen. Obama is trying his best to run a clean, honest campaign despite all the "muck" that is being thrown into the contest ... and that Sen. Clinton has no ethics or integrity (moral or intellectual) in how she deals with either her opponents or the voters.

If this is how they campaign, I think it's fair to conclude that this is how they would govern. --- Just at GWB has governed in the same way that he campaigned (actually quite similar to Sen. Clinton's approach - a chilling thought).

I'm sorry - truly. Because she may become the nominee and I've never voted anything but Democratic in my life (I'm around her age). I'd hoped I was being unfair, overlooking something that would allow me to support her. Unless I come to see things differently, however, I cannot vote for her, either in the primary or the general election. I will vote for the person who has principles and worry about policy only after that. In fact, I know a lot of Republicans who wish with all their heart that they had made that type of choice in 2000 and 2004. For myself, I don't want even a shred of responsibility for putting someone else without integrity or moral boundaries in the White House.

ObamaSupporter wrote on January 20, 2008 6:44 PM:

Obama is the source of all things wonderful, and Hillary is the source of all evil. Obama must be elected or hope will be lost, lost I tell you, forever. If Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, I will vote for Hitler in November rather than see an end to the dream, the glorious, beautiful dream.

Elizabeth wrote on January 20, 2008 6:56 PM:

Cal D wrote:
>>>The first Obama nasty-bomb drops.

>>>I heard on CNN a few minutes ago that the Obama campaign is asking the DNC to investigate charges of attempts to close the doors early at some caucuses.

Wait! Isn't that what one is supposed to do if you believe there was interference with the vote? If there wasn't, then they will perhaps look foolish, but at least they are taking the steps to get the facts determined by a body that is either neutral or arguably slanted in favor of Clinton. --------- To my mind, that's far preferable to having Bill Clinton rant to the press and to gatherings of voters about "voter intimidation" that he suposedly personally witnessed but NOT ask for an investigation and be unable to provide any names or other confirmation.

Which is the nasty bomb-drop?

CalD wrote on January 20, 2008 7:11 PM:

A person would have to be pretty damned star-struck to think that Jesse Jackson Jr. thing happened by accident, Elizabeth. Or any of Obama's other attacks on Clinton for that matter, whether by his own hand, through surrogates or placing oppo with the media. But I think it's great that you're taking an interest in politics.

For the record, I don't really blame Barack Obama for doing what he does. Hate the game, not the player, right? He'll certainly need those very same skills if he makes it past Clinton to take on the Republican. It's really just the sanctimony of his whole shtick that irks me. Other than that, I like him just fine although I do think he's a little green to be running for president. I regard the presidency as a very serious job to be done, not a prize to be won.

seattleblogger wrote on January 20, 2008 7:16 PM:

As we well know, having the most popular votes does not necessarily mean you win. If that were actually the case then John Kerry would be president now, not Goerge Bush. The actual winner of a caucus is going to be the one with the most delegates, not the most votes or caucuses won. Don't listen to the pundits- they seem to have a predispostion towards Hilary and will construe everything in her favor.

CalD wrote on January 20, 2008 7:41 PM:

Elizabeth,

I guess there are two possibilities. Either Bill Clinton was telling the truth about alleged union shenanigans or Bill Clinton was lying about. You can believe whichever of those you're most inclined to believe. Either way, he was certainly using the incident to drive down expectations, just as Barack Obama's campaign is now trying to inflate actual reports of confusion over caucus start times into something sinister-sounding, to try suppress Clinton's bounce from Nevada.

CalD wrote on January 20, 2008 7:46 PM:

seattleblogger,

You mean Al Gore. Bush won the nationwide popular vote against Kerry by more than 3 million votes in 2004.

roo_P wrote on January 20, 2008 7:47 PM:

CalD,

So...avoiding the question? Possible election fraud should not be reported and investigated?

Dutch wrote on January 20, 2008 7:47 PM:

Obama better win South Carolina or who won the most delegates in Nevada's caucus will not matter much.

CalD wrote on January 20, 2008 8:24 PM:

Sorry roo_P, but Elizabeth's contention was that Bill Clinton should have handled the alleged voter suppression incident he witnessed more quietly, through proper channels. However Obama's call for an investigation came by way of a press release. Doh!

Try and keep up.

snicker-snack wrote on January 20, 2008 9:11 PM:

Mr. Tapper. Gee, thank you for so willfully misrepresenting my words - full marks for your insincerity there. And I guess congratulations too of a sort... if one wanted material to display the different categories of fallacious thinking, one could do far, far worse than opt for your post. A veritable mine of non-sequitors, assertion posing as fact, and circular argument. I must admit however to being a little disappointed with the ad hominems. While I don't mean to be disrespectful I found them weak and a little bit on the uh, glaringly obvious side... given what I've seen I'd almost suspect that you and CalD were trying to discourage voting for Ms. Clinton except that the ineptitude shown in all else argues against this. I'm not sure who you think you're convincing of what.

CalD wrote on January 20, 2008 9:32 PM:

The Clinton push-back on the first Obama nasty-bomb out of NV seems to be taking shape as, "Obama is a sore loser." (Told you they'd be ready this time.) I'm still betting Obama has another torpedo already in the tube though.

Batten down the hatches and clear the poop deck. The poop is likely to get pretty deep before this one's over.

Anonymous wrote on January 20, 2008 9:46 PM:

Reality check:
l. If the Obama campaign has called for investigation of irregularities in the Nevada process, fine. I understand the campaign received over 200 reports of problems. I myself read a bloggers account of attempts by the Clinton campaign to keep Obama supporters from caucusing.
2. Reports that attempts were made by Union members to strong arm voters to go for Obama are disturbing. However, the quarrel about this lies with the union and not with the Obama campaign. The tactic did n't work & may have backfired, since Clinton did well in Las Vegas.
3. A poster aruges that "the mainstream media ...clearly instigated both those issues of gender and race, and not any of the campaigns or candidates themselves." This is not true. Hillary Clinton from the get-go has presented herself as the "woman's candidate." Her campaign played the race card bigtime: Her surrogate Shaheen referred to Obama's rteenage drug use; her surrogate Cuoma used the phrase "shuck and jive" to make an indirect reference to obama; she herself made the infelicitous statement denigrating the efforts of MLK; her surrogate Johnson referred to Obama as the "guess who's coming to dinner candidate."
One would have to be really naive to think that the Clintons did not play the race card. She has everything to win by being framed as the generic "woman" candidate: women are over 51% of the electorat. She also has everything to win by tagging Obama as the African American male candidate & attempting to portray him as either shallow or dangerous. One would have to be from Mars not to see what her campaign has been doing. One would have to be naive to believe that any of this was an accident.
The Clintons want the White House back and will do anything--including stuff that appeals to the most invidious racism--to get there.

ElectoPundit wrote on January 20, 2008 10:02 PM:

ElectoPundit: Back and Forth Could Help Obama
http://electopundit.blogspot.com/2008/01/one-back-and-forth-dynamic-that-could.html

Many are trying to envision where this Democratic campaign could be headed. The most common theme and most consistent message from voters so far seems to be this: we like both of these candidates for various reasons, and we want to consider them carefully and on our own terms... don't pressure us into taking one of them before we're ready and if you do, we'll vote for the underdog.

This campaign could be divided into three phases until now. There was the "Clinton frontrunner" phase up until just before Iowa, and then after Iowa the 2nd phase was the very short "Obama Frontrunner" phase. After New Hampshire it was perhaps a "dead heat, no frontrunner" phase that I think may now be ending. If we're back into a "Clinton frontrunner" phase again... what does that mean for the campaign? Will Hillary and Bill wither under the spotlight?

Look at the behavior of the voters so far:

Everyone said if Hillary won Iowa, it was over, they voted for Obama.

Everyone said if Obama won New Hampshire, it was over, they voted for Clinton.

The Clintons and the media tried to say Obama should win Nevada because the culinary union was pressuring members, the members felt the pressure and they resisted, they voted for Clinton.

So where is that conventional wisdom/media dialogue going decisively after Nevada? I think the current line is: "the Clintons are inevitable, Obama may win in South Carolina, but that's just the African-American vote, she's going to win big on February 5th." There's going to be two and a half weeks of this dialogue again in the press for the first time since before Iowa. If Obama had won Nevada and South Carolina, the "dead heat" phase would have continued. But Nevada shifts that, and I think this has significant potential to swing the race back in Obama's favor.

One thing is clear, the focus for the next two weeks will be on Hillary Clinton, what type of presidency she would have, what Bill's role would be, their marital issues, etc. February 5th will now fundamentally be a referendum on her and it could be a decision too big for either candidate to come back from as they have had the ability to do so far in this campaign.

Democratic Delegate Race: http://electopundit.blogspot.com/2008/01/democratic-delegate-race.html

Republican Delegate Race: http://electopundit.blogspot.com/2008/01/republican-delegate-race.html

Leah wrote on January 20, 2008 10:58 PM:

I had been a Hillary supporter last week, but I'm officially out of the Hillary camp now.

The Clintons are disgusting with the way they tried to suppress voters in Nevada-- trying to close down caucuses an hour early? This after their lame lawsuit attempt? After having tried to stop college students from voting in Iowa?

What I find especially unbecoming is the behavior of Bill Clinton. He is a former President, and he's now showing from his attack-dog actions that he's desperate for a third term, in conflict with our own Constitution.

Also, Bill Clinton gets Secret Service protection as a former President.

Which means that taxpayer dollars are being used by Bill Clinton to campaign for Hillary and that's appalling!

I've voted for Democrats now for almost 45 years. But if Hillary is the nominee, I'm voting for John McCain. The same goes for everyone else in my neighborhood.

Elizabeth wrote on January 20, 2008 11:12 PM:

Re: complaints from Obama campaign of interference with caucus by Clinton campaign. I checked. Here's the press release:

""We currently have reports of over 200 separate incidents of trouble at caucus sites, including doors being closed up to thirty minutes early, registration forms running out so people were turned away, and ID being requested and checked in a non-uniform fashion. This is in addition to the Clinton campaign's efforts to confuse voters and call into question the at-large caucus sites which clearly had an affect on turnout at these locations. These kinds of Clinton campaign tactics were part of an entire week's worth of false, divisive, attacks designed to mislead caucus-goers and discredit the caucus itself.
"We will investigate all of these thoroughly and would encourage anyone who had concern about actions at the caucus sites to call (866) 675-2008."
(Obama web site, Press Releases)

So they are investigating and asking for information but no mention of complaint to DNC, at least in the press release. Did you see something beyond that, Cal? I checked CNN but found nothing about a complaint already being made to DNC.

No particular conclusions to draw. I just like to find out what is really happening.

Unless there is something I couldn't find, I guess it stands at that press release from Obama campaign (and I hope they will either bring the charges to DNC or announce that they have decided not to) and Bill's dramatic but unverified and unconfirmed account of intimidation:

“Today when my daughter and I were wandering through the hotel, and all these culinary workers were mobbing us telling us they didn’t care what the union told them to do, they were gonna caucus for Hillary,” he said.
“There was a representative of the organization following along behind us going up to everybody who said that, saying 'if you’re not gonna vote for our guy were gonna give you a schedule tomorrow so you can’t be there.' So, is this the new politics? I haven’t seen anything like that in America in 35 years. So I will say it again – they think they're better than you.”
(CNN acccount)

"They??" Does anyone know what "they" he's referring to? Or if Hillary's campaign is taking any further action on those allegations?

I do truly believe that you can learn a lot about the candidates (either party) by taking little 'episodes' like this (or the mailers, or the 'race wars') and ferreting out the facts as best you can seeing how the they handle themselves, what they do.

Thanks!

Elizabeth wrote on January 20, 2008 11:26 PM:

PS -- Guess there is going to be some more about this on tomorrow's Good Morning, America - interview with Obama in which he apparently brings up Bill C's allegations re voting, per ABC website.

Jay wrote on January 21, 2008 12:29 AM:

You can praise Hillary as having the advantage - but only if you think what happened in Clark is representative of Nevada as a whole. Of the 17 counties, Obama came out on top in 11 of them. It was the Clark numbers that gave Clinton the edge, but a strong majority of Counties favoured Obama (64.7%).

CalD wrote on January 21, 2008 12:36 AM:

Elizabeth,

I didn't read that, I had the TV on in the other room and heard someone say it on one of the CNN shows. I was pretty sure they said the DNC, but The Trail says the Nevada state party, so I may have heard wrong.

Marc Armbinder has a running tally of all the tit-for-tat accusations and counter-accusations. The Clinton caucus manual does seem to have the wrong door closing time printed in it, so that's probably where some of the confusion came from. I don't know what anyone would think Senator Clinton might possibly have to gain by intentionally trying to close the doors early though, since that would obviously be as likely to strand Clinton supporters outside as anyone else's.

ecotopian wrote on January 21, 2008 12:44 AM:

What confuses me about the popular vote is way more Republicans turned than Democrats. Hillary won by 582 votes. She received 5,355 votes, Obama 4,773. That's hardly a landslide. By contrast, Romney received 22,649 votes and Ron Paul 6,087. Why the difference? Is Nev. that much a "red state" that there would be a larger Republican turnout? I am truly curious.

CalD wrote on January 21, 2008 1:00 AM:

The Las Vegas Review Journal, the state's largest newspaper and Barack Obama endorser, also printed the 11:30 closing time, for the Democratic caucuses BTW. I managed to track down the article again. I knew I remembered seeing that somewhere.

Per the Review Journal:

Doors close at 11:30 a.m. Anyone who arrives after that will be turned away.

My guess would be that both the Clinton Campaign and the Review Journal got that time from someone at the state party who was confused. It's unlikely they both picked it out of thin air.

CalD wrote on January 21, 2008 1:18 AM:

ecotopian:

Those Democratic numbers would be for county delegates awarded through the caucus process. The actual turnout for the Democratic caucuses was closer to 120,000 people -- about double the highest number predicted beforehand, which was also part of the problem.

I believe the Republican turnout was much lower so those numbers may very well represent actual votes. Republicans usually do a straw poll rather than a delegate election in their caucuses. Nevada is a red state for the most part though. Bill Clinton actually won there twice but Republicans carried it in 8 of the last 10 elections.

the script wrote on January 21, 2008 1:27 AM:

The Republican Plan

It seems like a script by Rove written years ago.

He and his friends knew after stealing everything that wasn't nailed down, it would be tough to elect another Republican. Actually, it always is, but now especially.
The Republicans pay attention to the game. There is so much money to be made owning a president, but investments must be made. To win, they must nominate the candidates from BOTH parties. Worked before. So they picked the most corporate Democrat with name recognition. When Lieberman was thrown out, they settled for Clinton. Besides already being in bed with Walmart and the power elite, she was so hated by some that they would work hard to make the election close enough to steal the nomination.

This made her the most beatable, and so she became the Democratic choice of the oligarchy. Edwards, Biden, Dodd, Kucinich, or Richardson would mop the floor with any of the Republicans, if given favorable press treatment. Of course they were not. From long before she announced, she got most of the coverage.The media companies made up all kinds of favorable polls for her. [there is no one who checks on polls] She headlined at least every other day, saying nothing. Eventually, so much exposure makes her appear popular while possibly increasing real popularity. Ignoring candidates kills them. Along with phony dismal polls.

We had 3 'frontrunners' before any votes had been cast. Then came Iowa. Full of corporate money, and political pros. Pros like to get paid. The media too. Advertisers like Clinton. 'Marginal'[read: anti-business] candidates are eliminated.

Even with all the money, Clinton came in third. Didn't matter. The press acted like she won.

Then came New Hampshire. Phony polls. Hackable Diebold tallies said she won. Now she's the front runner. All candidates are now ignored but two. Obama's the 2nd choice, of the oligarchy, because he says very little of substance, is inexperienced, black, and beatable. He will probably be eliminated next. But he's plan B.

When Clinton gets nominated, the press will shift. She will be ignored unless it's to defend against some charge. In the general election, she will be hounded unmercifully by big media, and they will make up polls that will make it look close enough to steal again. And then they will.

Our only hope is to fight the press. Start by turning off the box.

ObamaSupporter wrote on January 21, 2008 1:34 AM:

CalD:

My guess would be that both the Clinton Campaign and the Review Journal got that time from someone at the state party who was confused. It's unlikely they both picked it out of thin air.

Don't try to confuse us Obama supporters with fact, you evil she-devil shill!

Everyone knows Clintons play dirty politics because they want to win. Obama is above the fray of all this winning nonsense. He's in it for the pure santimony of the thing, and that's how it should be.

I've been a lifelong democrat, and I and all my 373 neighbors will vote for McCain in the fall rather than vote for a Clinton.

EvenMoreObamaSupporterer wrote on January 21, 2008 1:58 AM:

LOL!

Oh yeah? Well I've been a democrat for all of this and 17 previous lives and everyone I've ever met or seen on TV and everyone they've ever met and all their unborn children, generations yet to be born, would rather drive nails into their own skulls and then vote for Satan than vote for Hillary Clinton. Top that!

Elizabeth wrote on January 21, 2008 2:02 AM:

Thanks for link to The Trail article. I hope both sides DO take their complaints to the State party (probably the logical ones) ..... and that the State party perhaps decides on a primary ... with old-fashioned lever machines!! There have been some pretty serious allegations made (including Bill C's) and they should be looked into. There's going to be a rather big election there not long from now.

What you say about 11:30 door closing makes sense, Cal. I had read several first-hand accounts that Clinton people were requiring them to be closed 'early' and Obama people objecting. The assumption was that C campaign had told their people to be there early so they would only be closing out Obama supporters. Probably much more likely that both sides thought they were right (because that's what they had seen in paper or lit.) and immediately assumed there was a nefarious purpose behind the other group's actions. So often there isn't. (Which is why I really like to stick with facts.)

Sad -- I've been a Dem. poll watcher on a number of occasions (back to '68 - Nixon/Humphrey) and the parties' or the candidates' representatives have been unfailingly courteous and fair -- all of us wanting to deal with the other side the way we would want to be dealt with if/when the specific situation was reversed. The accounts I've read from Nevada (both sides) indicate a LOT of angry chaos which can be only highly detrimental to our party. I guess it's an unavoidable spin-off of Rovian tactics -- but it *hasn't* always been like this and it *doesn't* have to be. The only way to stop it however is to figure out (factually and fairly), who is engaging in these tactics and NOT vote for them. It's the only language they understand.

CalD wrote on January 21, 2008 2:43 AM:

This primary hasn't been any orders of magnitude more brutal than any other I've ever seen, so I don't know which ones you were watching back to 68. In fact, it was really pretty downright civilized as such things go, right up until Barack Obama started playing the race card the morning after New Hampshire. But you always get a few elbows thrown under the basket at this stage of the campaign, so if it hadn't been that, it likely would have been something else.

Anyway, charges of election fraud in NV do seem a little frivolous on the face of it. So I guess Barack Obama can either suck it up and congratulate Clinton on her win now or continue sulking, as he wishes. Either way, we'll be moving on to SC.

snicker-snack wrote on January 21, 2008 6:19 AM:

CalD, I really have to admire how you throw those little innuendos and slurs in under the cover of reasonableness. That really is the way to go about doing it - Mr. Trotter, take note. A good lie should always get mixed in with a healthly dose of truth. C'mon, don't be shy, you've done this kind of thing before, haven't you? One might even think you're a pro...

Compliments aside, 1. I've so no evidence whatsoever - none, none, none - that it was the Obama camp behind the race card. 2. It beats me how you could characterize his attitude as 'sulking' if you're trying for an honest characterization (okay, silly me).

(Just an observer; neither for nor against Obama; and not able to choose at that: just got this Scots-Canadian thing against dishonesty; I know, that's downright un-American)

CalD wrote on January 21, 2008 10:32 AM:

SnickSnack,

Is "innuendo" a synonym for direct accusation or statement of fact where you come from? I think I came right out and said what I meant there. You've got Obama campaign co-chair Jesse Jacskson Jr. in perhaps the single most remarkable on-air performance of the primary campaign to date, a couple of on-record David Axelrod statements and the SC memo obtained by ABC News and the Huffington Post directly stating calling for pushing the story as a purposeful strategy.

Those things are undeniable and have not been denied, apologized for or even directly disavowed by Obama or his campaign. We've got one indirect, non-specific blanket statement by Mr Obama in last week's debate tsk-tsking "uncontrollable" supporters. If there's been any other attempt by the campaign to distance themselves from any of the above in any way it has certainly not been widely reported under the circumstances and I am fairly certain such a thing would have been.

So if you've seen "no evidence" of such things, I would have to conclude that you're either purposely ignoring what's in front of your face or else you just don't pay a lot of attention to current events. Or maybe you just don't get much news up there in Canada. ;-)

Nice try though.

Elizabeth wrote on January 21, 2008 1:16 PM:

>>>Obama campaign co-chair Jesse Jacskson Jr. in perhaps the single most remarkable on-air performance of the primary campaign to date

Oh, my goodness ... you must have missed Bob Johnson's bit as he introduced Hillary Clinton at an event. Or Bill's 'fairy tale' sniggering as he mis-stated Obamas position on Iraq. Or Shaheen (which I think was televised but not sure) Mark Penn on Hardball. Actually, there have been a number of choice on-air performances. ... Although I'm having a hard time coming up with another one from the Obama campaign, to be honest.

David Alexrod very clearly announced that the SC volunteer who had put the list together (the list that was not released by the campaign to the press -- unlike Sen. Clinton's 'list' kept on a web site). He said that she, along with the rest of the staff, had been talked to, told that Obama was very "disappointed," and that nothing like that should happen in the future. (Sorry, I'm on my way out the door and will have to look for a copy of that story later.)

As for Obama's not disowning the list at the debate, as one female commentator put it, that was seen by some of us as "acting the grown up in the room" --- don't split hairs, take responsibility because it *did* come from your campaign, and most of all don't prolong the argument! I admired him for that (even tho part of me wanted him to explain that it hadn't been done at his behest or for public dissemination).

--- I'm not familiar with the Huffington Post article you reference but do know that Andrea Mitchell said she received calls from Obama supporters wanting to keep the 'narrative' going. But that isn't Obama, it isn't clearly from his campaign , and it certainly isn't proof that he authorized or condoned. I certainly don't hold the sometimes rather rabid suggestions and comments I hear coming from Sen. Clinton's supporters against her. That's an unending road for any candidate. That's what makes "official" statements, like those from Shaheen or the deceptive mailers - used over and over again, so very powerful and important. (And that, by the way, is an example of something that hasn't happened in the past, not like that. Usually the dirty work and distortion is left to 527s - and before them the nostalgicly mild Dick Tucks -- not on official campaign letterhead.)

But, anyway, you made a plain factual statement above "Barack Obama started playing the race card the morning after New Hampshire." Good - we're down to a time and place. What - specifically - was done by Obama or his campaign that morning? That's what I've been trying to find out, from you or others. How did Obama "play the race card"? ---- (And if you say that he somehow got Rep Clyburn, Donna Brazille, media pundits, etc., etc. to react as they did in an effort to help him, then we *really* should vote for him as Pres. because he's obviously all-powerful, right? )

It may be a futile effort, but I'm just damned sick of "factual" statements being made over and over and over again until it's perceived as a proven truth. Kerry's "flip-flopping", Obama's "playing the race card". Wrapping words around something, no matter how frequently and fervently it's done, doesn't making real. Supporting facts, that can be verified, are the only way to establish something, and that's what I'm looking for.

Don't mean to be picking on you, Cal. But you are actually "conversing" more than most people who make those assertions over and over. Before when I've asked for specifics, I just got yelled at.

snicker-snack wrote on January 21, 2008 2:22 PM:

Thanks Elizabeth for answering CalD's silliness. He doesn't argue in good faith and seemingly is posting with an agenda.

Elizabeth wrote on January 21, 2008 3:52 PM:

To snicker-snack:
LOL I seriously doubt that **anyone** posting on one of these sites is lacking "an agenda"! We'd be watching football or crocheting or doing something else if we didn't care passionately about politics -- and people who do that generally have a viewpoint they strongly believe in and want others to believe also.
--- It's sort of like running for office: it all comes down to *how* you do it. Do you scream and insult -- or -- do you listen to those with opposing points of view, try to figure out what real facts support your respective viewpoints/agendas, and see if there is some commonality that might lead you (or them) to change your views or to a discussion from which you both might learn something new and change your positions. (Gee, I guess it does make sense the I'm drawn to Obama, huh?)

Anyway, I've seen nothing at all to suggest that Cal D isn't arguing in good faith. Sure *I* think he's a little dense and illogical at times but I'm sure he thinks the same of me! (said with good humor, truly). But it doesn't really matter, in the end. He's certainly saying (thankfully without screams or insults) what a lot of people believe and I want to know more about why many people feel so certain of those views.

Why? 'Cause I, too, have an 'agenda': I want my own decisions (who to support, who to vote for, who to work against) to be based on sound reasoning and provable facts. What's the quote - was it Moynihan? - "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but no one is entitled to their own facts." ---- So I want to test the views I've formed, and if I find out I'm distoring the facts or believing falsehoods, then I guess I won't succeed in getting others to agree wih me and may well have to change my position. And if I discover that the basis for my viewpoint is solid and logical, then maybe I'll have convinced others to my way of thinking -- another "agenda" if you will.)

Very few people are 100% right or 100% wrong, and when they feel passionately there is usually something real and important that they are trying to protect or advance. It's good to find something a bit deeper than name-calling.

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)