On Conference Call, Obama Advisers Parry More Incoming Fire
The skirmishing over Samantha Power continued on an Obama campaign conference call moments ago, with the action shifting over to this recent interview with Power about Obama's commitment to withdrawing from Iraq.
In that interview, Power said the following about Obama's future approach to withdrawal from Iraq: "He will, of course, not rely on some plan that he’s crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. Senator." As Ben Smith notes, she seemed to be expressing "a lack of confidence that Obama will be able to carry through" his withdrawal plan.
Asked about the comments on the call, Plouffe argued that Obama's commitment to pulling out of Iraq was "rock solid." He also pointed out that Retired General Jack Kean, who is close to Hillary, had recently characterized Hillary's approach to Iraq as follows:
"I have no doubts whatsoever that if she were president in January '09 she would not act irresponsibly and issue orders to conduct an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, regardless of the consequences, and squander the gains that have been made."
The parallel isn't perfect, but Plouffe's push-back nonetheless seems fair here -- the larger point is that both candidates, for obvious reasons, want to preserve some wiggle room for themselves on Iraq.
Separately, it's worth noting that the Obama camp was mostly on defense on the call, suggesting that the 3 A.M ad and Hillary's continued bludgeoning of Obama for his alleged lack of "commander in chief" cred has left the Obama camp scrambling to turn the narrative around.
Plouffe did go on offense on her tax returns, blasting her as "one of the most secretive pols in America today." But it's hard to imagine that this sort of thing will be enough to parry the current Clinton assault, which isn't showing any signs of letting up.
Then again, big victories in Wyoming and Mississippi could abruptly change the story-line, and beyone that, Obama's pledge delegate lead may well prove insurmountable, in which case whatever damage Obama takes from Hillary's "commander in chief" assault will ultimately prove inconsequential.
It matters. Hillary is trying to win purely by tearing Obama down, and it seems like it's working.
Tax returns ain't cutting it and the Power issue dominated the news.
Obama needs to change the narrative dramatically. And do it ASAP.
March 7, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ratther, it seems to me this is a bit of a NAFTA-esque moment for Obama on Iraq. So, just what does he believe? And, given that his anti-Iraq stance from before his 2004 Senate election is a major part of his presidential campaign image, how much will this hurt him?
And, how hard will the Clinton campaign push him on this?
(Note: I'll be voting Green, in all likelihood, so I don't have a dog in this hunt, and ergo, can call, or call out, both Obama and Clinton as I see fit.)
March 7, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the full Samantha Power quote below. I think it's exactly the right approach to take to our withdrawal from Iraq and entirely misleading to only post one line of it out of context. The context here is very important.
The real question is will Greg or Ben Smith or anyone else in the media be able to get an answer from Hillary about which part of Power's statement she disagrees with? Of course not. Hillary won't answer. That tells us all we need to know about the validity of Clinton's criticism.
"What he’s actually said, after meeting with the generals and meeting with intelligence professionals, is that you – at best case scenario – will be able to withdraw one to two combat brigades each month. That’s what they’re telling him. He will revisit it when he becomes president," Power says.
The host, Stephen Sackur, challenged her:"So what the American public thinks is a commitment to get combat forces out in 16 months isn't a commitment isn't it?"
"You can’t make a commitment in March 2008 about what circumstances will be like in January of 2009," she said. "He will, of course, not rely on some plan that he’s crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. Senator. He will rely upon a plan – an operational plan – that he pulls together in consultation with people who are on the ground to whom he doesn’t have daily access now, as a result of not being the president. So to think – it would be the height of ideology to sort of say, 'Well, I said it, therefore I’m going to impose it on whatever reality greets me.'"
March 7, 2008 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I imagine if no reporter challenges Senator Clinton on her self-serving declarations (I believe the Clintons' call it "vetting"), then you are largely right.
I guess that's how the cookie crumbles these days. Cover the spin.
March 7, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Her comments about Iraq are not as troubling as her comments about the Middle East conflict:
Samantha Power being interviewed at Berkely (4/29/02)
Let me give you a thought experiment here, and it is the following: without addressing the Palestine - Israel problem, let's say you were an advisor to the President of the United States, how would you respond to current events there? Would you advise him to put a structure in place to monitor that situation, at least if one party or another [starts] looking like they might be moving toward genocide?
I don't think that in any of the cases, a shortage of information is the problem. I actually think in the Palestine - Israel situation, there's an abundance of information. What we don't need is some kind of early warning mechanism there, what we need is a willingness to put something on the line in helping the situation. Putting something on the line might mean alienating a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import; it may more crucially mean sacrificing -- or investing, I think, more than sacrificing -- billions of dollars, not in servicing Israel's military, but actually investing in the new state of Palestine, in investing the billions of dollars it would probably take, also, to support what will have to be a mammoth protection force, not of the old Rwanda kind, but a meaningful military presence. Because it seems to me at this stage (and this is true of actual genocides as well, and not just major human rights abuses, which were seen there), you have to go in as if you're serious, you have to put something on the line.
Unfortunately, imposition of a solution on unwilling parties is dreadful. It's a terrible thing to do, it's fundamentally undemocratic. But, sadly, we don't just have a democracy here either, we have a liberal democracy. There are certain sets of principles that guide our policy, or that are meant to, anyway. It's essential that some set of principles becomes the benchmark, rather than a deference to [leaders] who are fundamentally politically destined to destroy the lives of their own people. And by that I mean what Tom Freidman has called "Sharafat." I do think in that sense, both political leaders have been dreadfully irresponsible. And, unfortunately, it does require external intervention, which, very much like the Rwanda scenario, that thought experiment, if we had intervened early.... Any intervention is going to come under fierce criticism. But we have to think about lesser evils, especially when the human stakes are becoming ever more pronounced.
March 7, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I'd hate to see a US President that wasn't pandering to the Likud Party--that really keeps me up at night... yawn...
March 7, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
What exactly is troubling about that? That she knows it is in the best interests of both the US AND Israel to FINALLY come to a resolution to the conflict? She sees what the other 99% of the world sees, the obvious. Israel and the US are the only ones that are approaching the conflict from a completely one-sided direction, making a solution impossible. I don't know if a US military presence is necessary to pull it off, hopefully not, but something must be done, and yes, it is going to take a president who can stand up to groups like AIPAC to do what is obviously the best thing, the right thing, for everyone. She is absolutely right.
Of course the neocons and their supporters will cry "OMG SHE IS AN ANTI-SEMITE BECAUSE SHE WON'T BLINDLY SUBMIT TO ISRAEL'S WILL ON EVERY DECISION!!!", but seriously, educate yourself a little bit on the conflict, research it, don't be biased, and it will be obvious that our current tactic is just making everything worse, and that if we want anything to get done, we need to make a two-state solution happen. Period.
March 7, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's the troubling part?
March 7, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aside from the poster's lack of foreign policy acumen--nadda.
March 7, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Let me give you a thought experiment here,"
At that point you should have known it was just thinking out loud...
March 7, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama camp, please start asking why Hillary believes that McCain, who has said that "100 years in Iraq" would be "fine with him" has passed the "threshold" necessary to be Commander in Chief. Ask her explain when exactly her "lifetime of experience" provided her with the Commander in Chief experience necessary to cross that threshold? Does Laura Bush also have the experience necessary to be Commander in Chief? If not, why not?
March 7, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
On the taxes, the hypocrisy of Hillary is amazing:
http://www.thepersonalispolitical.com/post/28166757
March 7, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know there's no way he can lose the election (math doesn't weasel the way politicians do) and HRCs continual calls for a unity ticket are broadcasting her weakness like a Ginsu infomercial, but dang I wish he'd find a way to dangle something shiny in front of all the journalists so they'd jerk their collective heads out of their collective hineys.
March 7, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's Ben Smith's summary of the call/Plouffe's talking points if anyone is interested:
March 7, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Two points:
1) I agree with Mr Sargent that it appears that Obama is still playing defense. This is not where we want to be right now. Fortunately we have a lot of time before PA to get things back on track. Unfortunately we need a lot of time before PA to get things back on track. Demanding tax returns is good, but not enough. He needs to start point out the similarities between her and McCain, because that will cut into her lead among self-identified democrats.
2) I also agree with Mr Sargent that, vis-a-vis the nomination, none of this matters. He has effectively won already. The real worry is simply that he will leave the impression in the minds of the general electorate in the next few weeks that he cannot stand up to scrutiny. In other words, his real target audience is not the democratic primary electorate but the nation as a whole. We need to keep that in mind.
March 7, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
FYI
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-03-06-clinton-library-foia_N.htm?csp=34
The story that Plouffe uses to back up his claim. Bill won't let his pardon documents out of the archives.
You'd think that gets a little more attention than it does, wouldn't you?
March 7, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's been a ragged few days for Camp Obama. The best that can be said about it is that his side has given reporters a lot to write about. But, man the HRC group has really been ordering everybody around the last ten days or so.
I want the Obama team to come back and talk about the numbers, what they have been able to put together in terms of delegates, votes, ground support, new interest in the fundamentals and principles of the Democratic Party, and then I want them to talk about what can be done with that multitude. Back to the "we" message, what "we" will do together. I guess I'm looking for a new stump speech. I think that with good writing interwoven in it there can be a devastating rejoinder to the "3 a.m. call" and "threshold" nonsense that is all about a manufactured cult of "experienced" personality. The HRC campaign IS, in fact trying to tear down a movement and vision and substitute for it but an individual who has been there but will not release any substantive record of her era.
March 7, 2008 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Slightly off subject but I heard the most interesting segment on Democracy Now this afternoon.
I'm guessing all of you heard about how Hillary is whining incessantly about getting the Michigan delegates seated? Do any of you know why Michigan moved its primary up in the first place?
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/3/7/could_michigan_and_florida_decide_the
JOHN NICHOLS: You’re precisely right, Amy. You’re precisely right. And also, you should know that in Michigan there was a huge fight, as well. Organized labor in Michigan opposed a lot of the ideas for how to go ahead with an early primary, because they felt that Governor Granholm was essentially gaming the system to create an early win for Hillary Clinton. So in both states, there were debates on the ground, and there were many, many different—
AMY GOODMAN: Why would Michigan in an early primary be automatically a vote for Hillary Clinton? I mean, even with how it turned out in Michigan, though she was named and the other candidates were not, the uncommitted vote, which would have been for Obama and Edwards, was very high. I mean, I think it was—it turned out being something like fifty-five to forty, but they weren’t even named.
JOHN NICHOLS: Absolutely right. What the theory was, it was that an early primary would be advantageous for Hillary Clinton, because Michigan, being a big state, coming early on after Ohio and New Hampshire, would more likely be a place that Clinton, who—remember, these decisions were being made last year—would have a financial and name recognition advantage that would benefit her in a primary setting. So that was the theory.
What wasn’t counted on, of course, and in all of these calculations, what was not counted on was the remarkable surge of Barack Obama’s campaign, the fact that he would (a) raise as much or more money—now more money—than Hillary Clinton, and (b) become really what can only be described as a political phenomenon. So even by the time that the primary got to Michigan in mid-January, Obama was such a phenomenon that Congressman John Conyers and his wife were able to launch a campaign, essentially, a very low-budget campaign, for the undecided vote or the uncommitted vote and to get roughly 40 percent of the vote for it. Additionally, Dennis Kucinich got five percent of the vote in Michigan. So, in fact, you see 45 percent of Michiganders who went to the polls voted for somebody other than Hillary Clinton.
March 7, 2008 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a great catch.
You should blog it separately.
March 7, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
As usual a ONE SIDED opinion -- tell only what Obama's team is saying.
Hillary LOST TEXAS folks -- it wasn't a grand slam as everybody is claiming. CNN
She won primary with 51 - 47 a 4 pt diff
He won caucus with 56 - 44 a 12 pt diff
Even if you GIVE Hillary her 4 pts ---OBAMA WINS
Hope you all report that as LOUDLY as you did Hillary's win.
March 7, 2008 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen! Now that's what I'm talkin' about!! He split TX for Hillary. She only "won" the primary by the skin of her teeth.
March 7, 2008 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
The taxes strategy they've got to start hitting more forcefully. Two items to focus upon:
1) The hypocrisy highlighted by her Senate race against Lazio (as mentioned above)
2) The strangeness of the Clinton's wealth ballooning by over 1500% in only 3-4 years
http://thememlingindex.com/hillary_clinton_net_worth-wealth.html
March 7, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can also take the hypocrisy of her big Ohio supporter, Gov. Ted Strickland, who made his opponent not releasing tax returns a central issue in his race for governor in 2006.
March 7, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
ZOGBY POLL: Just now
On the issue of leadership, McCain and Obama receive near equal support - 34% believe McCain would be best at providing meaningful leadership to the country, while 33% said the same of Obama. Just 16% said Clinton would be best at leading the country
March 7, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
coonsey at 2:43 -- Gold!
March 7, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Boxing analogies seem to be ruling here lately. As a boxing fan I am quite happy about this. Also I like the idea of casting Obama as Muhammad Ali. The GREATEST OF ALL TIME!!!! So what if he is running a rope a dope here. It looks like he is going to do quite well in Wyoming and Mississippi despite Hillary’s barrage of attacks these last couple of weeks. Meanwhile just looking at Olbermann’s reaction to her “Threshold to be commander in chief” comment yesterday, along with the comment sections here and on other political blogs responding to the stories of her new and varied attacks it seems like she may already be over reaching. Does she plan on keeping this up for 7 straight weeks? If she does she be going in to Pennsylvania looking like a cross between Mitt Romney and Lee Atwater. I know that the media and most Obama supporters would like him to punch back just like the announcers and Ali fans wanted him to go after Forman, but for right now the smart thing to do may be to tuck his chin, keep his guard up and let her punch herself out.
March 7, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
It won't be inconsequential in the general.
March 7, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
The more that this is going on and the more that the obama campaign is flailing, the more that it looks like president mccain. It's really depressing. They should get some new media spinners. Wolfson and penn are awful and the obama campaign is getting out spun by these bozos? Pathetic.
March 7, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's definitely been a bad news cycle and there have been some bad decisions that helped to drive that (I still think they should have closed ranks around Powers), but until I see some serious and prolonged indicators that the Obama campaign is cracking up: color me unimpressed. We're taking some lumps, and that's just how it goes. Barack is smart, resilient and he's going to find a way through this.
March 7, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
And, of course, it's useful to remember that last fall, the talking and writing hairdos were all drooling over how weak and ineffectual Obama seemed. They were really on target with that, weren't they?
March 7, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well some of them may go back and try to flog their old memes ("look we were right!"), but those hairdos have such short attention spans that I'm not sure they can remember what was said last week...
March 7, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would like to see Greg or Eric put up the latest AP story about Hillary for the second time floating a trial balloon that she could be on the same ticket with Barack. Josh linked to it over at TPM:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2008/03/clinton_again_raises_running_w.php
AP put it out two hours ago. AP's first two grafs go like this:
:Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton on Friday again raised the possibility that she might run with rival Sen. Barack Obama on the same Democratic presidential ticket.
"Speaking to voters in Mississippi, where Sen. Barack Obama is expected to do well in next week's primary, Clinton said, 'I've had people say, "Well I wish I could vote for both of you.['] Well, that might be possible some day. But first I need your vote on Tuesday.'
"It is the second time this week that she has hinted at a joint ticket with the Illinois senator; he has not ruled it out but says it is premature to be having those discussions."
I don't want to hijack this thread about the Obama staff struggling to deal with Hillary's negative attacks and the Samantha Power resignation.
A separate thread on Hillary's latest lame attempt to squeeze onto Barack's bandwagon would give us the freedom to take her completely apart without overlapping onto the problems Barack's strategists are having with her.
But -- just give it one second's thought -- THIS is how she auditions to be on the ticket with him, by shitting all over him every day? Sounds to me like extortion -- she is a thug -- "either you put me on your ticket or I keep bashing your head in no matter how much I destroy the Democratic Party."
March 7, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why not call her bluff? Say he'd be happy to have her as his VP if she'll concede today.
March 7, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure how to read her statements about this. I'm inclined to see this as her way of trying to innoculate herself against the negativeness of her kithcen sink strategy. You know, something like, "See she's not against Barack Obama completely, she just needs to do what she needs to do so they can both go the Whitehouse..." or something like that.
I just tend to look for more Machiavellian motivations when it comes to ole Hilldog.
March 7, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't understand why she's saying this. To trick Obama leaners into voting for her since she's the only one of the two willing to run with the other? To innoculate her over-the-top attacks? Because she really would run as his VP?
He'd be crazy to pick her. She doesn't deserve it after all she's done, and he understandably can't stand her. (At least I don't think he can. I know I couldn't.)
March 7, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
It doesn't matter! She can't win!! Do you really think superdelegates will back this monster? Hell no. She's destroying her chance, as well as the Clinton legacy with every opening of her cavernous, lying maw.
Hopefully the good people of Mississippi and Wyoming step up to plate and reject her and her Dr. Frankenstein enablers.
March 7, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is exactly right.
One of the best posts I read in many a thread.
TPM is fanning these flames because its good for business. More hits. More clicks. More stickiness. More comments. More more.
It is no different that Big Media trying to make a race where there really is none.
Hillary has done the math. She wants to be VP.
That's all she's got. She is advertising it like a hooker on an empty street corner. If you don't pick me-me-me I am going to "throw punches" until you kill me with some big black schtick."
Please.
This is ugly and profane.
It is bread and circuses for the media by the media. It is embarrassing. A tempest in a Big-Media Big-blog teapot. Get over it. Barack Obama is not going to play your throw-shit game with her no matter how much you want to assert it is vital in politics today.
Got it Josh? Not ever! Even better: He is the nominee, and no amount of your screaming is going to change that.
The election is O-V-E-R.
And guess what? Hillary is not going to be the vice president either. So get over that too...
March 7, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why in the world are you attacking Josh?
March 7, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
err-AP put it out two hours ago. AP's first THREE grafs go like this:
"Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton on Friday again raised the possibility that she might run with rival Sen. Barack Obama on the same Democratic presidential ticket.
"Speaking to voters in Mississippi, where Sen. Barack Obama is expected to do well in next week's primary, Clinton said, 'I've had people say, "Well I wish I could vote for both of you.["] Well, that might be possible some day. But first I need your vote on Tuesday.'
"It is the second time this week that she has hinted at a joint ticket with the Illinois senator; he has not ruled it out but says it is premature to be having those discussions."
Had to correct internal quote marks in graf two.
March 7, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Obama's pledge delegate lead may well prove insurmountable"
Ummm, what am I missing? It's already proven insurmountable.
March 7, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, it hasn't. She could still win if she won a large majority in the remaining contests. It's not going to happen unless there's some kind of major implosion in the Obama campaign, but it's not yet mathematically impossible.
March 7, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, right. Fair enough. Not impossible, but incredibly unlikely.
March 7, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. The collective failure on the part of the media, some pundits like Jonathan Alter excepted, to recognize that Clinton has basically been mathematically eliminated is starting to verge on intellectual dishonesty.
And that goes for around here too. Nowhere in Josh's long post today about Obama getting hammered by Clinton does he mention the fact that Clinton has already lost. Recognizing thus puts all of their tactics this week in a more understandable perspective. It's a raging against the dying of the light.
It's over. The Clinton campaign might as well be railing against gravity at this point.
March 7, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Senator's Clinton's only strategy is the Tanya Harding Strategy. She's has her crew aimed at injuring the better candidate. Clinton's sense of entitlement and unbridled ambition have led her to deploy lies and distortions from the Reagan quote to voting present to plagiarizing to Jesse Jackson to fearmongering. The Clinton's have long pitted Rs against Ds and used partisanship to their advantage, but now they're pitting D against D, inciting voting block against voting block for her greater glory. I started this campaign a Clinto supporter, but they have lost me after South Carolina. Senator Clinton cannot with this race, but like Tanya Harding she is surrounded by a bad crew with whom she'll scheme and cheat.
Time for Senator Clinton to release her taxes, to release all Clinton Library donors, to tell us how she has been tested by something other than the public humiliation of a cheating husband, how her billing records from the Rose law firm showed up at the White House, how her bets in the Chicago futures market and Wal Mart Corporate board seats gave her moral insights, how voting for the working class punitive bankruptcy bill shows good judgement. Her political bet of a vote for the war will undermine her against McCain, just as it did Kerry against Bush.
Time for Clinton to step aside. Obama is a better candidate to win the White House and a better person.
March 7, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I feel like I'm watching a reprise of the Swiftboats. Never underestimate the viciousness of a Republican or of a Clinton. And Hillary is willing to tear apart the party in order to get the nomination. The Obama campaign desperately needs to change the topic. I'm hoping he wins, big, in Wyoming and MS, and that will help.
And for those of you who are gluttons for punishment, this Chait piece from TNR nicely describes Hillary's path to the nomination. It should be required reading for everyone in the obama campaign:
How Hillary wins by screwing everyone else
March 7, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain has to be loving this. Why is that the Democratic Party always has to destroy itself?
March 7, 2008 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Samantha Power (Interview, Harvard's JFK School, 3/14/07)
"Another longstanding foreign policy flaw is the degree to which special interests dictate the way in which the 'national interest' as a whole is defined and pursued. . . . . America's important historic relationship with Israel has often led foreign policy decision-makers to defer reflexively to Israeli security assessments, and to replicate Israeli tactics, which, as the war in Lebanon last summer demonstrated, can turn out to be counter-productive."
March 7, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Richmond at 2:59, you need to include links when you give us block quotes. Please.
March 7, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the election is over, how come the 50 superdelegates who were supposed to come out for Senator Obama this week changed their minds? People keep saying this thing is over, while at the same time this thread is loaded with real evidence of panic on the part of Senator Obama's supporters. It's a panic I don't understand because, while I disagree that thing is over, Obama still appears to be in one helluva good position.
I'm an HRC supporter, but here's some free advice to my fellow Democrats supporting Senator Obama (who will have my unwavering support if he gets to the general). Relax. You're not supposed to let us know you're sweating, but sweat is the least appearent indicia of the anxiety that seems to be permeating Obama's supporters at the Cafe. If this is a reflection of the state of Obama supporters nationwide, his campaign has some really major problems.
March 7, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, it's keep the powder dry time.
March 7, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
There never were 50 superdelegates. It was just a rumor that Obama denied. Keep up.
March 7, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
My friend, I trust Tom Brokaw a heckuva lot more than I trust denials from Senator Obama's campaign. Not even close my friend.
March 7, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
haha, well, that's your right, I guess.
Do you have a source for the 50 delegates "changing their minds."
March 7, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well f*cking said.
March 7, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again, can we try to avoid hijacking this thread, so folks have somewhere to comment on something other than what an asshole Hillary is? I posted the AP story so we could maybe get a new thread where we can take this analysis. And I know we will have REAL analysis about Hillary's second lame attempt to get on Barack's ticket.
liberal historian, it's way over the top to call her a "hooker," but I'm sure you felt better after venting. Blue Moon, not even sure we should accuse her of being Tanya Harding who knee-capped her opposition (literally).
Here's my angle: who REALLY told Hillary "I wish I could vote for both of you?" AP quoted Hillary, not some voter (AP dropped the closing internal quote mark). Hillary said "I've had people say [that]." What "people," Hillary? Show me one.
March 7, 2008 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well HRC has won Greg over.
It's all Clinton talking points all the time.
Hurry, greg, I think there's another fax in from Ickes.
March 7, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you know that Hillary, if you re-vote Michigan and Florida, has a real shot at ending up with the higher overall popular vote total?
So, if you believe in democracy as "every vote counts," would you support her being the Democrat on the top of the ticket if that ends up being the case - even if Obama still holds the lead in pledged delegates?
Don't worry, I already know the answer. "The rules" say it's the delegate count that matters, not the popular vote. So, "the rules" also provide for independent superdelegates. If you truly support democracy, then the popular vote should prevail. If you truly support "the rules" of the contest, then you support in principle, that independent superdelegates pledged to Hillary could rightly throw the nomination to her.
I think it is a very possible scenario that if Hillary wins Pennsylvania strongly, wins the re-votes in Michigan and Florida, and ends up with the higher popular vote total, that there will be a Clinton-Obama ticket with Obama strongly endorsing the arrangement.
"Democracy", you know, the will of the people, is such a sticky thing when more people end up voting for someone other than the candidate you'd like to see. If my above scenario plays out, I expect Obama supporters to say, "We're getting screwed. I say screw democracy and every vote counts! It's only pledged delegates that should count . . . cause that's where we've won."
March 7, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a lot of ifs.
March 7, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
And that Obama, if you re-vote Michigan and FLorida, might end up with the highest popular vote total and the highest number of pledged delegates?
I don't think it's a safe assumption that Clinton is still going to beat Obama in Michigan when he's, you know, actually listed on the ticket.
March 7, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
haha, no shit.
40% of people in Michigan voted against Hillary out of hand. Not for another candidate (although Kucinich and Dodd did get 5%) but simply against Clinton.
I don't think that bodes well for Clinton in a match-up against a real person.
March 7, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
colonpowwow at 3:10, you may be too young to remember, Bill Clinton campaigned and won on the theme that the middle class played by the rules and got screwed by the greedy rich, so it was time to protect and rebuild the middle class. It's the American Way to play by the rules, Hillary and Bill both said during the 1992 campaign.
Now, Hillary is one of the greedy, war-mongering, corporate hacks who thinks the rules are just for the little people, like all of Obama's supporters, but not for her.
Hillary says "let all votes count." Obama played by the rules because that is the exact purpose of the rules, to make sure that all the votes count. Now Hillary wants to change the rules in the middle of the contest, which ain't going to happen.
March 7, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed colon. And, of course, the whole popular vote tally is specious at the threshhold, because it equates a vote in a secret ballot primary with a vote in a caucus. I understand rules are rules and I ain't complaining (lie!) about how pledged delegates are selected after the fact, but I am saying that the popular vote totals are misleading to the extent they equate a caucus vote with a secret ballot vote in a primary.
March 7, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can see a clear scenario to see Hillary with a nice winning streak to end the nomination contests. She ends up with more votes and claims most of the major states we need to win in November. Let the party take the nomination away from her.
Yes, I know people will say it is a rule and rules should be followed. Tell me how this is fair or democratic way to select a nominee:
ID:
Votes: Obama 16,880 - Clinton 3,655
Delegates: Obama 15- clinton 3
NJ:
Votes: Clinton 602,576 - Obama 492, 186
Delegates: Clinton 59 - Obama 48
I'm not saying the votes in ID should count less although there is no chance, unless the Sun rises from the West, that a Democrat will win ID in the GE. A win of 13,225 in ID netted Obama 12 more delegates but a win of 110,390 in NJ netted Hillary only 11 delegates. You may reasonably argue that Hillary's campaign was stupid for not contesting ID more strongly. But do you really think a vote in ID should count as 10 votes in New Jersey? Do you seriously think a red state like ID that will never vote for a Democrat in the GE should have so much more influence than NJ in determining the outcome of Democratic nomination fight?
Let's see if the U.S. only has two states, one is NJ and one is ID, who should be the nominee, Obama or Clinton?
March 7, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's see.
The down-ticket races in NJ are probably pretty safe, the down-ticket races in ID need someone that got 16,000 votes and filled an arena and motivated the DEMOCRATS in ID.
Hillary is doing everything necessary to win a presidential election and she doesn't give a damn about anything other than her campaign. That was the problem with Bill Clinton too. He was a fine President (and begrudgingly, Hillary probably would be too), but they WILL destroy the House and Senate majorities, they have ZERO coattails and the GOP-led congress will stalemate everything that Hillary wants to get done.
4 years of gridlock. F'in great.
So yeah, I think that the Super Delegates will look at who is better for the party, not just who might win the White House. The numbers appear to show that they BOTH win the top prize. Only one of them is even wanted to help campaign on down tickets.
March 7, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
One of the biggest accusations against Bill Clinton -- used, in fact, by the almighty Obama himself -- was that he lost the House and Senate in 1994.
You know how he lost it?
The ban on assault weapons.
You know why he signed it into law?
To appease Democrats in the House and Senate.
Bill Clinton had an A rating from the NRA when he was governor of Arkansas. To run nationally, he had to move to the left on gun control.
Democrats want to blame him because they lost the House and Senate, but no one blames the actual members of the House and Senate. I find that very interesting.
March 7, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shhh, any discussion of what happens if Hillary gets the popular vote is taboo.
March 8, 2008 2:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Colonpowwow, we in American believe in representative democracy. At least that's the system in place, both for the primaries and the general election. That means "every delegate counts", so "if Obama still holds the lead in pledged delegates" that answers the entire question.
If the candidates were running for the popular vote, then their campaigns would be designed differently. But it's not, and they're not. The current system is designed to make every state count, which in our representative democracy - like it or not - is paramount.
It's not just "the rules", but federalism, geographic democracy, fairness.
On the other hand, if you truly support popular direct democracy, and think it should be the lodestar, then you support in principle, that independent superdelegates should rightly throw the nomination to the candidate they think has the best shot at the general election - when every vote counts, not just every D. Now THAT would be the will of the people.
March 8, 2008 8:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
"On Conference Call, Obama Advisers Parry More Incoming Fire"
Hey Greg, is this what you do? You launch into attacks based ("fire") over Clinton talking points?
When you are on your conference call with ckes, are you attacking just as hard wih Obama tp?
I have yet to see any headlines from you about Clinton advisors getting "incoming fire" over tax returns, her McCain endorsement or anything.
Greg Sargent = Clinton's stenographer
March 7, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary to Barack: Can I be on your ticket? I promise I will stop slandering you and making shit up about you.
Barack to Hillary: Get back to me after Wyoming and Mississippi and Pennsylvania and North Carolina. Meanwhile, stop making shit up about me, because you are only helping the Republicans.
Obama Supporters to Hillary: No. If he puts you on his ticket, we will demand a refund of our $55 million.
March 7, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
More valuable news from HRC Election Central!
Seriously, this place is starting to feel like Krugman's blog, where we transcribe all of Hillary's arguments verbatim and Obama can't do anything right. (Except, you know, win elections and stuff.)
March 7, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Did you know that Hillary, if you re-vote Michigan and Florida, has a real shot at ending up with the higher overall popular vote total?"
No she doesn't.
He's 600,000 up. She will not win big enough to dent that.
She only wins if you include the Soviet style Michigan election where she was the only one on the ballot.
March 7, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Observer. Where do you get the 600K lead for Barack? I don't think that's right.
March 7, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is right: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html
March 7, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama doesn't lead by 600k (real clear doesn't count Florida and Michigan). Plus let's be real, the caucus vote tabulations are something close to imaginary numbers at this stage of the game.
March 7, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, real clear does list the numbers with Flordia and with Michigan. But it also more accurately lists them without, since, you know, they don't count.
Unless you're suggesting we give Hillary the "Clinton" vote in Michigan and just throw away the "uncommitted" vote. Talk about disenfranchisement.
March 7, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm just making the point that there are millions of votes in both Michigan and Florida. It is a bit disingenuous to suggest that Obama has a lead in the total vote count with these two states being disenfranchised at present.
March 7, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I understand your point. But both candidates agreed those contests wouldn't count (and Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan - you think giving Clinton 330,000+ votes in Michigan and Obama 0 is a fair representation?)
Let them have new elections. But until then, I think counting those numbers at this point is completely pointless.
Based on contests that were not deemed invalid by the DNC and ALL the candidates, Obama leads the popular vote by ~600,000.
March 7, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you frame it that way fine. But I don't think that that will be the math that prevails prior to the convention.
Look, I agree with you that a recount/revote would be best and maybe after Obama picks up a little momentum from wins in Wyoming and Mississippi his campaign will agree to some sort of compromise. But he is having a really bad week right now and this wouldn't be the best time to negotiate.
March 7, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I dunno. I just count the votes of Americans when I'm counting the votes of Americans. Not to say that Florida and Michigan will count for the seating of delegates, but we're just talking about Americans who voted (some of whom voted the way Americans vote, i.e. by secret ballot :)).
March 7, 2008 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
On the delegate math, Ben Smith just pointed to a Kos diary noting that the final tally is finally in from California and all of the major news orgs are still reporting it wrong. Obama added four more that CNN, MSNBC and the NYT are all counting as being in Hillary's pile. That's a net shift of eight and Hillary's pickup on Tuesday just evaporated.
But hey, if their SAT maths had been equal to or greather than their verbals, they probably wouldn't have gone into journalism.
March 7, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
NC Steve (fka) at 3:21, where is Ben Smith's post on that? I'm not familiar enough with Politico's site to drill down and find it. Their home page says the delegate totals (including supers) are: Barack 1,520, Clinton 1,424, which gives him a current edge of 106, and they source those numbers to the AP.
March 7, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
colonpowwow-Obama's tied in the newest Michigan poll. Don't count on it.
That said, here's my scripting of how Obama needs to attack: "If Senator Clinton wants to ally herself with John McCain, that's fine with me. I am amused when I hear John McCain talking about tax cuts and Hillary Clinton talking about how she will 'fix' the economy. Senator Clinton, Senator McCain: Did you forget about how you BROKE the economy when you BOTH voted to authorize this 3 TRILLION DOLLAR war in Iraq? Next time you talk about the economy, why don't you talk about THAT!"
This is the perfect line of attack: It rolls Iraq and the economy into one issue, then hits Hillary for betraying her party and supporting McCain. This attack is a total winner. Sometimes I wish I was one of Obama's campaign strategists. I'd totally sock it to Hillary.
Repeat after me: "THREE TRILLION DOLLAR WAR, THREE TRILLION DOLLAR WAR, THREE TRILLION DOLLAR WAR, THREE TRILLION DOLLAR WAR, THREE TRILLION DOLLAR WAR, THREE TRILLION DOLLAR WAR."
Keep repeating that phrase all the way to the White House.
March 7, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you know that Hillary, if you re-vote Michigan and Florida, has a real shot at ending up with the higher overall popular vote total?
Really? How are you doing the math on that? I mean sure if she takes FL by like 90%-10% then she'll get most of its 185 delegates, but MI is probably going to be a wash so it won't effect the delegate gap.
March 7, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's be honest. It is we observers who are 'desperate' for Barack to counter the Hillary camp. If you remember, last summer and well into the fall months, there was similar angst and pleas for Barack to somehow 'take ahold' to counter the 'inevitability' ride which Hillary was enjoying. There was a lot of hand-wringing and comments that he had not delivered whatever he 'should' deliver.
Well, how did that turn out, folks? How about remembering the utter brilliance and patience Obama and his campaign demonstrated in following his quieter but more prescient and savvy strategy? He has delivered to his supporters the indisputable and insurmountable delegate lead, and just maybe he will bide his time handling this rough patch and Hillary manipulations without being jerked away from his steady judgment of the wider picture by the fickle media, the Hillary ugliness, or his own supporters' fears.
March 7, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. The press is pandering.
March 7, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know this is another thread, but why is it so highly reported every time Clinton talks about sharing a ticket, meaning Obama as VP?
He's demonstrably in the lead.
If the Patriots asked the Giants to share the Superbowl trophy we would assume they were joking.
March 7, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have spent the last few days worked up into an angry lather at Hillary Clinton and her supporters.
But today, I am turning some of that anger at the Obama camp and my fellow Obama supporters. I have seen far too much uncritical acceptance of the way his campaign has been run the past few days. They are constantly on defense. It is Hillary, Hillary, Hillary controlling the narrative.
I have never bought or believed the Obamabot, cultist line, and I still don't. But we Obama supporters need to wake up, get some perspective, and understand that whining about unfair Clinton tactics (even if they are in fact unfair) gets us or the Obama campaign nowhere, and only tells half the story. They are slinging mud, and our guy is just sitting there taking it. Not a good sign for the general, and I hope his reticence is based on the fact that Clinton is a fellow Dem and will not be what we see against McCain.
March 7, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
new thread upstairs
March 7, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obamacans - would you like some cheese with your whine?
The contest ended when Hillary won 82 of the 87 counties in Ohio (50 of them by more than 60%) and Texas by 3.5% - that was the contest she wasn't supposed to win remember?
Game set match ... Obama=VP
March 7, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
How do you figure?
Obama leads in delegates, votes and states won. But Obama is the VP?
March 7, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/03/06/politics/horserace/entry3913620.shtml
Trippi nails it ...
It's even more cut and dry ... we're back to inevitable territory. Succumb.
March 7, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
So your whole argument is based on Clinton winning NC?
Good luck with that.
March 7, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
thanks ... the Obamacan crying will get really loud and whiny once Edwards throws his endorsement + NC and the majority of its delegates + his 26 to Clinton ---- I can't wait ...
March 7, 2008 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Trippi? Thank Goodness! His acumen for calling things wrong ranks up there with Wolfson.
What we need to do is divert the tendency for the HRC campaign to call the states she has a chance in as important, while the rest aren't.
NCarolina? What about Tejas? What about Wisconsin? Why doesn't the race "come down to Wyoming and Mississippi"? Because in all actuality is does, but Hillary is too behind in those states to stake her "it all comes down to" claims there.
Someone had better seize the narrative away from the madmen determined to drive the party bus off a cliff.
March 8, 2008 1:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
How is Hillary going to win with fewer delegates? That's how the nominee is decided. How is she going to do it?
Clinton backers continue to avoid two questions: 1) How will she get enough delegates to win? She won't. 2) How will she beat McCain when half the country hates her and she's busy losing more independents and even dems with every passing day?
Ohio and Texas were not some magical gateway. Her win was just to stay alive, not take the lead. Besides, Obama won Texas.
Obama will not join a Clinton ticket. You're apparently like her. You think you can attack another person on a personal level and denigrate them, and then they'll happily fall in line behind you. Doesn't work that way.
Clinton is not winning. She is behind. She is losing.
March 7, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg -
You nailed it with this..
"..big victories in Wyoming and Mississippi could abruptly change the story-line..whatever damage Obama takes from Hillary's assault will ultimately prove inconsequential."
I woke up today eager for a fight..but instead I got a firing. Which, after her latest comments, looks like a good move. Loose lips sink ships.
As eager as he may be to land the knockout blow on Clinton, I believe Obama's rope-a-dope is the right play. It is foolish to lose sight of the big picture here. Wyoming is a caucus, he does well in those, and Mississippi is shaping up to be a win.
The table is set for him to do what HE does best, speak to a nationwide audience after another victory. He'll regain the headlines, negate Clintons meager gains in Texas and make the case that the voters have decided to look past the old ways of doing business. Blows that will outweigh Clintons series of jabs.
In these fickle times, the only real questions that remain to be answered are..who will cave in the Michingan/Florida fiasco and when its all said and done, and Obama has the pledged delegate lead, will the Supers D's vote against him and give it to her.
Eyes on the prize, later for the petty stuff.
March 7, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes I agree.
That's why I didn't write that.
Here is what I wrote:
As in: "Yoo-hoo! Yoo-hoo! Look at me everyone before I vanish from the limelight and get old." And I think I've got the metaphor in proper perspective. Thank you very much.
I see DonnaG right above this post picked up on my ideas and fleshed them out better than I did. Well written. That's exactly what I wanted to say!
March 7, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Blimey, does Greg just publish the press releases from the Clinton campaign now or what?
The last few days it seems like he's really in the tank for her.
March 7, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary Clinton is on the path to single-handedly ruin the chances of a Democrat winning the presidency. http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=ba30ff16-a5af-4035-a883-cf15ffee406c
March 7, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
The troubling part is that she isn't reflexively kowtowing to every zionist neocon extremist. Very taboo.
You go girl!
March 7, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary isn't pandering to conservative Jews? What reality do you live in?
March 7, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
What are you hiding Bill?
http://news.aol.com/story/_a/archivists-block-release-of-clinton/20080307080009990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001
March 7, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Probably some questionable stock transactions: http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080307/NATION/15653289/1001
March 7, 2008 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
The number of delegates aren't apportioned according to how many people participate in the delegate selection process, but rather (roughly) by the relative population. Idaho's population is about 15% of New Jerseys, so the total delegates sent to the convention from each state represent that.
The reason why the votes are "worth more" in Idaho is because they have a caucus system, which generally attracts a smaller percentage of the total population.
March 7, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oops, what the hell happened? This was supposed to be in response to Aimey May's post about the delegate apportionment between Idaho and New Jersey:
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/on_conference_call_obama_advis.php#comment-2638056
March 7, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
My dear brother Obama, you need a THUG in your life. Some pitbull, of the Guliani ilk, send out to bite some extra fat offa Hillary's a$$. You better have some kinda powerful plan to stomp her, and eventually McCain, into the ground. But if you don't fight now, how will we have the confidence that you will fight for US in the future. I respect the way you're trying to keep this campaign on the level, but as you can probably see we ain't hearing any of that right now.
March 7, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not even vaguely concerned at this point. I don't think there's any way Hillary wins the nomination. She can attack all she likes, but she's only reinforcing her own negatives. This race is essentially over. Obama won it while the Clintons were asleep.
March 7, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I think it is a very possible scenario that if Hillary wins Pennsylvania strongly, wins the re-votes in Michigan and Florida, and ends up with the higher popular vote total, that there will be a Clinton-Obama ticket with Obama strongly endorsing the arrangement."
It's funny, if it were the other way around, she would never concede. If she had the most delegates but lost the pv, she'd never in a million years do this, and you know it!
Why?
I suppose that HRC sees minorities as a sort of "sidekick" figure, and could never imagine that he'd be on the top of the ticket. He's a token figure to get her black vote, maybe HRC will give him a pencil with his name on it and a pat on the head.
If I am wrong, prvoe to me why it would be acceptible for him to be VP even fi he wins the delegates fair and square, but she would never do it. Why? Can I get an answer? Talk about hypocritcal double standards.
March 7, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is so inside baseball. Why should voters care about behind the scenes actions in the campaigns (unless they're illegal)? But MSNBC is saying the firing has caused a 'huge day in politics in America.' WTF? Is it that slow of a news day?
March 7, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not to mention the fact that Clinton (and McCain) have seen unbelievable staff turmoil over the past year.
Clinton's campaign has been hemoraging advisors, and they can't keep them from attacking each other in the press.
March 7, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
It turns out taking down Power might have been a little retaliation for Power exposing Bill's foreign policy blunders back in the 90s:
http://www.thepersonalispolitical.com/post/28240291
The plot thickens..
March 7, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
well said, ami_in_deutschland
eakboyeak and others are saying that since HRC won by 3.5% in the Texas primary (what portion of that 3.5% was dittohead Limbaugh wingnuts doing their master's bidding?) that she should be the nominee - it doesn't matter that Obama comes out of Texas with more delegates.
yeah... and that long fly ball would've been off the green monster for extra bases... IF we were playing at Fenway. We're not, so it's an out.
If your aunt had balls, she'd be your uncle.
March 7, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Dallas Morning News said that 8% of Clinton's Texas vote was from Republicans.
March 7, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
The CNN exit polls also showed something like 7% of Clinton supporters defining themselves as "very conservative," which to me looks "very suspicious."
March 7, 2008 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anybody who thought we were in for a quick and easy exit from Iraq with either of the remaining Democratic candidates is quite naive.
March 7, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right On.
You cannot just pull out and allow Genocide.
Sunni's and Kurds have hated each other for thousands of years. And what about those Iraq's who have helped us?
Of course if we had a decent president we should be in Africa as well.
March 7, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
just ask Obama to tell the Americans this truth. I'm sure he will win in a landslide!
March 7, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can I ask a question?
If the situation were reversed (Obama down in PDs, and all the rest), and Obama had just won Texas by four points, but lost the caucus and consequently in total LOST Texas by, what, three delegates, people would be calling for Obama to quit now because his campaign doesn't know what hell they're doing...
What campaign would you rather have: one that at this point can't figure out how to win delegates (even though she's got 35 years of experience and has spent over 12 months now in campagin mode) or one that makes a few tactical mistakes for a few days, and six long weeks out before the next primary that he could conceivably lose...
Obama wins Wyoming over the weekend then Mississippi on Tuesday --- his speeches those nights will get him back on track...What is the panic?...
March 7, 2008 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since his thread has turned in all directions.. I would like to enquire why Obama's main claim to fame is he voted against the war, yet
1. His main campaign person is Tom Daschle who voted for the war
2. John Kerry, J. Rockefeller, Chris Dodd who are all out on his behalf all voted for the war
3. He mentions that Chuck Hagel would be a good head of defence and also mentions Lugar in Foreign Affairs - both republicans and both voted for the war
4. His good friend and mentor Joe Lieberman voted for the war.......
So how can he be so anti war stance against Clinton and say she doesn't have the judgement because she voted for the war, yet a good percentage of his workers and endorsements and possible Cabinet choices all voted FOR the war?
Double standard, hypocriticial or just the "old fashionned politics" he loves to hate?
March 7, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
1. "main campaign person" -- a what? That's a technical term I'm as yet unfamiliar with.
2. Well if only supporters who voted against the war are allowed, he wouldn't have enough supporters to win the election, would he?
3. Merely mentioned as possibilities to show that he takes bi-partisanship seriously. Both Hagel and Lugar have been vocal critics of the war.
4. If they're such good friends, why is Lieberman always shown at the McCain events?
A quick look at his foreign advisory team shows a consistent opposition to the Iraq invasion across the board.
And your point was what again?
March 7, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Man, show me proof Lieberman is Obama's friend.
Last time I checked, that traitor enodorsed McCain, and lost his superdelegate status.
Just shows how full of crap Hillary supporters are... they'll throw any lie at Obama, despite the fact that all their complaints about Obama are actually TRUE about Hillary.
We need a new word for Hillary supporters: Hillarycrites.
March 7, 2008 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
What exactly does Clinton believe on NAFTA? NAFTA is synonymous with Bill, and she's not only ratified it but expanded it every chance she's gotten as a Senator ... and she tells the people of Ohio that it's broken and she aims to fix it?
Oh, because she says she has a "four point plan". Well, that explains it. It's not empty rhetoric .. she's got a plan !!! And it's got four parts !!! She's not just words, like Obama.
March 7, 2008 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
All the hand wringing over Obama's ineffectiveness and Clinton's effectiveness as a fighter is overblown. Obama does not need to counterpunch in the middle of a flurry. Clinton is trying to define him and if he goes to the kitchen sink, he isn't going to score a knockout but then neither will she. But it forces him to fight off the ropes. Not a good place to start and little can be gained. He has to show that he can absorb her blows while going after McSame and put him in corner before the nomination is locked up. That way he looks like he can take a punch come out after the real enemy and let Clinton keep throwing bolos until she looks so desparate that the sink no longer matters and he goes into copnvention with a delegate lead and very likely a lead in the popular vote with evidence that she is willing to throw the Obama, the Supers, the entire party for that matter under the bus when they lose. Billary will be backed so far into a corner that it will have to strike out at the entire party. For now, Obama can work on defining McSame and get blows in on Clinton as well by lumping them both together on poor judgement for Iraq and pointing out her Lieberman credentials as she gave what amounted to an endorsement of McSame over Obama when she loses the primary. Hammer the meme that Clinton is willing to throw the party under the bus to get four more years of Bush to assauge her petty ego when she loses. To hell with this VP smokescreen, we've seen what the Clinton's word means. Think IS. Obama should call her out by making her show her Dem cred by verbally promising to work for Obama in the general, put her in the passengers seat. It's too bad that the McSame's "blowup" with Bumiller wasn't more of a donneybrook as Obama would have taped evidence that McSame is just a little right of stable. Throw in a couple Hillary screeches and make them respond.
March 7, 2008 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary is the one that is looking presidential now. What happened to the politics of Hope and Change. What happened to a different kind of politics. What a bunch of crap, and hypocritical talk. Did anyone see how surprise he look when the press conference didn't go as plan? He took eight questions and ran. I wonder where he would be now if he were to receive the Hillary treatment from the press.
March 7, 2008 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder where he would be now if he were to receive the Hillary treatment from the press.
Well, with a free-pass of that magnitude I imagine he'd be spending his time and money beating McCain in the General. Instead, thanks in large part to the "Hillary-treatment" of Hillary, we all get to waste precious time, money, and resources driving the stake into the Vampirya Campaign instead of taking on the GOP. I never thought I'd say this, but HRC could out-Nader Nader. Bravo, children. Bravo.
March 7, 2008 10:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just PLEASE, Barack, do ONE FAVOR... PLEASE make an absolutely unequivocal statement that you WILL NOT take the Vice Presidency with a Clinton win. This, more than anything, would turn my stomach.
March 7, 2008 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Worse things could happen DRBIGJ...
But I wouldn't worry much. Clinton would have to lead in someway before it even becomes a conversation.
March 7, 2008 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK-
So what do you think about this...
-Hillary wants to win, but to me it looks like she is getting way too negative and way too nasty towards a fellow democrat.
So I asked myself why?
Why would she be, what it seems like, willing to rip the party apart to win? There is basically no way she will get a lead in popular vote or delegates. So what is she doing???
I think her strategy is either she wins or no democrat wins. I think she is willing to let McBush win over Barack... Keep tearing Barack apart, keep the party from pulling together before the convention, and draw this thing out.
What? this is crazy you say? Really..? is it that
crazy...? If McBush wins it will likely only be for 1 term (he'll be too old to run again). If Barack wins he will likely be in there for 2 terms, not allowing her to run again for 8 years, or when she is 69 years old. But if McBush wins she can run again in only 4 years and likely win.
God I hope I'm wrong.
I can't figure out another reason for the character assassination on Barack...
March 7, 2008 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anecdotal-
I think there is a significant number of voters who are going for Clinton because she is a woman and for Obama because he is African-American. I suspect many of these folks do not follow the day-to-day infighting and bickering and will stay with them unless something major happens to change their minds.
March 8, 2008 1:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, like the NAFTA debacle and now the Iraq withdrawal debacle.
March 10, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hilary and McCain are backed by the SAME MONEY INTERESTS. Neither care at all about the American people. They are the pawns, the lapdogs of Big Oil, Big Weapons and Big Drug Companies.
Don't you get it?
Just because she's a woman does NOT mean that she represents change.
www.WeCanStopMcCain.org
March 8, 2008 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hilary and McCain are backed by the SAME MONEY INTERESTS. Neither care at all about the American people. They are the pawns, the lapdogs of Big Oil, Big Weapons and Big Drug Companies.
Don't you get it?
Just because she's a woman does NOT mean that she represents change.
www.WeCanStopMcCain.org
March 8, 2008 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
both candidates, for obvious reasons, want to preserve some wiggle room for themselves on Iraq.
Isn't this the same 'wiggle room' that Obamabots were ripping Hillary for not too long ago? And didn't Obama just refute Power's remarks?
When Obama said something similar to the Power's 'revisiting' remarks during an ABC interview reported here on TPM, all the 'bots were quick to say that it was nothing different than his Iraq plan as revealed in his books. But now he disavows that. Hmmmmmm.
March 10, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
To "coonsey" at March 7, 2008 2:40 PM
You are coming to a mathematical conclusion based on faulty reasoning. You cannot just add and subtract the percentages of different sorts of numbers and make a point that has any validity.
Here are the popular vote numbers that created those percentages; these are the numbers you must use.
According to my addition and subtraction of the popular vote numbers (in the primary and caucuses), Hillary is still leading Obama by about 95,000 votes in Texas. Until all the caucus sites have sent in their numbers, neither you nor anyone else will know the final popular vote figures. But based on the figures so far, it is hard to see Obama garnering more of the popular vote in Texas than Hillary does.
============================================
Texas primary results, with 100% reporting:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -
Hillary Rodham Clinton.. 1,459,814 .. 50.9% ... 65 delegates won
Barack Obama ........... 1,358,785 .. 47.4% ... 61 delegates won
============================================
Texas caucus results as of March 10, 2008, with 41% reporting:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -
Hillary Rodham Clinton..18,620 .. 43.7% ... delegates to be determined
Barack Obama .......... 23,918 .. 56.2% ... delegates to be determined
http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/states/TX.html
March 10, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
When Barack Obama entered the U.S. Senate in 2005 -- after the Iraq war had started and Sen. Joe Lieberman had made his support for the Iraq war well known -- Barack Obama chose the very pro-Iraq war Joe Lieberman to be his senate "mentor."
Obama could have asked any one of the senators who had voted against the Iraq war resolution BUT he didn't -- he asked Joe Lieberman.
When Joe Lieberman ran for re-election to the senate against the ANTI-WAR Ned Lamont in 2006, Obama went to Connecticut NOT to help the anti-war candidate Ned Lamont but to help the PRO- IRAQ WAR Joe Lieberman.
http://boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2006/03/31/obama_rallies_state_democrats_throws_support_behind_lieberman/
March 10, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
After saying he was opposed to the PATRIOT Act, Obama voted "yes" to renewing the Act.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00029
March 10, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has been going around making people think he is opposed to NAFTA, when in fact he supported EXPANDING NAFTA to Peru and Oman -- and had this to say about NAFTA:
OBAMA: "I believe that expanding trade and breaking down barriers between countries is GOOD for our economy and for our security, for American consumers and American WORKERS." http://www.aflcio.org/issues/politics/issues_trade.cfm
And, there's this ...
"Obama is [was, as of Dec. 4, 2007] the first presidential candidate to officially declare his/her SUPPORT for the NAFTA expansion moving through the Congress. His announcement is not necessarily surprising, considering he was the keynote speaker at the launch of the Hamilton Project -- a Wall Street front group working to DRIVE A WEDGE between Democrats and organized LABOR on globalization issues. His announcement comes just days after a Wall Street Journal poll found strong bipartisan opposition to lobbyist-written NAFTA-style trade policies."
http://www.commondreams.org/news2007/1204-20.htm
March 10, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama says he would have been against the Kyl-Lieberman resolution if he had been present to vote on it.
Where -- and how many times -- have we heard this song before?
If Obama's NOT there to vote, he is free later to cast himself as having been "for" or "against" the issue, depending on how things work out.
Here's just one example:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
On Iran and the question of designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, the junior senator from Illinois [Barack Obama] was not quite so clever at avoiding taking a position. He first co-sponsored the "Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007," which contained EXPLICIT language identifying the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a TERRORIST organization [SEE link BELOW]. He subsequently claimed to oppose the Kyl-Lieberman sense of the Senate resolution proposing the same thing. Obama's accountability problem here is that he DIDN'T SHOW UP for the vote on that resolution -- a vote that would have put him ON RECORD. Then he DECLINED to sign on to a letter put forward by Senator Clinton making explicit that the resolution could NOT be used as authority to take MILITARY action.
All we have is Obama's rhetoric juxtaposed with his co-sponsorship of a piece of legislation that PROPOSED what he says he OPPOSED [link below].
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-wilson/obamas-hollow-judgment_b_89441.html
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Yes, Barack Obama "declined to sign on to a letter put forward by Senator Clinton making explicit that the [senate] resolution could not be used as authority to take military action [in Iran]"
Obama was a co-sponsor of S. 970 -- "Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007" - http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:SN00970:@@@P and
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c110:./temp/~c110uZXQgA
March 10, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink