I predict O'Reilly is going to be extremely kind to her, and that most of his "hard-hitting" questions will be asking her to comment on Obama scandals, and not anything of her own. Call it a hunch.

Posted at April 29, 2008 1:42 PM in response to Hillary Campaign Confirms She's Appearing On O'Reilly Tomorrow Night

No, really, how does a 6000-person event raise $2.5mil? Are some seats reserved for bundlers who have already raised certain amounts? If so, then can you really call that "new" fundraising? And if not, then that's ~$4k a seat, almost half of which by definition can only be for general election use.

Either way, could we see some more scrutiny of how this math works?

Posted at April 9, 2008 12:18 PM in response to Hillary's Big Fundraiser Tonight Starring Elton John Will Bring In $2.5 Million

But these are rolling polls that go back several days. There's no question that Wright hurt him in the short-term, but we can't yet say that the damage is permanent just beausse his numbers haven't fully rebounded mere days later!

Posted at March 21, 2008 3:47 PM in response to Gallup: Obama Catching Up To Hillary Again, But Still Hurt By Wright

Yet his real poll numbers haven't shifted drastically. This kind of question is misleading. "Less likely" is a very broad classification. The question is whether it has caused people, in and of itself, to stop supporting Obama, and if so, how many. Imagine the following poll: "Yesterday Obama forgot to tip a waitress at a Scranton diner after grabbing a bite during a campaign stop. Does this make you more or less likely to vote for him?" Of course no one is going to say it makes them more likely to vote for him, and I suppose the natural answer is "less likely," but of course "Tipgate" is not going to sink his campaign, no matter what that poll says, is it?

Posted at March 17, 2008 12:06 PM in response to Poll: Fifty-Six Percent Say Wright Makes Them "Less Likely" To Vote For Obama

When Hillary was down by 20% in a state she basically didn't campaign there at all.

Obama's just going on the record to remind the media so that five weeks from now when Clinton wins PA by, say, 54%-44%, they don't rush out and spin it as Hillary's "big comeback" and talk about her new momentum.

Posted at March 14, 2008 4:17 PM in response to Source: Obama Tells Donors That Losing Pennsylvania By Less Than 10 Points Will Be "Victory"

You have an odd definition of "cherry-picking" then.

How about this -- let's look into the Arkansas churches the Clintons attended over the years. How much do you want to bet we could turn up reports of hateful things being said from the pulpit, even if the Clintons weren't in attendance on those days?

If you look at the religious figures almost anyone in politics associates themselves with, you'll find controversial content. It's not fair to impute that to the politician directly, unless you want to say that our politicians should all eschew any sort of religious connection (yet of course a politician who says he never goes to church will have a harder time getting elected).

Take the Reverend Billy Graham, adviser and pastor to many presidents. He has said the following:

"Is AIDS a judgment of God? I could not say for sure, but I think so." (1993)

In the 1970s, he is on tape agreeing with Nixon that Jews have a "stranglehold" on the media, and saying of his Jewish friends, "they swarm around me and are friendly to me, [but] they don't know how I really feel about what the're doing to this country."

Do these things mean that all our presidents from Carter through Bush should be credited with these beliefs, or should have had absolutely nothing to do with the man despite his other wisdom and accomplishments in life?

Posted at March 14, 2008 12:20 PM in response to Obama: I "Profoundly Disagree" With Pastor Over "God Damn America" Comments

Thank you! I've been trying to argue this with friends and such for weeks, and it's nice to have a reputable source to be able to point them to now.

Posted at March 13, 2008 6:14 PM in response to General Election Polls Show Hillary And Obama Roughly Even Against McCain In Pennsylvania

Seriously, what the hell...

Obama is currently polling better in PA in a head-to-head vs. McCain than Clinton is!!

How does Penn spin that?

Posted at March 13, 2008 2:28 PM in response to Penn: Pennsylvania Will Show That Obama "Really Can't Win The General Election"

The key point is this:

The rules are that most delegates wins. The entire campaign strategy would shift if it were pure popular vote. Everyone would campaign in CA, NY, TX, FL, and a handful of other states from day one, and completely ignore the small states. The nomination process uses delegates for the same reason that the national election uses electoral votes -- because we have 50 States in our Union, and the president shouldn't be chosen by a handful of population centers. Furthermore, just ask Al Gore: since November isn't about the popular vote but rather an electoral system that gives the smaller states greater weight, the way to get the strongest candidate for November is to choose someone who has a true nationwide following.

Posted at March 13, 2008 12:49 PM in response to Rendell: Isn't Popular Vote As Important As Pledged Del Count?

Wait, but I thought winning the Dem primary means you win the general too??

How can it be that Obama does better against McCain in this poll?

Surely the Clinton campaign wouldn't try to mislead us...

Posted at March 13, 2008 1:37 AM in response to Poll: Hillary Up By 18 Points In Pennsylvania Primary