Hillary and Obama WI Events Canceled Due to Weather

Lots of snow in Wisconsin today, so much so that both candidates had to cancel events until tomorrow.

Tea-leaf reading anyone? Who does this hurt the most?

I'm heading out for the afternoon, this is an open thread, all topics welcome. Be nice.

< Avoiding The Issue: Obama, Clinton And The Voting Demographics | Is The Media Biased Against Hillary Clinton? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Bob Novak (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:40:59 PM EST
    Why is he still allowed to speak on TV or write columns?

    Thanks (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by NJDem on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:03:29 PM EST
    going to Hawaii didn't make much sense.  

    Anyone else happy that after Tuesday there are no primaries/caucuses for two weeks?  We'll have debates and other news, but no "new" news in terms of delegate counts and late nights watching the numbers come in.  Hopefully it will just be about the issues.

    Actually not (none / 0) (#13)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:20:38 PM EST
    cause all we will get is this reading of the polls, doomsday nomination scenarios and punditry against Hillary and how Obama is going to sweep.  

    Mmmm (none / 0) (#1)
    by NJDem on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:39:07 PM EST
    time for innovative thinking.  They have to make use of the time, right?

    Also, I've read that both BO is going to TX and Hawaii Monday, does anyone know which is true?

    Texas (none / 0) (#5)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:47:56 PM EST
    I think he's got video stuff lined up for Hawaii. He'll be in San Antonio and Houston Tuesday and Dallas on Wednesday. The debate is Thursday in Austin.

    It will be all hat, all cattle for both candidates and the media this week, soon as results come in in WI.


    If BTD is not going to be around (none / 0) (#24)
    by echinopsia on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:07:31 PM EST
    to rein in the obfuscators, I don't have any desire to read this thread. It will be full of Obama supporters claiming Obama has never uttered a sexist word in his blessed, miracle-filled, perfect life. And asking us to explain how anything he ever said was sexist, then arguing that we're wrong.

    Seriously (none / 0) (#3)
    by NJDem on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:46:02 PM EST
    but I was reminded of Crossfire on another blog--remember those days.  At least then both sides of politics/policy were discussed without breaking news about Britney...

    Stellaaa--did you happen to see the "predictions" on McLaughlin Group?

    taping it now... (none / 0) (#6)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:48:21 PM EST
    I heard about the Rezko thing

    I saw Hillary here in (none / 0) (#4)
    by talkingpoint on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:47:10 PM EST
    Wisconsin yesterday. there was a huge crowd with alot of energy. Hillary have a great shot here. I'm not sure why she is leaving Wisconsin on Monday and not staying for the prmaries, but her people are smarter than I am, so it must be some kind of strategy.

    they will both be in WI Monday (none / 0) (#7)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:48:41 PM EST
    and in Texas on Tuesday.

    But no Monday event in Milwaukee (none / 0) (#19)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:55:24 PM EST
    now, I heard.  Darn it.  Had to get out of the city early and miss greeting her -- which reports say went great, with big crowds on every corner at the event site, but no one outside for Obama -- so hoped to do so at the Monday event in Milwaukee now off.

    And yes, the weather is beyond awful.  Snow would be better, but that's still on the way for the southeast part of the state, where the fog means it's down to about zero visibility and there is serious flooding.  In south central, where we were, it's just a sheet of ice -- took twice as long as it ought to have done and got religion at every bridge, curve, pothole, etc.  The event for which we went got canceled, anyway, so crowds at campaign events also would be way down (but some of us Wisconsinites would brave it to get there!).


    I warned ya. (none / 0) (#86)
    by Ben Masel on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 02:38:37 AM EST
    Suggested cancelation of the Sunday gig early Sat. afternoon.

    Some stops not canceled (none / 0) (#25)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:12:54 PM EST
    but postponed to tomorrow -- but not near me.

    Milwaukee press reports Clinton made last-minute  stops in the city, which is good, when her trips to Green Bay and Madison today were postponed.  In Milwaukee, she had a private fundraiser and then made a stop for more than an hour at the marvelous Miss Katie's diner -- where Bill dined with German Chancellor Helmut Kohl during the "Sausage Summit" in Milwaukee a dozen years ago.  "She's a lot more fun than Bill," proclaimed Miss Katie's co-owner.       Clinton greeted lots of folks, then lunched in a booth with her leading political supporters in the state: Lt. Gov. Barb Lawton, Madison Cong. Tammy Baldwin, and Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk.

    The crowd in the diner was a mix of regular patrons and Clinton supporters who got more face time, which is good, too -- they had attended the Clinton fundraiser Sunday morning and followed her to the diner.  More reaction from others at the diner at jsonline.com.

    And then she went to the center of Milwaukee's Latino/a community for an impromptu visit to Cesar Chavez Drive and the El Rey market, as customers snapped pictures with her on their cell phones.

    The trips to Madison and Green Bay are on for Monday.


    She's got a busy week (none / 0) (#43)
    by stillife on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:50:18 PM EST
    I'm going to see her at a fundraising event in NYC on Wednesday morning.  The time was switched from 8 p.m. to 8 a.m., so I imagine she's going to be off to OH or TX later that day.

    the weather (none / 0) (#8)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:49:28 PM EST
    events cancelled...so she could be somewhere with good weather using her time

    Hillary is hurt more than Obama (none / 0) (#9)
    by maritza on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:53:59 PM EST
    Hillary essentially campaigned only ONE day in Wisconsin while Obama has been there all week.

    Agreed -- no public event in Milwaukee area (none / 0) (#20)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:56:31 PM EST
    meant missing more than a third of the state population and the chance to finally grab the front page of the state's largest paper from Obama, McCain, Obama, McCain, Obama. . . .

    Faith and Politics (none / 0) (#10)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:00:40 PM EST
    I have had this strange reaction to the whole "believe" and "yes we can" thing of the Obama campaign. It just kept reminding me of something-- something visceral. Now I have no idea what the connection is but here it goes. Oprah is a big proponent of Course in Miracles. You know that religion that was basically dictated to this NY Psychologist in the 70's, I think, by Christ. It's all about believing in yourself and miracles. That if you want something it will happen if you believe. Oprah is doing this whole thing on her channel, radio, 365 days of lessons. The big teacher is this woman Marrianne Willaimson Oprah has pushed her books and is basically her spiritual advisor. My Journey To Obama I guess this sort of New Religion, but religion, just the same, has made me uncomfortable. Even though if you read their stuff it's all about peace and letting everyone do what they want, it's so contrary to my reason based anti religion in politics core I have no idea what crossover there is between the two camps, but it's enough to make me uneasy. I think some of the techniques of the new age stuff has been used extensively by the Obama campaign. Particularly when people tell you about how they found him and their journey to him. So, Kathy here is another thing to obsess about.

    Where did you get you (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:34:32 PM EST
    number? Do you have a link to the info?

    Obama is favored in Vegas by over 70% to win the Dems.

    Current bookmakers numbers (none / 0) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:54:52 PM EST
    Obama, Barack 1/3 1/3 3/10 1/3 1/3 4/11 1/3 0.43/1
    Clinton, Hillary 9/4 2/1 21/10 9/4 9/4 2/1 2/1 2.45/1

    Current polling and oddsmaking (none / 0) (#31)
    by SamThornton on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:31:33 PM EST
    Another website with a wealth of info is here: http://tinyurl.com/yt87zc.

    Current polling and oddsmaking (none / 0) (#33)
    by SamThornton on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:34:30 PM EST
    Sorry, the link picked up the sentence-ending period. This works better: http://tinyurl.com/yt87zc

    It helps Mike Gravel the most. (none / 0) (#15)
    by s5 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:36:28 PM EST
    Let's not forget he's still in the race. ;)

    If Mike were here.... (none / 0) (#87)
    by Ben Masel on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 02:41:03 AM EST
    he'd make his events by smowmobile, or dogsled.

    Those @$#$%! snowmobiles (none / 0) (#90)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:21:53 AM EST
    were causing accidents where we were in south-central Wisconsin, the worst of the storm.

    I would hope he has better sense than to make it worse.


    Wisconsin (none / 0) (#16)
    by 1jane on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:39:08 PM EST
    At last nights Founder's Dinner in Wisconsin, Clinton received hearty applause and Obama received 8 standing ovations. The largest statewide newspaper in Wisconsin endorsed Obama. Lists of suggestions on how Clinton could improve her campaign strategies just went up on the NYT website.

    Obama has been on the ground in WI for an entire week. His organization and grassroots efforts have been there much longer. His campaign is a bottom up grassroots effort. Her's a top down campaign effort.

    Great press on the groups greeting (none / 0) (#27)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:16:36 PM EST
    her outside, reporting groups waving signs at every corner of the site -- but none for Obama.  

    The local volunteer organizer in Milwaukee County has been amazing -- emailing, calling, rallying -- against great odds, as there has been little notice or changed info almost by the hour.  Had there been a public event in Milwaukee for Hillary Clinton, and with a day's notice, he would have turned out a huge crowd.  

    It's too bad that Wisconsin caught the worst, I think, of the switch in campaign managers, the reorganization that became disorganization here.


    This is an off topic comment (none / 0) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:13:02 PM EST
    and a personal attack on me.

    It will be deleted.

    Please review th FAQs.

    An Open Thread (none / 0) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:16:58 PM EST
    so I was wrong about that.

    The comment was from Dave USA. I deleted all responses to that comment as well.

    Jeralyn says "be nice.

    I say "be nice or else."


    off topic? (none / 0) (#29)
    by dmk47 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:17:22 PM EST
    "this is an open thread, all topics welcome"

    I corrected that (none / 0) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:19:31 PM EST
    Personal attacks on me NOT WELCOME.

    Can you folks avoid doing that?


    The Big Tent (none / 0) (#34)
    by Censorship Is Wrong on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:36:36 PM EST
    Hey, the Big Tent, did you ever think that maybe you should be a little more open minded?  This is not a personal attack on you, but you get very emotional and are quick to suspend/band/delete/censor pretty much anybody who disagrees with you.  You do this even when the other side is raising legitmate points, doing so with civility, and engaging in healthy dialogue that you simply disagree with.

    This should be a site to exchange ideas.  Not a Hillary Clinton Propaganda Site that censors pro-Obama comments (which is what it has become).

    Your site, do what you want.  But as a long time reader, I am really disappointed with the lack of objectivity this site has displayed in the past few weeks and the amount of censorship that has occured over reasonable and well thought out ideas and opinions.

    Thank you for your time.  I apologize if this offends, but you do need to be informed of this fact.


    Jeralyn has established this.

    she deletes much more than I do. Take it up with her.


    And of course (none / 0) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:52:03 PM EST
    I utterly disagree with both your factual description and your analysis.

    But the essential point is that your argument is with Jeralyn, not me.

    I wish some of you would take it up with her.


    Hey BTD (none / 0) (#39)
    by hvs on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:47:37 PM EST
    I am still seeking to compose a piece about the mid-January "Obama's just the black candidate" initiative. I'm still seeking reasoned viewpoints counter to my own. I'd brought this up here Saturday, writing:
    "Armando, if you grant that it happened, then you know that there was meeting--literally, a meeting, in which the chiefs of the campaign team sat around and came up with this plan. Can you imagine a fouler kind of racism? This was not the racism of crude idiots calling names, but an even worse kind. They said, let's throw our purported principles under the bus to destroy this guy on the grounds of his race.
    I'm not trying to offend you, I'm trying to understand how you can at once perceive that it happened but not have it disqualify her as a president. I'm honestly interested in your reasoned response. [To be honest, her Iraq war vote had already disqualified her in my eyes.] "
    You responded that you'd expressed outrage at that mid-January initiative (and some other stuff). It is that response that I'm in part interested in. I went back to January's posts, and found one titled "The Trouble with Bill" on Jan 26. Are there other posts in which you make your anger known? This one mainly links to a TPM story which you call worthy but not spot on.

    Again, this is a sincere search for reasoned responses to this by Hillary supporters, not looking for trouble!...


    I responded to you (none / 0) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:50:52 PM EST
    Te theory seems a nonstarter to me because such a strategy would be beyond stupid.

    Yes (none / 0) (#47)
    by hvs on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:54:37 PM EST
    you sure did.

    But you also posted the following, which is what I'm interested in:

    I expressed my outrage (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:08:23 PM EST
    on those comments.
    In posts. Publically, at THIS BLOG.

    So NOW turn that question around to your A-List blogging allies.

    I bet you won't.

    I detest the hypocrisy from people like you.


    A different point (none / 0) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 03:09:18 PM EST
    The comments were reprehensible. As were those made by the Media and the Obama campaign that were sexist.

    Not EVERTHING is campaign based.


    Would it be fair (none / 0) (#53)
    by hvs on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 03:13:37 PM EST
    to say that you believe the "Obama is just the black candidate," etc. comments were, while "reprehensible," spontaneous? Each individual who made them thought this was a "clever" (or, as you say, ultimately stupid) plan of their own? Or would you say they were all inadvertent?

    Thanks for answering my questions, BTD.


    Just to clarify (none / 0) (#49)
    by hvs on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 03:10:02 PM EST
    the words in the above comment after the colon are all BTDs, none of them mine.

    Obama was Robbed (none / 0) (#36)
    by Censorship Is Wrong on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:38:59 PM EST
    that's what the NY Post is saying today.

    Apparently he received 0 votes in some heavy african american districts.

    Do you think it will be enough to swing the state to Obama?  Or will it just help him gain another 5-10 delegate lead?

    no way (none / 0) (#40)
    by stillife on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:48:25 PM EST
    the NY primary results will swing to Obama.

    I dont think it could win him the state (none / 0) (#41)
    by jdj on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:49:09 PM EST
    but it could be a sizeable delegate swing, which is the last thing Hillary needs right now. It also is one of those stories the media might try to build a narative around. Losing NY delegates also adds to the losing streak story.

    Sizeabel is an interesting word (none / 0) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 03:10:33 PM EST
    My understanding is that 2 delegates are at stake.

    jdj (none / 0) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:49:58 PM EST
    Put your links in hyperlink format please.

    I had to delete your comment.


    Baseless charges of making baseless charges (none / 0) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:43:23 PM EST
    are not allowed at this blog Dave USA. Since you just repeated that baseless charge, your comment will be deleted.

    Please learn this phrase "I disagree with your assessment and here is why . . "

    You will do much better at this blog when you do.

    Ok, I'll try for the third time... (none / 0) (#51)
    by daveUSA on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 03:10:45 PM EST
    I disagree with your assessment that Obama makes sexist comments and here is why:  Because you do not provide sufficient evidence for your assessment.  The article I'm referring to simply showed a quote from Obama and concluded it was sexist and "not what [you're] looking for." You should have explained in your article how his quote could be interpreted as sexist.  Everything else we know about who Obama is and what he stands for precludes us from jumping to that conclusion.  Again, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

    I have nothing but good will toward the good people of this blog.    


    I believe it was self evident (none / 0) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 03:13:36 PM EST
    The language used was clearly sexist iimo and no explanation was required.

    But let's be honest, you KNOW what the argument is. You may disagree with it but do not act as if you do not know what the argument is.


    whom it hurts most (none / 0) (#44)
    by chemoelectric on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:50:35 PM EST
    I think the snow hurts most the people who have to shovel it. :)

    Presumably in campaigning it favors the person who is ahead and already has had the most exposure. But maybe not, because people who aren't shoveling will be indoors and exposed to the television machine more, in which case the TV ads may rule, but I am unfamiliar with the ads in Wisconsin apart from Clinton's lame "He won't debate me!" whine that I heard on the AAR stream recently. (Maybe some of the Wisconsin ads are broadcast on Twin Cities TV here, but I don't watch TV, so I don't even know if that's happening.)

    Lame? That ad really resonated here (none / 0) (#67)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 03:47:45 PM EST
    as I'm hearing about it from lots of people p**ssed that there was not a public event with both of them.  And the Obama response that there still were two debates coming really didn't resonate well, since those are not until after Wisconsin -- where we have issues here that we want addressed and haven't been brought up yet.

    And yes, there are other Clinton ads.  And yes, we've got cabin fever from this winter and watch tv even more.  And yes, youbetcha, the snow shoveling almost daily hurts!  So does the impact on the budgets, personal and municipal, of all the salt and sand needed.  The layer of ice today meant having to head out to find (not easy to do lately) our fourth 25-lb bucket of salt so far.  One has lasted us from one winter to the next for years lately.

    But now I'm back in front of my computer and tv, counting down less than 48 hours to the polls. :-)


    Only ads I've seen, Obama. (none / 0) (#88)
    by Ben Masel on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 02:47:45 AM EST
    Had Fox Entertainment's adult cartoons on all evening. His Iraq ad perfect for this audience, except no ewm phasis oln TUESDAY

    New polls (none / 0) (#54)
    by cannondaddy on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 03:16:57 PM EST
    More media fawning (none / 0) (#58)
    by cannondaddy on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 03:19:20 PM EST
    Speaking for me (none / 0) (#62)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 03:24:42 PM EST
    this is very suspect:

    In Pennsylvania, Clinton leads McCain by six among women but trails by nine among men. Obama leads McCain among both men and women, but has a larger lead among women.

    Other issues are problematic. Obama reduces McCain from 69% to 60% of conservatives. That simply will not hold.

    This is a very ephemeral, dare I say it, false finding.

    I simply do not believe it.


    That's not that hard to believe. (none / 0) (#84)
    by cannondaddy on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 10:12:30 PM EST
    Other polls show similar results.  Maybe you're confusing democrats with the rest of the country.

    BTW (none / 0) (#55)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 03:16:59 PM EST
    If anyone cares, the bogus ARG outfit has Clinton winning WI by 6.

    "bogus" is the key word (none / 0) (#57)
    by dmk47 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 03:18:04 PM EST
    They also have Obama winning Texas.

    Nobody knows how to poll Wisconsin (none / 0) (#89)
    by Ben Masel on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 02:50:11 AM EST
    Too many wildcards, At the polls registration, No Party ID with registration, Weather.

    My UPDATED predictions in the Diaries.


    Convince me to vote for Hillary Clinton (none / 0) (#56)
    by dmk47 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 03:17:30 PM EST
    Say I'm an undecided Dem primary voter.

    When I look at Clinton's record in the Senate, I see seven fairly unexceptional years of constituent service and cautious centrism, capped off by a vote for the war that she defended well through 2005 (and if the LA debate was any indication, still believes in).

    When she believed she would face no significant competition for the nomination, she tried to position herself as a candidate of the center-right, becoming an Iran hawk and sticking up for lobbyists (this was the basis of Edwards' critique of her, let's remember).

    Her chief strategist is the innumerate union-buster Mark Penn. Despite the fact that it was his terrible strategy of running an inevitability campaign, having no post Feb. 5 strategy, ceding caucus states so that Obama netted more delegates out of Idaho than Clinton did out of New Jersey, etc., it's Patti Solis Doyle who gets sacked and not Mark Penn.

    The most parsimonious explanation of Penn's continued presence on her staff, it seems to me, is that she agrees with Penn politically and strategically.

    Now, why, as an undecided primary voter, should I have any preference for Hillary Clinton?

    I'm not asking for arguments against Obama. I'm looking for a positive reason to support Hillary Clinton. Is there one?

    Huh? (none / 0) (#59)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 03:20:39 PM EST
    What kind of comment is this?

    a genuine question (none / 0) (#64)
    by dmk47 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 03:28:32 PM EST
    It's an open thread. Most of the readers of this blog are pro-Hillary Clinton. I'm not. I want to be open-minded, and so I'm genuinely asking for the wisdom of this crowd to make the argument for Hillary Clinton.

    Nothing nefarious.


    Ok (none / 0) (#66)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 03:35:03 PM EST
    Seemed so out of left field to me.

    Well, this is (none / 0) (#69)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 03:49:09 PM EST

    If you like what Sen Obama has done, Then please list thoise items. Seems there is only 10% dif... see below. My bet, there is not much dif.

    Of the eight senators pondering presidential runs, Clinton (N.Y.), who is completing her first Senate term, and Obama (Ill.), sworn in two years ago, have the briefest voting histories. The Senate has held 645 roll-call votes during their shared tenure, and more than 90 percent of the time the two senators stood with other Democrats.

    This is why it is so difficult to praise one candidate over the other.

    But I take it that you have done your research and know what issues that have convinced you to vote for Sen Obama.

    At this point the biggest issue seems to be Universal Health Care, relationship with Cuba, experience in Washington politics and weither a Senator should hold another job. That is not much to convince anyone for or against....

    So vote who you "make the connection with".


    What are your main issues? (none / 0) (#70)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 03:51:34 PM EST
    As she has stands on many.  Have you looked at hillaryclinton.com to see her stands on your main issues?  I sent my 20-something progeny there, and they found it very helpful -- since they were hearing/getting emails and texts about Obama from friends about going to his events and hearing his stands.  So my children's friends were taken aback to get emails back about Clinton's stands on the same issues -- some of them much stronger, such as on health care, Americorps, college funding, etc.

    Sane foreign policy, primarily (none / 0) (#73)
    by dmk47 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 04:12:01 PM EST
    and I must say, I find Hillary Clinton's record extremely discouraging. She's so much closer to my view than McCain's that voting in the GE isn't a question for me, but again, as I said, she still seems to view her vote for the war as the right thing to do, and up until, say, October, she was positioning herself as an Iran-hawk.

    The second most salient issue to me is judicial philosophy and judicial appointments. My sense has been that Obama is an imperfect but solid civil libertarian, and the Jeffrey Rosen piece in TNR sealed it for me. Clinton, by contrast, proposed anti-flag burning legislation and video game censorship. And on waterboarding, Clinton's hedging in the WaPo was very troubling (that was back when she was trying to be the center-right hawkish) GE candidate. Again, this stuff doesn't come close to convincing me to sit out or vote for McCain in the GE, but it gives me a lot of reservations about Hillary Clinton in the primary.

    I've read through the position statements on hers and Obama's websites, and there doesn't seem to be a tremendous amount of daylight between them. The one that really stuck out to me was her proposed 5-year freeze on mortgage interest rates. I can go into some detail about this if anyone would like, but that's just a terrible idea. Bad for anybody looking to take out a new mortgage, bad for the housing market generally, and probably even bad for the borrowers who are supposed to get relief, in light of the litigation it will provoke.

    Health care, again, seems to me like a wash. There are structural differences between the two plans, but the analysis by Ted Marmor of the Yale SOM (and a few dozen other health policy experts I respect) shows both plans fall short of universality, and cover approximately the same proportion of the currently uninsured.

    And lastly, there's the Mark Penn issue. In some ways this is the most troubling of all. By that I mean, whatever her policy positions are now, they're bound to change once she comes into office (not a criticism of her, this is true of anybody). But then, the question is, how should we expect her to govern? And if I'm right that Mark Penn is on her staff because she agrees with him strategically and politically, then the answer is, she'll be a very disappointing president.

    That's where I'm at. Where does this go wrong?


    It looks like (none / 0) (#74)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 04:20:01 PM EST
    it does NOT go wrong for you.

    That's where I'm at. Where does this go wrong?

    You see, If this is the choice you have made for yourself then go for it. I will not coerce, badger or attach on your OPINIONS.

    I believe this is the WHOLE point... let us choose, agree to disagree and stop posting OPINIONS as facts. Do you research, post facts and come to your conclusion.

    Once the nominee is chosen then we all go after the Repubs.


    Well, of course these are my opinions, (none / 0) (#76)
    by dmk47 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 04:30:09 PM EST
    but they can still be wrong. For example, am I wrong to be troubled by Mark Penn's presence on her staff? Have I misinterpreted his role in directing her strategy, and likely influence over her governance if she's elected? I'm willing to be convinced that I'm wrong.

    I believe (none / 0) (#77)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 04:49:57 PM EST
    this is the list that we need to be worried about...


    I really do not believe you are willing to be convinced you are wrong. Most bloggers have made up their minds about the candidates by now.


    Good faith (none / 0) (#80)
    by dmk47 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 04:59:07 PM EST
    All I can say is that I'm asking questions in good faith. And even if I weren't, my criticisms of Hillary Clinton stand or fall on there own merits.

    Doesn't her vote for the war bother you? Doesn't her association with Mark Penn bother you?


    It's always a process of weighing (none / 0) (#82)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 08:08:09 PM EST
    one candidate against another.  So what do you see as Obama's shortcomings?  Is the list as long as this one against Clinton?  That could tell you (and us) something.

    I don't know what you're supposed to think (none / 0) (#78)
    by RalphB on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 04:50:10 PM EST
    about Mark Penn.  For me the fact that Obama has Axelrod and that scum Robert Gibbs on his team would tear it for me.

    Gibbs was the guy who resigned from a campaign in '04 to run those disgusting 527 Osama Bin Laden ads against Howard Dean.  Anybody who would touch that guy with a 10 foot poll doesn't get my respect.


    There you go (none / 0) (#79)
    by dmk47 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 04:57:40 PM EST
    I didn't know anything about Robert Gibbs. Just looked him up on wikipedia, and the fact that he's working for Obama bothers me a lot. I will say, though, there's a difference between a communications director and a pollster-cum-strategist. Is there a reason to think Gibbs exerts anything like the influence that Penn has on Obama.

    What's the complaint with David Axelrod? (Genuinely querying here.) And didn't he also work for Hillary Clinton in the past.

    Thanks Ralph, this does influence how I think about the race, although, again, what I'm really looking for is a positive reason to support Hillary Clinton.


    Look up Paul Krugman's columns (none / 0) (#83)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 08:12:48 PM EST
    on the candidates' health care plans.  It's a crucial issue for me and my family, and he's a brilliant economist -- and his analysis made it a slam-dunk for me.

    That and then I also saw Obama's "very poor" ranking for showing up for votes in the Senate, when other candidates from Congress got there.  He seems to have landed in D.C., immediately broken his pledge to Illinois to serve the full six years, and then took off around the country to campaign and missed almost 40% of the votes. We don't another president who runs away to clear brush on a ranch or something.

    And ever since checking out a crucial issue for me, plus the candidates' work ethics, I have found more and more in comparing them that convinces me.  Foreign relations is certainly among them -- as he also agreed to chair that committee in the Senate but never called a meeting, also claims a couple of years as kid in another country as globe-trotting, etc.  He's just not ready yet.


    She's (none / 0) (#60)
    by hvs on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 03:21:36 PM EST
    a tested political streetfighter who literally welcomes rightists' attacks because she's proven that she can successfully transmute them into political capital.

    I don't support (none / 0) (#61)
    by hvs on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 03:23:01 PM EST
    her because she was complicit in sending young (and old) Americans to fight and die. ...But mine is a legitimate reason to support her.

    fair enough (none / 0) (#63)
    by dmk47 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 03:26:45 PM EST
    I should have said, I'm looking for a non-instrumental reason, i.e., why, based on her character, ideology, or record, I should support her.

    (Like you, I suspect, I don't find the instrumental arguments for her compelling.)


    Well (none / 0) (#65)
    by hvs on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 03:33:50 PM EST
    if you really have Clintonian political principles; that is, you are a strong centrist, you have a lot of faith in the "invisible hand" provided by capitalism, you are moderate in terms of foreign affairs, and believe the role of the government is to go about fixing small problem by small problem using well-studied policy.

    This probably won't help you solve your problem because Barack came on the scene celebrated as a sound Clintonian. They're really not very different in terms of guiding political principles.


    why? (none / 0) (#72)
    by A DC Wonk on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 03:58:51 PM EST
    • if you're progressive, then you know that Clinton has a solid record of voting progressively in the Senate
    • she can "get things done".  I find it remarkable that she was able to convince even those skeptical of her in NY State to come her way (resulting in her re-election by a landslide)
    • her policy prescriptions for what ails us is spot-on (imho), detailed, thoughtful, etc.
    • she already has a lot of experience, seeing, first hand, what works and what doesn't vis-a-vis running a White House, running a party, dealing with Congress, and running a country

    How's that for starters?

    (I mean, really, that was pretty easy.  I did it with one brain-lobe tied behind my back)


    Yeah, I just don't find that convincing (none / 0) (#75)
    by dmk47 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 04:26:56 PM EST
    My question is what positive arguments are there for Hillary Clinton in the primary. I'll vote for either Democrat in the GE.

    "if you're progressive, then you know that Clinton has a solid record of voting progressively in the Senate"

    But the question is, in a way that distinguishes her from other Democratic senators? From Obama, particularly?

    "she can "get things done".  I find it remarkable that she was able to convince even those skeptical of her in NY State to come her way (resulting in her re-election by a landslide)"

    I don't think winning elections are much of a proxy for enacting progressive legislation. Whom did she run against for re-election? Didn't the Republicans keep switching their candidates in and out until they settled on a sacrificial lamb?

    her policy prescriptions for what ails us is spot-on (imho), detailed, thoughtful, etc.

    As I said upthread, I don't see much daylight between her proposals and Obama's, and in the few cases where there is a meaningful difference, e.g. on the mortgage rate freeze, I think she's just dead wrong.

    "she already has a lot of experience, seeing, first hand, what works and what doesn't vis-a-vis running a White House, running a party, dealing with Congress, and running a country"

    Well, okay, in a sense this is true, but what her experience taught her was to hire Mark Penn and be as cautious as possible, and a foreign-policy hawk. I'm willing to cede the argument that she learned from what went wrong with the 93-94 health care initiative, but that just seems like a wash then, and not an argument in her favor.


    Balanced (none / 0) (#68)
    by 1jane on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 03:47:59 PM EST
    The last few weeks of lopsided support for Clinton is tough to take. Both Democratic candidates for president have more positives than John McCain. He souled out his soul when he voted that waterboarding wasn't torture. This from a man who understands torture more than most people. The folks that run this site went off message when it moved from dissing the R's to supporting one candidate. I went to The Library of Congress online and looked up the Senatorial records of the two candidates. Without any media spin or vauge attributions to a candidates motives it was easy to determine which candidate will get my vote.

    I actually perfer Clinton's stance (none / 0) (#81)
    by jdj on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 05:56:55 PM EST
    on medical coverage. But I like Obama's chances of winning big far more. The fact that he is clean on Iraq will make it easier for him to tie MCCain to Bush's failed war.

    Sexism and how they don't get it (none / 0) (#85)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 12:33:54 AM EST
    Hard to explain to someone who does not get it that saying this is sexist. I guess the best example is when a clueless white person says: " I like black people, I have a black friend" .
    DR. OBAMA AND THE WOMEN. This, from Dayo Olapade, seems a useful point: For those questioning Barack Obama's appeal to women voters, or his prioritization of "women's issues," from health to abuse to choice, I think it's wise to note that despite the dreams from his father, Obama's domestic existence has been dominated by females since birth--in every direction. A single mother raised him, and he, in turn is raising two young girls. Horizontally, of course there is Michelle (whose role as a 'strong woman' compass is getting quite the airing this week) and his sister, Maya Soetoro-Ng, a teacher in Hawaii. Like with all attempts to divine future actions from biographical sketches, there's no real way to evaluate the impact this abundance of feminine influence has had on Obama. But it's definitely interesting. Though I have to say, his life story is getting a bit implausible: The biracial child of a Kenyan bureaucrat and a Hawaiian student who was raised by a single mother on multiple continents? Exactly how many narratives can one guy possess?
    Ezra Klein