A Five Step Plan for a Hillary Rebound

Newsday has a five-step plan for Hillary Clinton to rebound from the post-Super Tuesday wins of Barack Obama. It was created by "experts and Clinton backers."

1. Recapture "Hillary voters," starting in Wisconsin.

The Feb. 19 Wisconsin primary, which the Clinton campaign has downplayed, will provide her with a chance to regain her footing with blue-collar whites and women in Milwaukee and its suburbs. A Strategic Vision poll taken before this week's losses shows Obama leading by just 4 points and one Clinton aide said the "game would change if we can sneak a win there" by focusing obsessively on the economy.

Her campaign has convinced her to spend three days there this week, rather than spending all week in Texas or Ohio.

2. She has to win Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Win Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania. If Obama wins even one, Clinton's primary-night speech could be her farewell address. Citing internal polling, Clinton's people believe she has a very strong advantage in Texas, where she will bank on Hispanic voters who propelled her to wins in California, Nevada and Arizona. She's also strong in Pennsylvania, leading by 20 or more points, although recent poll data is scarce.

Ohio, say the experts, is a little different.

Obama is expected to perform very strongly in Cleveland's big African-American community and in Columbus, a mini-Seattle with a high concentration of college students and professionals. Clinton is expected to do well in rust-belt cities like Youngstown and Toledo and conservative parts of the state, including Cincinnati and its suburbs.


3. Keep the SuperDelegates on board.

Clinton leads Obama among supers by a 242 to 156 margin. But with every Obama win, the temptation to defect grows. For African-American Democrats, there's an added element -- pressure from black voters who see them as out of step. Rep. Charlie Rangel, an icon in Harlem, has been heckled by Obama backers. Rep. Maxine Waters, who represents a predominantly black district in Los Angeles, gets up to 100 angry e-mails a day, hectoring her to abandon Clinton, according to sources.

4. Go Negative, but carefully: There will be an ad in Wisconsin taking him to task for refusing to debate her.

5. Sweat the Small Stuff: After Iowa, she wasn't inclined to dole out more money for these small states. Obama won them. Now, she's decided to open offices in Wyoming, Montana, Kentucky, Mississippi and Puerto Rico.

This is beginning to sound depressing. Where are her base of women? They need to rally around her, donate to her and volunteer in her campaign. It's fine that she doesn't win a race since SuperTuesday, and I don't think she has a chance in Wisconsin, but when the March. 4 states of Texas and Ohio come up, her supporters ought to be doing everything they can for her.

I'd be interested in what readers (who are not Obama supporters) think are her best bets.

Have any suggestions?

Note: This is a thread about Hillary and how she can reverse things to get her mojo back. It's not for Obama supporters or shills, there are other threads you can comment on.

< Senate Votes to Ban Waterboarding | Texas Overturns Ban on Sex Toys >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Where is Michael Whouley? (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Jon on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 02:41:07 AM EST
    Here's my Short List:

    1. Michael Whouley in Wisconsin

    Hillary should have had Michael Whouley in Wisconsin as people in the Potomac Primaries started voting.  The best way to stop Obama's momentum cold is to make it a close contest in Wisconsin at a minimum or to win it.  That would drive the media coverage over the next few weeks as the giddy media stokes the fires for a big show-down in Texas and Ohio. The media narrative would no longer be all about Obama's wins and the herculean and almost insurmountable effort needed by Hillary to actually win the nomination now.  

    2. Surrogates in Wisconsin

    Hillary needs tough surrogates with credentials who can chip away at Obama's really skimpy resume

    (a.)His lack of executive, managerial, leadership experience,

    (b.)His "lack of qualifications" to be Commander-in-Chief,

    (c.)To make the distinction between a candidate who talks well and promises a lot but hasn't accomplished much in his political life  (lack of any substantive legislative achievements, he's all hat and not much cattle, he chaired a U.S. Senate foreign affairs committee but never held a single committee meeting nor produced any accomplishment which together with his voting present on controversial issues in the Illinois Senate reinforces his lack of accomplishment to back up his loft rhetoric),

    (d.) Take him on his Iraq War vote which he always gets a pass on (he made one speech as a State Senator but when he went to Washington he has voted the same way as Hillary and other Senators on the War (contrasts his rhetoric with his actions in the Senate and taken together with the above contrasts reinforces that he talks a good anti-Washington game but played the old Washington game very well while in Washington D.C., he's a politician (surprise!),

    (e.) Point out Hillary's political scars for what they are, BADGES OF PRIDE, for the many times that she has fought the tough political fights against the powers that be, against the corporate interests on the behalf of people whose voices are seldom heard in Washington, D.C. - these political scars are PROOF that she will fight for them - she alone has the track record of fighting for those without a voice in Washington, D.C.,

    (f.) Explain how her knowledge of how Washington works, how to master the bureaucracy, how to move th levers of power as President, will enable her to Effect CHANGE on DAY ONE and not be sucked into the old Washington game that engulfs every new President - she knows how to avoid the pitfalls by having been there before (Do we really have the time, a whole first-term, for a new President to learn the ways of Washington in able to try to change it b/c by that time Washington will have  engulfed the new President and little change will actually end-up happening,)

    (g.) Make the point that the challenges are too great, the risks too high, to take a chance on an exciting personality with lofty rhetoric but, unfortunately,  doesn't have the experience or the accomplishments to back up the rhetoric (if we lose the Presidency then we lose the Supreme Court,)

    (h.) Highlight the differences between the Hillary and Obama messages -  his is one of ambiguous change, hers is one of REAL CHANGE, REAL SOLUTIONS - CHANGE that WORKS for the AMERICAN PEOPLE on DAY ONE based on her life experience of effecting change and effecting real solutions to real problems to make a difference in real people's lives

    3. Hillary in Wisconsin

    (a.) Drive the local media coverage with events that allow the Hillary campaign to point out and contrast the differences between her plan and Obama's plan for health care coverage (his plan is more of the same with rosier estimates of how many people it would cover) and their records and policies on the other economic issues,

    (b.) Drive local media coverage with a series of town visits driving toward a huge rally in the largest Hillary demographic area,

    (c.) let people know that she is on their side (she understands their issues, their lives, and how her policies will address their concerns and needs - she hears their voices and will carry those voices to Washington D.C. - for the first time in years the voices of the people will drive what happens in Washington D.C. and not the desires and whims of corporate lobbyists,)

    (d.) WE, together, have the power to take back OUR country (it's OUR country and TOGETHER we can take it back and move it forward with REAL SOLUTIONS, READY to WORK on Day ONE,)

    (e.) Everywhere Hillary goes she should ask people to join her to CHANGE the culture in Washington D.C. - to put the interests of the country first and not those of the corporate lobbyists (Bringing REAL CHANGE, a CHANGE that WORKS for the AMERICAN PEOPLE on DAY ONE,)

    (f.) Everywhere she goes she needs to ask the voters to join her and together WE can take back our country and CHANGE the course of history,

    (g.) consistent message discipline with events that highlight and reinforce the message:

    (h.) Coordinate, coordinate, coordinate with locals in the field to get the vote out,

    (i.) Use Bill and Chelsea and other "prominents" strategically as needed to drive turnout and interest and counter Obama presence as needed

    4. Texas

    (a.) While the Wisconsin fight is underway, field coordinators should be working in Texas, esp.  to drive enthusiasm and lock-in Latino(a) votes and women votes (through Latino outreach and Women outreach programs,)

    (b.) Get Surrogates in immediately to bring the same message as in Wisconsin, to contrast and compare Obama with Hillary

    5. Ohio

    (a.) Get Michael Whouley in Ohio the night before election day in Wisconsin so he can start on the Wisconsin election day organizing in Ohio,

    (b.) Get Surrrogates in immediately,

    (c.) While the Wisconsin campaign is underway, the field ops people should be working the Hillary areas and coordinating with the Governor's team

    6. General

    (a.)Rotate a core group of surrogates through the states with other surrogates brought in to buttress local outreach efforts,

    (b.) On the air, radio and cable locally, strategically to drive turnout in key areas and to blunt Obama strong areas

    O.K., it's tough to write a complete campaign document in a short period of time but the above is a good start. ;-)


    Three keys to Being Successful:
    (1.) Dominate the local news, radio and cable through events, surrogates and a strong, tough but fair campaign,
    (2.) Message Discipline
    (3.) Organization

    It's been obvious that the Hillary campaign has not had all three of these since NH. And with CHANGE the driving issue, Hillary is the perfect vessel for that change - She's been there, done that! She has a track record, no need for lofty and soaring rhetoric.

    NOTE on the MEDIA

    Running a strong campaign is not negative campaigning. The Hillary campaign should ignore the nattering nabobs of MSNBC and the rest of the Obama-obsessed MSM. The Obama campaign has played them like a fiddle and they have been compliant and willing tools, including the formerly great Keith Olbermann. The Hillary campaign should play to the local media.

    As for media... (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by SandyK on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:40:11 AM EST
    more, more, more access.

    The press eat it up if they feel they can be an "insider" (one of the reasons McInsane gets so much positive PR). Press are ego and money driven organizations and need something to fill their airwaves/pages. More access they get, the better their correspondents feel about who their reporting on -- and this is important, as folks can she by body language how a reporter likes the candidate even behind a fake smile.

    New campaign manager = new outlook. So bring in the press -- the dogs whined enough because they didn't get to be in her limelight. Just bring a long leash just in case.

    And from my perch -- get those signs up. I swear I haven't seen one piece of Hillary literature or sign in miles of my locale. Only a part time office with hours like 6pm that they seem to be open (how are bus riders going to get there when the bus stops at 6???) -- it's location doesn't even serve the population that can benefit her (blue collared workers and service workers are on the southside, not downtown!!). Please set up offices based on census reports, not the most convienent for staff!!!!!!


    Badges of HONOR not Pride (none / 0) (#14)
    by Jon on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 02:46:33 AM EST
    Sorry, typo should read,BADGES OF HONOR and not BADGES of Pride. I was thinking that she should be proud of those political scars - she got them by trying to effect real change. She should never have let Obama use them against her.

    Hillary in Texas while (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by maritza on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:24:05 AM EST
    Obama was in Wisconsin on Tuesday night says it all to Wisconsin voters. It says to them that Hillary was looking past their state.

    I still say that Obama takes Wisconsin by 5%.

    It was a little slap in the face to Wisconsin voters that she wasn't even in their state that night when Obama had a 17,000 people rally in Madison.

    Her campaigning over the weekend there will help but I think it will be a little too little too late.

    5%??? (none / 0) (#21)
    by Bear2000 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:57:17 AM EST
    Are you kidding me? Wisconsin is a 10-point win for Obama.

    Then kook for him to be above 50 in all national polls by next Friday.  Hillary may drop into the high 30s.  


    Hillary should question (none / 0) (#22)
    by ding7777 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:59:23 AM EST
    Obama's sincerity when he speaks to the WI voter  
    a war that is costing us thousands of precious lives and billions of dollars a week

    while he's voted for EVERY Iraq funding bill that she has voted for -


    Don't (none / 0) (#46)
    by tek on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:55:12 AM EST
    you think, though, that people must see how the party has abandoned her and colleges are overwhelmingly for Obama, so if these people don't reach out to Hillary they should expect that she's going to campaign where she has a real chance. She's not going to get Madison no matter what, I think that's pretty clear.

    I still blame the party for acting like Obama is The One and all but endorsing him early on, then they tell Bill Clinton he has to shut up and stay out of the campaign. How does that look to voters? Especially young people who don't remember his administration? Now, the party is virtually telling Hillary she has to drop out for the good of the party. I think political parties should just stay out of the fray during the primary season and let the voters decide. They should treat all candidates equally and not protect one candidate while they abandon another, especially a candidate like Hillary who has at least half of the Democratic base. I'm really disgusted with Nancy Pelosi.


    Calling out for help with money made a difference (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by katiebird on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:12:27 AM EST
    Since asking for help with money was so successful, I wonder if similarly asking for volunteer help would work?

    Could they send a message to their list asking for just "5 phone calls" to Wisconsin?  Something relatively painless?  

    Call it 5 Calls for Victory...

    Then do the same for other states.

    She's got all those new contributors (Including me) -- now's a good time to ask them for "just a little more"

    That's probably a good idea (none / 0) (#39)
    by andrewwm on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:42:46 AM EST
    One of the problems has always been her top-down campaign strategy - use the inevitability, name recognition, and backing of the core group of big Democratic donors to push her over the edge. While she's got a core group of support, she's never asked much from them while Obama (by necessity) has basically run his campaign on the backs of them.

    As her earlier advantages fall by the wayside (tapped out donors, no more aura of inevitability), it will be interesting to see if she can swing it around to a more bottom-up strategy.


    Debates (none / 0) (#2)
    by Meurs on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:21:52 AM EST
    First is to keep WI as close to a delegate wash as possible.  Winning would be great, but losing with a narrow deficit is good too.

    But looking at the math, I fear the only real chance she has to rack up big margins in the March 4 states is to force a dramatic moment in one or both debates. She'll have to pressure him very hard and hope he makes a big gaffe.  Barring that, I don't think she can get the margins she needs to get within a reasonable margin on the pledged delegates side.

    I (none / 0) (#37)
    by tek on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:40:06 AM EST
    noticed in the MSM headlines today, they aren't even mentioning Hillary anymore. It's all McCain v. Obama. Of course, two weeks ago, everyone thought McCain was done.

    two weeks ago? (none / 0) (#47)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:56:29 AM EST
    i don't know what you were watching, but no one though McCain was done two weeks ago.  That would have been days before Super Tuesday, and people thought McCain was going to wrap up the nomination on Super Tuesday, which he essentially did.

    btw... (none / 0) (#49)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:09:05 AM EST
    ... no one has thought McCain has been out of it since before New Hampshire.

    I hate to say it (none / 0) (#3)
    by echinopsia on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:26:15 AM EST
    But she needs to court the youth vote who think Obama is a rockstar. She probably seems more like their mom, and I don't imagine the number of younger voters who can identify with Chelsea is very high. She's no Paris Hilton, after all (Hillary be praised). They don't remember the Clinton years and all they hear is how awful they were (!) instead of how the economy was great and most of us had jobs and got raises then and we didn't have to take our shoes off or put shampoo in a baggie to get on a plane. Unlike Obama, she hasn't made promises she doesn't think she can keep. That's good. But his promises are like candy, apparently.

    I think she should appeal to the natural rebelliousness of youth and challenge them to not follow the herd for Obama. He's trendy now but trends come and go quickly. She needs to catch the inevitable backlash and turn it into votes for her, the new underdog.

    She's got some pretty strong musical celebrity support: Carly Simon, Katherine McPhee, Janet Jackson, 50 Cent, John Mayer, Madonna, Cher, Jon Bon Jovi, and Barbra Streisand. She's also got Quincy Jones and Barry Gordy on her side. Why haven't some of these people made a music video for her?

    Get even one of them to come to Milwaukee (none / 0) (#5)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:49:38 AM EST
    and we can rock the city!  My pref would be the great Carly Simon or Barbra, but we middle-agers can be in one room with them while our 20-something progeny fill another hall for others, flashing their cell-phone cameras overhead.  Seriously, THIS is the sort of event we need in Milwaukee to take back the front pages and top of the tv news for Obama today.

    This is a MUSIC city, home to the world's largest music festival at our Summerfest grounds every year.  And we have the world's largest Irish festival there every summer, and every weekend is filled there with other ethnic festivals and rocking bands and more.

    And if the music is free, Milwaukee is cheap and will be there.  (If the beer is free, we'll never leave.:-)  Great idea -- we've got five days. . . .


    Hillary is on Youtube (none / 0) (#8)
    by jor on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:35:50 AM EST

    trying to reach out to the young, what do you guys think?


    I saw this (none / 0) (#16)
    by IndependantThinker on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:26:28 AM EST
    video posted on a Repub site and the comments were not complimentary. In truth, I don't think it's good.

    The badness... (none / 0) (#19)
    by Bear2000 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:10:04 AM EST
    ...of this video is beyond words.  It will become an artifact of a failed campaign.  Seriously - it speaks volumes about where she's at and where Obama's at.

    Read the header (none / 0) (#32)
    by echinopsia on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:31:25 AM EST
    This  thread is not for you.

    Music for the youths! (none / 0) (#33)
    by hvs on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:33:02 AM EST
    "She's got some pretty strong musical celebrity support: Carly Simon, Katherine McPhee, Janet Jackson, 50 Cent, John Mayer, Madonna, Cher, Jon Bon Jovi, and Barbra Streisand. She's also got Quincy Jones and Barry Gordy on her side. Why haven't some of these people made a music video for her?"

    Um. Ya! Send every young voter you know a link to this video! It'll really influence them!


    Hee. Sorry. This is snark. Should be deleted very soon. It doesn't take much these days.


    I think you've (none / 0) (#40)
    by tek on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:45:29 AM EST
    hit on it. Obama looks more like the Gen Xers and he has the high octane performance, I think his campaign stops are more of a performance than a stump speech. No wonder he praises Reagan, a fellow performer.

    I think it's probably too late for Hillary to take his youth vote away. She does look like their Mom because she's the age to be their Mom. Too bad that's what we base our vote on.

    You know I can still remember the first time I watched an interview with the Clintons on TV. I had given up on politics, then I saw these two articulate people who had concrete plans and really understood the problems in the country and wanted to restore democracy. They could talk about their ideas in specific detail, site statistics and everything without notes. They had an obvious enthusiasm for democracy.

    When people started to praise Obama's speeches, I watched some of them, looking for this same substance and enthusiasm. I didn't see it and I still don't. But I guess that's the difference in generations.


    Is it? She was in charge in Iowa (none / 0) (#4)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:42:25 AM EST
    and we in Wisconsin read good press about her, being from here -- but that was before the Iowa caucus.   I wondered what happened to her since.  And she is Madison-based, a world away from the rest of the state; does she know Milwaukee?  We will see.

    It does seem darned late in the game for a change at the top here, with less than a week to ago -- although there is need for better coordination.   All campaigns can be crazy, and the local volunteer coordinator has been emailing like mad, trying to rally the troops but with little info to do so.  The local paper in Milwaukee, the leading paper in the state, lists only one Hillary Clinton event, but it's the $100 dollar Dem dinner where Obama will speak, too.  

    Not that the Obama schedule has had much detail  until today -- but now it has an event a day in other cities, culminating in a Milwaukee rally just set for Sunday in our convention center . . . while we await word of a public event with Hillary Clinton here.  Details of the Bill Clinton event early tomorrow just went out late today, the Chelsea Clinton tour that began in Milwaukee didn't have a time or place publicized until the morning paper, only hours before. (I would have reversed the tour, if set so late, to start her outstate to then come to Milwaukee with more notice -- and ditto for Ambassador Joe Wilson, with less than 12 hours' notice to set up events; he could have drawn crowds with 24 hours' notice!)

    I want to hope it pulls together in record time, but . . . well, heck, if anyone can come to Wisconsin and help, do so NOW to be here when any details are decided.  But bring your woolies. :-)

    Why, oh, why Madison? (none / 0) (#15)
    by SandyK on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:18:20 AM EST
    It's an UW town?!!

    Yeah, everyone knows there it's liberal with a capital "L", but the university is going to be a draw for Obama.

    Would think a more rural area would help her out better -- La Crosse, maybe? SW and NW is heavy with Norsk and Svensk, and they tend to be populists (and more conservative -- I know my relatives up there are).


    What (none / 0) (#36)
    by tek on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:38:03 AM EST
    is totally disheartening to me is that we are academic professionals and we think Obama would be a big mistake. I do not understand why highly educated people can't see that this guy is vacuous, no substance, and then the other puzzling thing to me is that the far left has embraced him.

    I have followed his movements closely ever since he started making noises about running for prez. He is so conservative, he's anti-gay, he's pro-faith based initiative, he talked about going into Pakistan and Iran, Joe Lieberman is his mentor for Pete's sake. Watching all this stuff, I really thought he didn't have a chance. Is it just because he's black that the far left is determined to have him? Maybe they're fascinated with the idea of a black president and don't want a woman?


    He's so vague (none / 0) (#51)
    by echinopsia on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:09:41 AM EST
    vacuous, no substance, and then the other puzzling thing to me is that the far left has embraced him.

    That anyone can imbue him with their own agenda. he says "I'm for change" and the people picture the change they personally want, even when that's not what he expressly says he'd do.


    Highly educated conservatives (none / 0) (#83)
    by SandyK on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:23:59 PM EST
    from the best schools and colleges, also fell into the same trap with the glitz on the Right. Same for the brightest for Lenin, Hitler and Stalin. Charisma does it.

    But folks remember Dewey. He had the "momentum", the press adored him -- and that classic headline of his win against Truman, proved by how much. But it was all wrong, as the people voted who they wanted.

    Folks, don't fall into the same trap. Vote on the issues, not on self-identities -- as you'll get anything but that is for you, and what you think represents you.


    Bloggers should get together (none / 0) (#6)
    by Donna Darko on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:11:00 AM EST
    Clinton bloggers should get together and make a lot of noise before March 4. Hillary 1000 has blogrolled all known Clinton supporters including TalkLeft and myself. It would be nice if any Clinton supporters linked Hillary1000.

    You can contribute to HRC at Hillary1000!! (none / 0) (#75)
    by Redstar on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:26:41 AM EST
    Donna - Thanks for the PR!  I see we've gotten a lot of traffic to the site this morning from your comment.  Folks, The Hillary1000 is a fundraising network for Sen. Clinton.  Please consider contributing to her campaign via our site.  Links to the HRC contribution page are throughout the site, including on the About page, and the "Please Contribute" page.

    And of course, if you'd like to be linked, or blog for the site, just let me know!


    Low Information Voter - Bloc is gonna leave her (none / 0) (#7)
    by jor on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:34:30 AM EST
    Hillary I think is in trouble with her blue-collar / low-information voters. As I was saying before, its very likely a lot of her voters are going for on name recognition. 3 weeks of talking about how Obama is the leader, and the need to focus on McCain is gonna swing them around to him as the front-runner. See
    for more info on the low-information voter theory.  

    Don't think so (none / 0) (#12)
    by badger on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 02:02:34 AM EST
    I've been out of WI for 12 years now, so some of this is more historical and trending downward, but I think a lot of it still holds.

    For starters, the theory you're referncing is based on national averages. Wisconsin's primary/secondary education system has ranked well above average and WI has a lot of university, community college and university extension campuses spread throughout the state (see the Wisconsin Idea).

    Second, a lot of Wisconsin voters are still factory workers, many of them (as Obama's GM rally in Janesville today) unionized and/or skilled trades. I know these people pretty well, and they are not low-information voters. That holds in a lot of smaller towns too, where work centers around a factory of some sort (could be Ocean Spray in Darien, John Deere in Horicon, Maytag in Ripon, GE Med in Waukesha, paper mills and others - depending on which are still there). There are a lot of votes in WI outside of Milwaukee and Madison, which is one reason hardly anyone from Milwaukee gets elected governor.

    Those people are very knowledgeable on issues that matter to them, which may not have been well-represented on the '23 question' test the low information voter theory you linked is based on.

    Third, a lot of Hillary's support will come from the suburbs, particularly suburban women, where the educational levels are relatively higher.

    A lot of that is the coalition that helped Feingold outpoll Kerry in 2004, and, assuming they know much about Obama, I don't see him being the kind of candidate they'd choose. It's also the kind of voter that went for Edwards instead of Kerry in 2004 (Edwards finished a close second), and went for Carter over Udall in 1976 and JFK over HHH in 1960.

    From the small amount of time I've spent in OH and PA, they have similarities to WI, and Hillary is still polling well in both of those states.

    Like I said, I moved away a long time ago, but I'm still skeptical that Obama will have a large margin there, and may not have a winning margin at all depending on who shows up to vote.


    I think (none / 0) (#17)
    by IndependantThinker on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:32:37 AM EST
    Obama has hired a lot of staff to troll and post on all newspaper sites nationwide and any public blog on the internet. It's very organized, which shouldn't surprise me since Obama is a professional organizer.  Of course, we've all seen his ads.  Hillary hate and Pro Obama posts are rampant.  Low info voters pass on what there hear and read, and all it takes is 1 person to spread the information.

    I've seen some pretty amazing anti-hillary posts that are clearly not written by typical online newspaper readers.


    Probably right. (none / 0) (#43)
    by tek on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:47:53 AM EST
    Anyone have any idea why Hil lost the Hispanic vote in the Potomac primaries, such as it was?

    Hispanics (none / 0) (#53)
    by echinopsia on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:12:44 AM EST
    On the Potomac are not like SW Hispanics. They're more likely to be S. American, Puerto Rican, rather than Mexican.

    jor (none / 0) (#27)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:52:39 AM EST
    Why do you keep implying on every thread that Hillary voters lack intelligence and lack access to information?  Every time you are disproven, you move on to another thread and tout the same thing.  I wish you could spend a day with blue collar workers. I think you'll find that they are actually pretty smart.  They are, in fact, the backbone of America.  They keep our world running.  They read newspapers.  They watch the nightly news.  They are not stupid just because they work with their hands.

    As for what I think Hillary needs to do--I think it plays into the arrogance you've been espousing: remind blue collar workers that she knows more about their problems and can find solutions.  Blue collar workers are so loyal because they understand that you dance with the one that brung you.

    Also, what Cream told us about Joe Wilson was very encouraging.  Adults need to be reminded that Clinton has actually done things that have made us safer.  Issues like the letter against torture need to be compared to Obama's "hope" rhetoric--why isn't he asking his stadium crowds to march on the White House and stop the war?  Why doesn't he charge them to flood the WH with letters demanding torture be outlawed?  Why hasn't he rallied them around universal healthcare?

    I think whoever said this before me is right--she has to be very careful about going negative, and be very nuanced in her word choice. (A woman cannot get away with making a man seem ineffective the same way that a man can)  I think what Clinton did with Katie Couric in the 60 Minutes interview shows a bit of the new plan: listening to her talk, you would think that Obama is just some silly kid who is trying to sit at the adult table.  If she goes too heavy on that, she's toast, but sending folks out like Joe Wilson to bring out the McCain whipping is a good thing.


    "Low information voters" (none / 0) (#34)
    by echinopsia on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:36:24 AM EST
    On another thread I called the "the salt of the earth" (dependeable, decent, unpretentious) and some Obamidiot took me to task for saying blue collar workers were some kind of "ignorant, noble peasantry." He didn't even know the meaning of the phrase.

    Who's  the low information voter here?


    I think (none / 0) (#45)
    by tek on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:50:23 AM EST
    about people like my Dad who is basically blue collar but finally made a fortune in his chosen field, still a staunch Democrat and I know he isn't going to vote for a "rock star" like Obama. I can't imagine that these people are going to vote for Obama, but maybe there just aren't enough of them to swing it.

    Also, these are the people the Democratic Party has abandoned in the last 7 years, so they might be up for grabs.


    Poll after poll.... (none / 0) (#85)
    by jor on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:40:55 PM EST
    ... has shown hillary voters are less educated than their obama counterparts. In almost all states, thats one thing that has stayed constant.

    Considering she is worth 50 million dollars, and loaned herself 5x Obama's net worth, and might give herself another loan 5x Obama's net worth --- I'm not sure how much in common hillary has with blue collar workers anymore.


    I wish Obama would leave SS alone (none / 0) (#11)
    by athyrio on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 02:00:25 AM EST
    Jimmy Carter revisited! (none / 0) (#24)
    by demforfreedom on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:41:56 AM EST
    Obabma is to 2008 at Jimmy Carter is to 1976.... The democrats had a golden opportunity in 76 to take control and burry the republican party, they went with Jimmy Carter's promise of changing washington.  Carter got to Washington and Washington did't want to change, the whole thing blew up in his face and the republicans took control again we went from what should have been 30 years of democratic rule to 4 and done and then the republicans took over for 16.  You have to have expierence to make a change, LETS NOT MAKE THE SAME MISTAKE TWICE.  Obama's time will come when he is ready.  2008 is not that and if he wins it will be Jimmy carter all over again and we will have gone from a golden opportunity to sieze the white house for many years to come to turning power right back over to the republicans in 4 years after obama's inagural address.   Please DONT MAKE THE SAME MISTAKE TWICE.

    Actually, (none / 0) (#50)
    by tek on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:09:34 AM EST
    I think the Clintons are more like Carter, but since he's very Christian he won't endorse them. What destroyed Jimmy Carter was Ted Kennedy's grudge that he didn't get to be president. Now, Kennedy's doing the same thing to Hillary. I think he doesn't like that the Clintons were a phenomenon like JFK, but they had two terms and now they could return for more.

    I read Hillary's remarks in that MLK speech. She DID credit JFK with crafting the civil rights bill. You've got to wonder what the heck Ted Kennedy is up to. He seems to be very driven by perceived slights to what he perceives as the Kennedy legacy. Also, I think Ted Kennedy wants to be seen endorsing the first black presidential candidate, he thinks that will add to JFKs civil rights "legacy." I think that's a lot of what's going on in the Dem party.

    If you think about it, lately the Dems have been losing AAs to the Republicans. I guess this is the strategy to get them back. Dems don't care about women, they care about pulling in the AA vote and the Latino vote. Evidently don't care that Hillary has the Latino vote. They figure everyone has to vote for the candidate they put out there.

    Really, we desperately need more than two parties. It would be so good if this election would lead to that down the road. I look at these Obama people who are so hateful and vitriolic, so oblivious to issues and the state of the country and I don't think I have anything in common with them. They are more like the paleocons in the Republican party.


    that's what a guy at my caucus said (none / 0) (#57)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:39:22 AM EST
    He kept referring to the Obama side as the Jimmy Carter voters, saying "been there, done that, it doesn't work."  

    Obama=Carter (none / 0) (#74)
    by brodie on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:09:37 AM EST
    isn't far off the mark both as to how he might barely sneak by in the election and as to how he might fail and become a disastrous one-termer as pres.

    JC ran a fall campaign long on anti-Warshington rhetoric but short on specifics; very little by way of substantial and specific progressive proposals -- he thought the ones some of his liberal aides showed him were too 'radical'.  In the final wks of the campaign, Ford's team hit him hard about his lack of specificity and empty rhetoric.  They nearly won.

    BHO is running another anti-DC establishment campaign of Change that's long on lofty Hope rhetoric but short on solid progressive policies.  Apparently he doesn't want to upset indys and mod Repubs nor perhaps does he want to annoy the many Repub pundits who've drooled over him.  Perhaps though at heart he's more a non-ideological mushy middle type, just as Jimmy at heart was far more conservative than most Dems realized.

    When JC got to DC, with high hopes and expectations, he proceeded to intentionally offend Speaker Tip and Teddy K and generally found himself trying to do too much too quickly without knowing how things get done there one item at a time and in conjunction with working with the Dem majority.  

    Neophyte, naive and hopeful BHO similarly might find himself after inauguration with a lot of Change and Postpartisan rhetoric still in his pockets but little by way of sober realization that the disciplined Repub oppo won't be inclined to hold hands with him in order to help him achieve legislative victories.  


    Hit Obama on UHC and SS (none / 0) (#25)
    by MarkL on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:46:34 AM EST
    She should mention that Obama's economic advisers are all strongly pro-privatization.

    Keep (none / 0) (#52)
    by tek on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:10:28 AM EST
    saying this to my Obama supporting friends, this guy believes in the private sector. They answer: he didn't vote to go to war in Iraq. One issue voters.

    Hillary should ask the Netroots (none / 0) (#26)
    by ding7777 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:51:16 AM EST
    how they feel about Jim Webb "crossing the aisle" on FISA because Obama will "cross the aisle" too.

    I don't think it's her style (none / 0) (#28)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:57:09 AM EST
    to go after other senators.  She needs to keep this about Obama and the differences she has with him.  There are many.  I think up to this point, it's been painted like, "they both have the same policies, so just choose the one who makes you feel all warm inside."  This completely sets aside the fact that we are at war and need a strong leader who understands the intricacies of diplomacy.

    jeralyn (none / 0) (#29)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:58:06 AM EST
    you will probably delete this as OT, but I wanted to call your attention to the "pistols at dawn" going on between Kos and Daily Quarter.  Not good.

    She needs big surrogates now (none / 0) (#30)
    by Saul on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:00:27 AM EST
    to come on board and campaign with her.  Bill Richardson, is needed especially in Texas.  Richardson owes the Clintons. Also if Henry Cisneros,  would campaign with her in Texas  this would also help her a lot.   If Edwards came across now to her side this would also help her  big times.   But they got to do it soon.

    New polls (none / 0) (#31)
    by Grey on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:19:37 AM EST
    These are brand new Quinnipiac polls:

    Ohio - Clinton 55% Obama 34%

    Texas - Clinton 52% Obama 36%

    You ask where the women are; in Ohio and Texas they're for her by huge margins.  Things may change, but it looks good right now.

    Hmm (none / 0) (#35)
    by Steve M on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:37:01 AM EST
    The polling period is Feb. 6-12, which is kind of long.

    I think what everyone is interested to see is polling taken after the most recent set of primaries, so we can judge if there's any momentum effect.  I'm sure such polls will be coming soon.


    Weekly vs. tracking (none / 0) (#42)
    by Grey on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:47:15 AM EST
    A week is normal for polls that aren't the tracking kind.  We all have our preferences; in my experience, tracking polls are more accurate predictors of momentum, but they don't tell you where the race actually is.  

    These new numbers are good; the next batch will more accurately tell the tale.  Unless they're tracking, in which case they will not.


    My bad! (none / 0) (#56)
    by Grey on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:33:44 AM EST
    The poll number I posted above and said was for Texas?  It's actually for Pennsylvania.  My apologies!

    Criminal Related...? (none / 0) (#38)
    by alawyerinarkansas on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:41:20 AM EST
    What is the tie in to criminal matters for this post?

    I like the not completely POL posts better.

    Read our "about statement" (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:47:11 AM EST
    TalkLeft has always covered elections, since 2000, and this is a big one. I'm staying on it. Here's our about page.

    In the last day, I've written about Scalia and torture, the Senate and waterboarding, Larry Craig and the reversal in the Texas sex toy ban. What more do you want, Natalee Holloway? Not going there, sorry.

    Hope you'll stick around, there will always be coverage of both here -- elections and the politics of crime.


    Well... (none / 0) (#48)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:07:42 AM EST
    ... then you probably in the wrong place for now.

    Like it or not, this blog has been very political for months now, often have nothing do with crime issues.  They, and especially Jeralyn, still talk about crime issues, but we are in the midst of a historical presidential campaign. It should be talked about.

    It took me a while to get used to us, but I enjoy it now.  


    She should get BO on record re: FL & MI (none / 0) (#54)
    by katiebird on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:18:06 AM EST
    I was wrong -- yesterday I thought that because of her vested interest she should lie low regarding FL & MI.  But now I think she should push it.

    She should state her position openly & proudly -- seat the delegates -- it's too late for a do-over.  The DNC messed up with unequal enforcement of rules and the delegations of all 50 states should be treated equally -- including the states that messed around with the dates.

    She (and surrogates) should be asking for his solution.  Does he envision a convention without FL & MI?  Or is he just playing political games with votes?

    Be tough.  

    Doubt that strategy will work (none / 0) (#55)
    by burnedoutdem on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:26:22 AM EST
    I don't think any of this will really work if Obama continues to take the high road in his remarks.  Just found this article - I think it shows that his integrity and reputation only reinforce his electabilty in the general.

    Chickens Are Coming (none / 0) (#60)
    by JS on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:08:50 AM EST
    I want to disclose upfront that I am a Republican--wanted to let you readers know where I am coming from mentally. I agree that I do not know how Hillary can turn this around, because some of you on the left have decided that this Obama person is not only your guy, but he is also St Barack the Divine. Realistically, I don't know how she can compete with that. Hillary makes the better candidate in the fall because she can take a punch as well as throw one--and you know darn well that the RNC will get over its qualms about fighting a black candidate in the general and go straight for the groin shots on him (i.e. his ties to the Evelox Corporation, the bizarre behavior of some segments of the Obama-sphere, etc). On the whole, I think the Democratic Party has treated her badly....and the handmaids at MSNBC (Chris Matthews) have talked about her like she was some sort of trailer trash. Hillary's Democratic opponent has been given a free ride for quite a while, but if she is unable to turn it around and fight him to a standstill, then some of you in the Democratic party are going to get an ugly surprise in the fall, because all of those things that Hillary has mentioned in terms of the shallowness of his experience will get blast-faxed by the Right---the Present votes, the campaign contributions from investment banks and electric utilities (and how he caved on the nuclear bill he talks about on the stump), the documented refusal Obama has to address hot-button political issues, the insistence on having the message be "Hope" (you can't be accused of not living up to a promise if the promise is just "Hope"), etc. He can give an okay speech, but he has shown disappointing skills in terms of boxing, and if you cannot "mix it up", then you will not fare well against John McCain (say what you please, but the man knows how to brawl). At least with Hillary, you would have had a shot, but the Party seems to have spoken....best of luck to you.

    Plan of attack on Obama (none / 0) (#63)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:47:14 AM EST
    is interesting.  But a couple more, from Illinois press and blogs, could be even worse for us if he is our nominee.  He has more to his past, not only Rezko with the trial starting soon but also ties to Bernardine Dohrn and Bill Ayers of the Weather Underground -- both at the center of those "excesses of the '60s" that Obama himself spotlighted.

    Resurrect quotes from Dohrn and Ayers then -- and their names still resonate with a lot of older middle America, anyway -- and the Republicans will have ads that will put Obama on the ropes.

    I know you're a Republican, but . . . I really do not want to have to say President McCain.  Thanks for your reasoned post here.


    Thank you, Cream (none / 0) (#81)
    by JS on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:12:02 PM EST
    Thank you for being polite, Cream. Even though I am Republican, I've never minded Hillary all that much, since I know if she got too wacky in a proposal, it would have gotten knee-capped. While my own party is no bed of roses (people on my side can't accept the fact that Reagan is gone, I guess), I genuinely am concerned about what may be the future of you guys in the DP, since each party needs the other. Obama may appeal to the feel-good factor some of you have, but endorphin rushes end eventually.

    Not really fair (none / 0) (#61)
    by burnedoutdem on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:34:37 AM EST
    Why is it that anytime someone doesn't sing Clinton's praises on this site, they're labeled a troll?  

    All I was trying to say was that even McCain's campaign is getting worried that it will be hard to mount any attack on Obama without it hurting them.  Maybe I read into it too much by thinking that their claim also suggests that there isn't much legitimate ammo out there to work with, and they'd be reduced to nasty, empty mud-slinging which this adviser does not want to do against a good person.

    I had read a handful of articles on the subject - perhaps a better one is this where the author includes a quote saying that he has a crossover voter appeal.  Central argument being, even IF Clinton does what this blog posts suggests, it might not be enough to counter one of Obama's big claims that he is just more electable next to McCain.  Frankly, I think it's a legit argument to make.  I think that the 5 items listed in this post are not wrong, but won't necessarily work given the force field Obama has managed to build around himself.  

    I can't believe that thinking this makes me a troll...and since when can't a liberal hear a devil's advocate claim without resorting to ad hominem attacks?  I thought we were more open minded than that.

    who said? (none / 0) (#64)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:47:43 AM EST
    you are a troll. It's a disparaged word around here, and I delete comments that label others trolls.

    That said, this thread specifically says it's not for Obama supporters, there are other threads they can comment on.


    trolls (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Free Thinker on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:00:14 PM EST
    I feel bad for burnedoutdem. I take it that the definition of troll is: someone who can think for themselves, have an opinion, can participate in what should be a fair debate and still thinks there is Freedom of Speech.

    Shame, shame


    never mind, found it and (none / 0) (#65)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:50:00 AM EST
    deleted it. No name calling here.

    Sorry (none / 0) (#70)
    by burnedoutdem on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:02:21 AM EST
    I was interested in your suggestions and missed the note at the end.  Didn't mean to crash your party...

    Not really my cup o' tea (none / 0) (#62)
    by alawyerinarkansas on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:36:48 AM EST
    I appreciate your response to my comment.

    I obviously applaud you for speaking your political views. However, I am generally interested in criminal issues strictly.

    I am not naive enough to think that we can strip politics from criminal justice issues. But, I do think many of the problems are with "both sides of the isle."

    Good luck to you in this endeavor. I will probably stop through from time to time.

    Advice from the Dark Side (none / 0) (#67)
    by The Enemy on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:55:23 AM EST
    I know that as an Obama supporter (you know, one of those freakish cultists who blindly support a guy with no experience who offers no substance and just "hope") you have not asked for my opinion, but perhaps you might consider the possibility that Hillary's problem is not her campaign.  The problem is with the candidate.  

    A generic candidate offering her resume might be appealing in an ordinary year, running against an ordinary field of competitors.  None of these facts exist today.  

    Hillary is not a generic candidate.  For much of the reason that many of her supporters support her (her association with Bill), there are many who do not.  Although this has not yet come up in this primary campaign, you should realize that were she to be the party nominee, a second, equally true narrative about the 1990's will be offered to the public.  That would be the narrative of nonstop scandal and investigation.  A non-transparent White House that seeks to destroy its enemies (eliminating any hope of bipartisanship).  While most of you will react with anger at this idea, and blame the bad Republicans (who I, too, despise), you cannot dispute this fact.  It happened; and it halted any chance of meaningful progress on a progressive agenda.  Many Obama supporters were Clinton voters in the 90's, but recall with horror how campaign promise afer campaign promise went unfulfilled--not because of an absence of will by the Clintons, but because of the toxic political environment in which they governed.  To blame 100% of this toxicity on Republicans is folly.  

    This is not a "normal" year.  You can argue that every election cycle brings about the desire for change, but never before has that change manifested itself in the campaign slogans of virtually every candidate, Democrat and Republican.  The people don't want conventional politics any more.  Washington didn't just "break" in the last 7 years.....

    Obama is not a "normal" candidate.  Increasingly large majorities of Democrats (and even most Independents and many Republicans--see Lincoln Chafee's endorsement this morning) see in Obama an honorable, intelligent, wise and inspriational leader.  We haven't seen that in 40 years (no offense, Bill, but you were not "honorable").  Dismiss him (and his supporters) as "naive" or fluff, but you are missing the picture.  This man simply has far better judgment than Senator Clinton.  It isn't just the Iraq war (though that is huge).  Look at how he has organized his campaign.  Look at how he has remained true to his message in the face of great triumph (Iowa, and all the contests since Feb 5th) as well as in the face of great disappointment (New Hampshire).  By contrast, your candidate and her surrogates routinely change their message, thank supporters in states that she wins (like Florida...) but trash those states where she loses (like 2/3 of the states that have voted).  Just today Mark Penn trashed every state Obama has won, except Illinois, as being "insignificant".  Really?  Will Hillary, as the party's nominee, repeat that line in a general election in Virginia, Missouri, Colorado, Iowa, Washington, Louisiana...?  

    And that is really the point.  Hillary does not have the temperament to be a good president.  Mark Penn should be fired immediately (frankly, he should have been fired for his repeated "cocaine" references before Iowa).  Of course, he won't.  Ed Rendell should be publicly excoriated for saying that white Pennsylvania Democrats won't vote for a black man.  Of course, he won't.  Why?  Because Hillary rewards loyalty above all else.  Just like George W. Bush.

    So, it isn't about tactics in this race.  Your candidate is losing because your candidate is burdened by one unfixable problem: YOUR CANDIDATE.

    Of course, what do I know?  I'm just a cult member....

    Amazing (none / 0) (#68)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:59:16 AM EST
    Mark Penn should be fired immediately (frankly, he should have been fired for his repeated "cocaine" references before Iowa). Of course, he won't.
    Yesterday it was Hillary want to silence millions of voices, today it's Mark Penn should be fired. Wow...simultaneous. I wonder why this tactic? Oh, yes, Penn is a union buster, going into Ohio, the workers. Got it...thanks. Hillary hates workers.

    Amazing indeed (none / 0) (#82)
    by RalphB on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:23:02 PM EST
    I do believe you're right in that Obama is not an ordinary candidate.  If he were, he might actually get my vote.  But instead, he's an empty vessel where his followers just pour their own desires over him.  His cult is starting to remind me of EST and that's just dangerous for the party.

    Wisconsin (none / 0) (#72)
    by Colette on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:09:30 AM EST
    As an undecided voter in Madison, I have to agree with the post by The Enemy.  Hillary needs to stand up to the Bush administration in a big way a la Russ Feingold.  She didn't even show up to vote on the FISA immunity for telecoms.  Obama was in Wisconsin talking to auto workers in danger (once again) of losing their jobs in Feingold's own hometown.  Obama may be all hat and no cattle but Wisconsin voters want change and want to see courage.  Hillary needs to grab on to an important issue like the war, torture or impeachment and fight like hell for it.  We remember how Bill sweet talked us while he undermined our economy with NAFTA and let felons like the Iran-Contra guys go unpunished.

    Colette (none / 0) (#77)
    by oldpro on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:42:56 AM EST
    Is universal health care not a big enough issue   to "grab on to and fight like Hell" fo?  Along with the economy and the war in Iraq, those are the top three issues Americans say they care about and those are the three she accents over and over.

    And education, of course...and global warming/energy independence...

    Remember, too, that we women are not clones of our husbands.  Hillary is an independent woman with views of her own...more liberal than Bill and more skilled and determined at reaching her goals (according to a recent edictorial I read...no link, sorry).

    FYI...re NAFTA/CAFTA etc.  Carl Bernstein, who has written a new biography of Hillary, said on TV the other day that Hillary had done everything she could think of to talk Bill out of signing the R's NAFTA legislation.  He signed it anyway.  Now she gets the fallout for his mistakes.  Not unexpected, of course, but still...unfair.   She voted against CAFTA.


    New Five Step Plan (none / 0) (#76)
    by Free Thinker on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:35:07 AM EST
    1st.   Stop crying

    2nd.   YOU ARE NOT YOUR HUSBAND-go buy a new writer and change your act.

    3rd.   Want younger voters. Try giving them more respect by realizing you can't buy their vote with some young up and coming singer/band/actor/actress.  Who cares who you know in show biz? You certainly don't need acting lessons. Besides, can THEY end the war or bring change to the country?
       (by the way if you want to waste your time trying to find the best young singers/bands.... go right ahead......we'll stick to the real issues).

    4th.  Come up with an orginal idea before Obama (and your NOT supposed to mention that just because he brought up an issue first-didn't mean you weren't going to address it later...geez)

    5th.  Set aside your superiority complex.  Remember we are REAL people and these are real lives you will be playing with.

    Good Luck.
    Did I read the part about Obama supporters right? People with other opinions are not allowed. Does Hillary not teach Freedom of Speech or Difference of opinion? Anyhoo, I never said who I support anyway-maybe I am a clinton supporter......  

    Civility (none / 0) (#80)
    by allegro on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:53:45 PM EST
    Almost all of us are Democrats here.  I believe that civility is required because no matter who wins the nomination, we are all going to have to band together to defeat the Republican nominee (John McCain).  There needs to be less bad blood amongst us all.

    Health Care (none / 0) (#84)
    by Colette on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:37:46 PM EST
    As I recall, Hillary gave in to the corporations and offered us a health care plan that was so convoluted it was easily shot down by the Repubs.  I like her plan better than Obama's but neither plan puts the needs of citizens first.  I think health care is not the issue where she "fought like hell" -- when I think of Hillary and health care, the first thing that comes to mind is the way she got swiftboated on health care during her husband's administration.  After that time, health care has been off the table entirely in Washington.

    She needs to throw those punches you all are telling us she can throw.  I'm just trying to be helpful here.

    Good God. (none / 0) (#86)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:51:14 PM EST
    Did you know that Hillary used to work at Walmart????
    You can't possibly believe this.

    Good God (none / 0) (#90)
    by Free Thinker on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:39:34 AM EST
    Well, right there is the perfect reason to vote for Hillary. A degree from Wal-Mart could make anyone president. Boo Hoo for Hillary-an actual job and a rich husband. The poor girl.  

    My 2 cents (none / 0) (#87)
    by fuzzyone on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:29:37 PM EST
    I think I can give a good perspective on this as someone not strongly on either side.  I think either would be a great candidate and a great president.  I did vote for Obama in the end, though I could have gone either way up to the last second (I'm in CA so I voted on SuperTday).

    1. Some have suggested going negative, I think that's a bad plan for a lot of reasons.  In a primary its cannibalism and to the extent the fight is for dems who are on the fence I think it pushes them the wrong way.  It was in no small part some of the negative comments, especially Bills' South Carolina crap, that pushed me toward Obama.

    2. Don't surrender anywhere.  It sends a terrible message not just to the states being ignored, but to those down the road.

    3. Don't make it easy.  Don't give the MSM or Obama easy shots.  Keep Bill under control.  Release your tax returns.  In a race this close you can't afford unforced errors.

    4. Stop talking about super delegates in public.  Do all the back room wheedling you want but the more you talk about using the supers to get you over the weaker you look and the more you can be painted as thwarting the will of the people.

    Just a few thoughts

    turnaround (none / 0) (#88)
    by diogenes on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:56:18 PM EST
    1.  Edwards and Obama made much in the early debates about Bill Clinton's full White House records not being released until 2012.  Since Hillary supporters are confident that her experience from 1992-2000 is good and of key importance, she surely spoke on numerous issues.  Release those records NOW so that all that good stuff can be seen.
    2.  Al Gore was Hillary's co-vice president.  Perhaps he might be willing to vouch for her effectiveness during those years.
    3.  APOLOGIZE for leaving Monica Lewinsky twisting in the winds for months.  Failure to admit his mistakes is one of Bush's biggest flaws.  There is no reason to share this flaw.

    What Does Clinton Bring to the Table? (none / 0) (#89)
    by truthseeker on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:49:40 AM EST
    Scandal, scandal, and more scandal....This is what a president Hillary Clinton would bring to the White House. What about character?  We know that while Bill was governor and during his presidency he dis-honored his marriage vows on numereous occasions and they were no secret to Hillary. There are so many old wounds they would re-open:  1) The swepted under the rug death of former secretary of commerce Ron Brown. Ron was found at the scene of his crashed plane with a bullet wound to the head.  The Clinton regime squashed all attempts by the Justice Department to launch an investigation.

    A president's character should be above reproach! Why do we need a Hillary Clinton whose lust for power is beyond reason!

    Good advice from a good friend (none / 0) (#91)
    by Free Thinker on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:46:52 AM EST
    Does anyone remember the Clintons good ole' "friend" Al Gore. Wasn't he the one who laughed at Ollie North for spending money on Home Land Security. North pointed out that this country was in great need of security on our soil. Al Gore LAUGHED at him-America doesn't need that! Clinton agreed. 9/11 don't forget.