One Hundred Pennsylvania Mayors To Endorse Hillary Today
A Clinton campaign source confirms to me that roughly 100 mayors from all over Pennsylvania will be endorsing her today at noon -- and a bunch of them will hit Obama over the "small town" comments.
Some twenty of them will be at an event in Harrisburg today, and number of these will pick up the "small town" refrain -- an effort by the Hillary campaign to get local officials who represent these small-town folks to keep the story going.
"These are the men and women who represent the people Senator Obama so casually dismissed as clinging to guns and religion," a Hillary campaign source says. "These mayors know better."
Obviously, the endorsements of individual lower-level officials don't mean much in isolation, but the Clinton campaign is hoping that a whole bunch of them echoing her criticism of Obama will add up to a chorus of sorts.
Late Update: As expected, 19 mayors actually showed up to the event today. I've asked the campaign how many of the 100 mayors had previously endorsed her; if the campaign answers, I'll keep you posted.















And what, the 20 PA mayors that support Obama don't even show up in a TPM post?
April 15, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
the reason we posted on this is because it's happening today
April 15, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
The letter happened over the weekend, and you still didn't report on it, did you?
April 15, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I even sent in a "heads up" to these guys over the weekend with a link to the endorsement letter for Obama, and what of it? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Not a single mention of it.
I don't know . . . but this kind of reaks IMHO.
April 15, 2008 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I remember you posting the link to the letter in your comments. The letter wasn't picked up by TPM.
April 15, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
zzzzzzzzzz
April 15, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Timing is everything. Maximum impact--that's what they're going for.
April 15, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg - why do you respond to those comments? Anything you post that suggests that Obama does not walk on water is clear evidence that you are a shill for Hillary. Just accept it.
April 15, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, Marc Ambinder over at the Atlantic says that:
These aren't new endorsements.
April 15, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
surprise surprise.
another. astroturf. event.
April 15, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
anyone Obama supporters looking for comforting news, in light of Hillary's not insignificant endorsement from Allentown's mayor Pawlowski, the region's local paper, The Morning Call, just recently endorsed Obama.
Obama's vision is reason to nominate him
April 13, 2008
http://www.mcall.com/news/opinion/all-a.6348993apr13,0,743721.story
I was in Allentown (my old home town) last weekend canvassing, and honestly had no idea the paper had even published an endorsement. The Morning Call was leading on Sunday with a Bittergate story, following Saturday's earlier under-the-fold, front page Bittergate. Their endorsement of Obama, while surprising and encouraging, wasn't even featured on the front page. I briefly read through the paper that morning, and didn't even spot the endorsement. Later at night, browsing memeorandum, I finally spotted the article.
Obama has an impressive operation in Allentown (3500 doors canvassed last weekend), and some impressive institutional support, but the deck almost seems stacked against him. Considering Allentown is the most favorable territory for Obama aside from Philadelphia and Pittsburg, I'd be completely and utterly amazed if Clinton doesn't win by double digits. He has a solid base of support, but the tide is simply running in the opposite direction.
April 15, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
However, One was or another Hillary will be claiming all these as new endorsements.
April 15, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. Greg, this is not news.
April 15, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
However, One was or another Hillary will be claiming all these as new endorsements.
April 15, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg:
That's an entirely fair point. But I do wish the post had given a sense of scale - there are 2,567 municipalities in the keystone state. That 20 mayors have endorsed Obama, and 100 are standing with Hillary, really isn't terribly impressive in either case. Some of the individual politicians carry clout - it doesn't hurt that Hillary's been endorsed, for example, by the mayors of Philly and Pittsburgh.
But assembling 100 mayors is one of those things that sounds far more impressive than it actually is, particularly because Hillary is trumpeting the fact that many of them represent small towns. The smaller the town they represent, the less they can claim to speak for a significant percentage of voters. And given that, even taken together, they can't possibly represent a significant percentage of buroughs or townships, it's not clear that this is anything more than a gimmick. That context would have been useful.
April 15, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
can we replace Greg Sargent with FlyOnTheWall.
please?
April 15, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Whoah, there.
I'm flattered that you enjoy my posts, but I'm a rank amateur. I get to pick and choose the things I comment on, and can take the time to think it through before I put up a post. And when I'm wrong, my mistakes tend to pass unnoticed.
Greg, on the other hand, needs to post in real-time, to keep us all abreast of developments. He needs to be comprehensive. And when he's wrong, or when his posts might have been better worded, there are 100 commenters within an hour eager to point that out. You couldn't pay me enough to take his job, and I rather doubt that Josh pays him enough to take our abuse, either.
April 15, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Fly. I went to my book of zip codes and found a total of 2,850 plus, not counting the bigger municipalities. Even should Hillary get endorsements from 100 mayors who do represent actual small towns, that would be a tiny 3-4% of the total of those small towns. [I suspect her folks are working overtime to try to match deed with word on this]
Meanwhile, the 20 who are to show up today represent only 1/5th of that 3-4%.
There is a whole lot of creative hoopla being generated by the Hillary campaign, the media, and TPM about 1/8th of one percent of the category 'small town mayors'.
April 15, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
What are you talkin' 'bout? 100 is, like, a huge number.
HUGE
This is the best news EVER!!!!
April 15, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, 3-4% is such a huge number, and 1/5 of that is even bigger as it can be written with another 0, like .008! And of that 1/5 who show up today and 'may' repeat her talking points, it could be even bigger, like .0045.
But if anyone can turn a tiny thingie into a biggie thingie, somebody in the loser's camp will do it. Perception is reality, at least that's what the Bushies preach.
April 15, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
more lame "boilerplate" material from the gregger IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!
April 15, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Greg, As a new reader I would like to comment that I sensed immediately that this was a Pro-Hillary site. I find your reporting slightly biased. That's fine if that is what you desire but if you strive for unbiased reporting you are not there yet. Just thought I'd offer my feedback as someone new to the site who really enjoys reading your viewers comments. Your readership offer excellent commentary and a very civil and intelligent exchange of thought. Thanks, John
April 15, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
And besides timeliness, flufferwink, there's the glaring news-worthy fact there are 100 of them! lol!
April 15, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now that is great news.
Obama has too many negatives with more to come out.
Too many to win the general.
April 15, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
gotalife, you never fail to embarrass yourself.
April 15, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
let her overplay her hand.
again.
yawn.
and annoy everyone. again.
toodles shrillary!
April 15, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously, this is the best news in months. 100 of 2,000+ PA mayors support Hillary. And I bet not a single one of them is bitter. Because who could possibly be bitter after the last 7 years?
And I doubt a single one of these mayors would drink OJ over coffee.
And how much you wanna bet these mayors know how to bowl?
These are the important issues facing Americans today; not stupid crap like: Iraq, foreclosures, Wall St bankers picking the pockets of taxpayers, 1 out of 6 Americans with no health care, income disparity, environmental destruction, skyrocketing food + energy costs, inflation, incredibly high jobless rates, skyrocketing national debt, govt endorsement of torture, admin suspending habeus corpus, warrentless wiretapping, falling value of the dollar, etc.
OJ and bowling; those are the issues facing small town America.
April 15, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
They know their attacks on Obama over his poor word choice is false but will continue to attack him for it because they will do anything and say anything to win.
April 15, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's a good thing Hillary never tried to play poker to show off her regularitiness. We'd have footage of her trying to bluff by going on all in with a pair of jacks.
April 15, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
she is tenacious if anything. I mean she was still going at the Wright thing until last week and her husband had to bring up the excuses on the Tuzla sniper fire thing on Friday.
she dissed gore and kerry.
personally, I am waiting for her to diss carter and call it "a day"
April 15, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know what would be awsome?
I wish Obama showed up there to respond in person. It's hard for these 100 mayors to do ad hominem attacks when the target is in front of you. It would focus the discussion like a laser beam on economic issues.
Peace
April 15, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
It was a clever idea, rounding up a hundred, because it will get attention in a way that even thirty or forty wouldn't. Even if they fall shy of a hundred, who is going to do the counting?
But that said, it changes nothing, and it does have an element of "Coalition of the Willing" about it: "And we have the support of the Marshall Islands . . . All of them!"
April 15, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
what is hilarious is that they are saying "100" but only are claiming 20 to have rsvp'd to thing Hillary Spring Cling event.
I bet that they have only like 5 who dare to show their face.
I mean, if she has this Pennsylvania thing so wrapped up and in the bag. what gives? the polls are static - it's just entrenching the voters on either side.
she's battling for president of pennsylvania and it still isn't going to get her any nearer than she needs to be. and then there shall be buyers remorse like there was in Ohio and in Michigan.
April 15, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why is it that when politicians, pundits or ordinary people say that "this country is not ready for a black president" people don't object at all, but when Obama says something about clinging to guns or religion, people are furious. Isn't it a lot worse to assume people wouldn't vote for someone based solely on the color of their skin? Every time I hear someone say this, the only rebuttal is that those people wouldn't vote democrat anyways, not that those statements are wrong to say.
April 15, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Such a good point. Thanks.
April 15, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's clear enough by now that Clinton will not allow any Democratic Party to survive that doesn't have her at the helm.
April 15, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I do love that some of these had already endorsed, big deal.
April 15, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
it's an astro-turf event. the only thing that I am curious about is how many actually show.
and then what percentage of these 100 actually agreed to have their name show up on this rsvp list.
in my state, campaigns have folks who endorse them sign a waiver that they are allowed to use your name in commercials, etc. So I am willing to bet that some of these folks who endorsed early are being 'used' unknowingly for this PR stunt.
If any mayor is doing what they need to be doing, dropping their schedule to appear at an event at the last minute with Hillary is probably not highly likely. Especially when it's not really going to benefit them in anyway personally.
April 15, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone here have the ability to readily plot on a map the locations of these endorsers? This may be revealing.
April 15, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Visualize a new Democratic Party, free of the DLC Republican-lite and Clintonista domination.
Coming to a convention in Denver this August!
April 15, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tracy Flick rides again!
April 15, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
This always happens when a candidate refuses to pay up his street money.
April 15, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton is looking more desperate by the moment. Only a fool who had a good life a generation ago isn't bitter today, and many of those who lost everything do misdirect their anger.
Anyone stupid enough to believe this attack is more signifgant than Penn and Bill working for NAFTA while Hillary supposedly opposes it wasn't going to vote for Obama anyway, Hillary has that demographic all to herself.
Oh yeah, it won't be covered, but how many of these mayors will offer new endorsements today? None or zero?
April 15, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, on the one hand there is a chorus of mayors. On the other, Mr. Rooney who owns the Steelers and is universally loved, as I understand it.
Hmmm: Mayors vs. Rooney. Mayors, Rooney, Mayors, Rooney -
Obama still has seven different levels til she makes it to his.
April 15, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
This smells like overkill.
If anything, I'd think Pennsylvanians would become less inclined to vote for Clinton the more she flogs this snafu. There are multiple stories out now indicating that they're tired of seeing it brought up over and over again.
April 15, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's about time that Americans speak up to the sentiments that clearly make up Obama and define him as a person.
Promises and political situations can change, but what makes a person and who he is are durable and would ooze out as actions and behaviors of that person given the power to act on his sentiments.
A President being out of touch and acting out on those is dangerous for the working men and women who are suffering from the uncertainty of the economy.
After Wright, his lies on Nafta and his bios, his wife's expressed sentiments, etc., do we need to know more to open our eyes. Thank God we have other choices.
April 15, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, until I got to your last dog whistle paragraph, I was sure you were describing Hillary!
April 15, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary can not beat McCain.
She has alienated the African American voters. The young voters will not come out to vote for her. Independents will never vote for her. Regan Democrats will not vote for her.
She would get slaughtered in November.
April 15, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
I really can't wait for this debate. I'm guessing Hillary's going to show up indignant again and have another "Xerox"/"Maybe he needs another pillow" moment.
April 15, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have no comment about the 100 mayors, but I am astounded that story as small as this can draw 100+ comments in a little less than half an hour. Nerves must be even more on edge than I had thought.
April 15, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Greg: I don't think it's this article in particular. Only that it is the "top" article, and people want to share their views on the overblown story that this is part of.
In classic Clintonian fashion, I believe that are way overplaying this to the point it will boomerang on them. Especially when coupled with the Annie Oakley and Crown Royal visuals.
April 15, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
More to the point, I seem to have merely confused one thread with another, because there are not 100+ comments on this thread even now. In other words, my original observation was evidently bogus, so all subsequent conclusions which I derived from it are equally vacant.
April 15, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg DeLassus. He said there were 100+ comments; now he says there aren't. And he'd have us excuse his subsequent observations, just because they were based on the faulty information available to him at the time. And he calls himself an experienced poster.
We need posters who showed judgment when it mattered. I wasn't online when Greg made his post, but if I had been, I never would have said 100+ comments. In fact, I told the fellow sitting next to me there were only 40 comments on the thread. That's the kind of posting we need on this board, because it shows sound judgment.
April 15, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
This does raise the important question of whom I will choose as my running mate when I take the nomination in 2016. Evidently I will need someone to make up for my obvious and purblind obtuseness. Perhaps a Greg DeLassus/Fly on the Wall ticket?
April 15, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg, you need a loudmouthed female to balance your ticket. You know where to find me.
April 15, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Haha! touche. Maybe, Greg L. read 100 mayors, and thought 100 comments? I'm trying to get the comment #'s up to help Greg L. get over his error...surely he was just predicting the # of comments to come.
April 15, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Comments up top 94 right now. Let's hope Hillary can do as well redeeming her honor as does Greg L.
April 15, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh no, Donna. That's not how it works at all.
Greg's attack was on the presence of 100+ comments when he launched it, and he was wrong. He said there were 100+ comments, and we looked, and they just weren't there. Now you want to justify our continued posting on this thread because it has 100+ comments. But if we hadn't debated this topic, there would never have been 100+ comments. The comments have come because we're still posting on this thread.
I support an immediate withdrawal from this thread. (Or at least, we should immediately start to withdraw from the thread, although it may take some time to complete the process, and I reserve the right to change my mind once we start if new and interesting comments are posted.) You can't use the 100+ comments to justify staying; you can't claim that the commenters will just follow us to another thread if we leave. That's a recipe for a never-ending thread, a veritable quagmire of arguments.
Because I was the only poster to loudly and clearly say at the time that there were only 40 comments, only I can make the case for this withdrawal compellingly.
April 15, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, you were accurate for only a tiny moment [sorta tiny like Hillary's % of mayors], but Greg L was prescient! We need a leader who can be forward looking, er... prescient .... Fly! What, you want to hold onto your old out-of-date view????
April 15, 2008 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen. Can I get a witness? Yes I can. Those 4000 people who turned up in one precinct in Dallas co. to vote and caucus for Obama will go right back to doing it the way they usually do - ignoring the election. And I'd do it too if I were them. You spend you whole life voting between two choices, neither of whom are going to do one damn thing for you - why keep voting?
I'm about at the end of my rope. I've been a political activist to one extent or another most of my adult life, for the Democrats. I'm hanging by a thread here -
April 15, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Amen.
April 15, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Hillary is the nominee iam still going to vote for Obama. I feel no regrets about it coming from a state where Hillary has zero chance of winning, Obama could win NC but Hillary has zero chance.
April 15, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
What drives me crazy about the "Obama is not electable because he has not won the big swing states" argument is that, if the assumptions underlying this argument were really credible, it would prove that Clinton cannot win either. After all, Obama has beaten her in WI, MN and WA and is on track to best her handily in OR. These four states went narrowly for Gore in 2000 and equally narrowly for Kerry in 2004, so they are by no means to be regarded as a sure things for the democrats. If, as the "unelectable" party argues, losing a swing state in the primary means that one cannot carry it in the fall, then Clinton is on track to let a combined 38 electoral votes slip through her fingers back into the red column. PA and OH combined are only 41 electoral votes, so she would only end up 3 electoral votes ahead of where Obama would land (if this argument were to be believed), a darn site shy of where either democrat needs to be in order to win in November.
April 15, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
So what is the chance that everyone of these mayors is white?
April 15, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would think almost 0%. Given that we already know that these 100 mayors are not new endorsements, but rather just an assembly of 100 mayors from PA who are endorsing Sen Clinton, it seems a near certainty that Mayor Nutter will be among them, and Mayor Nutter is not white.
April 15, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gee, thanks. I guess you made my point.
April 15, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Always glad to help...
April 15, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
And the sniper-ducking, shot-drinking, straight-talking, regular gal from a modest working class family... who knows how to "fight" for you and me and can relate to Joe and Jane Sixpack...she has absolutely no negatives at all, right?
April 15, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a bit of thinking from a small town. I'm not saying that an endorsement form 100 mayors would reek quite as much as an endorsement from, say, 100 see-no-evil heads of small Chambers of Commerce, but I do think that you could generalize that mayors have some stake in holding back any talk of bitterness in their towns. And therefore they may be at least a hair out of touch.
April 15, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yep. I read this, and the first thing I thought of was the realtor/Mayor of Amityville, in his coat with the little anchors, trying to hush up all the foolish "shark" talk from the Chief and Dr. Hooper.
April 15, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
If anyone in the party hierarchy is out there listening - I started calling people on behalf of a Democratic candidate when I was in high school and too young to vote. I called for Sissy Farenthold, who I am so proud to say just won the first annual Molly Ivins Award.
But if y'all keep messing with me I'm through. I'm cleaning out the house while you're at work and you're coming home to 4 walls and divorce petition.
April 15, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I recall being a 19 year-old, wide-eyed Dem visiting the festivities in Miami Beach for the 1972 Democratic Convention.
I can remember a contingent of people pushing for Sissy in attendance in Miami; what was she running for then? All I can recall was that her people were very enthusiastic.
April 15, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
100 Boilerplates!
April 15, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg Sargent, as Marc Ambinder said it looks like a good number of these have already endorsed. It would be interesting to find out how many and how many mayors actually come. It seems that this is elaborate theater designed to make it look like small town mayors are infuriated and a tide is turning against Obama and he is therefore unelectable and WHO WHO WILL SAVE US? But probably effective, as the media loves them some street theater--it's so much easier than....research.
April 15, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
From what I heard 19 actually showed up.
http://www.philly.com/philly/wires/ap/news/state/pennsylvania/20080415_ap_mayorsforclintonrallydrawssmallturnout.html
But then Greg reported only "some twenty" were expected. Of course that begs the question, how do you know 100 Pennsylvania mayors actually will endorse Clinton today? Or is this instead some hyper inflated number put out by camp Hillary for propaganda?
April 15, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
And therefore they may be at least a hair out of touch.
Yea....what would a Mayor of a small town know about a small town! If only these stupid out of touch people would get out of the way already. What's with these people not supporting Obama? There must be some sinister motives like racism and/or ignorance going on here. Don't they know what's good for them? Gosh!
April 15, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or maybe they don't want the citizens of their town to realize just how craptacular the 21st century is turning out for them. And maybe they wouldn't want those citizens thinking about who to blame, politically.
Nah.
April 15, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does anyone know how 'popular' Hillary's mayors are in their respective cities? Not uncommon for mayors to be about one step away from incarceration for corruption (and their constituents know it), and if not that, they've died in office and nobody in town knows they're gone. Which leads me to...
a tendency today of the 'fossilized' - 'career' media, career politicians, career political handlers to not be able to comprehend that we out here want nothing more than to have them all (even city mayors) disappear never to be heard from again.
April 15, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Phelicity
Good catch, I forgot that. Mayors are corrupt too! (The ones not supporting Obama of course)
April 15, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
CHARLOTTE, N.C. — The billionaire founder of Black Entertainment Television says Barack Obama would not be a leading presidential candidate if he were white and that the Illinois senator’s campaign has “a hair-trigger on anything racial.”
The Charlotte Observer reported on its Web site Monday that Bob Johnson, one of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s top black supporters, was commenting on remarks previously made by Geraldine Ferraro, another Clinton supporter.
“What I believe Geraldine Ferraro meant is that if you take a freshman senator from Illinois called ‘Jerry Smith’ and he says I’m going to run for president, would he start off with 90 percent of the black vote?” Johnson said. “And the answer is, probably not.”
“Geraldine Ferraro said it right,” Johnson added. “The problem is, Geraldine Ferraro is white. This campaign has such a hair-trigger on anything racial it is almost impossible for anybody to say anything.”
April 15, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a moron that guy is. Obama didn't start out with 90% of the black vote--he didn't even start out with a majority of it, iirc--HRC had a solid majority to begin with, and pushed it toward Obama with her own behavior (and that of Bill).
April 15, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Truth.
It's ridiculous for the Clinton camp to make these "affirmative action" claims, seeing as her political success owes a great deal to nepotism. To use Johnson's metaphor, Hillary Smith would not have been elected to the Senate from New York a year after moving to the state from Arkansas.
April 15, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not only is Hillary Clinton a true beneficiary of the "affirmative action" her campaign complains has elevated Obama, but as she uses issue she is stoking the very bitterness she claims it is insulting to acknowledge.
April 15, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
BOOM!
Absolutely correct.
April 15, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
How can Hillary's supporters still raise the debunked, half-time, unpaid, Obama staffer NAFTA story when Hillary has personally benefited from the windfall her husband collected for his NAFTA support?
Do the Hillary supporters also really think Penn was not selling Hillary's support for NAFTA to the Colombians?
Never mind outrage, do they even see the irony?
April 15, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
The really stunning thing in all of this is how the campaign narrative was Hillary lies and then Bill lies too. By jumping on Bitter, she has completely turned the media away from any questions about her and made the story about Obama's failings.
So she had to resort to shameless pandering and unconscionable negativity toward a fellow Dem. So what! That's the kind of politics she likes. Unfortunately, American elections are not about who tells the truth, who has better judgement, who will be a better leader. Winning is all that matters.
So, though it makes me sick, both today and for the next four years, Hillary may pull this out. Sick!
April 15, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
These mayors preside over these bombed-out shitholes in PA, where the folks are either hurting, struggling or dead.
TELL ME: what have these 100 mayors done, to alleviate that?
Oh that's right. The towns the mayors preside over are still shitholes. It rather behooves them, I should think, to stand up with Hillary, and declare, "Everything is beautiful..!"
Someone should point this out to the citizenry... like Obama, I'm thinking. I'll say again: Obama must NOT run away from this ambush. He should EMBRACE it, and move it to the next level.
And for Christ's sake, stop apologizing about his "choice of words"... that's the surest way to allow one's opponents to stifle you, when you're no longer free to speak for fear of being attacked.
April 15, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I look forward to Obama looking at Hillary and saying "You think the people in PA have it good? And if they don't, then don't they have the right to be angry? Angry about how their country has let them down?"
Probably not going to happen. Still, by pushing this so hard, for so long, Clinton is opening herself up to questions like that. Or at least campaign ads: Hillary Clinton doesn't want me to talk about how rough you have it. Hillary Clinton doesn't want me to point out the truth. Who's out of touch?
April 15, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sort of surprised that she's still hammering away at the "bitter" meme, given her reception on the issue yesterday morning. But hey, if she wants to go too far, by all means, please do.
April 15, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh my God, they're recycling the "privileged black affirmative action candidate" who stole the deserving white lady's job meme. They're nothing if not predictable, this is running right on time. Vote for Hillary, the victim candidate.
This is like clockwork, in three days Hillary will cry on TV.
April 15, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
April 15, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Me these and tags. Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeit.
April 15, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't even post a legible bitch about my poor tags.
AAAAAAaaargh!
I didn't even post a good bitch about my poor tags!
good lord.
April 15, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Extemporaneous Bill is EXCELLENT NEWS!! for HILLARY!!!"
--idiotic, March 2008
April 15, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
thanks, barista, for flagging that. it's one of my faves.
April 15, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
It wasn't exactly relevant, but it's easily one of your best. As long as Hillary's recycling, I guess we can too.
April 15, 2008 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
100 out of 2,567 PA municipalities
THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS FOR HILLARY!!!!
(c)idiotic All Rights Reserved
April 15, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you know much about BET, you could have stopped right there.
April 15, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wasn't old enough to vote yet, in '72.
April 15, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
... should have added that I graduated high school a year younger than everyone else.
April 15, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
One small-town Pa. voice.
One small-town Pa. voice.
April 15, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
What would be great if Obama got private citizens to defend him.
April 15, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, I have lived in my small town for 30+ years, and I couldn't tell you what political party my mayor belongs to, nor the party of our previous mayor. And, I am saying this as a member of the local municipal planning commission.
In my little town, everything is about local issues like water and sewer service, like a place for the teens and oldsters to gather, and so forth. Because my county is very Republican, perhaps our mayors are, also......but it matters.... not at this level where we interact closely, life is non-partisan.
April 15, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
yesterday Paul Begala was on the Ed Schultz and he said that people liked 'community organizer' Obama but they don't like 'the Harvard Law review' Obama.
ok. go ahead keep hitting my head with "bitter=bad=Obama" nonsense, see if I change my mind.
April 15, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I thought Begala had a good point there, as far as image-management goes, but the rest of his time was pure demagoguery. "Obama called people who hunt and go to Church losers!"
Schultz lets Clinton supporters get away with way too much, I guess cause he's sensitive about his own support for Obama.
(That Update is freakin' hilarious).
April 15, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is increasingly obvious to me is the state of mind in the Clinton camp, waiting with baited breath for that one thing that Obama will do that will bring down his campaign like the Hindenburg. The thought seems to be that he will utter one line or phrase an idea so poorly that the Clinton campaign can come out and say, "See? I told you so. He's wrong for America, an inexperienced and blinkered neophyte who had no business even running."
Meanwhile, back at Clinton headquarters, they continue to furiously turn knobs and pull levers to create the next, "See, Hillary really IS presidential material!" routine. (Can we get her on a tractor with a gun and a bottle of whiskey whilst petting a puppy? Surely that'll do it)
The two sides of Clinton's approach look shamelessly opportunistic, purely phenomenological in nature and do little to fill the void of articulating a strong case for the presidency.
April 15, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I so look forward to the Clinton Presidency.
Another day wasted addressing the burning national issue of "elitism".
She's a Fighter, and she's fighting...to be the one You Want To Have a Beer With.
Clinton is Ready On Day One to attack...San Francisco.
April 15, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am a plain spoken old man. Here are some of my plain thoughts on why Hillary is bad for our party.
The Republicans are the ones who have shipped all those small town jobs overseas, with the help of Bill and Hillary.
The Republicans are the ones who have eradicated the American manufacturing base that provided jobs for those who were not capable of getting a college degree.
Here is some plain truth for you: College is not for everyone. We all know that, but yet we keep letting politicians get away with claiming that a college education, for all, is the solution to all our economic woes. That is complete bullshit. If some one is not smart enough to earn a degree then why the hell should we pretend that they are.
We can not afford to educate all of the best and the brightest now, so where is all the money supposed to come from to send all the rest to college.
Some people are born with the capacity to be great scientists or doctors or teachers. Many are not.
Many of them need to earn a decent middle class income using their hands. Manufacturing and textiles plants used to provide them with good jobs.
The Republicans and The Clintons have send all those jobs overseas.
While they were doing so, they conned the communities that were bitter about watching their jobs, pensions, health coverage, and standards of living being eradicated, with scare tactics about how Liberals are going to take away the only things that you have left.
The Republicans scared the hell out of people, who were all ready traumatized from having their economic security stolen, by brain washing with horse shit warnings that The Democrats were coming to take away their Religion and their Sporting and Hunting guns.
For good measure, the Republicans scared the vulnerable people into accepting that The Democrats were going to "give them gay" in the words of Homer Simpson.
We all know this is the truth. That is what Senator Obama was talking about.
The Republicans stole all the good blue collar jobs, and shipped them overseas to near slave labor nations, while all the while distracting those they were ripping off with an avalanche of God, Guns, and Gays, Fear Mongering.
Hillary knows that is what happened. If she had a single drop of moral courage and honest leadership in her body, she would have stood up and declared that Senator Obama is telling you the truth.
She did not do that. She is not capable of taking such a principled stand with a fellow Democrat. She is unworthy of our support, and she is unworthy to lead our party.
We can do better. We must.
April 15, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dan Rooney was far bigger news than this. HRC is acting more desperate than a cornered Narc at a neo nazi biker rally.
April 15, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not only is Hillary Clinton a true beneficiary of the "affirmative action" her campaign complains has elevated Obama, but as she uses issue she is stoking the very bitterness she claims it is insulting to acknowledge.
April 15, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
A Clinton presidency would be just like her campaign . . . venomous.
It takes courage for super delegates to come out in support of Obama because just as nasty as Hillary has been in this campaign is just as nasty as her "revenge" would be were she to become president.
April 15, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mayoral support is a big deal. Better than many other public servants, mayors often have the organization in place to get out the vote. This is mostly another desperate ploy by the Clintons to make a sinking campaign appear to be sound, however. And it could very well backfire. Obama has plenty of superdelegates on his side who haven't yet announced their support. If it looks like the battle lines are being drawn, he may well have an announcement of his own to make in the near future.
I think we're into the end game. That's my feeling, anyway. And I continue to believe that Obama's holding all the cards.
April 15, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
THe story is bullshit HRC propagnda and TPM is endorsing it.
April 15, 2008 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whitewater.
April 15, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ambinder's headline on the same story
Majoring In Hype
'nuff said.
April 15, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess all the pressure Fast Eddie Rendell has put on some PA leaders is working. News out of Philly is that Rendell has been leaning on several officials and threatening them in not so many words about "crossing him". Poor Philly Mayor Michael Nutter JUST became Mayor and already has to tow the line.
April 15, 2008 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
19 showed up? That's some POWERFUL support.
Holding it in.....
Holding it in.....
Holding it in.....
I JUST CAN'T
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAh BWAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA BAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH Seriously... I can't stop laughing. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA sniff sniff best laugh of the week.
I have a new headline for TPM...
8,000 Pennsylvania dog catchers to come out in support of Clinton. Whoops only 1 showed up.
Maybe it's like the nielsen ratings and one mayor represents a larger share.
Bwahahahahahahhahaha. Talk about a F**K up! She and her campaign have their heads so far up their asses they don't even know which "scheduled" people are actually going to show up for their rallies.
Did you hear Bennigan's is offering a new drink on their menu?
It's called the Clinton Bittertini. It is made with Crown Royal, triple sec, and has a bullet floating in it.
April 15, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
The remaining 81 mayors are stealth mayors.
April 15, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
THanks. I just spit up all over the desk.
The Bittertini? Instant Classic.
April 15, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
THanks for the update, Greg.
April 15, 2008 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Greg. This is a bit...peculiar. I mean, sure it sounded great. And sounded great for a few whole hours before the event actually happened. But now there's the event, and no visual of 100 mayors standing behind Hillary singing Kumbaya for the evening news. What they advertised didn't happen--not necessarily a problem if they had managed the newscycle right and all the evening news programs could say, "Tomorrow, 100 mayors will...!!!!!!!" Doesn't the story now become that it was a disappointment? Doesn't it become...almost laughable? I mean, what's the strategy here?
April 15, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg,
I think the concern with stories like this is that the original headline and article comes out based only on what Clinton staffers say will happen and the the update comes hours later based on what actually did happen. I greatly appreciate the update to the story; but the story really should have been held to report that actual events rather than just the pre-even spin.
It is just like when Bush or other politicians tell reporters that there will be a "Major economic speech" tomorrow and the media shows up with cameras and live coverage and then they just get an everyday stump speech but everyone is focused on them and they were able to frame coverage in advance.
April 15, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
81 mayors obviously took Gov. Rendell's cue and began to back slowly away from the crazy lady and her trainwreck of a campaign.
April 15, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg,
Just so you are aware, there are a lot more than 100 mayors in PA. I think Pittsburgh and its suburbs alone has probably 200+ due to all the small boroughs and townships. I grew up in the state and have family there still. I just want to make you aware that 100 mayors endorsing is more of a stunt than something of substance.
April 15, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
100 mayors probably barely covers Allegheny County. Pa. has bazillions of towns, and each one has its own mayor. It's one of the reasons for the alarmingly high property tax rates and corruption. Now that I think of it, I may be a mayor myself.
April 15, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
You should endorse Obama, then!
April 15, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. Allegheny County and the city of Pittsburgh need to merge. Pittsburgh should span the entire county of Allegheny. Then you won't have all this small boroughs with their own school district and police service that are going into bankruptcy.
April 15, 2008 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
sniff sniff
Any 'street money' involved in these cities too?
April 15, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
And have these 100 mayors actually endorsed? What's "roughly" 100?
April 15, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I guess taylor marsh and Jeralyn the hack will have to spin this one....maybe those two pomm wheei's will say Obmam supporters blocked the roads so they couldn't get there
BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA
April 15, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
30 Helens agree:
HIllary needs to be the 101st mayor.
She's obviously not ready for prime time.
April 15, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Liam is right. I mean the Republicans run on "abortion" but you really think the would actually ever do anything about abortion? No, they just run on it. It is sad to use people's faith into manipulating them to vote for you and that is what many of the Republicans have done, do. All these Evangelicals who got Bush elected, yet he didn't do anything he promised.
Obama is calling it out, he actually cares about people in PA. He knows that people got hood-winked, their jobs were stolen, their livelihoods and they were/are forgotten about. But they aren't alone. Katrina victims were forgotten about and the list goes on. As far as the BET guy goes, well duh, he is the CORPORATE MEDIA, it does not suit him to support Obama. I was in China and yes, people work 7 days a week straight for about $200. And they need those jobs, but you know what, Americans needed them too.
I was at the Democratic Party caucus this Sunday and the Clinton people were done in like 1 hour, hardly anyone showed up, the Obama caucus had 400 people, tons of delegates running etc. Obama is the people's choice, and this is in a conservative district mind you. We were there for HOURS! It was amazing.
I am so glad Obama made those comments because it is true, people are bitter. Maybe they were worded wrong, but it is obvious that he said it cause he CARES. Not about his career, but about the PEOPLE of this COUNTRY!
He said those comments in a worried way, in a concerned way, I see that. He knows that as Americans we have to grow and come to terms with the big white elephant in the room. The fact that these people vote for politicians who don't care about them. Yes, people voted on faith in 2002, isn't that why Bush was elected? It isn't a big secret. The Clinton's know this.
America must come together and defeat corporate intersts, govt inaction, etc.
April 15, 2008 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Hillary did post a list of 100 Pennsylvania 'small town' mayors endorsing her. [which is 3-4% of all PA small town mayors].
Trouble is, included in her list are the mayors of some not-small towns......., Philadelphia [1,500,000+ pop.], Allentown [j106,000+ pop], Pittsburgh [340,000+ pop.], even Scranton [76,000+ pop] and so forth.
April 15, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
According to "Clinton New Math" "small" is any number they say is "small" and "large" is any number they say is "large." So Philly at 1.5 million is small if you are comparing it to say Beijing. But is it large if you comparing it to Crawford, TX.
But only the towns identified by the Clintons are small towns that count. Small towns where the mayor endorsed Obama are not "towns" they are "enclaves of bitterness." Clintons do not recognize bitter, so those towns -- er, enclaves -- don't count.
April 15, 2008 10:45 PM | Reply | Permalink