Just to be clear here: I think Obama has proven himself to be more than capable of handling himself.

Posted at May 9, 2008 5:23 PM in response to McAuliffe: Joint Ticket Would Be "A Great Idea"

If McAullife is in fact launching a trial balloon from the Clinton campaign about this possibility, I have to say that it seems to me yet another instance of how tone-deaf they are over there. Clinton represents the very past that Obama has been running in opposition to. But more to the point: in such an administration, Bill as a presence would create, at best, an awkward dynamic between a President Obama and a Vice-President Clinton. Bill has shown on this campaign that he, um, doesn't take direction well, even when it's for the greater good of his wife's candidacy; it's difficult to see how, within the orbit of the Executive Branch again, he'd be any more amenable to direction-taking.

At worst, such a choice would bear a strong resemblance to Bush's choosing of Cheney: Obama can't handle himself, so he's asked a steadier, more-experienced hand to join him on the ticket. I'd think even Clinton supporters whose greater interest lies in the strength of the Democratic Party's ticket can see the potential problems with the optics of such a ticket.

Posted at May 9, 2008 5:19 PM in response to McAuliffe: Joint Ticket Would Be "A Great Idea"

Is it just possible, however remotely, that the Clinton campaign is guilty of overestimating Hillary's appeal relative to that of the other candidates? That they took too much for granted the "inevitability" meme? That, in overestimating that they would have things wrapped up by Super Tuesday, they seem not to have done any serious planning at all for future contests? That the power of the (Bill) Clinton name and, by extension, that of the DLC, was such that they could get away with the "caucus-states-don't-count" strategy and so ignore them?

It's absurd to argue that the Clinton(s) ran a faultless campaign, that things just didn't break their way. The evidence is pretty clear that Obama just flat out-organized and out-worked everybody else and, even when it became clear what was happening, the Clintons didn't change a thing. Penn is a walking, talking proof of that fact. The Clintons not only had their political hat handed to them, they even provided the tray--their miscalculations--on which that hat was served.

Posted at May 8, 2008 2:11 PM in response to A Mark Penn Memo From 2007 About Those Big States

I'd note that he also seems to be the only one who includes civil rights, disabilities, senior citizens, urban policy, and service in his issues—or at least in the issue summaries. As I write this, I suspect they're not sampling the entire list of issues, but I could be wrong.

I agree with you that those are indeed also significant issues. As a believer and advocate of the wall of separation between church and state myself, I'd much prefer that religion not become a political punching bag because it ends up cheapening the value of religion--but that's just me.

As for your questioning about sampling, Goodspeed notes that he just made a list of the "Issues" tabs at each campaign's respective website; the absence of an issue for a campaign indicates that that campaign simply didn't address it.

Posted at May 8, 2008 1:14 PM in response to Word counts

Ren,
Thank you for taking the time to compose your thoughtful and considered response to my post.

Posted at May 8, 2008 12:49 PM in response to Word counts

I fail to see anything that Obama supporters have to whine about.

Posted at May 8, 2008 12:05 PM in response to Mark Penn Denies Not Knowing The Basics About Dem Primaries

Well, yes, Ben (and thanks for commenting); that would be valuable--and fun--to see. But surely the presence/absence of certain issues is striking to note on this graph. I'm fascinated by the fact that of the three candidates, only Obama addresses the issue of faith on his site. Given how religion--the alleged confusion over whether he is "really" a Christian--has been used against him in various subtle and not-so-subtle ways by both Republicans and Clinton, it's curious that neither of them addresses that issue at all.

One can spin Obama's addressing that in ways that are unflattering to him; personally, I (full disclosure: a completely in-the-tank, Kool-aid-swilling Obama fan) have no cause to think other than what he has repeatedly said: that his understanding of the Gospel informs his politics, that it's not a flag-pin-like veneer slapped on for purposes of optics.

Posted at May 8, 2008 12:03 PM in response to Word counts

Grr--sorry about the formatting problems.

Here is that link.

Posted at May 8, 2008 11:25 AM in response to Word counts

Allsburg,
The point of the USA article is that apparently Hillary didn't get the memo, either. Not only is her language that of someone still in it to win it, it's the language of someone who deliberately invokes race as her argument for her candidacy--that only white, less-educated voters "matter."

As I read somewhere else on this same article, someone needs to ask her about her plummeting appeal among African-Americans--a segment of the electorate that has been not just loyal but indispensable to Democrats, as Chino's chart shows. Someone needs to ask her why THOSE people don't have to be won.

This woman, a tireless advocate of civil rights in her younger days, saying something like this when not half a day earlier she said publicly that she would support the party's nominee . . . it's either further proof of her say-anything-do-anything strategy, or she's so far gone that she just doesn't know what she's saying.

Posted at May 8, 2008 7:32 AM in response to Hillary Clinton Says Only Whites Matter

As of 9:22, they're separated by 11,000 votes, with Lake Co. (Gary) yet to report.

Here is a link.

Posted at May 6, 2008 10:22 PM in response to Hillary Lead in IN Continues to Shrink...