Hillary Clinton won a hefty 1,600 convention delegates in six months of primaries. A big question now is whether to let them vote at the Democratic convention.
High on the list of matters that Sen. Clinton and likely Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama are negotiating as her campaign closes down is whether and how her name is put into nomination at the August convention in Denver, said party activists in both camps.
A full roll-call vote that reminds everyone how close she came to being the nominee could reveal party rifts going into the fall campaign, they said. But keeping her name off the roll call could anger her supporters.
It is a "bone of contention" in the negotiations between the Clinton and Obama camps, said Democratic consultant Donna Brazile.
The Obama campaign said Monday that the Illinois senator would accept the nomination at the 76,000-seat stadium where the Denver Broncos football team plays so that thousands of nondelegates could attend. But the campaign hasn't settled other key questions about the convention, including whether Sen. Clinton's name will be put into nomination, said Obama spokesman Bill Burton.
Sen. Clinton's campaign office didn't answer emails seeking comment.
Under party rules, Sen. Clinton's huge delegate count gives her the right to put her name into nomination. "But do you do it?" asked Ms. Brazile. "Politically, does it heighten tensions?"
It's incredible that Brazille has so much say in the party; and sad that if Barack wins, her influence will only grow. However, I could see where Obama would not want a roll-call vote. This would undermine the "coronation" of Prince Barack.
A fuller reckoning of the extent of the infighting in Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign began to emerge today -- just as Democrats were stepping up their efforts to unite around Barack Obama as the party's presidential candidate.
In the August edition of Vanity Fair, Gail Sheehy, a Clinton biographer, describes a candidate who deliberately neglected to set up clear lines of authority, opting instead for an organisation which was a "team of rivals".
The picture of discord emerges a day after Bill Clinton held his first extensive telephone conversation with Obama since his wife's defeat a month ago.
The discussion seen as an important and much-needed symbol of healing between the two camps. The Obama campaign is anxious to win over Hillary Clinton's supporters -- women, working-class white men, and Latinos -- especially in the swing states where she won the primaries and to unite the party before the coming contest against Republican John McCain.
A Clinton insider said the former president was committed to helping Obama win the election against McCain. The insider dismissed media reports of continued rancour between the former president and Obama.
BRISTOL, Va. — Senator Barack Obama moved forcefully into the general election on Thursday, placing his stamp on the Democratic Party apparatus and holding a private nighttime meeting with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in an effort to unify Democrats.
A day after her campaign said she would end her quest for the presidential nomination, Mrs. Clinton disavowed an effort by her supporters to pressure Mr. Obama into choosing her as his running mate. She said that they were acting on their own and that the decision was “Senator Obama’s and his alone.”
The meeting between the two former rivals in Washington was initiated by Mrs. Clinton after Mr. Obama spent the day in Virginia, a state symbolic of his efforts to expand the Democratic reach.
The senators instructed their aides not to disclose details of the meeting. They issued an unusual joint statement late Thursday, saying, “Senator Clinton and Senator Obama met tonight and had a productive discussion about the important work that needs to be done to succeed in November.”
CNN) — Oprah Winfrey is ecstatic over Barack Obama’s apparent victory in this year’s Democratic presidential race.
"I'm euphoric, I've been doing the happy dance all day,” she said in a statement released Wednesday I'm so proud of Barack and Michelle and what this means for all of us, the new possibilities for our country.”
The talk show host, who campaigned for Obama in several key early primary states, added: “And if he wants me to, I'm ready to go door to door."
Get used to saying it because the Democrats have just chosen the wrong nominee. Obama will not win in November. Not unless him and his supporters do some major damage control with Clinton supporters, which would mean reaching out to them in a way they seem incapable of.
The Obama supporters who think Clinton played dirty, haven't seen anything yet. Obama's empty record will finally be in the spotlight. He will have to be much clearer on how he intends to bring change, especially to the voters in middle and rural America. He will now have to puth forth credible, detailed plans rather than rely on lofty themes and buzz words. Good plans, what a concept!
There are already millions of Clinton supporters who have vowed not to vote for Obama. Some of them will not vote for him even if Hillary is on the ticket. There has been too much damage done by his surrogates, his supporters, the media and himself. Obama has a lot of work to do to win over Clinton's army. Whatever he does now will probably be received as disingenuous and way too late.
McCain has some work to do as well. If he can recapture the same spirit of his 2000 campaign then it will be no contest. This is doubtful. He's alligned himself to Bush way too many times since then. However, if he can win over many of Clinton's supporters and enough of the more conservative independents, he will be our next president.
If Hillary is picked as Obama's running mate, then it's hard to see how he loses. However, I hope to God she doesn't choose to go this route if she is offered the spot. I think there are better opportunities ahead for her, and she would be far more effective in a different role.
So for all the pundits and Obama supporters trashing Hillary for not conceding tonight, I say, fuck off already and get used to saying it, "President McCain."
On Sunday's "This Week w/George Stephanopoulos," Howard Dean blasts the main stream media on the "enormous amount of sexism in this campaign." He adds that there has been major networks that have featured "numerous, outrageous comments, that if the words were reversed and the comments were about race, the people would have been fired."
WASHINGTON--Likely Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) told reporters on Monday he told Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) that "once the dust settled" he wants to meet with her "at a time and place of her choosing." He also personally apologized to her for the "offensive remarks" of his long-time friend, Father Michael Pfleger.
Terry McAliffe dicusses Sen. Clinton's crushing victory in Puerto Rico on CNN and blasts the DNC RBC's undemocratic decision to strip 4 of Clinton's MI delegates and hand them to Obama.
(CNN) — It was a clean sweep for Hillary Clinton in Puerto Rico in every demographic group, even those groups that are usually firmly in Barack Obama's camp.
The Illinois senator usually wins among males, young voters, those who attended college, and those with higher incomes.
But in the Puerto Rico primary, Clinton won 70 percent of the male vote, 65 percent of voters under 30, 70 percent of voters who attended college, and 66 percent of voters with an income of over $50,000.
Clinton also performed strongly among those demographic groups that have long constituted the backbone of her base.
She won 70 percent of female voters, 77 percent of those over 65, 69 percent who did not attend college, and 71 percent of voters with an income of $15,000 or less.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Democratic Party leaders agreed Saturday seat Michigan and Florida delegates with half votes into this summer's convention with a compromise that left Barack Obama on the verge of the nomination but riled Hillary Rodham Clinton backers who threatened to fight to the August convention.
"Hijacking four delegates is not a good way to start down the path of party unity," said adviser Harold Ickes.
Clinton's camp maintains she was entitled to four additional Michigan delegates.
The decision by the party's Rules Committee raised slightly the total delegates Obama needs to clinch the nomination. Clinton advisers conceded privately he will likely hit the magic number after the final primaries are held Tuesday night, but said the ruling threatened to dash any hopes of a unified party.
"Mrs. Clinton has told me to reserve her right to take this to the Credentials Committee" at the convention, said Ickes, who is a member of the Rules Committee that voted Saturday.
The resolution increased the number of delegates needed to clinch the nomination to 2,118, leaving Obama just 66 delegates away from the majority needed to secure the nomination.
Clinton's camp insisted Obama shouldn't get any pledged delegates in Michigan since he chose not to put his name on the ballot, and she should get 73 pledged delegates with 55 uncommitted. Obama's team insisted the only fair solution was to split the pledged delegates in half between the two campaigns, with 64 each.
The committee agreed on a compromise offered by the Michigan Democratic Party that would split the difference, allowing Clinton to take 69 delegates and Obama 59. Each delegate would get half a vote at the convention, according to the deal.
The deal passed 19-8. Thirteen members of the committee had endorsed Clinton for president, so she wasn't even able to keep her supporters together.
Allan Katz, a Rules Committee member and Obama supporter, said the Obama campaign had enough votes on the committee to support the campaign's proposal to split the delegates 50-50 in Michigan. Ultimately, the campaign agreed instead to support the compromise negotiated by the Michigan Democratic Party as a way to resolve the matter.
"The ironic thing is Obama had the majority of that committee," Katz said. "The Obama campaign wants to move on and compromise. We did not muscle our way through it. It was a wise decision from a well run and wise campaign that will reverberate."
But the irate reaction from Clinton's campaign and her supporters in the sharply divided audience shows Obama will have a long way to go to bring the party together after a long and divisive primary.
"We just blew the election!" a woman in the audience shouted. The crowd was divided between cheering Obama supporters and booing Clinton supporters.
"This isn't unity! Count all the votes!" another audience member yelled.
Jim Roosevelt, co-chair of the committee, tried repeatedly to gavel it to order. "You are dishonoring your candidate when you disrupt the speakers," he chided.
There are three primaries left in the contest — Puerto Rico on Sunday and Montana and South Dakota on Tuesday. Obama should get at least 30 delegates in the remaining primaries, meaning he has to pick up no more than about 30 more superdelegates even if he loses Puerto Rico and South Dakota.
He will not clinch the nomination this weekend, barring a barrage of superdelegates Sunday.
The committee also unanimously agreed to seat the Florida delegation based on the outcome of the January primary, with 105 pledged delegates for Clinton and 67 for Obama, but with each delegate getting half a vote as a penalty.
Proponents of full seating continuously interrupted the committee members as they explained their support of the compromise, then supporters of the deal shouted back.
"Shut up!" one woman shouted at another.
"You shut up!" the second woman shouted back.
Obama picked up a total of 32 delegates in Michigan, including superdelegates who have already committed, and 36 in Florida. Clinton picked up 38 in Michigan, including superdelegates, and 56.5 in Florida.
Obama's total increased to 2,052, and Clinton had 1,877.5.
A proposal favored by Clinton that would have fully seated the Florida delegation fully in accordance with the January primary went down with 12 votes in support and 15 against.
Tina Flournoy, who led Clinton's efforts to seat both states' delegations with full voting power, said she was disappointed by the outcome but knew the Clinton position had "no chance" of passing the committee.
"I understand the rules. ... I can tell you one thing that has driven these rules was being a party of inclusion," Flournoy said. "I wish my colleagues will vote differently."
Alice Huffman, a Clinton supporter on the committee, explained that the compromise giving delegates half votes was the next best thing to full seating.
"We will leave here more united than we came," she said.
Some audience members heckled her in response. "Lipstick on a pig!" one shouted.
Associated Press writer Stephen Ohlemacher contributed to this report.
(CNN) -- Sen. Barack Obama said Saturday that he has resigned from the church where controversial sermons by his former pastor and other ministers created repeated political headaches for the Democratic frontrunner.
"We don't want to have to answer for everything that's stated in the church," Obama told reporters. "We also don't want the church subjected to the scrutiny that a presidential campaign legitimately undergoes."
Obama said he was resigning "with some sadness."
"This is not a decision I come to lightly," he said.
The resignation comes days after the Rev. Michael Pfleger, a visiting Catholic priest, mocked Obama's Democratic rival during a sermon at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, Illinois.
In the video, Pfleger wipes his eyes with a handkerchief and suggests that Sen. Hillary Clinton wept because she thought that as a white person and the wife of a former president, she was entitled to the presidency.
"And then, out of nowhere, came 'Hey, I'm Barack Obama,' " Pfleger said "And [Clinton] said, 'Oh, damn, where did you come from? I'm white! I'm entitled! There's a black man stealing my show!' "
Pfleger is a Catholic priest at St. Sabina Roman Catholic Church on Chicago's southwest side. He is also a friend of Trinity's former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, from whom Obama distanced himself in April.
Just a quick note, there's a recurring talking point coming from the Obama side regarding FL, and that is that we should respect the voters who did not show up for their election. Donna Brazile brought this up while questioning State Sen. Arthenia Joyner after Joyner's presentation and plea to count every vote cast. The flawed insinuation is that only Obama supporters stayed home. How can they be sure Clinton would have not turned out even more votes if they were allowed to campaign.
WASHINGTON (CNN) — After weeks of planning by unions, women’s rights groups and others supporting Hillary Clinton's push to seat Florida and Michigan delegates at the Democratic convention this summer, supporters of the New York senator's presidential bid arrived in the nation’s capital by the busload Friday in advance of rallies outside Saturday's Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting.
“I’m hoping we restore 100 percent of the delegates from both Michigan and Florida and the popular vote will also be restored,” said Karen Feldman, an organizer of the “Count Every Vote” rally. “…I firmly believe that in Florida that was the purest election we’ve ever had, and I think that those votes should stand where they are and should be counted the way they are.”
Florida Demands Representation, another sponsoring group pushing for the January 29 vote to be recognized by the national party, said Friday it was expecting 400 to 500 supporters to arrive by Saturday. “The Democratic party is in danger in Florida,” said organizer James Hannagan.
The seating of the Florida and Michigan delegations is a priority for Clinton, who won both unsanctioned contests and is currently trailing frontrunner Barack Obama by 202 delegates in the latest CNN count.
Hannagan said that if Clinton is not the Democratic nominee, some members of his forum will vote for McCain, write in Hillary’s name or not vote at all.
The Clinton campaign has tacitly encouraged pressure on RBC members meeting to resolve the controversy, but has denied any role in protests planned for Saturday.
"Why is it that of all the wonderful Catholic priests in the Chicago Archdiocese, Obama long ago chose Pfleger to hang with?" Catholic League President Bill Donohue said in a statement. "Truth be known, Pfleger has a very troubling history."
“Senator Obama says he wants to bring people together. Then why does he choose as his clerical friends people like Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Father Pfleger?" Donohue also said. "They are two peas in a pod, both equally divisive, separated only by the color of their skin.”
Obama could certainly become one of those candidates in the days ahead - at the time of this writing, his mathematical advantage is considerable. His appeal also is clear, and his campaign has been strong.
But Clinton is the strongest Democratic candidate for South Dakota.
Her mastery of complex policy detail is broad and deep, and her experience as a senator and former first lady matches that.
Measured against her opponent, Clinton is philosophically more moderate. That is likely a good thing for South Dakota.
Clinton's energy policy is forward thinking and wise. She advocates a broad federal research initiative to help solve our looming oil crisis. It's a plan that would join university researchers, private industry and individual inventors behind a common goal.
Is ethanol part of the answer? Clinton believes it is but not necessarily corn ethanol.
That is not precisely the answer South Dakota wants to hear. Corn-based ethanol has been a boon for farmers here. But the simple fact is that she probably is correct. Advances in cellulosic ethanol technologies could render corn ethanol obsolete and wasteful. Happily, South Dakota is poised to be a major player in the push to experiment with other kinds of ethanol.
Clinton has demonstrated a real commitment to Native American issues and will have visited several South Dakota reservations before the race is over. Clinton is precisely correct when she says that people outside the region have a poor understanding of the troubling trends on our reservations. Federal attention could help. That includes but is not limited to higher-ranking posts in the federal bureaucracy.
Her truly universal health care plan would be welcomed by thousands of South Dakotans. Even on reservations, where health care is nominally universal already, such a plan would be welcome. The federal government would never be allowed to subject everyday Americans to the kind of care Native Americans living on reservations routinely receive.
Obama is justifiably credited as a powerful speaker, but Clinton holds her own easily. As those who have attended her South Dakota rallies can attest, she is quick on her feet and energetic. She frames her ideas clearly in speeches and answers questions with genuine directness.
Her resilience and determination never should be questioned. She has met or overcome every challenge or roadblock in her way, and there have been many. Her determination to carry the nomination process through to its real conclusion has perhaps earned her a grudging respect from those who would never support her.
Clinton might not win this race. In fact, it's a long shot. But whatever some might say, the race is not over, and her name is on the ballot. Win or lose, she's also the best Democratic candidate for South Dakota.
Texas Democratic Party Vice Chairwoman Roy LaVerne Brooks is a superdelegate who endorsed Barack Obama in March.
The longtime party activist from Fort Worth is also running to unseat current state party Chairman Boyd Richie.
Imagine her surprise Tuesday when she received a disturbing phone call from a national Obama operative who is part of a group that parachuted into Texas to work on this weekend's state party convention.
Roy says the operative, Rudy Shank, told her that unless she drops her candidacy to unseat Richie at the state convention she will not be going to the national convention as a superdelegate.
A deal is offered She said Shank politely told her that "if there was any way I could not run, it would be appreciated because they would like a convention without hurt feelings."
Shank told her he could make a deal with her. He said Glen Maxey, the former Austin state representative whom the Obama campaign hired as its convention director, told him that if Brooks gave up her vice chairmanship to run against Richie, she would lose her status as superdelegate if she lost.
State chairs and vice chairs are automatically members of the Democratic National Committee, which makes them superdelegates. Brooks' term as vice chair ends this weekend.
A quiet rule change Brooks said that was news to her. About 20 years ago, then-Chairman Bob Slagle put in a rule saying that while the election for vice chair would take place at the state convention in June, the term would extend until the end of the national convention. The idea was that the vice chair should be rewarded with a national convention at the end of his or her term, not at the beginning of it.
Houstonian Carl Davis, who served as vice chairman from 1998 to 2000, went as a delegate to the convention in Los Angeles that nominated Al Gore.
"I remember seeing the rule in writing," he said.
But apparently the rule has been quietly changed in recent years.
Slagle says he recently learned of the change, though he didn't recall whether the rule was a written one or a "handshake agreement."
Under the new rule, Brooks would lose her superdelegate status if she fails to unseat Richie. But if she backs out, Richie could name her to one of three "add-on" superdelegate slots.
He is required to nominate at least two people for each of the three seats, to be approved by the nominations committee and then ratified by the convention. Traditionally, the nominations committee approves the chairman's first choice of delegates.
There are ironies in the request by an Obama operative that Brooks back off the chairman's race.
One is that she is an African-American. The state Democratic chairman has traditionally been a white male, with an occasional white female slipping in.
Another is that Brooks is casting herself as a "change" from the good ol' boy system, and Obama's campaign is all about changing the good ol' boy system. Brooks' chances of unseating Richie are enhanced by several thousand change-oriented newcomers who will swell the convention to about triple its normal size.
Brooks said she told Shank she would stay in the race.
"I made the comment that I may need to jump over to Hillary's side because I'm not going to be treated like a dish rag," she said.
I asked if she was serious.
"I'm very serious if they keep trying to get me out of the race and I learn that Obama is behind it," she said.
The job of uniting the Democratic Party after a long and divisive primary season just got tougher, thanks to yet another Chicago Christian leader who's a longtime friend and associate of Illinois Sen. Barack Obama.
Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., has rejected the comments of another controversial pastor who sharply mocked his Democratic nomination rival, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y. (Reuters/Getty Images)Precisely at the time when Obama's camp needs to be building bridges to supporters of New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, the Rev. Michael Pfleger, who's known Obama for about 20 years, took to the pulpit of Obama's church Sunday and ridiculed Clinton, using racially divisive language.
The timing could not be worse.
The Democratic National Committee's rules and bylaws committee will meet Saturday to hash out how to deal with the delegations of Florida and Michigan, which are going to be punished for ignoring party rules and holding early primaries.
Clinton supporters plan on staging protests, insisting that the committee count the votes as cast, even though no candidate campaigned in either state and Obama wasn't on the ballot in Michigan.
But hanging over the Saturday meeting will be the mocking comments made by Pfleger from the same Chicago pulpit that Obama's pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, used racially inflammatory language about America to Obama's regret.
Obama was forced to say Thursday he was "deeply disappointed" by Pfleger's pulpit performance in which he mocked Clinton by pretending to bawl after saying she was "entitled" to the nomination because she was white and Bill Clinton's wife.
"There's a black man stealing my show," Pfleger wailed in his mock Clinton voice.
Pfleger quickly followed Obama's statement with his own apology, but the Clinton camp was not mollified.
"This is going to hurt Obama's efforts right now to bring the party together coming out of the primaries Tuesday," ABC's chief political correspondent George Stephanopoulos said today on "Good Morning America."
"The feelings between Clinton supporters and Obama supporters are rubbed very, very raw. This makes that worse," Stephanopoulos said.
But by delivering his remarks, Father Pfleger seems to have officially submitted his entry to the What Else Can We At Trinity Do to Further Assure that the United States Does Not Have Its First African-American President Any Time Soon? video competition. And this application has “Finalist” marked all over it.
It achieves this status because Father Pfleger has more than a passing acquaintance with the person who stands on the verge of winning the Democratic Party’s nomination.
His precise relation to Senator Obama is presently being pieced together and rehearsed in articles across the internet (such as this one, and this one). As of now, it seems fair to say that Pfleger (who has suddenly disappeared from the candidate’s website) and Obama have known and liked one another for a long time. The former appears to have financially contributed to previous campaigns and to have worked for the present one prior to the Iowa Caucus.
According to widely circulated reports (although I have not been able to track down the original source in the few hours since this story broke) Obama once referred to Pfleger as a “spiritual adviser” in a 2004 Chicago Sun-Times article.
After watching -- slackjawed -- Father Michael Pfleger’s remarks about Hillary Clinton and White privilege I have queries. First, what is it about that particular pulpit that brings out the inner Chris Rock in assorted Men of God?
Second, are there any guys on the face of the earth having more fun than the four fellows in robes whooping it up directly behind Father Pfleger? Third, are we going to be told by Obama operatives that the remarks were taken out of context? Fourth, and most importantly, what will be the fallout for the Obama campaign?
In a general election a presidential candidate typically moves to the center. It is now going to be even harder for Obama to do that since America keeps seeing footage of his friends who stand to the left of Fidel Castro.
But that's not all. The Senator from Illinois has his share of difficulties with White Blue Collar voters. I have observed elsewhere that this group loathes this type of rhetoric (unless it comes from Chris Rock).
There's more to be concerned about. Obama has demonstrated some weakness with Catholic voters. The fact that he finds himself receiving glowing praise from a priest who has been in a running, public feud with his local Cardinal might aggravate the problem.
Let's not forget Senator Clinton. She surely will chime in on this controversy later today. It will deflect attention from her own recent gaffes. And it will strengthen her supporters’ conviction that the racial hang-ups of Obama’s inner circle will accrue to John McCain’s greater glory. Too, there is more than a touch of misogyny in the priest's oratory and (as the Male Space Invader Rick Lazio learned the hard way) many women voters rally to Hillary when they feel a gendered slight.
I don’t doubt that the Senator’s aforementioned words of regret are sincere. I don’t doubt that he truly deplores this type of rhetoric. But how many more radical Left- wing confidantes from the South Side can undecided voters withstand before they start questioning the man's claims about being a unifier who is above Red States and Blue States, Republican and Democrat, Conservative and Liberal?
The folks at MSNBC should take a look at this video before they do one of their disingenuous, defensive self-analysis that they do every now and then, after they get called on their bias. How about all talking heads, like Anderson Cooper, that got all defensive about what Bill said lately? I'd like to have him and Blitzer strapped downed and forced to look at this.
While Mr. Obama has said he would depart from the Bush administration policy of refusing to meet with certain nations unless they meet preconditions, he has also said he would reserve the right to choose which leaders he would meet, should he choose to meet with them at all.
The issue presents one of Mr. Obama’s biggest political and policy tests yet as he appears headed toward a general-election contest against Senator John McCain of Arizona: How to continue to add nuance to a policy argument that he views as a winning one, without playing into a fierce round of accusations that he is either shifting positions or appeasing the enemy.
Already the McCain campaign was accusing Mr. Obama of “backtracking,” particularly in the case of whether he would talk with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran.
Mr. McCain, who has almost daily raised Mr. Obama’s stated willingness to meet with the Iranians, hit the theme again Wednesday, asking a crowd in Reno, Nev., “Why is it that Senator Obama wants to sit down with the president of Iran, but hasn’t yet sat down with General Petraeus, the leader of our troops?”
Later, Mr. Obama dismissed the critique, saying: “This is a typical sarcastic comment that doesn’t have anything to do with the substance and is patently untrue, since I just saw General Petraeus when he was testifying in Washington.”
I think somebody needs to teach Mr. Obama the meaning of "sit down."
This week, Mr. Obama said that he was still considering meeting with Iranian leaders, though he would not necessarily guarantee a direct meeting with Mr. Ahmadinejad.
“There is no reason why we would necessarily meet with Ahmadinejad before we know that he is actually in power,” Mr. Obama told reporters. “He is not the most powerful person in Iran.”
Last week, Mr. Obama offered a similarly nuanced explanation about meeting with President Raúl Castro of Cuba, saying he would do so only “at a time and place of my choosing.”
The caveats belie the simple answer Mr. Obama gave during a debate last summer, when the issue was first raised in a major public forum. Without hesitation or qualification, Mr. Obama said he would hold direct talks with America’s enemies, drawing strong and immediate criticism from his rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.
“Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?” asked Stephen Sixta, a video producer who submitted the question for the CNN/YouTube Democratic debate.
Mr. Obama, the first candidate to respond, answered, “I would.”
Several aides immediately thought it was a mistake and sought to dial back his answer. But on a conference call the morning after the debate, Mr. Obama told his advisers that he had meant what he said and thought the answer crystallized how he differed from his rivals.
“I think that it is an example of how stunted our foreign policy debates have become over the last eight years that this is an issue that political opponents try to seize on,” Mr. Obama said in an interview on Wednesday. “It is actually a pretty conventional view of how diplomacy should work traditionally that has fallen into disrepute in Republican circles and in Washington.”
Even after Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton called his position naïve, Mr. Obama refused to shy away from it, at times speaking explicitly in terms of a potential meeting with Mr. Ahmadinejad.
But in the last few weeks Mr. McCain and the Republican National Committee have attacked Mr. Obama on his position more fiercely and consistently than his Democratic rivals ever did, with an especially acute focus on Mr. Ahmadinejad, who recently called Israel “a stinking corpse.”
And Mr. Obama and his advisers have responded with more policy details and a more stringent defense. They have, for instance, said that Mr. Obama’s opponents had used his comments that he would be willing to meet with the Iranian leadership — who they do not necessarily define as Mr. Ahmadinejad — to assert incorrectly that he had definite plans to do so.
They have also drawn a distinction between “preconditions” and “preparations” for such talks. In saying he would not impose preconditions on discussions, Mr. Obama said he was referring, for instance, to a Bush administration policy of making high-level meetings contingent upon Iran’s agreement to suspend its uranium enrichment program. Mr. Obama said he viewed its suspension as a goal of any talks, not a starting point for them.
But, he said, he would order lower-level preparatory talks to determine Iran’s motives before agreeing to higher-level meetings.
In the interview Wednesday, Mr. Obama conceded that he might need to do a better job explaining his policy.
The pro-Obama case against MSNBC's pro-Obama political coverage
Dangerous Liaison Even Obama supporters admit there's a pro-Obama bias at MSNBC. Their reputation is finally becoming mainstream.
And this was only the latest example of the network's undeniable Obama favoritism. David Shuster's comment about the Clintons' "pimping out" their daughter, Chelsea, was clearly boneheaded, but, as Clinton campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson pointed out, it caused such a stir among Clintonites because it highlighted the rest of the network's anti-Hillary coverage. Now, that's not to say that their slant has been bad for business; to the contrary. And it has certainly made for some enjoyable television--Matthews is often supremely engaging (who, after all, does not enjoy watching someone exclaim that seeing Obama speak gives him a "thrill going up my leg"), and however withering he can be, Olbermann is frequently hilarious. But the network's coverage has helped create a bubble around Obama supporters that in the end is neither healthy nor desirable.
In fact, MSNBC's bias has actually hurt the Illinois senator. After all, it was the Obama cheerleading from MSNBC (among others) that helped lead to Clinton's New Hampshire comeback. And even if you think (as I do) that the Clintons have made too big of a deal out of the "sexist" and "unfair" portrayal their candidate has received in the press, if you watch enough MSNBC, you realize that their claim isn't without truth. How could you believe otherwise when Olbermann, with his trademark hauteur, told Hillary that "voluntarily or inadvertently, you are still awash in this filth [of the campaign]," or when Matthews took such self-evident glee in trouncing Clinton in between the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary? Similarly now, by mocking Clinton's decision to stay in the race, Olbermann has only bolstered her argument that "the boys" are trying to push her out. And finally, on a number of primary nights, but most notably in Pennsylvania and Ohio/Texas, MSNBC has become so excited by early exit polls that it has raised expectations that Obama ultimately could not live up to.
The problem here is that when supposedly "straight" news anchors phrase questions in leading ways, and report one campaign's spin as if it were fact, it distorts what is actually going on in the campaign--even for those of us who make a living obsessing over and writing about politics. And when anchormen themselves shill for Obama, the distinction between his talking points and the truth grows even blurrier still. So, as much as I find MSNBC entertaining, their creation of a parallel, pro-Obama universe is the type of thing I'd expect of Fox. That's when I know it's time to change the channel.
Isaac Chotiner is a frequent contributor to The New Republic.
Great clip from today's Hardball. Joan Walsh takes on Chris Matthews and Joe Madison and warns Obama supporters about possible backlash of their demonizing of the Clintons and confirms the involvement of the Obama campain in pushing this story.
I'm looking at my Google page and this is about the only story on the page that is not bashing Hillary and actually takes the time to put things in their proper perspective.
I'm looking at a tvr'd "Meet the Press" right now and the Hillary bashing continues with a panel basically dedicating this episode as a "How Hillary Lost" show. There's Maureen Dowd telling us that the calls of sexism by the Hillary side are "poppycock;" Doris Kearns Goodwin ending a thought with "or God forbid what this thought suggested." The only moderate voice seemed to come from Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post who said she "would differ a little bit from some of the people around the table who thought this was intentional."
If you go to the page of the TPM YouTube video, you will see the most hateful, vitriolic, vile comments against Hillary to date. It's so obvious that the Obama side, who is fixated on thrusting the final dagger in the Clinton campaign, is not interested in anything the Clinton supporters have to bring to party. They really feel they can win without us. For me, this weekend is the final straw. I've finally decided that I will not be voting for Obama if he is the nominee. I've been on the fence for quite a while on what to to if he was the nominee, but the Obama side and the media have, just pushed me over. I'm still not sure if I can find myself voting for a Republican but I will either be staying home or writing in Hillary's name if she is not the nominee.
The consequences could be stark if McCain wins. However, in the case Hillary is not the nominee, I think it would be better to lose the presidency than to lend legitimacy to the wing of this party that finds it OK to disenfranchise millions of voters to win, and finds it OK to use a sexist, biased media as a weapon against a fellow Dem. They apparently are OK with swift-boating fellow Dems and the left-wing blogs like Daily Kos, with their juvenile, vile community, is OK with not only lifting their preferred candidate but destroying the opposing Democrat. The left-wing blogoshere, which has spent the last eight years complaining about right-wing tactics, is guilty of behaving in the same manner. For those of you who will no doubt point to NO QUARTER, I say that this is just one site who is just reacting to these tactics and their resentment stems from, to a large degree, the lack of substance from Obama and the vitriolic attacks of his supporters toward Sen. Clinton and her supporters. Most of this is defensive as opposed to what Obama supporters have managed to do, destroy the the original "inevitable" candidate.
I'm not OK with being forced to follow the "it" crowd; a fashion statement. I'd rather lose and pick my battles with McCain than be told to follow a candidate or face "race riots" as Michelle Bernard said on MSNBC on 5/19/08. I'm not OK with being told I'm a racist because I'm not following the "black candidate" after it took months for that community to even consider him black.
I'm not OK with the media choosing our candidate. I'm not OK with Donna Brazile asking me for money on behalf of the party, when she's done her best to promote her candidate with her "undeclared" support, while also, doing her best to "send a message" and make sure Florida voters pay the maximum price for what Florida Republican politicians created.
This party, which started this campaign with an embarrassment of riches, has exposed their sores and is now infected.
The signature defect of modern political journalism is that it has shredded the ideal of proportionality.
Important stories, sometimes the product of months of serious reporting, that in an earlier era would have captured the attention of the entire political-media community and even redirected the course of a presidential campaign, these days can disappear with barely a whisper.
Trivial stories—the kind that are tailor-made for forwarding to your brother-in-law or college roommate with a wisecracking note at the top—can dominate the campaign narrative for days.
Who can guess what stories will cause the media machine to rev up its hype jets?
Actually, I have gotten pretty good at guessing which ones will. So have many of my colleagues and a generation of political operatives.
This weekend’s uproar over Hillary Clinton invoking the assassination of Robert Kennedy as rationale for continuing her presidential campaign is an especially vivid example of modern journalism as hyperkinetic child—overstimulated by speed and hunger for a head-turning angle that will draw an audience.
The truth about what Clinton said—and any fair-minded appraisal of what she meant—was entirely beside the point.
Her comment was news by any standard. But it was only big news when wrested from context and set aflame by a news media more concerned with being interesting and provocative than in being relevant or serious. Thus, the story made the front page of the New York Times, was the lead story of the Washington Post, and got prominent treatment on the evening news on ABC, CBS, and NBC.
It would be a big story if Clinton said something like this: “Hey, I know it looks bad for me now. But, think about it. Obama could get shot and I’d get to be the nominee after all.”
It is a small story if Clinton said something like this: “Everyone talks like May is incredibly late, but by historical standards it is not. Think of all the famous milestones in presidential races that have taken place during June.”
It seems pretty obvious that the latter is what Clinton meant, and not too far from what she actually said. It was not surprising that the Argus Leader’s executive editor, Randall Beck, put out a statement saying, “Her reference to Mr. Kennedy’s assassination appeared to focus on the time line of his primary candidacy and not the assassination itself.”
Hear what she really said. It's so obvious she was just pointing out that this is not the only year the Dems haven't chosen a nominee this late in the year. Obamabots have gone from dillusional to just plain paranoid.
Gloating, unshackled sexism of the ugliest kind has been shamelessly peddled by the US media, which - sooner rather than later, I fear - will have to account for their sins.
History, I suspect, will look back on the past six months as an example of America going through one of its collectively deranged episodes - rather like Prohibition from 1920-33, or McCarthyism some 30 years later. This time it is gloating, unshackled sexism of the ugliest kind. It has been shamelessly peddled by the US media, which - sooner rather than later, I fear - will have to account for their sins. The chief victim has been Senator Hillary Clinton, but the ramifications could be hugely harmful for America and the world.
I am no particular fan of Clinton. Nor, I think, would friends and colleagues accuse me of being racist. But it is quite inconceivable that any leading male presidential candidate would be treated with such hatred and scorn as Clinton has been. What other senator and serious White House contender would be likened by National Public Radio's political editor, Ken Rudin, to the demoniac, knife-wielding stalker played by Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction? Or described as "a fucking whore" by Randi Rhodes, one of the foremost personalities of the supposedly liberal Air America? Would Carl Bernstein (of Woodward and Bernstein fame) ever publicly declare his disgust about a male candidate's "thick ankles"? Could anybody have envisaged that a website set up specifically to oppose any other candidate would be called Citizens United Not Timid? (We do not need an acronym for that.)
I will come to the reasons why I fear such unabashed misogyny in the US media could lead, ironically, to dreadful racial unrest. "All men are created equal," Thomas Jefferson famously proclaimed in 1776. That equality, though, was not extended to women, who did not even get the vote until 1920, two years after (some) British women. The US still has less gender equality in politics than Britain, too. Just 16 of America's 100 US senators are women and the ratio in the House (71 out of 435) is much the same. It is nonetheless pointless to argue whether sexism or racism is the greater evil: America has a peculiarly wicked record of racist subjugation, which has resulted in its racism being driven deep underground. It festers there, ready to explode again in some unpredictable way.
To compensate meantime, I suspect, sexism has been allowed to take its place as a form of discrimination that is now openly acceptable. "How do we beat the bitch?" a woman asked Senator John McCain, this year's Republican presidential nominee, at a Republican rally last November. To his shame, McCain did not rebuke the questioner but joined in the laughter. Had his supporter asked "How do we beat the nigger?" and McCain reacted in the same way, however, his presidential hopes would deservedly have gone up in smoke. "Iron my shirt," is considered amusing heckling of Clinton. "Shine my shoes," rightly, would be hideously unacceptable if yelled at Obama.
For you Spanish readers, Hillary is interviewed by Noticentro|WAPA-TV. Felix Enrique Latorre gets the exclusive. They discuss the importance of voter turnout on the island despite the fact Puerto Rico voters can't vote in the general election, which Clinton says she would like to change, no matter what status they choose. Most of the video is in English.
CBSNews.com: The Democratic presidential race is now winding down--and yet, Senator Clinton still won a 35 point victory in Kentucky this week, another massive win among white working class voters. How serious is Senator Obama's problem with that group? And does he actually have to win them in a general election?
Doug Schoen: Well, he's got to win them somewhere in the general election. And it is a serious problem. I mean, he’s probably not going to win West Virginia. He's got to win Pennsylvania, Ohio, He’ll probably lose Florida and try to make up for that in the West and Mountain States. But the answer simply is it is a real, ongoing problem for him.
CBSNews.com: And has he shown any serious signs of recognizing the problem, or doing something to confront it?
Doug Schoen: I think he recognizes it. I'm not sure he's done anything yet to directly confront it.
CBSNews.com: What do you think he should do?
Doug Schoen: Well, I think that he needs, first, to develop a program that reaches out to working class white voters. Second, I think he should consider someone like Senator Clinton or New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg as a running mate, to speak directly to the economic concerns of working class voters. And third, I think he needs to start focusing his campaign where he both has done badly and needs to win.
CBSNews.com: And what kind of an economic program does that need to be?
Doug Schoen: I think he needs to lay out a comprehensive economic message of what he's going to do to revitalize the economy, deal with the sub-prime crisis, and create good paying jobs for working people.
CBSNews.com: Now Obama’s campaign points out that he won whites in Oregon and Virginia and Wisconsin, and he won them in Iowa--where he spoke this week to declare that he has a majority of the pledged delegates. So how do you explain the difference between his performance in those states versus Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, Texas?
Doug Schoen: I think the states that he has done well in are either states that have a more liberal tradition, a more progressive tradition, particularly for Democratic primary voters--or states where the white electorate tends to be, in a Democratic primary, somewhat further to the left.
But mainstream working class voters in states like--you can go across the board--Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Missouri, Florida, all prove to be problematic for him. So I think he's got a problem. And he's got a couple a states he's done okay in. But they do not, to me, suggest that the problem is solved.
CBSNews.com: And to what extent do you think there are some white voters who will never vote for an African-American for President? Or do you think that the racial component of this is overstated?
Doug Schoen: I think the racial component is overstated. I think people have doubts about Barack. I think they have doubts about his program. And I think they have some doubts about people like Reverend Wright. And I don't think that is necessarily racially motivated, though I would suggest that black liberation theology and some of the outrageous things that Reverend Wright has said certainly raise the specter of concern about race--separate and apart from Barack Obama--with working class voters who might be very, very concerned with the message.
Let the Republicans have the snake handlers and inbreeds and ignorance that goes with those so called uneducated WV and Kentucky voters.
Look at the way they live and look at the way they have voted locally. They cant govern themselves but America depends on their judgement to choose a candidate to lead all of us.
It is time to put these "Regan Democrats"(whatever that really means) into history with Jessica Lynch!!!!!! Posted by: EddienTexas May 22, 2008 at 11:07 AM
Hillary ought ot run for president of Kentucky. Posted by: blarsen May 22, 2008 at 11:07 AM
93% - that's the same percentage by which blacks vote for Obama. So what is it that 90%+ voting preference says??? Posted by: Keith May 22, 2008 at 11:08 AM
...AND WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE BLACK VOTE IS OBAMA GETTING. REVERSE RACISM IS STILL RACISM. Posted by: Gordito Mojito May 22, 2008 at 11:09 AM
I love being from Kentucky. Aside from Louisville and Lexington, it's the last bastion of wilderness untouched by the PC radicals obsessed with diversity. Posted by: Seth May 22, 2008 at 11:09 AM
I'm not sure I understand why Hillary is so proud of her KY & WV victories. Is it really a good thing that she is winning the votes of uneducated, poor, rural whites? I mean, I don't think I'd want to trumpet the fact that I'm the choice of people who tend to be less intelligent and more racist than the average person...
Or is it more telling that Obama is winning the "educated voters"? Wouldn't all of this mean that Hillary is winning the people who don't know any better but Obama is winning the people who think for themselves and try to make fact-based decisions?
I don't see Obama going out and being so proud about winning the overwhelming majority of black voters. Why is Hillary accepting such blatant racism in her victories? Posted by: A Voter May 22, 2008 at 11:10 AM
It's no surprise that those hillbilly barrios are full of racist rednecks. Have you ever seen Deliverance? And no the reverse racism thing just doesn't hold. Black people have voted for whiteys before. King Clinton I owes being elected to the black voters so you can't call them racist. Just because they would prefer to vote for Obama than Queen Clinton II does not mean they are racist and would refuse voting for whitey. Seriously is anybody going to say with a straight face that Kentucky and West Virginia are not hillbilly, redneck, cesspools of racism, bigotry and ignorance? Come on! Posted by: TruthIsTreasonComplianceIsPatriotic May 22, 2008 at 11:16 AM
(CNN) — A new series of Quinnipiac polls out of Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania appear to bolster Hillary Clinton's argument that she is better positioned than Barack Obama to beat John McCain in the crucial swing states.
According to the polls released Thursday, Hillary Clinton would beat John McCain in all three states by wide margins while Barack Obama would lose to the Arizona senator in Ohio and Florida and narrowly beat McCain in Pennsylvania.
CNN Polling Director Keating Holland said the poll could be a potential "early-warning sign."
Specifically, the poll found Clinton tops McCain in Florida by 7 points (48 percent to 41 percent), in Ohio by 7 points (48 percent to 41 percent) and in Pennsylvania by 13 percent (50 percent to 37 percent).
Meanwhile the poll finds McCain would beat Obama by 4 points in Florida (45-41 percent) and by 4 points in Ohio (44 percent to 40 percent). Obama beats McCain in Pennsylvania, but by a narrower margin than Clinton does — he beats McCain by 6 points there, 46 percent to 40 percent.
According to Quinnipiac, the difference between Clinton and Obama's performances in the state can be traced to the fact that several Clinton supporters and white working class voters there say they will support McCain over Obama if the Illinois senator is the party's nominee.
In an interview with People Magazine, the former president said he thinks his daughter is a natural campaigner who may one day follow her parents into the family business.
"If you asked me [whether Chelsea would go into politics] before Iowa, I would have said, 'No way. She is too allergic to anything we do.' But she is really good at it," the former president said in the latest edition of the magazine
Clinton also said Chelsea was deeply upset by her mother's disappointing third-place finish in Iowa in January.
"It all changed after Iowa," he said. "She realized her mother lost Iowa 100 percent because of younger voters. She was upset, bawled, went to her employer and said, 'Look, you got to let me go or give me an indefinite leave of absence. I'm not letting my mother go down like this.' "
Clinton wins young voters 18-29 in KY, 54%-41% according to CNN. 30 points worse for Obama than he did in OR. If Obama is the nominee, KY voters will vote 42% for McCain over 33% for Obama. 23% said they would not vote (souce=Bill Schneider, CNN).
A lot of voters are just not jumping on the bandwagon yet.
From MSNBC: Results from an exit poll conducted in Kentucky's Democratic presidential primary Tuesday and a phone poll during the past week in Oregon's vote-by-mail primary.
Keys to Clinton win in Kentucky The demographic makeup of Kentucky's Democratic primary electorate was fairly similar to West Virginia's - overwhelmingly white, with substantial numbers of lesser-educated, lower-income voters - and that helped Hillary Rodham Clinton to a comparably lopsided victory over Barack Obama. Clinton won two-thirds of women and nearly as many men; 7 in 10 whites, who made up nearly 90 percent of Kentucky's electorate; and roughly 60 percent or more of all voters over age 30. Clinton also prevailed among all income and education categories, with particularly large margins among those at the lower end of both scales.
Obama ran nearly even with Clinton among voters under age 30 and may have edged her out among self-described independents, who were about 1 in 10 voters in the Kentucky Democratic primary. He won a majority among those who most valued change as a candidate attribute, but about a quarter cited experience, and Clinton won 9 in 10 of them.
One of the few other groups in which Obama was competitive was those who thought Clinton's proposal to suspend the federal gasoline tax this summer was a bad idea.
Kentucky has one of the least liberal electorates out of 33 competitive Democratic primaries in which exit polls were conducted this year - only about a third of voters called themselves liberal - and that, too, worked in Clinton's favor. She ran strongest among conservatives and moderates; Obama tends to do better among liberals.
Ideological extremes In contrast to Kentucky, Oregon's was among the most liberal Democratic electorates to date, with close to 6 in 10 voters in its vote-by-mail primary calling themselves liberal.
Issue differences Kentucky continued a recent trend in Democratic primaries with voters overwhelmingly picking the economy when given three choices for the most important issue facing the country. Oregon defied that trend. About two-thirds of Democratic voters in Kentucky said the economy was the top issue, about 20 percent picked the Iraq war, and half as many said health care. In Oregon, fewer than half picked the economy, 3 in 10 said Iraq, and 2 in 10 said health care. Voters in Kentucky were a bit more likely than in Oregon to say the economic slowdown has affected them and their families a great deal. Kentucky Democrats also were more likely than their Oregon counterparts to say it's a good idea to suspend the federal gas tax this summer - an idea Clinton has promoted and Obama has criticized.
Keeping hope alive ... or not As Obama has built a daunting lead among convention delegates, his own supporters in Kentucky and Oregon were nearly unanimous in thinking he will secure the Democratic nomination. Many Clinton voters maintained hope for their candidate, but substantial numbers acknowledged Obama as the likely nominee - half of Clinton voters in Oregon and a third in Kentucky said Obama will win the nomination.
Timing is everything All balloting was by mail in Oregon's primary, and the phone poll asked when people voted or planned to. The survey found Clinton ran stronger among those who voted earlier, while Obama ran better among those who mailed or delivered their ballots closer to Election Day. In Kentucky, 3 in 4 voters said they made up their minds more than a month ago.
John Edwards Nearly 2 in 10 Kentucky Democratic voters said John Edwards' endorsement of Obama was a very important factor in their vote, and nearly 3 in 10 said it was somewhat important. The question wasn't asked in Oregon, where the phone poll began before Edwards' announcement.
Democratic potpourri As usual for this Democratic primary season, Clinton tended to run better in both states among older voters, those with lower incomes and less education, and those in rural areas, while Obama's strengths included the young, urban, wealthier and better-educated voters.
Soon after the 2004 election, after spending so much time, energy and money supporting John Kerry's failed bid, I remember being outraged by some remarks made by the the founder and CEO of the DLC, Al From. From, who is infamous for his centrist and hawkish policies, said in March 2005, “You’ve got to reject Michael Moore and the MoveOn crowd.” From added “rank-and-file Democrats ‘are more like us than MoveOn,’ which [Al] From called a group of ‘elites, people who sit in their basements all the time and play on their computers.’” (NBC’s “First Read,” 3/1/05)
I myself was a MoveOn member, and I guess I still am, although I haven't participated in any of their events in quite a while. So at the time, I took great offense to these remarks, and it seemed he was suggesting that the party needed to move toward the right if it ever wanted to win an election again.
I can't help but think that From's remarks have come to mind several times during the current Democratic campaign. Now I'm not saying that From was correct, but the vigorous support and vitriol shown by Obama supporters and the media which seems to now be overtly gushing over the junior senator from IL, have made things a little clearer. It's quite obvious that there is a rift in the party.
Obama supporters on blogs like Daily Kos, 527's like MoveOn and his supporters throughout the media would have you believe that Clinton supporters are all dumb, white racists and/or feminists. The many Clinton supporters I've met while campaigning are far from being dumb or racist. In fact, many of her supporters admire the work she's done over the years on civil and human rights and her collaborations with African-American and Latino leaders. Many of her supporters didn't even start out this campaign against Obama. They just felt he wasn't ready for the job and that Clinton was ready and much more experienced. After all, if Obama does become president, America will have chosen somebody who's last complete term was as a state senator.
Some of Hillary's supporters didn't start out supporting her. As their preferred candidates finally left the race, they were faced with a decision. I for one started out as an Edwards supporter. One thing that stuck in my mind from the beginning was how Hillary performed during the debates. She just seemed so much more experienced, so much more in control and her answers were always very detailed. It also became very obvious that the media was in Obama's corner. When the piling on started with pundits like Keith Olbermann making it a mission to bring Hillary down, then seeing the ugly diaries and comments at sites that claim to be for all Dems, and when Edwards finally decided to leave the race, the choice became clear for me.
Clinton supporters are passionate for sure. As they began to express their support online, in forums and blogs, they were met with a ferocious wave of disdain from fellow Democrats. The Obama supporters were so furious that many Clinton supporters found it necessary to seek out other places they would be welcome.
So if there is a Clinton wing of the party, I would say they range from being liberal to more moderate, just left-of-center Dems. Clinton liberals can be those with traditional progressive values who feel she is the best person to champion causes like universal health care, the rights of labor, immigrants, gays and despite her 2002 vote, they feel she is the best person to get us out of the war in Iraq. Clinton moderates feel she would be the strongest leader and be the best person on issues like national defense, the fight on terrorism and the security of the nation.
On the other hand, although I don't agree with From's past statements, there is an element in the party that sees itself as entitled. They are ultra-partisan and don't feel the party should be tolerant of any part of the country that is even a fraction to the right of them. They realize that there will be more conservative Dems, in areas where there are a majority of Republicans and will even campaign for them, but they won't let them into their conversations or clubs; they won't let them speak for the party. If they had their way there would only be one party and everybody would be as vile, snarky and liberal as they are. Sounds like a mirror-image of right-wing republicans.
So here lies the danger. If Obama wins, this wing of the party will surely dominate. How will Obama unite the country as he says he can, when his supporters are unwilling to compromise and are not even tolerant of the more moderate views within their own party? And before you reply with comments about how divisive Hillary is and polls showing her supporters are unwilling to support Obama if he's the nominee, remember that she didn't start the attacks. She was very civil and withstood constant attacks from the other candidates early in the race. In fact, I remember one line vividly from the Las Vegas debate: “They're not attacking me because I'm a woman,” she said. “They're attacking me because I'm ahead.” This is from Politico's coverage (which hasn't always been friendly to Sen. Clinton) of that debate:
LAS VEGAS – New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton responded to weeks of increasing criticism from her rivals at a debate here Thursday night with a rhetorical show of force of her own.
She accused former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards of “throwing mud” and said Illinois Sen. Barack Obama is being too modest in his plans for health care and too aggressive in aiming to raise Social Security taxes.
Clinton was cheered — and her rivals' criticisms were, at times, booed — by an unusually raucous crowd made up of students, labor union members and Democratic activists at the University of Nevada Las Vegas.
Clinton supporters have to stay relevant. We have to show the blogs and the pundits that we do count and that bias and sexism will never be tolerated. The most obvious way to do this would be to not support Obama. Without us, he may never get his hands on the prize. However, to be able to make this statement, is it really worth the alternative outcome? I'm not sure that McCain doesn't keep us in the war and maybe start a new one. Universal health care will be out the window. So how will I vote if Obama is the nominee? I'm still not sure. For me, the choice will not be as relevant as I will be voting in NJ this year. I can't see either Dem losing here. But for many of you, a tough decision is pending. I also know for others I've spoken to, the decision will be very easy because you've already decided that there is no way you will vote for Obama, and as long as it's not based of race, I respect that decision.
There is another way we can show our unity and strength. We should start looking toward local races where we can make a difference. We should seek out candidates that share Sen. Clinton's values and show our support. For me, one candidate in particular comes to mind. His name is Steve Harrison from New York's 13th congressional district. I'm sure many of you have heard of the recent troubles of the incumbent Republican Vito Fossella, NYC's only Republican Congressperson.
This seat is clearly up for grabs. My good friend Steve Harrison ran against Fossella in 2006 and received an unprecedented 43% even though he was heavily under-funded and outspent 13:1. Despite promises from the DCCC that they would step in, they never did. This year could be different. He has already received endorsements from DFNYC, the NY Times, Progressive Democrats of America and National Peace Action. "We found that Mr. Harrison would bring to Congress an intelligent and educated approach to the real security of this country based on international cooperation, respect for human rights, and diplomacy," said Peace Action NY State Chair, Sally Jones. "Among the positions taken by Mr. Harrison that garnered him the support of Peace Action is his opposition to the Bush war policy that is destroying the American economy and driving down living standards."
Harrison wants the country to approach our energy problems with the same vigor and national resolve as we did putting a man on the moon. He feels that in a decade we should be free from foreign and domestic fossil fuel dependance.
Steve is also for single-payer universal medical coverage for all Americans. He opposes the war in Iraq and calls for the immediate withdrawal of forces, consistent with our troops' safety. As of the 2006 election, Fossella had voted with Bush administration policies an incredible 91% of the time.
Hillary played a big part in Steve's campaign in 2006, including robocalls from her and Bill. However, the help came too late in the race. With more name recognition this year and more support from people like us, we can get Steve to DC.
I know everybody is tapped out from helping Hillary, but a nominee will be chosen soon. Whether or not it's the person we want is a different matter. However, it would be great to show we can keep this coalition together and actually make a difference. We can send a strong message to the media by supporting candidates that share Hillary's vision and values. This will also help put her in a much stronger position if she decides to run again in four years. Think how many more superdelegates she can win if we are the ones to help put them in that position (unless they become like Bill "Judas" Richardson, kidding).
So whether you can spare $5 now or later on after the convention, I urge you to my ActBlue page and show a little love.
If you can't give anything right now, I would love for you to go to Steve's site at SteveHarrisonforcongress.com and let him know that Marc from Blue Spot sent you and that Hillary supporters have his back.
Senator Barack Obama's favorite campaign rallying cry is, "Fired up! Ready to go!" But when the Democratic Party's leading presidential hopeful visits Florida this week, he's likely to hear a grouchier refrain, something along the lines of, "It's about time!"
The less than passionate reception shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who has followed the Sunshine State's latest election saga — least of all Obama, who hasn't visited the crucial battleground all year. Because the state's presidential primary was moved up to January 29, in violation of party rules, the Democratic National Committee effectively nullified the vote in advance and refused to seat any of Florida's Democratic delegates at this summer's convention (the Republicans, by contrast, only cut their delegate counts in half). Democratic rivals Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton also signed pledges not to campaign in Florida until after its primary. But once Clinton's 17-point victory was announced that night, she immediately appeared in Ft. Lauderdale to tell voters she would fight to get Florida's delegates seated.
Obama, by contrast, was nowhere to be found and still hasn't visited the state since. Many Florida Democrats consider him AWOL and even indifferent to their efforts to get the DNC to reinstate their delegates and make their January votes count. Obama "has repair work to do," says Democratic state Senator Nan Rich, a South Florida Clinton backer. "Rank-and-file Democrats here are frankly distressed by the fact that he appears disconnected from the state."
Obama had been leading by double digits in Oregon, where he expects to win on Tuesday, enabling him to declare victory in the pledged delegate race and perhaps sew up the nomination.
But the latest polls in Oregon show Clinton within striking distance. Obama leads 45 percent to 41 percent with 8 percent undecided and 6 percent refusing a response, according to a Suffolk University survey released this morning. An American Research Group survey puts Obama's lead at 50 percent to 45 percent.
Obama, however, appears to be confident of victory. Today, he does not plan to campaign in Oregon, instead stumping in Montana, which votes June 3. He has already scheduled a huge outdoor victory rally Tuesday night in Iowa, a battleground state in November and where his victory in the January caucuses propelled him to the front of the pack.
Clinton, on the other hand, continues to lead handily in every poll in Kentucky, which also votes Tuesday. In a Suffolk survey released today, she leads Obama 51 percent to 25 percent, followed by John Edwards with 6 percent, "uncommitted" with 5 percent, while 11 percent were undecided.
But she isn't taking any chances and hopes to win big enough to cut into Obama's lead in the total popular vote, campaigning all day in the Bluegrass State. She plans her primary night rally in Louisville.
The tale of two states voting Tuesday demonstrates again the demographic divide in the Democratic race -- blue-collar voters for Clinton, more affluent and more educated voters for Obama.
By Matthew Mosk PORTLAND, Ore. -- Sen. Barack Obama showed every sign of confidence that he has secured the Democratic nomination during a high-dollar fundraiser at a posh club here last night.
Obama predicted a victory in Oregon, and said he believed the resulting delegate haul would "put us over the top."
"We will be able to say we have won a majority," he said. "But we have a lot of work to do ahead of us."
For the past several days, Obama has been moving closer to declaring himself the party's nominee, even as Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has been campaigning aggressively to soak up delegates in the few remaining primaries. At an event in the timber-country town of Roseburg, Ore., he twice slipped into past tense when referring to Clinton's bid and the primaries.
Already, top fundraisers for Clinton and Obama have begun private talks aimed at merging the two candidates' teams.
At the fundraiser, he told a boisterous crowd of about 300 supporters that a win in November would require a unified Democratic Party, adding: "That means all of you have to be nice to Clinton supporters."
Is he kidding? We've put up with months of abuse and his surrogates say we're insignificant. We warned his supporters they would eventually need us. I may not vote for McCain, but it's going to take a lot more than this to get my vote.
LORETTO, Kentucky (CNN) — Wrapping up a rally at the Maker's Mark bourbon distillery on Saturday, Hillary Clinton again argued that she leads Barack Obama in the popular vote and attacked the television "punditry" that has suggested the race is over.
"All those people on TV who are telling you and everybody else that this race is over and I should just be graceful and say, 'Oh it's over' even though I've won more votes - those are all people who have a job," Clinton told supporters picnicking in the gardens of the distillery.
"Those are all people who have health care. Those are all people who can afford to send their kids to college. Those are all people who can pay whatever is charged at the gas pump. They're not the people I'm running to be a champion for."
"They keep telling me to quit," said Clinton. "I don't know, maybe I was just raised with the kind of values you were raised [with]. You don't quit on people and you don't quit until you finish what you started and you don't quit on America."
Both South Dakotans lavished all sorts of praise on Obama, according to reporters present, including The Times Nicholas Riccardi. As the large, enthusiastic crowd of some 7,000 supporters roared and waved "We can do it" signs and Bruce Springsteen's "The Rising" blared, Obama bounded onto stage, grabbed the microphone and said, "Thank you, Sioux City!"
Trouble is, Obama was in Sioux Falls.
So was the crowd, which suddenly fell silent. Where are those Southwest Airlines get-away flights when you need them?
"I'm sorry," Obama quickly caught himself. "Sioux Falls. I've been in Iowa too long." Now, that line may not go over too well in the Hawkeye State, which gave him his first big caucus win way back in January.
Obama went on to give yet another rousing stump speech, seeking support in the state's primary June 3, the last one along with Montana. The Dakota crowd was enthusiastic. And the freshman Illinois senator threw in several extra references to South Dakota for good measure.
LOS ANGELES -- Hillary Clinton released a new ad in Oregon today that casts political pundits as out of touch with what voters in that state care about.
The ad, entitled “What’s Right,” suggests that voters should ignore “pundits in Washington” and shows video of ABC News’s George Stephanopoulos, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, and Tim Russert.
“In Washington, they talk about who's up and who's down,” the ad’s announcer says. “In Oregon, we care about what's right and what's wrong.”
The ad goes on to list Clinton’s proposals to end No Child Left Behind, create a universal healthcare system, and says she opposed a Bush energy bill to control liquefied gas sites on Oregon’s coast.
The ad highlights a frustration the Clinton campaign is suffering from as they try to continue to gain support through the six primaries running up to June 3rd – the date through which she has vowed to stay in the race. The Clinton campaign has become increasingly aggravated with members of the media who deduce that she has little chance of regaining her lead in the delegate count and pulling ahead of Senator Obama.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Former presidential contender John Edwards said on Friday he would not be Democratic front-runner Barack Obama's running mate, but did not rule out taking a role in an Obama administration.
"Won't happen," Edwards told NBC's "Today" program when asked if he would be Obama's vice presidential pick. "This is not something I'm interested in."
Edwards, the Democratic vice presidential nominee in 2004, dropped out of the presidential race in January after failing to win any early primaries. On Wednesday, he gave his coveted endorsement to Obama over rival Hillary Clinton.
Asked if he had spoken Obama about a role in his administration if he beat Republican John McCain in November, Edwards said, "Only in the most abstract way."
Edwards said Obama had told him, "I want you on my team. I want to help you both in the campaign and with the work we want to do when I'm the president."
His endorsement of Obama, who would be the first black U.S. president, came the day after Clinton won a landslide victory in West Virginia that renewed doubts about Obama's ability to draw white low-income voters.
Edwards denied his endorsement had been deliberately timed to take the wind out of her victory.
Before al the hugs & kisses, they were political rivals. Here's a great clip that shows Edwards asking Obama a question that to this day he has not adequately answered: Why did you vote 'present' 100 times?
On last night's Hardball, Chris Matthews, with a little help from his tag-team partner, Andrea Mitchell, continued the latest meme that people not voting for Obama are dumb racists. Buchanan does his best to call him out on it. Later in the discussion, Matthews' "white guilt" becomes very visible. He tries to come back with a lame excuse when asked why West Virginians are considered racists for not voting for Obama but no such claims are made of blacks who have been voting for Obama at about 90%. According to Matthews there is a difference between "negative voting and positive voting." So is that supposed to mean if we vote for Obama, that's positive but if we vote for Hillary that's negative? The fawning is so blantant, it's disgusting.
While the media has already decided who the Democratic nominee will be, and the Democratic leaders have chosen to disenfranchise millions of voters, the voters of still want to have their say. Here are a few of those voices on C-Span last night.
WASHINGTON (CNN) – Hillary Clinton choked up Wednesday as she told CNN's Wolf Blitzer that her daughter's presence on the campaign trail had been one of the "most incredibly gratifying experiences of my life."
"Well, it's one of the most incredibly gratifying experiences of my life, as a person and as a mother. I get very emotional," she said. "She is an exceptional person, and she's worked so hard, and she's done such a good job that I'm just filled with pride every time I look at her.
"Obviously, we are very close. We are in communication all the time. But she is doing this because she believes I'd be a good president, but also because she cares so much about our country's future. She did grow up in the White House. She knows what a difference a president makes. If anybody ever doubted what difference a president makes, after seven years of George Bush, I think the doubts should be put to rest.
"So she's doing it because she's my daughter, but she's doing it because, as she says, she's a young American who cares about our future."
The clip shows Obama supporters rallying at a precint in Iowa. Now if I were there, these antics would not have bothered me. But these Clinton supporters looked frightened. It must have taken some courage to withstand that type of pressure. Being the fashion statement Mr. Obama is, it's not hard to see why he did so well at caucuses around the country. Is this really the way we should be picking our leaders? Looks more like mob rule to me. And for you Obama supporters, no that's not meant as a racial slur.
Can you imagine the elderly people or shift workers having to go through this process? Iowa will probably never change their caucus system, but why can't we just have a private, one-person, one-vote everywhere else?
Many in the Barack Obama camp, having outfoxed the apparently not-so-formidable Hillary Clinton machine, can't seem to get the hang of winning gracefully. They feel a need to drive a stake in Hillary Clinton's reputation, then dance. If they were smart, they'd heap praise on Clinton and let her finish out the race, however she chooses to do so.
That's sage advice, even though offered by Republican mastermind-turned-pundit Karl Rove. Treat Clinton shabbily, he says, and many of her supporters "will remember it by November."
Nonetheless, Obamites are throwing victory parties over the impending defeat of a fellow Democrat who has thus far pulled in more than 47 percent of their party's primary and caucus participants. Some take a more direct approach. In anticipation of the West Virginia primary, college students for Obama were hurling insults at farmers and truck drivers holding signs for Clinton.
Meanwhile, Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy, unable to contain himself, administered one last kick to Clinton's dignity by opining that the New York senator lacks the "real leadership" needed for the job of vice president. He said that Obama should pick someone who is "in tune with his appeal for the nobler aspirations of the American people."
So much for the nobility of aspirations held by his own state's Democratic primary voters, who preferred Clinton over Obama by 15 percentage points. Next door in Rhode Island, Rep. Patrick Kennedy dittoes Dad as an unwavering superdelegate for Obama — this despite Clinton's 18-point win in that state's primary. It's as if the voters are invisible.
Disrespecting the nearly 17 million who have supported Clinton is politically unwise, but turning them into "the enemy" is insane. Last week's enemy was working-class white people. The Democrats can win without a majority of white voters — as Obama strategists undiplomatically note — but they can't win without a strong showing among them.
So Obama partisans do not help their cause by willfully misrepresenting Clinton's reference to "hard-working Americans, white Americans" as racist rather than as a poorly worded observation made in a state of utter exhaustion. The fervor of their outrage suggests that some regard the mere consideration of white people, particularly white men, as a demographic needing a special message is an act of bigotry. (That's as opposed to a thousand other racial and socio-economic groups that politicos routinely slice and dice.)
We now hear pained remarks from the Obama camp that many white men won't vote for any black. Oh really? No one was complaining during the early races in Iowa, Maryland, Virginia and Wisconsin, when most of the white male participants backed Obama. That was before the Rev. Jeremiah Wright ugliness became public.
Weirdly, Obamite triumphalism seems to be merging with the festivities on the Republican side. You can understand why the right would welcome what it prays is "the end of the Clinton era." Bill Clinton presided over the longest peacetime expansion since World War II. His budget surpluses put his so-called conservative predecessors and successor to shame. Wouldn't a vow to build on the Clinton legacy, rather than dismantle it, be a better tack for the Obama campaign?
By the way, Clinton's continued sparring with Obama does not hurt the Illinois senator's chances in November. It only crowds out Republican efforts along that line. Believe me, you'd rather have the Clinton version.
Obama can't beat John McCain without large chunks of Clinton's core constituency: women, Hispanics and the white working class. Dumping on their candidate is one step removed from dumping on them — and some of the Obama people don't even bother with that step. Rove must be enjoying the show.
Providence Journal columnist Froma Harrop's column appears regularly on editorial pages of The Times. Her e-mail address is fharrop@projo.com
For all the hope and excitement [Barack] Obama's candidacy is generating, some of his field workers, phone-bank volunteers and campaign surrogates are encountering a raw racism and hostility that have gone largely unnoticed -- and unreported -- this election season. Doors have been slammed in their faces. They've been called racially derogatory names (including the white volunteers). And they've endured malicious rants and ugly stereotyping from people who can't fathom that the senator from Illinois could become the first African American president.
The Post story does lack some context, though. At times it's difficult to tell whether the aggressors in the anecdotes Merida relays are Democrats or Republicans. For all we know, some could just be jerky kids out to prove they're big by saying something shocking and stupid, rather than truly representative of feelings in their larger community.
The reaction to Merida's article from bloggers on the right has been fascinating to read. Their primary feeling, apparently, is that this is just another example of liberal media bias covering for Obama -- and that this proves Democrats are racist. The former sentiment was summed up at the Jawa Report, where one poster headlined his discussion of the article "Obama General Election Strategy Taking Shape" and wrote:
When a story hits this many outlets simultaneously it's pretty clear that there is a coordinated effort to establish a new "meme." This meme: if you're white and vote against Obama, you're an ignorant racist.
This will be a common theme right through the election in November: racism may cost Barack, the post-racial candidate, the election (white racism that is, blacks voting over 90 percent for Obama isn't "racism." It's payback, just like the verdicts in the Reginald Denny case were payback).
This is what decades of affirmative action and racial victimhood politics have done to American society.
Writing at the National Review's Campaign Spot blog, Jim Geraghty said, "The Washington Post picks an interesting day to run a front-page feature story on volunteers for the Obama campaign encountering blatant racism ... the timing of the article, coupled with its relentless portrait of voters driven by ferocious, unmitigated bigotry, certainly feels like a prepared excuse for a blowout loss for Obama tonight."
This is something you're starting to hear often. The latest attack on Clinton supporters is that they are not voting for Obama because they are racists. I've heard this claim first hand from African-American, Obama supporters. There's no doubt, as the Washington Post article points out, that there are legitimate bigots out there. Let's face it, racism still exists. But here's a couple of things to remember; first of all, racism goes both ways. There are plenty of African-Americans that are bigots themselves. When someone like Tavis Smiley gets death threats and is called a traitor to his race because he chooses not to endorse the Black candidate, what else can that be called but racism. Another thing the article doesn't mention are the attacks that Clinton supporters have endured while campaigning. Believe me, I had my share of rude behavior from Obama supporters while campaigning in downtown Philly. So, i think the article is incredibly disingenuous.
The fact is, when you are sure about your own character and you know what's really in your heart, you don't feel the need to go out and support a candidate on the basis of race in order to prove to others that you are not a bigot. The liberal guilt you see from some in the party is shameful. People like John Kerry for example (who I supported in 2004), have clearly stated that they are supporting Obama and believe he's the best candidate because he's African-American. What you're seeing from the Clinton side, to a very large degree, are people who for one, are not burdened with what Shelby Steele calls white guilt. They know their heart and don't have anything to prove to anybody. And the smart asses over at places like Daily Kos would never admit to it, but deep down many of them know this is the reason they are supporting Obama.
The other thing you are seeing from the Clinton side is they just don't feel Obama is a good candidate, and they don't feel like they should be pushed to support him just because he's today's fashion statement or today's media darling. They are voters who are used to choosing candidates on the basis of substance and experience. I'm not really sure at this point if I'll be voting for Obama myself. It really doesn't matter for me since I have to vote in NJ. If I don't vote for him, it will not be because he's black; I can assure you. It's amazing how some Obama supporters can't fathom the idea of somebody not supporting their candidate and not being a racist. If anybody is playing the race card, it's the other side. If the strategy in November is to call everybody who does not support Obama a racist, I think these charges will just galvanize Republicans and help McCain become the president.
I can't remember a time I ever agreed with Cokie Roberts, but this week on "This Week" she actually made some sense. Here she is blasting the media for the "blantant sexism" they have shown throughout their coverage of the election.
On a day when it seemed that everybody was beating up on Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton — even “Saturday Night Live” had run a skit making fun of her -– one person came to her defense on Sunday: Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, a top Democrat in the House.
Mr. Emanuel called to assail Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, for remarks he made when asked about the possibility of Senator Barack Obama of Illinois choosing Mrs. Clinton, of New York, as his running-mate. “I have a lot of respect for Ted Kennedy, but I don’t know how the hell he comes off saying that,” said Mr. Emanuel, who has ties to Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama and has not endorsed in the race. “The gratuitous attack on her is uncalled for and wrong. He is a better senator than that comment reveals.”
Mr. Emanuel was responding to an interview with Mr. Kennedy on Bloomberg Television’s “Political Capital With Al Hunt.” In the interview, Mr. Kennedy said he did not think it was possible that Mr. Obama, whom Mr. Kennedy has endorsed, would pick Mrs. Clinton for his ticket should he clinch the nomination.
He went on to say that Mr. Obama should pick someone who was “in tune with his appeal for the nobler aspirations of the American people,” adding, “If we had real leadership — as we do with Barack Obama — in the No. 2 spot as well, it’d be enormously helpful.”
Mr. Kennedy’s office said that his remarks had been misconstrued and that he had not been talking about Mrs. Clinton when saying what kind of candidate Mr. Obama should turn to. “Senator Kennedy believes Senator Clinton is qualified to be vice president but doesn’t think it’s likely given the tenor of the campaign,” said Mr. Kennedy’s spokesman, Anthony Colley.
The Campaign Spot on National Review Online So now that Obama sees the finish line, the media is lining up right behind him trying to push him forward. As if winning the nomination will automatically get him in the White House. Why even bother with a general election in November? The media has already determined the winner.
...you would think their readers might deserve to know what prompted McCain's campaign to suggest that Obama is the candidate of Hamas, i.e., top Hamas political adviser Ahmed Yousef saying the terrorist group supports Obama’s foreign-policy vision and hopes he wins:
“We don’t mind–actually we like Mr. Obama. We hope he will (win) the election and I do believe he is like John Kennedy, great man with great principle, and he has a vision to change America to make it in a position to lead the world community but not with domination and arrogance,” Yousef said in response to a question about the group’s willingness to meet with either of the Democratic presidential candidates.
I mean, seriously, one of his advisers, Rob Malley, was holding meetings with Hamas, and Obama's promised to hold unconditional face-to-face presidential summits with the guy who's funding and encouraging Hamas.
Hi Donna!!!! I am emailing you on behalf of many people. I am, as you may know, a Hillary Clinton Supporter. You have probably gotten a lot of emails from her supporters, and I understand from the blogs I often frequent that you have responded to many of them. I want you to know that I read bits and pieces of your autobiography, Cooking With Grease, and thought it was wonderful and well written. I came to understand from your book and from a lot of what I have witnessed in this election cycle that to simply put groups of people in Demographics and Exit polls is a misunderstanding of both America and the Democratic Party. What I have learned is that people often vote based on their experiences. You, as an Undeclared Obama supporter, probably identify strongly with his candidacy because of the struggles you went through during a time when race relations in this country were in turmoil. I voted for Hillary Clinton, not only because I relate to her strongly as both a person and a woman who is very spiritual and devoted to her family and to helping others, but also because she is the greatest candidate to lead this country out of the mess we're in, and because her policy proposals have been phenominal and close to my heart, because it proves to me that she is not simply talking and promising change, she is telling me how she is going to make it happen. It proves to me that she actually cares. As a young person, I have a big future ahead of me, and I also have dreams and ambitions, and strong opinions and many other things. CNN tells me every day that I should be supporting Barack Obama, because his freshness and newness should appeal to my fickle nature. But I support Hillary, and like many of her supporters, I feel sad and dissappointed and hurt and many other things by what I see, based on rationality and facts, as the poor and undeserved treatment she and her husband have received by the DNC party elite and the Chicago Style Campaign tactics of Senator Obama's Campaign that I have witnessed with my own eyes and heard a number of stories about. I understand that many of the emails you have received by Clinton Supporters urging you to do the right and ethical thing by seating Michigan and Florida delegates have been angry and often probably obnoxious. But you cannot possibly understand how frustrated they are. And while you may say that they are "the reason" Hillary is losing, whatever her supporters have done or said pale in comparison to the abuse and mistreatment we have suffered from some supporters of Senator Obama. You may use Roe V Wade as a trump card for accusing them of being petty in their vows to not support Senator Obama, should he be the nominee, but I assure you that using something like that as a threat will not work, because there are few (actually, no) politicians I have seen that are as devoted to a woman's right to choose than Hillary Clinton, and you know that as well as I. Ms. Brazille, I urge you not to disclude and disenfranchise millions of voters from every walk of life from this nominating process simply for the sake of one candidate, because doing so would be an awful mistake. I have respect for you as a person, Ms. Brazille, but I would implore you to make the right decision and seat Florida and Michigan . I would also implore you to stop encouraging super delegates to force Senator Clinton out of the race, because the more they do this, the stronger she gets. Ms. Brazille, I cannot pretend to understand what you have gone through in your life, nor what you are going through now. It would be ignorant of me to try. But many people feel angry when they are stereotyped or put in a box because if what candidate they support. I support Hillary Clinton, and I love all of my friends. Including the great African American friends I have that I adore. and all of the African American women at my mother's church who embrace me and always tell me how "pretty" I look every time I see them. I also love my Latino friends, my Italian friends, my Jewish friends, my Catholic friends. As I said, I cannot pretend to understand your experiences, but nor can you understand mine. Just because a person's skin may be paler that yours, does not mean their lives are without suffering. I, for one, cry at night wondering what my republican mother will do if anything happens to her, because she doesn't have Health Insurance. And because of this, my mother may just support Hillary Clinton over John McCain come this fall. She is a Republican who supports Hillary Clinton not because Rush Limbaugh told her to, but because she believes that Hillary Clinton is a Candidate that may actually care about her. So Ms. Brazille, I would yet again urge you to do everything you can to seat Michigan and Florida properly, and also, I would ask that you stop saying you are "undeclared" on CNN's panels when clearly you know which candidate you support. Thank you very much for reading this email. Like you, I am very emotionally invested in this Campaign, (as is Stephanie Tubbs Jones, a Congresswoman from the district next to mine who also supports Hillary :D) and wish you all the luck in the world. respectfully, A young female voter from Ohio
I urge all of you to go to Natalie's site, Little Isis. Here was the response from Donna Brazille to Natalie Bryan's beautifully worded, polite, carefully measured letter:
Thanks Natalie,
As of today, I am not going to respond to any more anti American, Anti Democratic emails. Have a nice day.
I am sorry because you are sincere, but the Hillary forces are uncivil, repugnant and vile. When you come up for air and would like to email a person who cares about America and not just a personality, I will respond.
Thanks for your time and your interest.
Donna
I'm sure Donna must know how uncivil and vile Obama supporters are toward Hillary supporters throughout the blogosphere. I can't imagine she is unaware of the antics of many Obama supporters at caucuses all over the country. I think her response is disingenuous at best and totally reckless. Is this how Obama supporters intend to bring unity to the party? Despite the fact that Brazille has worked hard for the Democrats, and she feels that she is a valuable asset (if you check out some of my YT vids, you'll see the arrogance in full display), there are very few people I can think of that have done more to destroy our party this past year. Her hyper-sensitivity, which unfortunately is getting all too common throughout this country, makes her react by pointing the finger at the Clinton's and accusing them of race baiting. For saying some simple truths, like the fact that White middle-class voters are still an important constituency in the Democratic party, she is practically branded a racist. And Brazille has led the charge against the Clinton's on this point. Her and other party fat-cats, as well as the rest of the fawning media are not only trying to shut her bid down, but they are trying to completely destroy the Clinton's. We can't let this happen.
Let's make CNN at the very least, force Brazille to finally declare her support for Obama.
I don't usually find myself agreeing with Leslie Sanchez, but tonight she made some sense. Here she is taking on 2 Dems on how Obama has benefitted from a very generous press. TNR's Michael Crowley, regurgitates the usual Obama talking points. Dem strategist Keith Boykins is his tag-team partner here.
Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe told FOXNews.com on Thursday that the Obama camp’s plan to declare victory based on a pledged delegate majority is “meaningless.” He said that a candidate will need a majority of the pledged delegates and the unpledged superdelegates combined to be the true winner.
“Until you get to twenty-twenty-five or twenty-two-oh-nine, none of this matters,” McAuliffe said, referring to the numbers being bandied about as the number of votes needed.
“In order to have a majority of the delegates seated at the national convention, that’s how you get to become the nominee, not the pledged,” McAuliffe said.
“If that’s the case, take everyone of the superdelegates away from him, if he doesn’t care about them.”
The Democrats will have 3,253 pledged delegates and 796 superdelegates at the Democratic National Convention, if Michigan and Florida are excluded. Without those two states, the eventual Democratic nominee will need 2,025 delegates. If those states’ delegations are ultimately seated, then a candidate will need 2,209 delegates to secure the nomination.
SHEPHERDSTOWN, W.Va. They say it's all over but the shouting. Fortunately, Hillary Clinton does that part very well.
"West Virginia is one of those so-called swing states Democrats need to win in the fall!" she told a rally at the old City Hall here, the day after her loss in North Carolina and her narrow win in Indiana all but sealed the Democratic nomination for Barack Obama.
"I want to start by winning it in the spring to lay the groundwork for a victory in November!" said the woman whose candidacy has been pronounced dead by George Stephanopoulos and Tim Russert.
"I hope next Tuesday you will give me a chance to be your president!" announced the person who lent her campaign $6 million to keep it afloat.
Cheers rose from the audience of several hundred on the lawn and in the street, but even some of the faithful said they could read the writing on their cable news screens. "It's pretty obvious," said Ken Martin, waving Clinton posters and wearing paint-speckled overalls. "She fought a good fight."
The surroundings were appropriate. For this, her bid to demonstrate her resilience in the next primary state, she chose a landmark identified with the severely wounded. Shepherd University's McMurran Hall was under construction as Shepherdstown's town hall in 1862 when the Battle of Antietam flooded the city with wounded; with no place to go, the maimed used the unfinished building as a hospital.
There were signs, too, of disarray. Security was minimal (the event had been scheduled as a solo appearance for Chelsea), Obama posters were prominent in the crowd, and the sound system, operated in part by a man wearing an Obama T-shirt, had problems. A camera riser collapsed, sending bodies, coffee and cameras flying -- and providing the press corps with a fresh metaphor.
When Clinton gave her victory speech in Indiana on Tuesday night, there was still a chance that she had scored a solid victory in that state, thereby keeping her candidacy viable. But in the wee hours, her win shriveled to a near-draw, and Clinton aides awoke to brutal judgments about her prospects.
"This nomination fight is over," said Bill Clinton aide-cum-ABC newsman George Stephanopoulos.
"We now know who the Democratic nominee is going to be," submitted NBC's Tim Russert.
"Stick a Fork in Her -- She's Done," recommended the New York Post.
And Matt Drudge celebrated with a headline announcing: "Hillary having trouble finding superdelegates who will meet with her . . . 'No one wants to see her today.' "
But Clinton's advisers fought back with a morning conference call. "Another beautiful day in downtown Arlington!" began Howard Wolfson, from Clinton headquarters. How about all the obituaries? "Thankfully for us, the punditocracy does not control this nominating process," he answered. Any talk about dropping out? "No. No discussions" was the entirety of Wolfson's response.
In the crowd here in Shepherdstown, a few of the Clinton fans wanted to believe. "I think she can pull it off -- she can still do it," said volunteer Dan Frost, carrying a clipboard and trying to sign up supporters. His total: five. Nearby, an opportunistic Obama canvasser carried her own clipboard.
Though the Obama campaign, officially, was practicing good sportsmanship, it had no control over supporter Carol Dunleavy, who waved an Obama sign at the Clinton event. "We got it locked up after last night," she said. "She should drop out. She should do it graciously. She should do it soon."
When the famously tardy candidate arrived half an hour late, she was greeted by cheers mixed with some heckling from people waving Obama placards. "Down with the monarchy!" shouted one.
It's startling how biased the CNN coverage has been tonight. I know this is nothing new, but tonight CNN has been especially disgusting. It's like watching a panel of juvenile DKos bloggers. From Anderson Cooper ridiculing Lanny Davis to Jamaal Simmons joking about Florida and Michigan, to Toobin's snarky attacks, even questioning whether Hillary actually raised $10 million after the PA victory. Clinton support was limited to Begala and Lanny Davis, who both got limited time to speak.
I think it's time we force CNN to label Brazille and Martin as Obama supporters. Even Campbell Brown called Brazille out tonight for her obvious bias. Here's an interesting and testy exchange between Begala, an admitted Clinton supporter, and closet Obama supporter, Donna Brazille. Begala took exception to Brazille's continual defense of Obama and her insinuation that Obama is more able to bring people together, thus ignoring Clinton's coalitions.
Elizabeth Edwards likes Hillary Clinton's plan for universal health insurance. Husband John Edwards doesn't much care for Clinton's "old politics."
So goes the his-and-her debate in the Edwards household (their kitchen, to be specific), as they spoke exclusively to PEOPLE Monday on the eve of primary voting in their homestate of North Carolina – the latest must-win state in this year's protracted Democratic presidental nomination fight between Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama.
In their first joint interview since John, the Democratic former senator and 2004 vice presidential nominee, dropped out of the race in January, the couple named what they liked and disliked about each of the remaining Democrats – and Mrs. Edwards didn't hesitate: "I like Hillary's health care plan."
What doesn't she like about the senator from New York and former first lady? "The lobbyist money," she adds.
On Obama, she says: "The fact that he has motivated so many young people to be involved, I think is fantastic."
But, she adds: "I don't like his health care plan or his advertising on health care, which I think is misleading."
TRENTON, N.J. - Hillary Rodham Clinton can make big statements by winning Tuesday's presidential primaries in Indiana and North Carolina, New Jersey Gov. Jon S. Corzine said Monday as he backed forcing superdelegates to make an early pledge as to which candidate they support.
Corzine, who is heading to North Carolina Monday to campaign for Clinton, said wins on Tuesday for the New York senator would be crucial.
He said superdelegates "are going to have to look at the electability issue when all is said and done."
Corzine said whomever wins the overall popular vote from the Democratic nominating contests is a key consideration and argued that should include Florida.
Clinton won Florida and Michigan, but the Democratic Party stripped them of delegates because the states held primaries earlier than the party allowed. Unlike in Michigan, both Clinton and Obama were on the Florida ballot.
"She won it by 300,000 votes," Corzine said. "I don't know how you can't count that. As a matter of fact it's a poke in the eye to the people of Florida who went out."
He backed a superdelegate convention after the last voter primary in June in hopes the party can pick a nominee early and avoid a bitter summer fight between Obama and Clinton.
Corzine said he would require superdelegates to pledge at that meeting that they're going to declare their choice within two weeks.
The Clinton campaign on Monday touted the endorsement of Sara Fisher, the first woman to earn a pole position at an IndyCar series event.
"We need a president who will stand up for us and be a fighter for Hoosiers and all Americans," Fisher said in a statement released by the campaign. "Hillary will be a president who steers our country in the right direction and puts our economy back on track.
"Something Hillary and I have in common is our commitment to achieving our goals, leaving roadblocks behind and refusing to be knocked down," she also said. "Hillary is a doer and a fighter who keeps getting out there, going for the checkered flag.”
Fisher has completed in six Indianapolis 500s and will try to qualify for her seventh this month.
Democrats are poised this week to pass a crucial milestone in Florida:
For the first time, the number of Hispanic Democrats in the state is expected to exceed the number of Hispanic Republicans.
The Florida secretary of state is expected to release the month's voter registration figures to the state Democratic and Republican parties. The last set of figures, released in April, showed a bare majority of 212 Republicans over Democrats among the state's roughly 1.2 million voters who describe themselves as Hispanic on their official voter registration forms. In each month since the state started tracking Hispanic registration more than two years ago, Democrats have gained.
The significance of the numerical flip is mostly symbolic, but it's a powerful symbol at a key moment: Quietly, Democrats are debating whether to mount a full-out, expensive challenge to Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, in Florida, or essentially cede its 27 Electoral College votes to theGOP. The Florida Democratic Party, still in the midst of a scheduling battle with the Democratic National Committee that has left the state with no say in the presidential nominating process, points to the numbers to argue that the national party should return to the state.
"They absolutely need to be in Florida," said state Democratic Party Chairwoman Karen Thurman, who called the anticipated shift among Hispanic voter registration "historic." "We're winning," she said.
But is Hanks still supporting Hillary? I went to Open Secrets and discovered that as recently as Saturday, Hanks gave $2300 to Hillary. Hmmm...I guess if I'm Hillary, I'd gladly take the money. I haven't seen his video yet so I'm not really sure what's up with this. I'll have to wait until tonight as the job is blocking videos from being viewed. Really curious though. *UPDATE: OK, so I read the Open Secrets page wrong. He actually gave to Hillary last year. This is what happens when you try to rush posts while working. Sorry!
Barack Obama's national standing has been significantly damaged by the controversy over his former pastor, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds, raising questions for some voters about the Illinois senator's values, credibility and electability.
The erosion of support among Democrats and independents raises the stakes in Tuesday's Indiana and North Carolina primaries, which represent a chance for Obama to reassert his claim to a Democratic nomination that seems nearly in his grasp. A defeat in Indiana and a close finish in North Carolina, where he's favored, could fuel unease about his ability to win in November. Such results also could help propel Hillary Rodham Clinton's uphill campaign all the way to the Democratic convention in August.
In the USA TODAY survey, taken Thursday through Saturday, Clinton leads Obama among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents by 7 percentage points, the first time in three months she has been ahead. Two weeks ago, before the controversy over comments by Jeremiah Wright reignited, Obama led by 10 points.
In February, Democrats and Democratic leaners by 33 points said Obama had a better shot at beating Republican John McCain in November. Clinton is now seen as the stronger candidate by 5 points.
Insider Advantage has released new polls in Indiana and North Carolina, with less than stellar results for Obama. However, in a poll released earlier this week, I.A. actually had Clinton leading in North Carolina -- Obama's now regained the lead there.
Indiana
Clinton 47 Obama 40
Clinton leads by 6.2 points in the RCP Average for Indiana
North Carolina
Obama 49 (+7 vs. last poll, April 29) Clinton 44 (nc)
Obama leads by 8.2 points in the RCP Average for North Carolina
While Sen. Obama has prevailed in 27 states, Sen. Clinton's 17 states include California, Texas, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida and Michigan. In fact, if the states that have had a primary or caucus are ranked according to population size, one sees that of the 10 most populous states, Sen. Clinton has won eight and Sen. Obama only two. Considering the 10 least populous states that have voted, one sees a flip in the results — Sen. Obama has prevailed in eight and Sen. Clinton in only two.
Another way of looking at the status of the candidates is to use 2004 election results to ask how many 2004 Electoral College votes in states that John Kerry won does each candidate have to date. In fact, if one sums the Electoral College vote of the states that went Democrat in 2004 according to whether Sen. Clinton or Sen. Obama prevailed, one finds that Sen. Clinton again leads, with 159 of the 2004 Democratic Electoral College votes in her column vs. 85 in Sen. Obama's column.
With only seven of those Electoral College votes in states yet to hold their primary or caucus, Sen. Obama's campaign cannot close this gap. It seems that the strongest Democratic presidential candidate would be the one who is strongest in the "must win" Democratic states. Further, the strongest Democratic candidate should be the one who will be extremely competitive in Ohio and Florida. Again, Hillary Clinton wins in these respects.
Hillary discusses the challenge of juggling career and family life. Click here for more video and for more of momlogic's town hall exclusive with Hillary Clinton.
Hillary sends a special message to Guam on the eve of their upcoming primary.
*Update: Sen. Barack Obama won Guam's Democratic presidential caucuses Saturday by just seven votes, according to a Guam election official.
With all 21 precincts reporting, Obama finished with 2,264 votes, or 50.1 percent. Sen. Hillary Clinton got 2,257 votes, or 49.9 percent.
The presidential candidates were battling for Guam's four pledged delegate votes. Eight delegates will be elected, each with half a vote at the Democratic National Convention in Denver, Colorado, this summer.
Forgoing for a moment the dirty trick of the doctored clip from “The War Room,” which falsely had Mickey Kantor using a racial slur, the filmmaker behind the documentary has posted the clip on his Web site to clarify that other point of confusion -- what Kantor was referring to when he cursed. (An apparent source of confusion since the movie came out and some newspaper writers thought he was cursing Indianans. See previous post for that.)
Filmmakers Chris Hegedus and D A Pennebaker write: "We would like to respond to some erroneous statements made today about our film, THE WAR ROOM. These statements alleged certain remarks to Mickey Kantor that simply are not true. The transcript of the scene in question confirms this."
But in what it described as a "difficult choice," the newspaper's editorial board said that Clinton's "years of high-level experience" gives her the edge.
The next president "will take office at a time of extraordinary risk for this nation, both at home and abroad," including "a sagging economy, rising energy and food costs, the gap in health care, wars in two countries and threats from Iran," the endorsement editorial said. "Clinton is the better choice, based on her experience and grasp of major issues, to confront those challenges."
Of Obama, the editorial said, "His inexperience in high office is a liability."
JEFFERSONVILLE, IN. - Robert Kennedy Jr. — a Kennedy who is not backing Sen. Barack Obama — campaigned on Thursday for Sen. Hillary Clinton, saying he wanted to explain why other members of his family are wrong and he is right.
“I am here because I love this woman,” he told a crowd of Clinton supporters in southern Indiana, which holds its presidential nominating primary on Tuesday.
“There are some members of my family who have decided to do the wrong thing and support Barack Obama,” he said. “Let me tell you why they’re wrong and I’m right, because I know Hillary Clinton better than they know Barrack Obama.”
Congressman Tim Ryan Pledges Support For Hillary Clinton
HillaryClinton.com - Media Release I know this has been floating around a while already, but I just found out and I really, really like this guy. Great news!
Congressman Tim Ryan formally announced his support for the candidacy of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton for President today. Citing her experience and economic platform, Congressman Ryan believes that Hillary Clinton, if elected President, is in the best position to create jobs and economic growth in Northeast Ohio.
"The people of the 17th district overwhelmingly voted for Senator Clinton in the Democratic primary and today I officially pledge my support for Hillary Rodham Clinton. Throughout the 1990s, Senator Clinton working alongside President Bill Clinton had a proven record of economic growth and higher wages for America's working families," said Congressman Tim Ryan. "People in the seventeenth district of Ohio would enjoy a return to strong economic growth, millions of jobs being created and a rise in wages. I look forward to working with her to see that our community is the beneficiary of her economic policies."
You may remember Democrat Tim Ryan from Ohio strongly responding to why young people think the Bush Administration will institute a draft despite their denials. This made Ryan an instant DKos darling.
The Clinton Campaign announced the support of four New York automatic delegates today, after the New York State Democratic Committee elected its automatic delegates to the Democratic National Convention.
The automatic delegates include New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, former Manhattan Borough President C. Virginia Fields, New York State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli and New York Assemblywoman Carmen Arroyo.
Puerto Rico Democratic Committee Vice Chair and Superdelegate Luisette Cabañas announced her support for Hillary Clinton today at an event with Chelsea Clinton in San Juan, Puerto Rico.
"Today I endorse Hillary Clinton for President because of her strong win in Pennsylvania," said Cabañas. "She has shown a firm conviction and the character needed to lead the nation. Her proposals for Puerto Rico, particularly those related to healthcare, are the best by far of any candidate in history."
Cabañas is a successful real estate businesswoman and has been Vice Chair of the Democratic Committee in Puerto Rico since 2003.
"I am honored to have the support of Ms. Cabañas," said Hillary Clinton. "I look forward to working with Luisette and the many friends that we have in Puerto Rico on issues important to the island like health care and economic development."
Senator Obama's break with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. – who officiated at his wedding and baptized his two daughters – could turn off some poorer and older, civil rights-era blacks who may already wonder about Obama's ability to identify with their lives, say experts in black politics and some black voters.
But younger and more affluent blacks say that whether or not they agree with Mr. Wright, they see the rupture as a political necessity for a man seeking to become the first African-American president.
"I felt like what he did today, he had to do," Timothy Perry, a project manager at Reliant Energy in Houston who is an Obama supporter, said Tuesday in a phone interview. "You have a limb that's rotting and you've got to cut it off."
But Michael Durrah, a third-shift security guard at a Washington hotel, says Obama has more explaining to do.
"Your pastor is your No. 1 man in the neighborhood," says Mr. Durrah, a Democrat who says neither Obama nor Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton had inspired him enough to vote in the District of Columbia primary.
Is there anybody on TV right now, more biased toward Obama than Rachel Maddow? Now, I know Keith Olbermann is Obama's biggest mouth piece, but Maddow's reaction toward negative Obama stories is so visceral and over the top, it makes you wonder if she's a pundit or an Obama campaign operative.
Here's an exchange from yesterday's "Race For The White House":
SHUSTER: Rachel Maddow, Jay Carney says he wasn‘t angry enough. I thought he was exceptionally angry, especially when he talked about how Reverend Wright has taken up three or four consecutive days in the middle of this major debate. Was he not angry enough for you.
MADDOW: I thought he seemed angry. As I said before, so far Barack Obama has said—and I‘ve made notes of it as he‘s done it—he vehemently disagrees with him. He strongly condemns him. He categorically denounces him. He rejects him outright. Today we got that he‘s appalled by him, that he‘s outraged by him.
I find it incredible that we‘re all sitting here going, why won‘t the Jeremiah Wright controversy go away. You know what, today, John McCain unveiled his health care plan. We got three different statements, three different policies on gas prices. We got the president of the United States making a huge economic speech and speaking to reporters for 40 minutes. We have got four U.S. soldiers who are announced to have been killed in Iraq yesterday.
What else has to happen in the news to push Jeremiah Wright out of the headlines before we do it for six straight headlines on every politics show in the country? This is all we‘re capable of talking about.
I've never seen her have this kind of reaction when the negative stories were about Hillary. She's actually counting the news cycles here. Unbelievable!
(CBS/AP) Democrat Barack Obama said Tuesday he was outraged and appalled by the latest comments from his former pastor, who asserted that criticism of his fiery sermons is an attack on the black church and the U.S. government was responsible for the creation of the AIDS virus.
The presidential candidate is seeking to tamp down the growing fury over Rev. Jeremiah Wright and his incendiary remarks that threaten to undermine his campaign.
"I am outraged by the comments that were made and saddened by the spectacle that we saw yesterday," Obama told reporters at a news conference.
"Obama's decision to address Wright's recent comments after several days of trying to stay away signals concern over the damage that was being done to his candidacy," said CBSNews.com senior political editor Vaughn Ververs. "His strong denunciation of Wright's remarks, particularly those made yesterday at the National Press Club, was aimed at voters in the upcoming primaries, a national audience and the Democratic superdelegates who hold so much power in the nominating process. It may bring even more attention to the issue but Obama clearly felt he needed to make a very clear and public break with his former pastor."
North Carolina Governor Mike Easley's scheduled endorsement of Senator Hillary Clinton today offers her a potent symbolic and electoral boost in the biggest state left to vote.
Easley is a meaningful ally in the culture war she's waging against Senator Barack Obama, as she seeks to cast him as a hopelessly unelectable liberal elitist and to persuade the Democratic Party leaders who will decide the nomination – the "superdelegates" – to choose her instead.
"It’s an incredibly strong endorsement because Easley is popular among the blue collar 'Bubba' voters who are Democrats," said David "Mudcat" Saunders, a Democratic consultant who advised former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards and former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner on winning rural voters.
Easley had endorsed Edwards for president, but again became a heavily sought superdelegate once Edwards bowed out of the race.
"He's clean in the culture. Easley's wrecked the Charlotte Motor Speedway doing 150 miles per hour, and Bubba likes that," said Saunders, referring to NASCAR fan Easley’s 2003 race car crash. “He's a hunter. He's a strong Second Amendment guy. He gives her great cultural validation in the state of North Carolina."
The polls are starting to show a post-Pennsylvania bump for Hillary Clinton and could buttress her argument to voters in Indiana and North Carolina that she would be the stronger Democratic nominee in November.
In an Associated Press/Ipsos survey released today, Clinton now leads Republican John McCain, 50 percent to 41 percent, while Barack Obama remains virtually tied with McCain, 46 percent to 44 percent.
And in the Gallup daily tracking poll, Clinton leads McCain 47 to 44 percent while Obama and McCain are tied at 45 percent. Also, Clinton and Obama are tied at 47 percent among Democrats in the tracking poll -- a 5-percentage-point gain for Clinton since she won the Pennsylvania primary last Tuesday.
Is this Obama's idea of "respectable" and "mainstream" political thinking? If so, doesn't that tell us something about his judgment and standards?
In Chicago the other day, radio producer Guy Benson discovered video recordings of Ayers and Dohrn speaking at a reunion of antiwar radicals in November 2007. To live in the United States, Dohrn told the group, is to be "inside the heart of the monster" that is such a "purveyor of violence in the world." Ayers denounced America as an imperial warmonger steeped in "jingoistic patriotism, unprecedented and unapologetic military expansion, white supremacy . . . attacks on women and girls, violent attacks, growing surveillance in every sphere of our lives, on and on and on."
Even if Obama doesn't personally believe these things, is it really "tired tripe" to ask why he seems so comfortable in the company of people who do? Is it really "extremely stupid politics" to wonder whether such people might play a role in an Obama administration? Rather than slam the few journalists who raise such questions, might it not behoove others in the media to follow suit?
Here's Sen. Evan Bayh doing a great job of explaining why the Florida votes do count and why Hillary is correct for citing Florida as part of the popular vote.
Can Gov. Richardson be trusted about anything? It's funny how Richardson is now saying that he's supporting Obama because of Clinton's tactics when just a few months ago he was calling out Obama for being too negative, as the clip above shows. H/T to GRL at Insightanalytical-Watching Our World.
The moment I knew Richardson couldn't be trusted was when he said back in May, 2007 in an interview with The Hill, “The only reason I’m not there is because he’s Hispanic, and I know him and like him,” Richardson said, adding, “It’s because he’s Hispanic. I’m honest. “I want to give him the benefit of the doubt.” He was talking about his reluctance to call for the resignation of then Attorney General, Alberto Gonzalez.
It takes someone who has character to question somebody else's character.
Below is Richardson's embarrassing answer to a question from singer Melissa Etheridge regarding whether or not homosexuality is a choice.
Wilder said he isn't surprised that Obama has run behind New York Senator Hillary Clinton among white voters in some states. Obama has faced more ``ingrained difficulty'' as a black candidate than Clinton has as a woman, Wilder said.
Bias against Clinton, 60, may have more to do with specific incidents that have reinforced stereotypes, he said. ``Hillary's reactions to things conjure up images that are not necessarily the healthiest in terms of hissy fits or reactions because of emotions, like the crying and the weeping and then forgetting somewhat that she did that,'' he said.
In Pennsylvania's April 22 Democratic primary, Obama lost by 10 points to Clinton, as white Democrats voted for her by a 65- to-35 percent margin. In exit polls, 19 percent of Pennsylvania Democratic voters said race was important in making their choice.
``I've told him to keep the high ground,'' he said. ``Let the rest of us do what needed to be done'' in responding to attacks.
``I told him it's going to be very difficult, particularly running against a woman,'' he said. ``And racially it's going to be even more difficult.''
Pennsylvania was Sen. Barack Obama's chance to salt away his lead, answer the demographic questions about his candidacy -- and put the Rev. Jeremiah Wright in his rearview mirror.
It was a nice thought. Make that oh-for-3 -- and objects in that mirror are now uncomfortably close.
Pennsylvania's wake has left Obama arguing that he's still ahead (and doing so on the side of not counting votes in two key states), explaining why he can't close the deal (despite the fact that it's not clear Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton can even make a deal work) -- and coping with the sudden, very public reemergence of that pastor he wished would spend the next six months in East Paraguay.
Politically, there seem to be a lot of Democrats out there who think that Clinton is a really, really bad person. There are very few Democrats out there who think that Obama is a bad person.
As an amateur observer of human social behavior, I am quite impressed by the steel wall of aversion that some Obama supporters put up whenever they're confronted by something that does not fit with their established perception of Hillary Clinton -- namely that there is just NO way that Hillary can raise that much money in such a short period of time...because she is, well, Hillary. The fundamental attribution error is at work: it must be a lie because Hillary is a liar; the situation -- a 9 point victory in Pennsylvania, or the roughly half of the Democratic electorate who supporters her -- well, it matters much less. Many Clinton supporters exhibit the same behavior. I exhibit the behavior when it comes to defending members of my tribe -- journalists.
Anyway, here's a representative e-mail from a reader:
Dear Marc, I have enjoyed your campaign coverage, in large part because you generally are a difficult person to dupe. The Clinton campaign got you this time though. I would suggest that you run a few numbers: the Clinton campaign says that it has raised $10 million online, by attracting 100,000 donors, 80% of whom are new donors. That is a tall tale for an incredible number of reasons but here are the most obvious: if Clinton really raised an average of $100 per internet donor, that's about 5 times higher than the typical average internet donation. The claim is specious, but possible--especially given that the Clintons say they directed their large donors towards their website. That begs the obvious question, though: how many "big" donors have the Clintons left untapped? The thousands that it would take to raise that average? That seems unlikely. What also seems unlikely is that they raised money from 80,000 new donors yesterday. That would be increasing their online donor base by 30 to 40 % in one day. The likelihood of that happening is absolutely miniscule, and you know it. The Clintons have had an awfully poor track record of lying about donations over the past three months. And I don't blame them--they have every incentive to lie. The official reports will not come in until the 15th of next month (I believe, though you should know), and by that time how much money they have will be wholly irrelevant because a new storyline should have taken hold in the press; but, if their lies are passed on now, it will create the appearance of momentum, which in turn creates momentum, and may give their campaign a few more weeks of life. So the Clintons have an incentive to lie; your incentive to pass on that lie, without putting a critical eye to it, is what I question. There isn't one. So, with all due respect Marc, dig a little deeper. There's a story there, and you're too smart to miss it. Best, Patrick Moore
Wow...when I look at the comments for the videos I put up on YouTube, the Obama supporters usually have something equally ignorant to say. Usually, it's something like "you're grasping at straws." Well, judging from the above post, it looks like it's Obama's supporters who are now beginning to grasp at straws.
globeandmail.com: Hillary: so macho, she's 'scary' Interesting article from a Canadian media outlet. I'm not sure if a deeper, hidden respect for Hillary becomes present toward the end of this female author's sexist article.
She's mowing down everything in her path.
There was Hillary Clinton on early morning television yesterday, fresh from her Pennsylvania primary victory the night before, in what I call full mental jacket (plus necklace), deliciously upending every gender stereotype on the block by being the most macho politician on the airwaves.
The senator was being challenged to explain her latest campaign ad that showed, among other threats to American security, a picture of Osama bin Laden, as if to convince voters that without her, the terrorists would surely win.
"I would consider him a person we must take out," she replied serenely, making me wonder for a moment whether she was secretly thinking Obama and not Osama.
How macho is she? She makes George W. Bush look like a wimp, John McCain look tender-hearted and her main rival Barack Obama look like a whipped puppy.
Ms. Clinton is now viewed as so "scary" and even mean in her campaign tactics that The New York Times editorial board, who once (in what now seems like another century) endorsed her for the Democratic nomination, pleaded with her to "call off the dogs."
In another interview Ms. Clinton gave recently, she said that if Iran attacked Israel while she were president, "we would be able to totally obliterate them."
Whoa. That kind of commander-in-chief cojones, combined with an almost otherworldly resilience and determination on the campaign trail - despite Hillary deathwatches and pundits and party members calling for her to quit - has evoked equal amounts of admiration, terror and, well, irritation in Clinton watchers.
Whether you consider her to be authentic or a five-star phony, Ms. Clinton is no longer trapped in the bitch ditch. With a ferocious command of facts at her fingertips - no one seems as policy-prepared as she does - and that Olympian tenacity, she seems all of a sudden to have transcended gender.
Was this what we wanted? If so, I wonder why Ms. Clinton's toughness is making some of us uneasy in a new way. Now I'm hearing women who once were drawn to her clearing their throats.
This isn't exactly what we meant, they say. "She's really starting to bug me," said one woman, worried about Ms. Clinton's bruising effect on the Democratic chances of winning the election.
Yet all I know is that while her approach may not be "nice" or filled with hope or idealism or any of those very fine Obamaesque themes, if I had to slog through crap of any kind and end up a winner, I'd channel my inner Hillary to do so. She is one tough mother.
Whether she can also transcend character or baggage or even numbers to win the nomination is quite another matter.
But for the sheer delight - and intrigue - of watching her, she's still the best thing that's ever happened to women in politics.
What's even more fascinating is the comment section, with some Canadians leaving statements that mirror the kind of vitriol you usually see in American blogs.
The candidate who burst onto the national stage promising to bring red and blue states together is suddenly looking quite blue.
Sen. Barack Obama's second consecutive lopsided loss in a critical swing state has exposed soft spots in the support he's been able to secure.
The Illinois senator's had persistent problems in winning working-class, less-educated whites and Pennsylvania accentuated his seeming inability to connect with those voters.
Key Losses Fuel Doubts
While Obama remains the prohibitive front-runner -- with an effectively insurmountable lead in elected delegates -- those potential weaknesses among key demographic groups are fueling a fierce argument inside the Democratic Party over Obama's ability to win a general election.
Lou Dobbs, one of the few making at least a little sense in recent days, makes the point that although Clinton had a big victory, many are still calling for her to leave the race, or say she can't win.
Now on to Indiana! Make sure to make a donation tonight. I know you can spare $5. The clueless pundits are relentless with their negative, anti-Hillary bias. I just flipped on MSNBC for a couple of minutes, only to see the tag-team of Eugene Robinson and Rachel Maddow whine about the recent Clinton ad. Robinson looked depressed while Maddow was just down right angry, even suggesting that "the super-delagates will have to be pushed" to make a decision. Of course, the bias is not limited to MSNBC as the rest of the networks are yapping about Hillary being "bankrupt." I've heard this on three different networks. They just refuse to let her have her day. So give up on a couple of packs of cigarettes, take your lunch to work, hitch a ride to work to save on gas money, wait a couple of weeks to see that movie, buy those new shoes next month, do what ever you can to make a small donation in the next couple of weeks.
Recruiting out-of-state volunteers for the Clinton campaign going into Tuesday's primary was a tall task for Heather Capell. Again and again she heard, "I can't come. It's Passover."
So Capell came up with a special pitch: "Make your exodus to Pennsylvania, so we can celebrate Passover next year in the White House!"
When people complained that it was terrible timing, she said it was actually the perfect time. "Even when it seems inconvenient or hard, you keep on going," she told them. "That's the message of Passover. You keep going to get to the other side."
Enough people responded to her appeals that the campaign gathered more than 40 staff and volunteers, many adorned with Hebrew "Hillary" pins, to celebrate the second night of the holiday on Sunday. Taking a break from knocking on doors, the Clinton boosters sat together at the University of Pennsylvania Hillel, feasting on gefilte fish, singing "Had Gadya" and drawing parallels between the historic ritual and their own present endeavor.
It wasn't just the presence of top advisers and dedicated volunteers at the table that made it clear it was a Clinton event; it was also what was on the table itself: The Seder plates all had oranges on them.
Capell thought including the citrus fruit was important, since the group was supporting a female candidate for president, and some Jews have defiantly included the orange based on an apocryphal story in which a man was said to have told leading Jewish feminist Susannah Heschel that a woman "belonged on the bima [the pulpit from which the Torah is read] like an orange belonged on a Seder plate."
"A woman should be in the White House as much as an orange should be on the Seder plate," explained Capell, a 37-year-old lawyer who took a leave from her firm to volunteer for the campaign.
Hillary Clinton could snag the double-digit win she wants in Pennsylvania today, according to an election-eve poll of Democrats in a bellwether county.
She led Barack Obama 52 percent to 40 percent in polling conducted Sunday and Monday in Allegheny County around Pittsburgh in a Suffolk University survey released today, a slightly larger margin than the statewide Suffolk poll done over the weekend.
Suffolk pollsters say they used similar bellwether counties to correctly predict results in prior Democratic primaries in New Hampshire, California, Massachusetts, Tennessee, and Ohio. They picked Allegheny County because its election results mirrored the statewide results in the 1988 and 2000 Democratic and Republican primaries.
“A cautionary word or two: Past bellwether performance is a guide but not a 100 percent guarantee of future performance,” David Paleologos, director of the Suffolk University Political Research Center, said in a statement. “New bellwethers often are created every election cycle as people migrate and as development and geography-driven issues emerge. In addition, local endorsements from popular people can skew margins.”
Other recent polls have given Clinton a single-digit lead heading into today's make-or-break nomination contest, the first in six weeks.
Keith Olbermann tried his best tonight to slam Sen. Clinton. He threw his best pitches but she kept hitting out of the park. Since he couldn't do the job in person, after the interview he brought in his favorite Obamabot, Richard Wolfe, to start slamming her. They even pointed out among other things, her chuckling about the Richard Mellon Scaife question.
And to the media who keep bringing up the ad that flashes Bin Laden; the ad clearly is about the challenges the next president will have to face. Is the American public supposed to forget Osama? Are we supposed to forget 9-11? This is a typical Obama supporter and Obama media tactic to paint the Senator as a fearmonger.
During the interview, KO brought up our little protest outside his office. It's obvious we got his attention. Here's a clip of that protest:
Matthews has harvested a bumper crop of outrageous remarks during this extended primary season. Specifically, fueled by his obsession with the Clintons (he can't recall attending a single Beltway party where the couple has not been discussed), Matthews has unleashed a flood of sexist commentary.
On that front, of course, the Hardball host has not been alone. This election season, we've seen a cavalcade of white, middle-age men express their deep, personal contempt for the first serious female contender for the White House. Contempt, of course, that has nothing to do with Sen. Hillary Clinton's policies or her beliefs. Instead, it's been an oddly personal disdain dressed up as political analysis.
The way Mike Barnicle on MSNBC said Clinton "look[ed] like everyone's first wife standing outside a probate court." The way Bill Kristol on Fox News said that among the only people supporting Hillary Clinton were white women, and "[w]hite women are a problem, that's, you know -- we all live with that." The way CNN's Jack Cafferty likened Clinton to "a scolding mother, talking down to a child." The way Fox News' Neil Cavuto suggested Clinton was "trying to run away from this tough, kind of bitchy image." The way MSNBC's Tucker Carlson announced that "when [Clinton] comes on television, I involuntarily cross my legs." The way Christopher Hitchens on CNBC described Clinton as being "sort of alternately soppy and bitchy.'"
That's all taken place in open view. And while a blog swarm did engulf Matthews in January, followed by a forced, pseudo-apology by the host -- and his attacks did prompt some women activists to carry picket signs outside the MSNBC studios -- the openly sexist comments have produced very few condemnations from within the industry and even less soul-searching from the (mostly male) press corps. In fact, in Matthews' case, the sexist outbursts have helped propel his career. That's how he landed on the cover of the Times magazine.
Clinton, who with her husband former President Bill Clinton were the subjects of many conservative investigations when they first entered the White House in 1993, was endorsed on Sunday by the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review whose publisher, Richard Mellon Scaife, funded many of those probes.
The Tribune-Review mentioned Clinton's record and experience in making the choice in the Democratic vote, but also cited her willingness to sit down with the newspaper's editorial board.
"Clinton's decision to sit down with the Trib was courageous, given our long-standing criticism of her," the paper said. "That is no small matter. Political courage is essential in a president. Clinton has demonstrated it. Obama has not."
In Philadelphia, a group of Clinton supporters gathered outside City Hall on Market St. as part of a visibility campaign this past Saturday, April 19th. Unlike what you might be hearing in the media, I saw a bunch of support for Hillary in Philadelphia and the supporters were very diverse.
PRINCETON, NJ -- A sizable proportion of Democrats would vote for John McCain next November if he is matched against the candidate they do not support for the Democratic nomination. This is particularly true for Hillary Clinton supporters, more than a quarter of whom currently say they would vote for McCain if Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee.
This is amazing. Remember when Barack smugly declared "I wil get the people who voted for her".
I just got back from Philly, where I spent the weekend campaigning for Hillary. I met some great people at Hilladarity which was put on by the girls at HireHeels.com/. Shout out to Dianne & Liz who did a great job. People from as far as CA were at this event. I also met Piper a SeatOurDelegates.com When you get a chance, please go the site and sign her petition to seat the FL and Michican delegates. I'll have some video footage up very soon.
This ABC report points out the latest Gallup poll that has Clinton back on top by 1 point nationally. The first time in a month since she's been ahead.
It’s rather amusing watching the liberal media launch a full-scale attack on George Stephanopoulos and Charles Gibson, with General Tom Shales of the Washington Post leading the charge. ABC’s Stephanopoulos and Gibson had the audacity to ask Obama some tough questions during the Democratic debate Tuesday night. Challenge Obama with well-informed questions on tax policy and politics? Wound the media favorite? How dare they?
The fallout is fascinating. With members of the mainstream liberal media lunging at each others throats, it’s kind of like watching Hillary and Obama go at it.
But here’s the deal: During the debate, Obama bungled his answers on tax policy, big time. Period. End of sentence. End of story. To my liberal friends in the media, all I can say is: Get over it. Your guy has a very poor grasp of basic economic principles.
First off, you don’t raise taxes during a recession. That’s a no-brainer. Second, doubling the capital-gains tax rate will affect Americans up and down the income ladder, not just rich hedge-fund managers. In addition, capital-gains tax cuts are self-financing, and they stimulate jobs and the economy. You want to raise budget revenues and spark economic growth? Cut the cap-gains tax rate. That’s what history shows.
The Wall Street Journal’s Steve Moore points out that in 2005, almost half of all tax returns reporting capital gains came from households with incomes under $50,000, while more than three-quarters came from households earning less than $100,000.
Obama also proposed uncapping the payroll tax, another blunder that will hit people up and down the income ladder. While Obama pledges tax hikes only for folks earning more that $200,000 a year, his tax hike on payrolls would actually slam middle-income earners. The cap on wages subject to the payroll tax is presently $102,000. By eliminating that cap Obama will be soaking veteran firemen, cops, teachers, and health-service workers, along with a variety of other occupations.
In Florida, Alex Halberstein, who serves on AIPAC's executive board, is among those who predict that Democrats will lose Jewish votes in the Sunshine State if Obama is the nominee. "We just don't know very much about him," says Halberstein, who supported President Clinton and contributed to and voted for Bush in 2004. He said that Obama's lack of a long track record on Middle East issues, as well as Wright's anti-American comments and praise of Farrakhan, remain ongoing concerns among many Jewish voters. The concerns linger, he says, even with the senator's denunciation of his former pastor's comments. Obama's friendship in Chicago with Palestinian intellectual and Israel critic Rashid Khalidi, now a professor at Columbia University, also requires more explanation for hard-line voters, says Morton Klein, who heads the conservative Zionist Organization of America.
posted by Marc1A at 7/08/2008 10:25:00 AM
|
0 comments
links to this post
