Why isn't anyone in the media, punditocracy and bloggosphere--including progressive sites like this--come out and state the obvious which is that there NEVER was a Hamas endorsement. You here at TPM decry the MSM's free ride of McCain and do the same thing by using cutesy little euphemisms like "alleged". Is this how you guys will cover the General? God.

Posted at May 9, 2008 2:40 PM in response to McCain: Obama Has Nothing In Common With Hamas -- But The Voters Think It Should Be An Issue, Anyway

No wonder Hillary and Bill keep saying that under Republican rues she would already be the nominee.

Posted at May 8, 2008 9:35 AM in response to Report: Mark Penn Thought Dem Primaries Were Winner-Take-All

I guess this means that when she looses she will be deemed "unable to close the deal" and resoundingly defeated? Will Obama's double digit win in NC be declared an incredible feat by the pundits? I am not holding my breath.

Posted at May 1, 2008 10:42 AM in response to Mason-Dixon: Obama Seven Points Ahead In North Carolina

You can't trust the Obama campaign, they will lie to you to promote right-wing institutions.

If that isn't snark by Stoller I don't know what is.

Posted at April 27, 2008 12:58 PM in response to Obama Doesn't "Take Fox On," After All

The problem I have with this argument is that a 'strong' showing is not enough. She has to win in NC. Everyone is focusing on Indiana where the race is tight but the focus should be on the other state (see Skocpol in TPM Cafe). She needs to show she can close the deal in a state that is favorable to Obama, the argument so far has been that she has not because she has not campaigned strongly in such states(this was the excuse in Virginia and Maryland). NC has more delegates than IN and if she can't take him in his turf then what kind of 'electability' argument is she making for herself? I would say she has to win both primaries to have a rationale for staying in and Indiana is not the one that should 'count' most.

Posted at April 25, 2008 11:02 AM in response to An Uncommitted Super-Delegate With Nice Things To Say About Hillary

Matt

The only problem I would have with that is that given the history of the OAS--where the US gets to strong arm countries into acceding to what the US wants most of the time--an intervention requested by the OAS would not take much 'requesting'. I can't speak for the other ones you mention but just a thought to keep in mind.

Posted at April 23, 2008 10:37 AM in response to Conceding a Bit Less

But the best part of this is that in the same interview quoted above by Greg Bill actually goes on to say the thing he is denying to have said.

NBC/NJ: “Sir, what did you mean yesterday when you said that the Obama campaign was playing the race card on you?”

CLINTON: “When did I say that, and to whom did I say that?”

NBC/NJ: “On WHYY radio yesterday”

CLINTON: “No, no, no. That’s not what I said. You always follow me around and play these little games, and I’m not going to play your games today. This is a day about election day. Go back and see what the question was, and what my answer was. You have mischaracterized it to get another cheap story to divert the American people from the real urgent issues before us, and I choose not to play your game today...."
[testy back-and-forth ensues]

INTERVIEWER (RE: Jackson comment): “Do you think that was a mistake, and would you do that again?"

CLINTON: "No. I think that they played the race card on me....

Posted at April 22, 2008 1:14 PM in response to Bill: I Didn't Say Obama Camp Played Race Card On Me

SUSA is out just now showing the exact opposite of the trend, she went down from being 14 ahead to being only 6 ahead. Given Zogby's track-record I wouldn't put that much stock on a trend based only on them.

Posted at April 21, 2008 9:11 AM in response to Polls Show Possible Movement To Clinton In Pennsylvania

I guess this more than anything points to the difference between the two candidates.

One candidate thinks that instead of focusing on trivial innuendo we should focus on the issues.

The other candidate relishes going to war over these minor flaps.

One candidate equates these sort of fight as relevant to being President, the other one doesn't.

So. Yes. Absolutely. Being President is hard. But in the White House the President is confronted with REAL issues not irrelevant tabloid muck like this.

If Clinton thinks that this kind of fight is what being tough is—answering these innuendos—then she does not understand the seriousness of the problems that we are in.

I wonder if this is because for her, from experience, political fighting is always about these issues and not real policy? She is great at fighting these things, but then when it counted she did not stand up to fight against the Republicans (bankruptcy bill, Iraq/Iran).

Fight what matters and be strong about the right issues.

Posted at April 18, 2008 11:15 AM in response to Hillary: Tough Questions At Debate "Nothing Like The Pressures You Face Inside White House"

Greg and all

I was not complaining about bias for Hillary at all. I actually don't think that is the issue at all.
Simply--by going back and forth on the spin on this--no matter how hard you may be on Hillary about her strategy--there is a legitimation to the idea that there are ties, that there is a relationship. (someone said this upthread too)

We should stop with the guilt by association. Period. Especially when it is as tenuous as this. I said I was going to push hard Greg but it is only because I think you are a good reporter.

And yes, Summer Girls. That's what it is.

Posted at April 17, 2008 12:29 PM in response to Reporter To Wolfson: What Does Hillary Think Of Bill's Pardons Of Weather Underground Members?