Am I alone in thinking let them have Lieberman now? Let them have the senate now? They'll loose it at the end of the year and they will get the blame for whatever comes out of there between now and election day.

Posted at September 6, 2008 2:31 PM in response to Election Central Saturday Roundup

Aren't 527s supposed to advocate for issues? What issue are they advocating? I'm not sure "Clinton is going to loose the nomination" is a valid issue according to the FEC.

Posted at May 15, 2008 2:32 PM in response to Here's The New Oregon Ad By Pro-Hillary Group -- No Mention Of Obama

This is the 2nd ad Smith has been running here, he has had another one running, though maybe this one replaces it, where he attacks BOTH Novick and Merkley in the same ad, which I thought was a novel concept.

Posted at May 15, 2008 2:10 PM in response to New GOP Attack Ad Suggests Republican Incumbent Senator Is Vulnerable

So essentially what he's saying is you shouldn't trust the rumors about a pro Obama pool of delegates but instead there is a pro Clinton pool of delegates. Ok. Yeah. Sure. Right. 28 more days of this nonsense to go.

Posted at May 6, 2008 4:37 PM in response to Harold Ickes: We Have A "Number" Of Super-Dels Ready To Move To Hillary

I've been thinking about just this topic lately. There is a vast wealth of ammo against Clinton that Obama has refused to touch. For the past few months the Republicans have largely ignored her and trained all their fire on Obama. On top of all that all this information from the Clinton past has never really been used when it was Hillary Clinton that is accountable to voters. I really think this idea that she is more vetted is a total fallacy.

Posted at April 17, 2008 2:40 PM in response to Plouffe: Republicans Will Attack Hillary Too, Remember?

Way too late. Honestly the way Senator Clinton has run her campaign is one of the biggest concerns with how she would run the country. The premium she places on loyalty over competence reminds me of Bush quite honestly. All the infighting amongst the staff and her inability to put it to an end is strike #2. Do we really need a Whitehouse that fights more with itself then with anyone else? I don't think the country, as sorry a shape as it's in, can afford turf wars and bruised egos. Finally for all her claim of superior electability her campaign has been very poorly run. She had every single possible advantage when this started and now look where she is? While some might lay the blame at one staffer or another she is ultimately the one in charge. This was a leadership test and she has failed it miserably.

Posted at April 7, 2008 1:34 PM in response to Report: Hillary Demanded Penn's Removal After Colombia Story Hit

You know, what's interesting to me with this attempt to blame Obama for killing the revote people seem to forget that it was the Clinton campaign originally opposed to it. They wanted the delegation sat as they voted and it wasn't until many weeks later as Obama was on his 11 contest winning streak that they started getting nervous and saying hey, let's have a revote because they knew they needed more delegates. Maybe if the Clinton campaign had been onboard the revote train from the beginning instead of blocking any talk of one it might have actually happened. Though I wouldn't want a little thing like the truth or a fact to get in the way of a good Obama bashing session.

And for those of you who are saying it was his choice to remove his name, again, a pesky little fact. I know, I know, you can close your eyes and stick your fingers in your ears and humm, but... the agreement that all the campaigns signed said that the candidate would not campaign in and would not participate in unsanctioned elections. Now I don't know about you, but a phrase like not participate in has a pretty basic simple english meaning... something like... I don't know... taking your name off the ballot so you don't, you know, participate.

In fact it was just this move by the Clinton campaign that sparked her pronouncement that the election would not count. You see she was defending leaving her name on the ballot in violation of the agreement saying it didn't matter if she followed through on that part of it or not since the vote wouldn't count.

Posted at April 4, 2008 9:56 PM in response to Obama Campaign Calls For 50-50 Split Of Michigan Delegates

This is excellent news!!! For Hillary!!

No, no, no, no, no. There shall be no polls that show Obama up in Pennsylvania. No polls Camp Clinton can point to as evidence of yet another dramatic comeback.

Posted at April 2, 2008 11:23 AM in response to Poll Gives Obama The Lead In Pennsylvania

Would some reporter please call the Clintons on their hypocrisy. It takes alot of balls for the campaign that told students in Iowa that they shouldn't participate, that sued in Nevada to block shift workers from participating, that challenged entire precincts in texas to disqualify voters that it is not they but Senator Obama that wants to block people from voting. When will someone ask her about this?

And that doesn't even include Florida and Michigan. If their voices were so important why was the Senator herself telling them they don't count? Why did her own senior advisor Ickes actually cast a vote that stripped those states of their delegations? Why did her own campaign chairman Mcauliffe advocate a similar punishment for Michigan in 2004 when he was DNC chairman? How does she square these facts with her assertion now that it really is all Senator Obama's fault?

Posted at April 1, 2008 12:36 PM in response to Hillary Telling Local Media In Future Voting States That Obama Wants Race To End

One nitpick I have with his plan is that he seems to want to count the superdelegates in his split. If anyone in the delegation deserves to be left out its the people who caused and failed to resolve this problem in the first place. Michigan has 128 pledged delegates and 28 superdelegates.

I say no superdelegates at all, award half the pledged delegates on the basis of the original primary, giving Obama the uncommitted votes. Award the other half split based on the national pledged delegate totals after all the primaries.

You can't split them based on popular vote since some states have caucuses, Washington had a caucus that awarded delegates and a primary that did not, which do you count? Like them or not caucuses are part of the process and if you are awarding extra delegates based on national vote totals then caucus states have just as much of a right to participate in that alocation then those that have primaries. Besides the Clinton argument on caucuses is essentially "That damn Barack Obama out worked and out organized us in caucus states. Shame on you Barack Obama for running a better campaign." Not exactly an argument that should be rewarded. Once all is said and done you will essentially have a 50/50 split but in more democratic means and the issue is off the table for Clinton.

Posted at March 31, 2008 4:51 PM in response to Michigan Congressman Floats Compromise For State's Delegates