Will Obama Campaign Start Hitting Hillary Over Whitewater And Cattle Futures?
Here's something to keep an eye out for. In the wake of Hillary's Pennsylvania victory yesterday, one meme many in the political press will be eager to sound is that Obama will now be forced to go much more negative on Hillary than he has in the past.
Today's Washington Post, for instance, works very hard to get that story. The paper gets an unnamed Dem who isn't even on the Obama campaign to say that it's likely that Camp Obama will hit Hillary with Whitewater, cattle futures, and even Bill's impeachment, and then asks Obama campaign manager David Plouffe to respond to this unnamed Dem:
In the two weeks leading up to the Indiana primary, a Democratic strategist familiar with the Obama campaign said aides are likely to turn to the controversies of Bill Clinton's White House years -- Hillary Clinton's trading cattle futures, Whitewater and possibly impeachment."Everyone knows the history of the Clintons," the strategist said.
Plouffe would not say the campaign planned to address that period, but seemed open to the possibility in the future: "The Republicans certainly are going to look at those issues, the Clinton finances, the record issues. We have chosen not to go there."
I don't think it's going to happen in any meaningful sense. Obama's case that he's the high-road politician beset upon by Hillary's Lady-Macbethian efforts to tear him down would obviously be tougher to make if the Obama camp starts seriously invoking Whitewater, cattle futures, and other ghosts and goblins from the 1990s that continue to haunt the wingnut imagination.
It would also be tough to justify raising this stuff by saying that it's a case the Republicans would make against her, too. One of the Obama campaign's most effective push-backs against the Bin Laden ad and other attacks has been to point out that Hillary is employing slimy Rovian and GOP tactics against him -- push-backs that would be compromised by any systematic effort to raise the 1990s stuff.
So my bet is that Whitewater and cattle futures won't be making any serious appearance in the Dem primary.
I'd prefer if they just ignored the Clintons from her on out. She's not his opponent any more, it's John McCain and the Republican Party.
And if I'm reading the PA Election site correctly, it's 54.3% (C) 45.7 (O). And the popular vote numbers differ rather significantly from the AP numbers you posted. Just any FYI.
http://www.electionreturns.state.pa.us/ElectionsInformation.aspx?FunctionID=12&ElectionID=27
April 23, 2008 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you have a very good point - he needs to continue what he started last night and focus on McCain (and thus render Clinton completely irrelevant). Of course he must continue to hit Clinton on the issues and on her flip-flopping, but I think he needs to turn his sights on the person he will be facing in the general election.
April 23, 2008 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hope Obama does bring up ancient history.
Then Clinton can give him the REAL pummeling MSM smears her as doing already.
April 23, 2008 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Aw, poor Hillary - always the victim, huh? Get over it. The media is giving your girl a free pass right now and lapping up every inane (and insane) comment that comes out of her camp. Anyone else would have been drummed out of the race (or had the good sense to concede) a long time ago. I'm so sick of this victim bullshit. She knows exactly what she's doing and she is NO victim.
From now on, I'm going to close all my posts with 85.2%, which is the percentage of outstanding delegates she would need to overtake Obama. Ain't gonna happen!
85.2% - Keep dreamin'!
April 23, 2008 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
There's a problem with that. With each new super-delegate that Obama picks up, you need to update that number. Actually, it'd be pretty cool if you would keep updating that number…
April 23, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with Slumlord. It is to Hillary's benefit if Obama stoops to her streetfighting level.
Truth is, Hillary is toast. Pennsylvania's demographics were to her benefit, but with the exception of WV and PR, Obama will coast to the nomination.
What's up with this silly, media-bubble, hypothetical reporting anyway.
April 23, 2008 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
And KY, unfortunately.
April 23, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the link. And an interesting media take. Doesn't one usually round DOWN numbers that are below .5 and round UP those that are above .5?
April 23, 2008 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
New rounding rules for the candidate who cannot follow the primary rules, either.
Actually, we may get an update to the correct rounding, but not before the actually false 'double digit' thing is firmly implanted for purposes of spin.
First time I am ashamed of Josh Marshall, who has not corrected his front page post.....I am sure that Josh understands the psychology of this being 'single digit' rather than 'double digit'.
April 23, 2008 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
According to TheField, the numbers on the PA site are probably wrong. One county has posted their totals which are 13,000 different from what the state site is reporting for that county. People are thinking the county posted numbers are right. That's where the discrepency comes in.
Now not being able to do the simplest math with the numbers they chose makes journalists stupid or shills- pick one.
April 23, 2008 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
He would be a fool to do it. On the other hand, he would be a fool if he didn't allow others not associated with his campaign to do it.
April 23, 2008 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's what he has been doing all along.
The democratic blogs like Daily Kos are Obama Smear Machines.
Meanwhile, Obama is hailed as baby Jesus.
April 23, 2008 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Then, by all means, go visit Hillaryis44.org and TaylorMarsh.com - I'm sure they'll be more than happy to add you to their ranks of bitter, nasty, rude and delusional Clinton supporters!
April 23, 2008 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
He isn't HAILED as Baby Jesus - he IS Baby Jesus!!
April 23, 2008 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey now, he's no baby Jesus! He's full grown Jesus.
April 23, 2008 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, speaking as a fervent Obama supporter, I sincerely hope that the campaign doesn't go down that road. I would be very disappointed if they did. Of course the Republicans will use it, but lots of Democrats already know all about the Clintons and their (alleged) scandals and they're choosing to support them. This will not be a winner and I hope that Plouffe is truthful. There are a ton of other issues that Obama can raise about Clinton (i.e., her Iraq vote, her lobbyist ties, her new statements about "obliterating" Iran, her NAFTA and Bosnia lies, etc.) without going back to Whitewater and other Bill Clinton-era issues.
April 23, 2008 9:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, this is a bit simple frankly. No, I don't think that Obama will campaign that way. He isn't set up to do that -
But the media is very interested and it will bring this shit up the longer she sticks around.
So the fact that Obama won't does not mean that it won't be brought up.
April 23, 2008 9:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, but Tena, she has Richard Mellon Scaife watching her back now, so who's going to do it? ;)
Shit, the more I think about that the more pissed I get - deathbed conversions, indeed. Does she not know that they're toying with her, that they want her to win the primary so that they can absolutely, once and for all, destroy her (and by association, her husband) in the generals? My husband and I talked about this last night; it's too perfect a scenario and I can't believe she doesn't see it. Does she think they'll be kind to her if she somehow manages to get the nomination? As the saying goes, leopards don't change their spots, and Mellon Scaife certainly hasn't changed his.
April 23, 2008 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
She should see it, but she's totally blinded by her ambition, which has swollen to absolutely unmanageable proportions, though it is still smaller than Bill's - maybe.
Scaiffe will gut her like a catfish when he feels like it.
April 23, 2008 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Clintons are good tacticians. Cozying up to Scaife is simply that: a tactical expediency. If she doesn't get the nomination, it doesn't matter whether Scaife might turn on her in the fall. So even if you risk backlash, it's worth it to improve your slim chances of getting the nomination. If Clinton is the nominee, she'll first have to rebuild the Democratic party before she worries about whether Scaife is truly supportive.
April 23, 2008 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
O really? So it doesn't bother you that your candidate is cozying up with the people who fucking ruined this country?
I really don't get you Clinton supporters at all - o wait, I do too. You're just like Republicans - win at any cost.
April 23, 2008 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Carol, if my life depended upon it, I would have to choose the probability that Hillary and Bill have joined forces with Scaife and his ilk.
No, Mellon Scaife has not changed his spots, but Hillary has certainly changed hers.......witness her campaign strategy for a clue.
April 23, 2008 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Both Hillary and Bill Clinton have always been chameleons. Mrs. Clinton was never as liberal as she was portrayed as being during Bill's presidency, nor was Bill the only one seduced by triangulators like Dick Morris.
There is much to admire about both Clintons, but neither have been particularly steadfast on any issue other than their own political survival.
Recall the early-primary season flap of Obama "praising" Ronald Reagan. It wasn't so much that Obama was praising Reagan as he was implicitly criticizing Bill Clinton: whether you liked his policies or not, you had to agree that Reagan led the nation, and he pushed the political center rightward. Clinton's presidency did not provide comparable leadership, nor did he push the political center back towards the left. He did ameliorate several proposals from the GOP congress, but he did not truly lead. The Bill Clinton era was about fiscal responsibility and good management. And that's how they're trying to package Hillary's candidacy as well. She's losing because where Obama is running to lead the country, Hillary is running simply to manage it.
April 23, 2008 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
I read somewhere that it was Hillary that insisted on bringing Morris into their camp and agreed with the triangulation strategy.
April 23, 2008 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think he wants to destroy her. He wants more FCC deals for his industry.
April 23, 2008 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
You may be right. Scaife's no fool. He knows the Dems are going to take the White House either way. So of course he wants Hillary because she's the one he can best get into his pocket.
April 23, 2008 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
hillary has hit her ceiling with democratic voters.
even a large % of people who claim to be dems say they wont vote for Obama.
so, she is running now as a total republican, knowing she will hold her dem base and pick up small d's who would never vote for her in the general.
thats why she needs people like fox and mellon scum,to reach out to those type of people.
she has proved to be the entity that repubs have claimed she was all along.
that we live in the land of the "dumb" is most upsetting to me.
April 23, 2008 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Whitewater and cattle futures are not issues Obama should press.
The pardons Bill handed out on the last day of his Presidency, however, should be looked into. How much money did Mrs. Rich give to Hillary for her first Senate run? How much did Mrs. Rich give to the Clinton Foundation/Library?
What exactly did Bill do to earn 109 Million?
Sorry, those are issues that deserve discussion.
April 23, 2008 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. Let the press rehash the old Whitewater junk (if even they can stand it.) But a few jokes about Bill's impeachment and the Clinton's final, sleazy days in office are fair game.
We should ask voters if they are prepared for another 4/8 years of the drama and untruths.
Here's a BBC summary of those final days: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/letter_from_america/1190410.stm
It is important to point out that the Clintons eventually did return to the White House furniture -- even though they argued to the end that the goods were their's to keep. (This despite Hillary's thank you notes to donors accepting the furniture on behalf of the White House.)
April 23, 2008 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're close. The issue that's laying out there untouched by anyone so far are the six-figure payments Hillary's brothers took from people who got those pardons.
The Boston Globe did a story last year that hit the fundamentals, including Hillary's brother Tony being ordered by a bankruptcy judge to repay a $100K "loan" from one of the pardon recipients. Since all of this happened after she won her senate seat and at the very end of Bill's administration, I don't recall her being vetted on this then, or asked one word about it in this campaign.
Just on a level of principles I think Obama deserves praise for not going down this road. On a practical level he is still going to be the nominee and he'll need to get these Clinton voters back on his side.
I think these are fair questions, but they have to come from far outside the campaign. If only some enterprising reporter for a national outlet would get off their ass and ask some questions...ha ha ha. Nevermind.
April 23, 2008 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right. The narrative has turned in the past 4 weeks to Obama's electability. Why isn't anyone asking this question of Hillary who has more fervent detractors and a much more checkered history?
Character Counts should be a major theme of Obama's campaign, a theme that asks the press to explore her character more publicly. (There's a weird sense -- that she encourages -- that because we know her history and her corruption, we really need not ask those questions again.)
April 23, 2008 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let him just read The Times piece on Clinton's campaign:
vacuous, desperate and mean.
April 23, 2008 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I just love that - I saw it last night right before I turned this thing off. Desperate vacuous and mean just says it perfectly.
April 23, 2008 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gosh, Greg, I think the old 90's stuff is like offering up old leftovers when one considers some 'meat' in the present day issues, all of which could be addressed about the Clintons in recent years. Conflict of issues, Penn and Bill vs Hillary on Colombia, to name the hottest one, Hillary's main PA backer Ed Rendell praising Farrakhan, and Hillary not addressing that or even being questioned about it, to name the latest.
I have always thought that the falsehood that 'Hillary has been vetted' was a ploy to avoid recent history, like her paltry Senate career and scary war vs peace Senate voting record, the sudden obscene wealth, and what could be investigated about that in terms of power connections and her cadre of donors.
April 23, 2008 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Go for it! Make a fool of yourself Obama because traditional Democrats and likely everyone except the hardcore Obama Cult will see this for what it is--pure desperation and total lack of character and substance. Remember that when the Republicans tried this, Bill ended up winning twice and sustaining 70% plus approval.
This is old news that has been beaten to death by Republicans many, many years ago. If he and his supporters have any remaining credibility for his message of hope and change, he'd lose it in a heartbeat.
Matthew
http://www.TheIndependentView.com
April 23, 2008 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, thank god for Ross Perot!
April 23, 2008 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, thus the reason Obama isn't going there. Unfortunately, you can't say the same about the slimy candidate you support.
April 23, 2008 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Matthew will support McCain and his nine homes, the 100 million dollars he hides behind his wife, his numerous affairs, his Keating 5 rip off, his drug addicted wife who violated Federal drug laws, his voting record on the environment which is ZERO, etc.
He will support McCain, who tells us to get a second job and not go on vacation, and that the economy is just our being psyched out in negativity.
Meanwhile, while Matthew works two jobs without vacation, McCain will continue to vacation in Coronado and at Harras resort.
Go Matthew.
April 23, 2008 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Matthew, tell me something - as a fellow New Yorker (I live in New Paltz and you are somewhere upstate, if I remember correctly), can you tell me what Mrs. Clinton has done done for upstate NY? I know you are a fervent Clinton supporter, but truth be told, she's a rather mundane senator, and I'm wondering how you perceive her efforts here. Her approval rating right now in New York is below 50%, and I will not vote for her in 2012 when she runs again (I say that because there's no way your gal is going to get 85.2% of all remaining pledged and superdelegates).
April 23, 2008 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
He's not in this "for" HIllary nearly so much as he'd "against" Obama, and anyone who hates Obama with the sort of passionate venom that he spills out every day is deeply disturbed.
Deeply. So initiate policy debate with him at your own discretion, but remember, he's got a laptop full of Obama hate that would make the KKK proud. And in real life, you would avoid someone like that, no?
April 23, 2008 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do you really need to spew your KKK trash? I definitely doesn't reflect well on you, nor on The Obama Cult and your candidate you claim to support. Why don't you grow up and discuss substantive issues without tossing around derogatory insults?
Matthew
http://www.TheProblemWithObama.com
April 23, 2008 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
hahaha, talk about reflections.
What if I spent my days calling Hillary vile names and building websites like yours with the sole intent of making her look like a horrible, disgusting, vile individual.
How would that reflect on me?
You're disgusting, as is Rush and Hannity and Coulter and all your fellow hate-mongers, which does, by the way include the KKK.
Hate is what you peddle in. Good company you keep.
Go protest Vodka, hater.
April 23, 2008 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Matthew: The use of the word "cult" is you spewing bigotry.
April 23, 2008 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
He's not in this "for" Hillary nearly so much as he's "against" Obama, and anyone who hates Obama with the sort of passionate venom that he spills out every day is deeply disturbed.
Deeply. So initiate policy debate with him at your own discretion, but remember, he's got a laptop full of Obama hate that would make the KKK proud. And in real life, you would avoid someone like that, no?
April 23, 2008 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
oops
April 23, 2008 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I do not really care what she has done or not done specifically for New York. She is a U.S. Senator. I was not living here when she was first elected, but I did vote for her re-election. She has more credibility as a senator than Obama does and more than most. But its as much gut feel as it is specific accomplishment. And, she does have accomplishments and is an outstanding Senator. She'll also be a great president.
Matthew
http://www.TheIndependentView.com
April 23, 2008 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
see, what did I tell you. he doesn't even have an argument on her behalf. All he has is hate about Obama.
Oh, and about vodka. Terrible, awful vodka and their frightful print ads.
The sky is falling!
April 23, 2008 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
And, she does have accomplishments and is an outstanding Senator
But you don't care what she has done as a Senator? Do you even read what you write?
April 23, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree entirely, dear Mr Weaver. To make an issue of whitewater &c would be a serious mistake.
April 23, 2008 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Which is why he won't do it. All these stories that Obama was going to, or would be "forced to", go hard negative floated around right after the TX and OH primaries too. It didn't happen then, and it won't happen now.
April 23, 2008 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
No argument there (at least not from me).
April 23, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
He expected to lose PA. I expected him to lose PA. Everybody with half a brain expected him to lose PA. So, the fact that he did in fact meet expectations is not going to send him careening wildly off track in some kind of desperate attempt to to shift the momentum back to him. He's still on track to win the nomination. If anything, he's sitting better today than he was on Monday since Clinton once again failed to reach the percentage she needed to substantially cut into his delegate lead, and now there are way less delegates available to pull from.
April 23, 2008 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. The scorecard is basically unchanged.
She needed like 65% in PA to even begin to budge the needle. So it's just the media's day to spin for Clinton. They always follow the winner and their comments are the same hot air they always are (even when they're spinning for Obama) because the thing to remember is that the leaders of the Democratic do not really want Hillary Clinton. There are some old loyalists, but, basically, the powers that be within the party want to throw her overboard as much as Obama's supporters out here do. That's as obvious, I think, as the nose on anybody's face. In fact, it's one of the things that makes me wonder about Clinton's supporters. Don't they ever stop to think about why there's no real coalescence around Hillary and so many defections? If I remember right, people who think they are right while the rest of the world is wrong and everyone is against them are called paranoid schizophrenics.
April 23, 2008 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's case that he's the high-road politician beset upon by Hillary's Lady-Macbethian ambitions
Um, is that a quote from Obama or the campaign? Because that would be kinda weird. It would make Obama out to be Duncan, and then Bill Clinton, as Macbeth, would have to do the dagger bit and follow it by saying
Besides, when I've heard the argument that one of these candidates is jumping the queue and elbowing the rightful leader out of place, it's usually come from the Clintons.
I will admit, though, that Hillary has definitely crossed the Thane-in-Chief threshold.
April 23, 2008 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Since HRC was the inevitable candidate, the analogy implies that the MacBeth pair was already in power when Obama came along. That would make Obama Macduff.
And the delegate mathematics corresponds to Great Birnam Wood coming to High Dunsinane Hill.
April 23, 2008 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
OK, that's much clearer now.
And I demand that the delegates from Birnam Wood be seated at the convention.
April 23, 2008 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, we are definitely at the HRC/Lady MacBeth sleepwalking stage.
Next HRC commercial "out, out, damn spot!"
April 23, 2008 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Show off! :)
April 23, 2008 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Non-story is a non-story.
Oh yeah and Oklahoma Governor just endorsed Obama. Damn his independent judgment!
http://newsok.com/article/3233776/1208941411
April 23, 2008 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Will we see this endorsement on this site? Will Hillary get any endorsements after her vile behavior?
April 23, 2008 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Greg and/or Eric? How about it??
April 23, 2008 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for that news re: SD/
April 23, 2008 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
As much as he has the right to, and after putting up with her crap for this long he has earned it in spades, I doubt he will. Although it would be very satisfying to this supporter. He should get people talking about what Bill's been up to since leaving office. It's amazing how little scrutiny that has gotten.
April 23, 2008 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
He should focus on McCain, and ignore Clinton altogether.
Here's what Hillary Clinton should be asked about, but never ever will: just what is your husband going to be doing in your administration, and in the White House?
Obama can't ask this, and no Democrat can, but John McCain, Karl Rove and Rush Limbaugh will use Bill Clinton in the general election. The Clintonistas seem to think that there's this deep well of respect and affection for Bill that will carry Hillary to the White House. Newsflash: there isn't. And Hillary will never be elected President, either.
That's why this farce of a campaign by Hillary Clinton needs to be shut down.
April 23, 2008 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
CT, she'll just do that cackle thing of hers (which is EVER so annoying) and evade the question. She has a pretty obvious "tell" when she doesn't want to answer a question (well, truth be told, she has a lot of "tells" - the shifty eyes, blinking a lot, the cackle, and the filibustering, rambling dialog). It is a good question and one that I think every voter has the right to know.
April 23, 2008 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
I initially thought that all the media attention on the laugh was just inane. And it was, because who wouldn't laugh when Chris Wallace Chris Wallace!!@#$! implies that Fox News has been perfectly fair and balanced towards Clinton? Seriously?
But when she started the laugh on Countdown Monday night, it was just weird and strange, and obviously designed to deflect attention from her answer.
Can you see her at a White House press corps event doing that?
April 23, 2008 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think that you're correct. The appearance of getting down into the mud with Clinton after the Wednesday debate did not do Obama any favors. For Obama, the argument now ought to be "we took the heavy hit, we shrugged it off, and we've won." In the future, they should avoid engaging Clinton campaign in any meaningful fashion, instead dismissing and belittling their continued presence. Mock surprise that Clinton is still around should be sufficient. At the same time, his campaign needs to start acting like the primary race is over and begin inviting primary voters for Clinton to start working toward the general election.
Remember, as a wise person on South Park once said, when dealing with a troublesome child, you don't talk to it, you don't reason with it, you dominate it.
April 23, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
What he needs to come down hard on is her willingness
to reinvent US nuclear policy on the fly, in a totally insane direction, merely to try to pick up a few votes. Is that the kind of person we want answering that 3 am phone call? I don't think so.
April 23, 2008 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's campaign doesn't need to bring up Hillary's new bff Richard Mellon Scaife's trumped up nonsense.
There's plenty of stuff to go after the Clinton's with like NAFTA, welfare reform, Dont Ask, Don’t Tell, The Communications Decency Act, easing media ownership laws, The Defense of Marriage Act, and rescinding Glass Steagall.
April 23, 2008 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah nobody cares about what the Republicans say about the Clintons cause - hey, we've heard it all before, right?
LOLOLOLOL!!!!
The Republican will not let anyone forget for one second that: her husband was impeached; that a blue dress, a cigar and underage intern were involved; that she had so many conflicts of interest inside the Rose Law Firm that her friends went to jail for her.
That she and her husband have been involved in as many shady campaign finance schemes as Tom Delay; that Mark Penn is one of their best friends and advisors, that Bill does business with Colombia,
That Hillary is really a lesbian, that Bill may have abused Chelsea, that Hillary killed Vince Foster; that Hillary went on a rampage right after Bill was elected and created a scandal in the travel bureau, that she is the candidate with more people around her who have been indicted or otherwise in legal trouble, and I could go on and on and on - but the Republicans will do it for me.
Yeah, it's going to be just great. Talk about fools!
April 23, 2008 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Monica wasn't underage, was she?
April 23, 2008 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
According to the official state of PA website: http://www.electionreturns.state.pa.us/
Clinton 1,237,696 54.3%
Obama 1,043,174 45.7%
Margin of victory: 8.6% NOT 10%, rounding up from 8.53%.
I am sick of all the headlines saying 10%, she did not crack the double digit at this point.
April 23, 2008 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Beautiful.
Just like you.
April 23, 2008 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you :)
April 23, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah. AP says 9.4% and the PA Secretary of State office says 8.5%.
April 23, 2008 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
In other words, even the most generous numbers indicate that her margin of victory was less than 10%. Not nearly enough to get her where she wants to go.
April 23, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Posted in the other thread, but it really belongs here:
Yesterday, I finally came up with an analogy that I think fits. The nomination fight is like a boxing match - one of the old timey ones that went WAY more than 12 rounds. Clinton opened with a flurry trying to score a KO, but Obama fought her to a draw in the early rounds. Clinton then had very little left for the middle rounds, and Obama built a point lead that was impossible to overcome (absent a late KO).
Clinton gets a second wind, goes for the KO in the late rounds. She even wins a few rounds, negligibly cutting into his lead in points. But she doesn't knock him out, or even come close.
Even in a sport as historically crooked as boxing, the judges wouldn't give the title to Clinton just because Obama didn't knock her out. He doesn't NEED to knock her out, since he has a huge point lead. He just needs to avoid letting his guard down and get KO'd himself.
That's a long way of saying that Obama doesn't need to get down in the mud with the Clintons. As the old saying goes, you shouldn't get into the mud with a pig. You'll just get dirty, and the pig will like it.
April 23, 2008 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOLOLOLOL!!
Be careful, NC - you'll be branded a sexist by those of us here with no sense of humor!
85.2% - keep dreamin'!
April 23, 2008 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
As the old saying goes, you shouldn't get into the mud with a pig. You'll just get dirty, and the pig will like it
Classic!
April 23, 2008 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's more like the scene from Monty Pyton's Holy Grail where the Black Knight (Clinton) has all his limbs cut off but refuses to surrender. "Come back, you yellow bastard!! I'll bite your legs off!!"
Best part begins about 2 minutes in.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjEcj8KpuJw
April 23, 2008 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Whitewater? Ho-fucking-hum.
Colombia trade deals and lobbying? Yes. War vote. Sure thing. Kyl-Lieberman vote? Yup. Obliteration in the Middle East? Oh hell yeah!
Clinton has vulnerabiity on so many issues that are unquestionably fair game, there's just no need to dip into the '90s scandals.
April 23, 2008 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. There's so much to take issue with just from the last few months and years, if necessary.
Plouffe's quote in this post is about as far as you want or need to go with the 90s stuff.
April 23, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pardon me for asking, but why exactly would anyone suppose that Obama needs to hit harder and go negative. He is past the worst of it now. She just fired the last shot in her revolver last night. Now the next really big state to vote will be NC, so he can retake the popular vote margin that he lost last night and pad his delegate lead even further without even breaking a sweat. He has everything to gain and nothing to lose by keeping on just as he has been for the last month.
April 23, 2008 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
A very reasoned query, Greg. Unfortunately the media thrives on conflict and they have to sell newspapers, so we get this idiotic, ridiculous non-stories. I'm so sick of this manufactured drama. Please, supers, start rolling out so we can end this thing, put her out of her misery, and get on with beating McCain!
85.2% - keep dreamin'!
April 23, 2008 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, this myth of the "knockout blow" is getting annoying. She's the one who needs to seriously counter expectations and she hasn't. He erased half of her lead in Pennsylvania, a state that was a demographic ideal for her, in spite of the mud slung his way.
April 23, 2008 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
I completely agree. He was able to cut a 20+ pt margin to 8-9 % (depending on who you get your info from) all while fighting back against Rev. Wright and bitter-gate. If he stays on message, he'll take NC, OR, SD, MN, PR and hopefully IN. And then this will all be over.
April 23, 2008 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Two quibbles:
1) There is no "hopefully" about IN. Call it hubris if you will, but I am confidently asserting that Obama will win IN. Not by double digits or anything, but it will go in his win column. Count on it.
2) I am really quite confident that Sen Clinton will win PR. I cannot imagine that the senator from NY would lose PR, given the important ties that NY has to PR. That said, I expect Obama to win Guam, given his advantage among military personell, for whatever little that is worth.
April 23, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I love your optimism over IN. I'm cautiously optimistic.
As far as PR goes, I really have no idea. I was just basing my prediction off the woman from Voto Latino last night on MSNBC who said that PR generally always goes with who the Governor endorses, and he’s endorsed Obama. But, at the same time, she pointed out that he’s currently under investigation for fraud, or something, so who knows.
April 23, 2008 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is a loser. He again proved it last night when he outspent Clinton trying to knock her out in Pennsylvania and lost big time. Look at the numbers! Other than his 90% Black support, which nationwide is less 13% of the electorate, he's losing most other demographic groups. He's not won a major state other than his home state (improvement over Gore and others who lost their home states!). He's losing at 25% of Democrats who will like Reagan Democrats years ago that voted for Reagan.
Obama represents the liberalest side of the Democratic party. He brings along no experience, lots of lies, misstatements, and ommissions that are very negative findings for people who are just getting to know him because he has never campaigned nationally before. He had no state-level competition for his senate run as well--Sorry, Alan Keyes does not make for a challenging candidate, especially as he wasn't even from Illinois. Worse, Obama has long history of working with, befriending, and associating with a whole list of unsavory characters like Rezko, Wright, Meeks, Ayers, and others that define his character so negatively with correction, racism, hate, and terrorism that he is unelectable in America today.
Enough people see this to prevent him from locking up the nomination. Should he get it, he will add his name to the likes of Kerry, Gore, Dukakis, Mondale and others that the Democratic party has followed into defect.
Matthew
http://www.TheProblemWithObama.com
April 23, 2008 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hawaii is a major state?
Anyway, you're a moron. Hillary can win by 10 points in all the remaining primaries and she still wont catch Obama in pledged delegates. You can whine all you want too about Black voters, but the fact is their votes count just as much these days as white ones.
And in TX/and OH you had republicans egged on by Rush Limbaugh out there voting for Hillary, just to fuck us over.
April 23, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
He's a loser that's winning the election.
Of course, you mean loser, not in a way that applies to a race where one person is ahead and another is behind, but more in the way a kid on the playground means it, as a general insult that reminds the teacher and everyone else around what a sad life that poor, angry child must have.
April 23, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are absolutely right, the Republicans will frame Obama that way. But they've done that with every candidate they've faced since the late eighties. So why do I care what their heavy-handed shit-spreaders say? They're going to make things up or exaggerate the mundane anyway. It isn't a consideration to me, therefore.
What is a consideration is how great of a volte-face the candidate the Democrats put forward in the general election is. Because somehow Bush has managed to mismanage so many things, in my estimation, the candidate who is furthest from Bush is the best candidate to win. You don't win --- in the general election or as a matter of the best interests of the country --- by having a candidate who (even with ostensibly different policies) is in many ways like the person she seeks to replace. Like Bush, she seems to possess the same love of power, the same one-sidedness and the same irresistable desire for secrecy. I hate to say this, but McCain will be able to make a colorable case that she is the closer successor to Bush in all of these ways. And, sadly, he'll be right.
April 23, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Huh?
I'm pretty sure Obama still leads in the popular vote by 500k
April 23, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're right. The Obama camp feared real double digits in Pennsylvania, and it didn't happen. No 15/16%. It's 8.5 to be exact (currently). So there's no need for hysteria. She cannot catch up, and until you begin to see a superdelegate trend away from Obama, and equivocal comments from party elders, it's not time to get out the worry beads. Or the slime ball tactics. Hillary Clinton has to use them because she's already on desperation row.
April 23, 2008 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Greg - you're right - you're completely right and I hope Obama starts concentrating on McCain.
April 23, 2008 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
See - this is just why I refuse to vote for her. Her supporters have the same kind of ethics the Republicans have - NONE.
Scaife is directly responsible for helping to ruin this country and you think it's ok for her to cozy up to him.
Brilliant.
April 23, 2008 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Truly, I will vote for either candidate. I decided on Obama when Edwards dropped out, who I voted for in CA via absentee. I believe most of those votes will also go to Obama, and NY will go to Obama, (see poll yesterday, she comes in behind him and McCain now) so the big state argument is not entirely based in fact.
I do not want to see Obama go more negative, Hillary has done enough already, and he has retaliated, and it is already too much and just feeding the media vultures. Anyone who could watch MSNBC or CNN last night has real tenacity.
Obama has shut down the delegate count, HRC cannot catch up. Popular vote doesn't count, as we all know from a painful past. Super delegates cannot swing for HRC at this juncture and hand her the nomination. People such as myself, not to count thousands more, will be so done with the Democrats and fairness. All this ranting gets us nowhere. We need to just be Democrats and ride this out. Not much longer to wait. By the way, donate Obama if you can. Thanks.
April 23, 2008 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
What I really don't get from last night's exit polls is how well Clinton did on the issue of who could best fix the economy. I guess the NAFTA flip/flopping and the Penn/Bill Colombia story didn't get enough attention.
April 23, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
They were all too busy getting their panties in a wad over his lack of a flag pin.
April 23, 2008 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is that what you call it when HRC does it?
April 23, 2008 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
All we need to do is look at how Hillary's negatives have shot-up in response to her mud-slinging.
April 23, 2008 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
So my bet is that Whitewater and cattle futures won't be making any serious appearance in the Dem primary.
I agree that the Obama campaign is likely to stay away from this stuff. And Obama's speech last night was clearly an attempt to get back on his high road message, and remind people why they liked his campaign so much in the first place.
But the media is a different story. If their reporting is now governed by the Stephanoloulos Doctrine, the standard of relevance for some personal connection, scandal or foible is supposed to be whether the Republicans will bring it up in the fall anyway, and whether it bears on electability.
So long as Obama was the dominant front-runner, and Clinton just the desperate challenger, it is natural that the mud and personal attacks would be directed at Obama. But if Clinton is making some sort of late charge, and if her Pennsylvania win now makes her the story, one can expect more of the "vetting" attention to switch to her. Her media strategy from the beginning has been to claim she has already been vetted, and so there is no point in doing more of it. But that's not really true. Only a minority of political junkies know a lot about the various non-Monica-related Clinton scandals.
One already started to hear last night some media commentary about Clinton's high negatives, her low reputation for honesty and trustworthiness even among Democrats, and her consistent inability to expand her base of support. And she is sitting on top of a mountain of past scandals and shady dealings which have not been a factor in the Democratic campaign, because her opponents have been so well-behaved, but which can be expected to burst from the cracked dam, and become a torrent of negative press in the fall campaign. There is still good reason to believe she truly is unelectable, which is one reason she lost so many endorsements from party leaders, and I expect the media will begin to explore the scandal and unelectability story more carefully if she is seen as making a late move.
April 23, 2008 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Focusing on McCain is a good idea. His dilemma in the primary has become that everyone wants to see him "get tough," but he simply can't do it to Clinton because he can't alienate her supporters, plus Clinton will accuse him of being no better than she is and start using battered-woman metaphors again.
So take it to McCain. But you have to make it interesting enough so the media will actually take a break from parroting the Clinton myth and pay attention.
April 23, 2008 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well as a Clinton Supporter I would hope that they would start bringing those issues up. I think the absurdity of the charges were well vetted 15 years ago but what the hell. We can do it again. If Obama thinks he can throw with her tell him to take his best shot. Not sure he will like the results at all.
April 23, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
What is your definition of "negative". I think most folks are very subjective about this and that by your many definitions, Obama has also been running a very negative campaign at times. Anyway, I think this is a self-defeating concern as it is more concerned with not offending folks and playing nice, rather than playing to win.
For me, negative is when you use unsubstantiated statements or lies and distortions against your opponent. This would be like claiming that Barack Hussein Obama was a Muslim. First, who cares. Second, what he was or wasn't in his youth should not necessarily define him today. Third, he clearly seems to have adopted a version of Christianity when he joined Trinity Church 20 years ago. To thus claim he is or continues to be Muslim because of his parentage, a portion of his upbringing, his three week visit to Pakistan (what did he do there?), or his name would be negative and, speaking for myself, inappropriate. I've said as much in the past when others have made such claims here on TPM and elsewhere.
But to say that Obama is racist and hate-filled because of his long-time association with Wright and more recently with Meeks is fair. Obama has clearly stated these guys and the church are important to him, he has 20 years of friendship and relationship with Wright. He can't walk away from this, say he didn't hear the sermons, and so forth. If fact, he's shown himself to be a liar--first saying he didn't really know these guys, then offering more, then saying he didn't hear anything offensive, then admitting more. What's next, maybe we will even hear he helped write or edit some of the sermons?! You define yourself and your character by the people you associate with--Obama has defined his clearly. His own words should the association is real: typical White people, etc. Thus, while this reflects negatively on Obama, none of this is negative campaigning.
Matthew
http://www.TheProblemWithObama.com
April 23, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh.my.sweet.jesus.
I would have thought that second paragraph was from the Onion if someone had sent it to me.
Please tell me everyone saw that. You could write an essay on the manipulation of language in that paragraph.
I'm sold now. I thought Weaver was a racist. Maybe he is, but that's beside the point. He's insane. Completely absolutely insane. Wow. I've reread it three times. I'm both awed and frightened.
April 23, 2008 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
What do you got against people who are Muslim?
April 23, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nothing. That is my very point.
Matthew
http://www.TheProblemWithObama.com
April 23, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
This thread is based on the false premise that it is even remotely possible they will bring this crap up....
Hillary has driven up her negatives all by herself, and doesn't need much help.
And Weaver, what did we say about spamming us with your annoyingly bad website? I have no issue with your posting insults about "Obama Cultists", but please, please, I beg you, stop spamming us with that trash. Please.
April 23, 2008 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know what he did in Pakistan, Matt, he learned to make bombs and drank the blood of infidels.
April 23, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post primary, and we're back to a slow media week.
Remember this was how bitter-gate got started two weeks ago.
April 23, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama doesn't need to bring this stuff up.
He doesn't need to remind the superdelegates that if they tripled his known scandals and gaffes, her would still bigger and badder by quite a margin.
He doesn't need to point out that her whole argument is he MIGHT have a secret no one has found, and it MIGHT be as bad as sniper-gate OR Whitewater OR the pardons OR Boratgate, and he MIGHT have a friend or a relative as embarrassing as Dick Morris or Bill Clinton, and when the electorate finds out about whatever the secret is, he MIGHT end up with negatives as bad as the ones she already has.
He doesn't need to say it.
We do.
The usual way: we discuss it across the blogosphere with details and specifics and clarity and insight, often enough that the pundits think they thought of it themselves.
April 23, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Or he MIGHT have had a close mentor for 20 years who hates America and praises Farrakhan, and a wife who said she wasn't proud of America, and he MIGHT have rejected wearing patriot pins, and he MIGHT have had a mad bomber as an early campaign supporter.
Or me MIGHT be running in the fall against a genuine American hero and patriot, get his rear-end kicked back to a beach in Hawaii, and be the answer to some future trivia question.
April 23, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good one, McCitizen! But you forgot to open your comment with, "I'm a lifelong Democrat, but I'm very concerned that . . ."
April 23, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
oh,yeah, Hillary can't wait to see the day Obama bring up her baggages. She will go crazy on him.
April 23, 2008 11:41 PM | Reply | Permalink