Oh, goody!

Now the Republican slime machine won't be able to hammer on this while attacking Obama's patriotism or try to paint him as "just another angry black man" - you know, like his lifelong friend Reverend Wright is.

After all, we on the left have never tried to paint their candidates with the Jones University, Jerry Fallwell brush with any success.

Posted at March 15, 2008 12:19 PM in response to Jeremiah Wright Steps Down From Obama Campaign

max w.

See my earlier post at 4:44.

I think Obama is leading by about 800,000 in the popular vote total right now.

Posted at March 14, 2008 5:07 PM in response to Source: Obama Tells Donors That Losing Pennsylvania By Less Than 10 Points Will Be "Victory"

LeroyS:

I'm a Hillary supporter and this spin doesn't make me angry. In fact, per the scenario I outlined that she would need to pull off, she DOES need a landslide in Pennsylvania (and Florida revote) to have a chance anymore.

However, could you explain why you think calling the Senator from "Hillarat" improves the dialog here - not to mention any chance of you being taken seriously?

Posted at March 14, 2008 5:01 PM in response to Source: Obama Tells Donors That Losing Pennsylvania By Less Than 10 Points Will Be "Victory"

Clinton is not "mathematically eliminated" as JoeLisboa claimed in an earlier post.

She is definitely behind with a long row to hoe, but here's the scenario I mentioned a few days ago - and Ed Rendell hinted at yesterday.

Clinton wins Pennsylvania by 15%. That could translate into a pickup of 300,000 popular votes on Obama's lead (based on 2 million Dems voting in primary - 3 million voted for Kerry in 2004 GE).

Florida revotes and she wins by 15%. Based on 2.5 million Democrats voting (3.5 million voted for Kerry in 2004), that's another 375,000 gain on Obama in popular vote. Now it's close. If she can win Michigan's revote by enough to squeak out a lead in the popular vote, she can argue to the superdelegates (who are not bound by anything but their preference under "the rules") - that she is, indeed, the "people's candidate." If she can woo the superdelegates to vote for her based on this, she can win - and the couple dozen ABHers on TPM boards can stamp their little feet and vote for Nader or something. Of course, THEY would never do anything to destroy the Democratic Party - that's Hillary's purview, right?

Anyhow, a longshot scenario for sure. But definitely not inconceivable in what is still a very close election with Obama in the lead right now. It's also certainly the reason for the Obama camps' hedging on Florida and Michigan re-votes.

Posted at March 14, 2008 4:44 PM in response to Source: Obama Tells Donors That Losing Pennsylvania By Less Than 10 Points Will Be "Victory"

roo_P

Yes, of course it's spin by Mr. Penn. That's my point. That Obama "won" Texas is Obama spin that you've bought into - that's why they do it. CW is that Hillary won Texas primary. I buy her and conventional wisdom "spin" on it.

BTW - Jesse Jackson, Jr. IS a national co-chair of Obama's campaign, so the lies . . . uh . . . I mean . . . spin . . . that he offered on Hillary's crying (she welled up, she didn't break down and cry) and tying it into his "knowledge" that she never cried (read: really cared) about the plight (of the black folks) in New Orleans is Obama campaign spin.

Do I really need to send links about the Obama caampaign blessing the NH and Nevada "stolen election" rumors by the Obama campaign "investigating" these charges. Funny, I never heard anything about the results of these "investigations."

Posted at March 14, 2008 10:26 AM in response to General Election Polls Show Hillary And Obama Roughly Even Against McCain In Pennsylvania

roo_P

Yes, of course it's spin by Mr. Penn. That's my point. That Obama "won" Texas is Obama spin that you've bought into - that's why they do it. CW is that Hillary won Texas primary. I buy her and conventional wisdom "spin" on it.

BTW - Jesse Jackson, Jr. IS a national co-chair of Obama's campaign, so the lies . . . uh . . . I mean . . . spin . . . that he offered on Hillary's crying (she welled up, she didn't break down and cry) and tying it into his "knowledge" that she never cried (read: really cared) about the plight (of the black folks) in New Orleans is Obama campaign spin.

Do I really need to send links about the Obama caampaign blessing the NH and Nevada "stolen election" rumors by the Obama campaign "investigating" these charges. Funny, I never heard anything about the results of these "investigations."

Posted at March 14, 2008 10:26 AM in response to General Election Polls Show Hillary And Obama Roughly Even Against McCain In Pennsylvania

Uh

The Clintons stole the New Hampshire and Nevada elections

and

Obama actually won Texas

uh

And it's the Clintons that started to play the race card right before the South Carolina primary (they were going for that huge Democratic bigot vote and kicking the most reliable voting bloc in the Democratic Party, I guess)

and

Obama national campaign co-chair Jesse Jackson, Jr. wondered why Hillary cried about her appearance but didn't shed a tear for the Hurricane Katrina victims (were lots of them black folks?)

No ridiculous campaign spinning by the Obama camp to see here. Move along.

Seriously, both sides "spin" the facts continuously and it's still close enough that both are still fighting to win it, especially the current underdog. Nothing unusual here. No one is trying to tear the Democratic Party apart. Honestly, is this the first primary campaign that some of you have ever witnessed? I think it's been realatively civil and ethical on both sides so far.

Stressing the points that polls show favor you (experience, savvy, having the inside-the-Beltway clout to get things done, etc.) - when you're the underdog who needs to gain ground on the leader - that's what's done in any campaign. It's nothing personal. It's politics.

But some folks are so blinded by their irrational, rightwing-cultivated Hillary hate that they assume ulterior motives in every move. Your candidate knows differently. Like they both said. They were friends before the campaign, and they'll be friends and supporters (maybe even on the same ticket) when this is over.

Blind hatred of a competitor is not more becoming on you because you think it's progressively based in your case.

Posted at March 13, 2008 8:36 PM in response to General Election Polls Show Hillary And Obama Roughly Even Against McCain In Pennsylvania

Well, as stated, since Obama will have the pledged delegate lead and will control the credentials committee, he will be able to apply politics as usual and take the nomination.

I realize he'd probably win it anyway, but it doesn't look any better to the Hillary-supporting wing of the Democratic Party than a backroom power grab by her would look to an Obama progressiver-than-thou.

Posted at March 13, 2008 4:28 PM in response to Florida Revote Plan In Trouble

What rules state that superdelegates must gravitate to the winner of the most pledged delegates and not to the winner of the popular vote?

And what was your position on such when Gore won the popular vote in 2000?

Just wondering.

Posted at March 13, 2008 12:37 PM in response to Rendell: Isn't Popular Vote As Important As Pledged Del Count?

Is Jesse "She cries about her appearance but not about Hurricane Katrina victims" Jackson, Jr. still a national co-chair of the Obama campaign?

No apology, even of the "if what I said offended you" variety necessary for key campaign spokesman or The Candidate when engaged in self-serving lies.

Did Ms. Powers ever apologize for calling Hillary a monster, or did she just apologize for being intemperate?

Seriously, just wondering.

And don't even get me started about the "revelations" that Hillary was dissing MLK right before the South Carolina primary. How convenient - the timing and all.

No race-baiting race card playing by the progressiver-than-thous to see here. Move along.

Posted at March 13, 2008 11:22 AM in response to Hillary: "I Regret Deeply" Ferraro's Remarks