Obama to Spend Millions on PA Ads Over Next Four Days

Barack Obama is hoping that a massive expenditure of cash on advertising will buy him the vote in PA and end Hillary Clinton's campaign:

Barack Obama is to mount the biggest advertising blitz of the presidential campaign this weekend ahead of Tuesday's Pennsylvania primary to try to force Hillary Clinton out of the race.

....Obama hopes to deliver a knock-out blow by outspending her in advertising. With tens of millions from fundraising at his disposal, he plans to spend well over $2m (£1m) on ads in the run-up to the primary, at least twice as much as the cash-strapped Clinton campaign.

Obama has earmarked $465,000 for Philly alone in the final days to Hillary's $91,000.

Obama's strategy, which he has deployed time and again during his political career, is that the more money spent on advertising, the higher the odds of winning an election.

If you want to help Hillary out, go here.

< Jose Padilla Sent to Supermax | How Obama Could Lose PA and the Nomination >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Let's step it up (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by facta non verba on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:26:25 PM EST
    Hillary wants to hear from you. Send her your comments, thoughts and idea. A little cash would not hurt either. Let's step it. Let's show the world what Clintonistas are made of. We are scrappy and we never give up.


    please put your links (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:31:56 PM EST
    in html format. Use the link button at the top of the comment box. Or use tinyurl.

    sorry (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by facta non verba on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:34:46 PM EST
    I was in such a hurry that I didn't think. I normally do. Wrote a post it to put on the Mac. And thanks for all that you do. You're amazing.

    THE WINNER (1.00 / 2) (#167)
    by plumberboy on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 03:36:39 AM EST
    I thought maybe you being intrested in the winners website and also the best candidate for president www.barackobama.com.I mean I know he doesn't have a 100 and some odd million for a income or a spouse who screws around every chance they get and he hasn't been under any sniper fire lately.I can't hardly believe anyone on the left can't see there is no way Hillary is going to win in the general election I live way out in the sticks back in the woods with a ten acre spread and Hillarys name around here is as popular as Rev.Jacksons name but Obama people have a tendecy to like they think of Kennedy and it inspires a hope for our nation.I think people like how young he is with a wife and children it also gives people the feeling they have a president who can relate to them. I truly believe the only way the Dems get the white house is with Barack Obama because he is inspiring and people can relate to him and his life story also he tends to draw voters from both sides of the aisle.

    Lots of dreaming going on there... (none / 0) (#174)
    by stefystef on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 07:03:07 AM EST
    When I think about JFK's presidency, I don't necessarily see was much hope as hype.  He barely made it back into the White House (thanks to his daddy paying the Mob to get his votes).  

    I really do not believe that most Americans think about JFK when they decide who they vote for.  Not when their gas bills are so big and the economy in the crapper.

    But it was a lovely post, hitting all the Obama talking-points.  


    Oh please... Obama is (none / 0) (#184)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:50:55 AM EST
    the divider of the Democratic Party. He is all flash and nothing behind it. His record of "accomplishments" is inflated beyond belief. His policies are a bad lip-sinc of Hillary's, and his supporters are some of the rudest people I have ever read. When the entire truth about Obama is known, and it will be, he will lose the election. If we get lucky and get Hillary as nominee, then we have a chance to take down McCain.

    Obama is a phony who hasn't done what he claims to have done and he won't be able to stand up to scrutiny in the GE. His associations with Wright as well as domestic terrorists such as Ayers, his neglect of his constituents in Chicago, his lies about his "experience" in foreign policy, the fact that he hasn't bothered to call one single committee meeting for his committee which oversees NATO, his claims of passing legislation that he didn't do anything but stick his name on.. and this happened in the US Senate as well as the Ill. Senate. The last time I saw this sort of inflation with results was when a duo had hits and turned out to be frauds.

    Obama is the Milli Vanilli of this election. He can't win the GE.


    Who oversees that site? (none / 0) (#165)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 03:18:38 AM EST
    A sure winner... (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:27:01 PM EST
    honestly, if he was, would he be spending that much?  

    Didn't a recent poll (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:27:49 PM EST
    reveal that folks were getting really annoyed with all of his ads?  Or was that someone else's opinion? (ha, like it matters with certain pollsters)

    Freakanomics, baby.  There comes a time when all the money in the world is too much money.  I imagine those PA'ers don't cotton to someone thinking their votes can be bought, either.

    For those of you who are maxed out to Clinton, Emily's List has a great GOTV drive for Clinton!

    I'm more than maxed out (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by stillife on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:35:56 PM EST
    How does Emily's List work?  If I give a contribution to Hillary thru their site, it will go to her primary campaign?

    Funny, I had a dream last night that I found a loophole where I could keep contributing to her.  I think I'm a little obsessed.  =)


    Emily's List (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:44:33 PM EST
    I called their corporate number:  (202) 326-1400

    Then I told them I was maxed out and I wanted to do something that would help energize women for Clinton.  They have a GOTV fund, Women Vote, that has been extremely effective in getting young women to the polls.  Their stated mission is to help pro-choice, democratic women get into (and hold) office, and since Clinton is the only pro-choice woman running for the nom, they can openly support her.


    Thank you (none / 0) (#65)
    by stillife on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:58:53 PM EST
    Their offices are closed right now, but I shall call them tomorrow.

    FYI...... (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by michitucky on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:51:01 PM EST
    I'm maxed out, also......I've purchased HRC Yard Signs, Buttons, and Bumper Stickers from Hillary's website.  My little HRC support group has distributed...Win-Win...Campaign takes in $$$ and we have more visibility.

    Someone else mentioned donating supplies to HRC campaign offices...


    He's replicating the Ohio (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:43:18 PM EST
    strategy - and look how that worked out.  Apparently, there was nowhere you could go in Ohio without being confronted with the image or voice of Obama - scary, huh?

    And still he lost.  

    I think if their internal numbers were going their way, they might not be saturating the market - but I guess we will know for sure on Tuesday which candidate got more bang for the buck.

    Hillary will be in York, PA tomorrow, which is only about 30 miles up the road from me in MD, but my husband has an old friend coming in from out of town, so I won't be able to go. :-(


    wonderful news! (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Klio on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:24:23 PM EST
    I'm maxed out as well.  And I've been looking for a place to send the $$$ that goes to my DNC Democracy Bond.

    Thank you, Kathy!


    They were not annoyed at the ads, per se; (none / 0) (#11)
    by MarkL on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:30:02 PM EST
    they were annoyed that the ads merely said how wonderful Obama is, without telling what he will do for Keystone Staters.
    I know.. hard to believe, isn't it?

    Well, it's what he did in Teaxas (5.00 / 0) (#9)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:28:29 PM EST
    and, I think, Ohio.

    Frankly, $91,000 for Philly seems off by  a zero to me. It indicates that Hillary may be totally out of money.

    Buying? (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by ROK on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:29:47 PM EST
    First of all, advertising is not buying votes. Stop making that claim.

    Secondly, if Hillary had the kind of cash and base she would be doing the same.

    Is there no way that Hillary supporters will at least consider that the Obama campaign has outdone the Hillary campaign in every way? We donate to Obama so he can get his name and message out there. Of course he will buy ad time with that money. I would be upset if he didn't.

    I just don't get it.  

    Outdone doesn't equal better. (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by ahazydelirium on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:41:16 PM EST
    Besides, weren't we accused of trying to buy votes by financing new elections in Michigan and Florida, despite the fact that the voters weren't receiving the money?

    Both arguments are ridiculous; and both sides should consider the glass house allegory. But venting is likely to happen, and in this polarized environment, you really can't blame one group over another (even until you're red in the face).


    Lets Not Forget Obama's Money Bundlers (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:44:52 PM EST
    They will help get him all the money he needs

    Of course it is... (1.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:31:40 PM EST
    You pay off the media.  

    That's what he did. (5.00 / 0) (#19)
    by ROK on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:32:57 PM EST
    Empty accusations like always

    How is that empty? (none / 0) (#25)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:35:26 PM EST
    all that advertising does is give money to the TV and radio stations.  

    Again (5.00 / 0) (#35)
    by ROK on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:38:21 PM EST
    MY vote was bought how?

    You're not seriously implying... (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by gmo on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:54:09 PM EST
    ...that buying ads doesn't directly correlate to "buying" votes, are you?  

    If he didn't think that spending money on media wasn't directly improving his standings in the election, uhm, then what's the point?   You think his ads are just PSAs?


    Convincing (5.00 / 0) (#118)
    by ROK on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:51:01 PM EST
    people is not buying people.

    No, but... (none / 0) (#144)
    by gmo on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:35:45 PM EST
    ...spending tons and tons to convince as many people as you can through the airwaves that would otherwise be inaccessible to other people who don't have as much money isn't just "convincing" people based on the strength of your argument, now is it? Because if that were so, there'd be a lot more candidates who'd still be in the running if it were based solely on the merits of their policies and arguments instead of how much money they've raised and spent.

    I wonder if there are subliminal messages (none / 0) (#156)
    by thereyougo on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:39:08 AM EST
    in those ads or can you say OVERKILL? Could some check into that? I don't don't put my trust in these folks, mob rule and all.

    they're just too shrill. but maybe just maybe they'll have the opposite effect.


    I think the point... (none / 0) (#160)
    by IzikLA on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:59:22 AM EST
    is that all that money for ad-buys goes to the network.  If one candidate has an overwhelming amount of money going to the network do you think their message permeates the market?  Will they ask the hard questions from the one footing the bill?

    This is how it's always been done so I'm not necessarily complaining, just stating what I think the story is here.

    And I would not venture that YOUR particular vote was bought. I would like to think most people on these sites have a mind of their own.


    I cannot imagine (none / 0) (#22)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:34:36 PM EST
    how much GE, Viacom, etc, have made off his unprecedented ad buys.

    Note to Obama: if you ever run for anything ever again, don't like your top consultant's fees to ad buys.


    And again, (5.00 / 0) (#26)
    by ROK on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:35:46 PM EST
    he's buying the votes of the voters how?

    With money, that's how. (none / 0) (#103)
    by cymro on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:55:55 PM EST
    Money => Ads => Votes.

    What is so hard to understand about that? Obama obviously understands it -- why else do you think he's raising all that money and running all those ads?

    Seems obvious to me.


    And (5.00 / 0) (#120)
    by ROK on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:53:47 PM EST
    that's bad? It seems that Hillary isn't doing as well with raising money, but that doesn't mean she isn't trying to buy her share of votes.

    Obama has raised more money than Hillary ever could. Let's not blame the millions of people who have given him money.


    Where did I say ... (none / 0) (#161)
    by cymro on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 02:07:38 AM EST
    that it was bad, or that I blamed millions of people?

    These statements reflect your own concerns. I simply made a factual observation that there exist a correlation between having money and getting votes.


    Where did I say ... (none / 0) (#162)
    by cymro on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 02:14:23 AM EST
    ... that money could guarantee victory?

    I simply made a factual observation that there exists a correlation between having money and getting votes.

    However, if you annoy enough of the electorate, as the PA primary will demonstrate, no amount of money can produce a victory.


    Well, when you're (none / 0) (#129)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:07:54 PM EST
    spending lots of money in a market, you'll get a sympathetic words from the TV/news commenters in that market.

    The nice words will sway voters. They'll vote for you.

    See?  Buy a radio station's opinion, buy a newspaper's opinion, buy a TV station's opinion, you'll buy voters.


    ROK, yuck, just yuck to you. (none / 0) (#166)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 03:20:55 AM EST
    i thought it was the more money spent (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by boredmpa on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:46:16 PM EST
    disqualifying opponents:
    From the chicago tribune
    "We actually ran a terrific campaign up until the point we knew that we weren't going to have to appear on the ballot with anybody," Obama said. "I mean, we had prepared for it. We had raised money. We had tons of volunteers. There was enormous enthusiasm."

    And he defended his use of ballot maneuvers: "If you can win, you should win and get to work doing the people's business."


    Little-known candidate Marc Ewell filed 1,286 names, but Obama's objections left him 86 short of the minimum, and election officials struck him from the ballot, records show. Ewell filed a federal lawsuit contesting the board's decision, but Johnson intervened on Obama's behalf and prevailed when Ewell's case was dismissed days later.


    City authorities had just completed a massive, routine purge of unqualified names that eliminated 15,871 people from the 13th District rolls, court records show.

    Ewell and other Obama rivals had relied on early 1995 polling sheets to verify the signatures of registered voters -- but Obama's challenges were decided at least in part using the most recent, accurate list, records show.

    Askia filed 1,899 signatures, but the Obama team sustained objections to 1,211, leaving him 69 short, records show.

    It is amazing that he could purge all 4 opponents on technicalities, especially when they had nearly double the requirements.  Someone know how this works?  Sheet not formatted correctly? Signature doesn't match exactly? I move half a block in the same district? Or are gatherers really that corrupt?

    His quote also doesn't jive with his "new politics" / "clean campaign"

    i did read the article (none / 0) (#164)
    by boredmpa on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 02:48:19 AM EST
    and for me, the is ABSOLUTELY an issue.  You're telling me that the others didn't plan for some round-tabling and some moves?  Gatherers expect some round-tabling and some moves, that's why they try and go over by a large amount.  But challenging/defending upwards of 500 signatures each cannot be easy or cheap and depending on the laws may have been impossible for some candidates.

    But all four candidates  were disqualified via protests.  Only one of those 4 people was the incumbent and thus may have had the resource$ to defend some of those challenges.  But 500 each? Depends on if he disqualified entire sheets, if you had to defend by finding the voter, or if there was a gotcha with an intradistrict move being disqualified--he might have even disqualified folks for moving to a different polling place in the same district (if someone didn't pay to defend and verify every signature).

    As to formatting issues, there are strict requirements in CA at least about formatting and disclosure on ballot initiative/amendment petitions.  I suspect there are strict ones for primary qualifications as well.  Maybe he got people on that.  Disqualify the whole sheet because the gatherer forgot to sign it.

    He challenged for people for what, an average of ~500 votes each.  I asked about this process because there are lots of nasty things you could theoretically do based on my knowledge of CA initiatives.  I mean he could challenge on the signature match of anyone questionable (mine is chicken scratch) and that would have to be defended or verified.

    All of these issues require money and time to defend and reverse, they could require a lawyer and possibly tracking down the signer or checking sheets from multiple polling places.  That's why I posted the question and why I consider it highly disturbing.

    Thousands of signatures? All bad? All from his opponents?  Really?


    What annoys me (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Mary Mary on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:50:53 PM EST
    is not the ads, because I don't watch much television. What really ticked me off today is the message the Obama campaign left - "you'll probably get a lot of negative calls from Senator Clinton's campaign, but don't believe 'em; they will say anything."

    I wonder if anyone has gotten negative calls from the Clinton campaign? If so, it's outsourced because I've been making calls and there is NOTHING negative in the script.

    I did (none / 0) (#92)
    by ding7777 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:11:44 PM EST
    His ad exposure in TX (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by Leisa on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:12:18 PM EST
    was one of many reasons I voted for Hillary.  You get over saturated by the deafening soundbites.  I felt that he was shameless in the amount of money he spent on ads.  The radios seemed to run a his propaganda every 10 minutes or so.  
    I sent her campaign what I had left over from this week's expenses today. Every little bit helps!
    A vote for Hillary is a vote for democracy!

    Well, I'd say it's a vote for a Democrat, (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by MarkL on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:13:30 PM EST
    first and foremost.

    I kicked in $40 for HRC (5.00 / 6) (#81)
    by sarany on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:36:19 PM EST
    this is the first I've contributed to her campaign, and I'm happy to put my money where my mouth is.  I guess I've about had it with Obama and his arrogance.  Giving Hillary the (disguised) finger was the last straw (how unstatesmanlike), plus Jeralyn's story about his upcoming massive expenditure to end her run.

    I'm tired of the disrespect that Hillary has been shown by SO many people. She's my Senator and she's done a damn good job at it. She's good on the issues I care most about. She's got experience, she's got heart -- and fire and intelligence. Perfect? No. Is she The One? No. But she's damn good.

    I want her as my President. I'd be proud to have her as my President.

    Go Hillary, GO!

    She's my Senator also (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by nycstray on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:09:26 AM EST
    and I agree, she's doing a damn good job. She's been there on issues I always cared about, and was already there on issues I cared about, but that came more to the front over the past couple of years (for me). And frankly, even if she's on the same page with Obama on an issue, she always has more 'teeth' in hers. I want that.

    No (none / 0) (#130)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:09:48 PM EST
    disrespecting her by flipping her off, implying that she's feces on his shoulder and his foot.

    You know that idiotic, schoolyard, immature garbage.


    Not feces, dust (none / 0) (#182)
    by kayla on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:02:51 AM EST
    "Dust your shoulders off"  when you get in some kind of a rut or tough time you just dust your shoulders off and move on to success.  From a Jay Z song.  I do think he was acting immature and a sore loser, though.  Which is ironic, because it goes against the 'dirt off your shoulder' idea.

    I was referring (none / 0) (#175)
    by sarany on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 07:35:46 AM EST
    to a general miasma of disrespect from the "progressive" blogs, to MSM, to the anti-Clinton right wing organized hate that is seeping (or flooding) into national discourse. By the time you hear it 6 times, you start to believe it, because you forgot where it started, you know?

    She gets slammed for:
    -her hair
    -her voice
    -her ankles
    -being too cold
    -manufacturing emotion
    -what she wears
    -for not leaving Bill
    -for what Bill does & says
    -for having Chelsea campaign for her (good lord, seriously?)
    -for being ambitious (as tho' Obama is not, or MEN are not)
    -for being calculating (as tho' Obama is not, or that you can win office if you AREN'T playing some very tough and nasty political chess)

    -and on and on

    BTD has thankfully shined the light on all the double standards out there. She has to endure a TORRENT of disrespect and sexist/silly attacks with very little support, and then all Obama's supporters suddenly notice and decry the "unfairness" when HE is the target.

    If he is the candidate, we should be VERY gratefull that Obama is getting his trial by fire NOW, because there will be a frenzy of scrutiny turned on him and many of his vulnerabilities will be OLD news by then. He is learning to handle himself and making his blunders now. Hopefully he will stop with the juvenile gestures, and will learn a bit more about some of the states and populations that he will need to win next November.

    He sometimes acts as though the Presidency is HIS already, and all this is just delaying the inevitable. As though it's just a massive distraction and inconvenience. Well, Hillary has earned her shot at this with very hard work. He can't just coast into this. And as I said, we'd be in trouble -- he'd be in trouble -- if he had not endured the last 2 months of testing. His supporters act as though Hillary is crippling him to the point where he can't win and they couldn't be more wrong. It will turn out that she's making him as electible as is possible.

    I'd rather see Clinton get the nomination but I will support Obama and vote for him if he's our candidate. But I really worry that he can't win in the places where Democrats have needed to hold to contend with the strong thread of conservative thinking that runs through this country. There are a LOT of inner conservatives out there. Call it racsicm if you want to dismiss it -- there's certainly some of that hidden in some of us -- but some of it is simply a core of fear that conservatives have been able to activate with Rovian tactics. It's coming from McCain and we know that. We know what they'll do if it's Hillary. We know what they'll do if it's Barack. We'd better hope that there is nothing left for an "October Surprise."

    I'm concerned that there are a lot of centrist voters who aren't persuaded by Obama's simplistic feel good message. They want concrete words and plans that demostrate an understanding of the challenges they face. They want to know that Obama knows them well enough to -- and cares enough -- to "change" the things that matter to them. They wonder what's really going on inside this man, and that's where the damage from Wright and "bitter clinging" is done. People worry that the inner Obama is not someone who has enough in common with them. And THAT is his real vulnerability and where the Rovian tacticians will aim their attacks.

    He MUST be able to finesse his message and "calculations" to contain the coming attacks and damage.


    various misspellings (none / 0) (#179)
    by sarany on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 08:03:29 AM EST
    ugh. oh well.

    Hillary is on AC306 tonight. 10PM. (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by nycstray on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:11:13 PM EST
    Right now they're are still on Tx church news, but she's coming up. A piece about her background.

    Off to send her some Love$!

    I hope Anderson treats her right (none / 0) (#95)
    by stillife on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:25:39 PM EST
    He was my TV boyfriend before this election season, when I had to dump him due to irreconcilable differences.

    It was great (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by bjorn on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:00:23 PM EST
    The CNN piece really made me feel proud I voted for her and also got me hoping I get a chance to vote for her again in the GE. One thing it put to rest was some big master plan for her to be president.  She laughed off running for the senate in NY and was talked in to it by friends.  She is a great lady!

    It was good (none / 0) (#109)
    by stillife on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:11:57 PM EST
    I agree.  Anderson prides himself on giving unbiased coverage and in this case, he delivered.

    Please post the link for that interview (none / 0) (#143)
    by stefystef on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:35:20 PM EST
    I don't get CNN and many people don't get it on their tv.  I'd love to see the interview and I hope they repeat it.

    There are so few nice interviews with HIllary, they are almost precious.  Anderson is the last of the newsmen.  George S. blows.


    AC360's (none / 0) (#150)
    by eleanora on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:51:31 PM EST
    CNN page doesn't seem to have a link to the video up yet, but here's a teaser. :)

    Thanks for the heads-up (none / 0) (#141)
    by eleanora on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:32:56 PM EST
    I loved that piece, so refreshingly balanced and made me feel so proud of her and all she's accomplished.

    If/when (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by sas on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:07:40 PM EST
    Hillary wins PA Tuesday, I'm sending her some more money.

    It's going to be another two months of primaries and she will still need money.

    Please consider sending if you are willing and able....

    I have sent her about $425 (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Mrwirez on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:14:09 PM EST
    over the last 3 months, more recently though. I really would give more....if GAS WAS NOT $3.39/gallon and milk was not $3.50. Go figure..... Sorry for the mini rant.

    right (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by sas on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:23:43 PM EST
    i did the same as you regarding the timing and amount

    $25 per paycheck here (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by ineedalife on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 08:49:22 AM EST
    I'm hoping there are few hundred thousand others like me out there.

    I don't drive, BUT (none / 0) (#152)
    by nycstray on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:18:58 AM EST
    O.M.G. milk and EGGS! are getting damn expensive! Well, all food is, and I try and buy organic which is more anyway. But, geeze, I ran out the other night and JUST bought milk and eggs. That's when the price increase really hits. When it's not shielded by other items.

    Gas hit $4 here at some stations either yesterday or Wed. Saw a teaser for the news, but missed the story.

    I've added contributions to her campaign to my budget and gave myself some wiggle room. You know, for days when ya just get pissed at what's going on and want to express it with a donation ;) Like tonight. I did $44.44 just to send some advertising money to counter Obama, even though I did a donation earlier in the week.


    Hilary donation (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by yourkidding on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:35:45 PM EST
    Have sent a couple of hundred & will send more if she wins PA.

    Managed to squeak out (none / 0) (#145)
    by eleanora on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:36:26 PM EST
    another contribution last night and will give more after May 1st. I've never donated this much to a candidate before, but I've never believed in one as much either.

    I really never donated... (none / 0) (#183)
    by Mrwirez on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:14:24 AM EST
    personally. I'm in the electrician's union (IBEW) we will give about $20 million to the DEM nominee that comes from our Political Action fund. Right now we have given to both (so much for Barack not taking PAC money). The DEM nominee gets the lion's share.

    Obama losing? (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by yourkidding on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:33:33 PM EST
    I know only a few people who are not going to vote Democratic this Fall, but many of us are increasingly concerned about Obama's ability to pull it off.
    The issue of so many of his fans is more & more annoying, the attitude of "Obama can do no wrong, The Clintons are evil, etc. etc." And the no so veiled threats of violence should the super delegates "overtrun" the will of the people.
    I've gone from being someone who would be happy to vote for either Hilary or Obama to someone who will vote for Obama with great reluctance if he is the nominee.

    I sent Hillary $50 today (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by stefystef on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:29:59 PM EST
    $25 for tv, $25 for radio.
    It ain't much, but it's all I got right now.

    If you can spare $10 bucks and you believe that Hillary Clinton is the right person for the job of President of the United States, please give her a donation.  Every little bit help.

    Thank you.

    Clinton/Edwards '08!  Our Dream Team.

    Obama can't say that hats and mugs (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by thereyougo on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:31:35 AM EST
    are putting him over the top from the LITTLE PEOPLE. Not after going to SF to billionaire row. Gee for his supporter's claim that he's not the typical politician he sure raises alot of money like he is. I never believed hats and mugs and $3 hype anyway.

    ROK QUOTE:Is there no way that Hillary supporters will at least consider that the Obama campaign has outdone the Hillary campaign in every way?

    ANSWER: and he still can't put her away. I'm sorry that we're stuck on Hillary because SHE IS THE BETTER CANDIDATE not the SHRILLEST and I know of elections that weren't won by the candidate with deepest pockets.

    come on, all (none / 0) (#159)
    by onemanrules on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:54:39 AM EST
    three canidates raise funds from wealthy groups/individuals.
    Were any of you invited to this:
    Clinton Fundraising Goes Full Force

    By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum and Matthew Mosk
    Washington Post Staff Writers
    Wednesday, February 7, 2007; Page A08

    Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is playing hostess to billionaire Hollywood moguls, millionaire lawyers and venture capitalists here this week as she pushes to raise a record sum for her presidential campaign.

    Last night, the New York Democrat invited about 70 top fundraisers from around the country to a reception at her Washington home. The guest list included such major Democratic donors as Haim Saban, a Hollywood studio investor, Alan J. Patricof, a New York financier, and Kevin O'Keefe, a Chicago lawyer.

    The HRC campaign has run one of the worst planned campaigns ever. HRC supporters should be out with pitchforks for Mark Penn and the other planners. I think they stole her money for their lack of forsite into what could happen this campaign. I think they thought it would be a cakewalk and didn't plan for anything beyond super tuesday. I honestly think if she would have had better prepared advisors that she would have won a long time ago. Now she needs something just short of a miracle.


    Why wouldn't Obama think he could slide right into (4.50 / 2) (#79)
    by DeborahNC on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:28:01 PM EST
    the top spot by using cash, since his political ascension has had many "assists" in the past by Emil Jones, Rezko, and many more.

    His successes in the Illinois Senate were largely a result of the Senate President Emil Jones, who gave Obama assignments to work on  legislation that would create sensational news headlines. It was a mutually beneficial arrangement--Obama had a long-time political figure's backing while Jones gained credibility through demonstrating he could get people elected. Anyway, without Jones's help, it is unlikely that Obama would have been elected to the U.S. Senate when he did.

    So, Obama's had an easy ride to his present position; why should he think it will stop there? Reminds me of another politician we all know. George W. Bush, anyone? And that worked out so well for all of us, right?

    Barry? (3.00 / 0) (#14)
    by ROK on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:31:37 PM EST
    That's enough.

    So much self hate (none / 0) (#18)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:32:51 PM EST
    what is it with this guy and his names?  Man.  He should make peace and so should his followers with his diversity.

    It's (none / 0) (#23)
    by ROK on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:34:43 PM EST
    the demeaning nature in which people use the name. They would have never called him Barry if they were so in love with hating him.

    His own supporters (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by waldenpond on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:55:58 PM EST
    call him that!  It is amazing... Obama and supporters now lay claim to the English language.  No matter what they say, no offense was ever intended, no matter what a Clinton supporter says it's always offensive.  Tiring trying to watch every single word.

    His grandma and sister call him that (none / 0) (#28)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:35:56 PM EST
    You understand my point (none / 0) (#33)
    by ROK on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:37:42 PM EST
    and stop dancing around.

    No... (none / 0) (#44)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:43:30 PM EST
    Hillary is Hillary, HRC, Clinton.  

    Obama is OHB, Barry...anything wrong with that, his grandma loves him and calls him Barry.  


    oops BHO (none / 0) (#46)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:44:13 PM EST
    So (none / 0) (#126)
    by ROK on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:57:06 PM EST
    You call him that because you respect his loving grandmother? You did not start calling him Barry until he started beating Hillary.

    Explain the change then?


    His Name Used To Be Barry (none / 0) (#42)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:41:33 PM EST
    But Jeralyn asked everyone to refrain from (none / 0) (#90)
    by IndiDemGirl on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:09:16 PM EST
    calling him Barry.  I believe this was posted a few days ago.

    Amen. (none / 0) (#55)
    by gmo on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:49:06 PM EST
    Seriously, I'm tired of dancing around his name.  

    And besides, if he wants to publicly portray himself as approachable and a "regular guy" as he over exposes himself to the voters in PA, then I think it's more than appropriate to refer to him as "Barry" in this context.  That's why I chose to say "Barry" instead of "Obama" or "Barack" or "BO" or whatever.


    I just (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by sas on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:01:54 PM EST
    call him
    "a mistake in progress"

    The problem with "Barry" (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by magster on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:45:26 PM EST
    is that we might confuse him with the actor who plays Greg Brady.

    I'm always afraid (none / 0) (#70)
    by magisterludi on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:12:12 PM EST
    to type BO. I mean, isn't it obvious?

    Jeralyn posted the other night and asked everyone (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by IndiDemGirl on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:08:14 PM EST
    to NOT call Obama either BO or Barry.

    Well, then see? (none / 0) (#94)
    by magisterludi on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:17:46 PM EST
    My instincts were correct!

    really? (none / 0) (#100)
    by gmo on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:37:35 PM EST
    ok, then I don't want to stir up whatever  that debate was, and will respect jeralyn's request from now on.  But I do still feel that my comment was pretty clear in context.  

    Agreed (none / 0) (#123)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:55:06 PM EST
    Calling Barack Obama "Barry" or "BO" is intended to be demeaning and those comments will be deleted.

    Obama Is Running Scared... (2.00 / 0) (#30)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:36:02 PM EST
    Millions and millions and millions and millions of dollars have been spent by the Obama campaign.  They are outspending their opponent by 4 to 1 and he still cannot seal the deal.  Any thoughts?

    my thoughts (none / 0) (#37)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:38:53 PM EST
    it's gotta be more than 4-1 at this point.  Quick, someone who is better at math than me (other than my cat, who is sleeping) figure it out.  I mean, he's dropped zillions into PA by now.

    GE Mode (none / 0) (#39)
    by ROK on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:39:44 PM EST
    He is looking beyond.

    General Electric mode? Like (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by MarkL on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:40:38 PM EST
    Ronnie, like heir, eh?

    hahah (none / 0) (#88)
    by RalphB on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:57:02 PM EST
    if this is GE strategy, it's the dumbest I've ever seen.  :-)

    Yeah? (none / 0) (#122)
    by ROK on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:54:46 PM EST
    So you think the short-sighted Hillary campaign is better? Right.

    For a GE absolutely. (none / 0) (#132)
    by RalphB on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:13:16 PM EST
    At least she'll be able to run one.  Obama will do good to perform as well as Dukakis.

    What a joke (none / 0) (#138)
    by ROK on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:25:36 PM EST
    Hillary would lose 60-40. I think it's awful, but Hillary hate is much stronger than McCain love. Millions would love to vote McCain over her.

    I'm voting Dem no matter what. I don't like Hillary's inability to run an effective campaign, but I would vote for her.


    That's absurd. (none / 0) (#147)
    by gmo on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:37:48 PM EST
    It would be nowhere NEAR 60-40 based on the current polls. In fact, based on current polling, Hillary's doing better than Barack in Electoral vote count.

    Utter and complete BS (none / 0) (#148)
    by RalphB on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:41:15 PM EST
    The electoral map looks much better for Clinton than for Obama.

    SNOB:  it's an elite thing. You wouldn't understand.

    Just waiting on the t-shirts and coffee mugs.


    Link? (none / 0) (#180)
    by ROK on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 08:39:12 AM EST
    Dream on...

    Sure. (none / 0) (#185)
    by gmo on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:18:12 PM EST
    www.electoral-vote.com or even mydd.com's ev calculators.  Click over to Obama vs McCain  and then Clinton vs McCain.  

    She's currently polling at 289 EV's, enough to win the election. He's at 260, with more EV's tied, and thus stands a greater risk of losing than Clinton does.  


    Why would I want to help Hillary? (1.00 / 6) (#17)
    by Citizen Rat on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:32:18 PM EST
    In the past several days Hillary has repeated and legitimized all the Karl Rove/Lee Atwater memes that have been directed at Democratic politicians for the last two decades. She has insinuated that Al Gore and John Kerry lost because they were successfully portrayed as too elitist. This ignores that Al Gore won the popular vote and arguably the election. It ignores that John Kerry came within a few percentage points of winning against a popular war time President.

    Of course the Republicans are going to run with any smear they can come up with. But why should Democrats legitimize these smears.

    And now, Hillary has made it painfully clear she does not want my vote. What leads me to conclude this? Her recent slam against MoveOn.

    Allright, fair enough. Hillary and the rest of you, you don't have my vote, my support or my money. You might have had until just now when Hillary made it painfully clear she did not want it.

    Instead,if Hillary is the nominee I will not stay in a party where I am not wanted. I will not stay in a party that legitimizes the anti-intellectualism and politics of personal destruction of Lee Atwater and Karl Rove. And I will not stay in any party where the candidate announces sweeping new security doctrines of "bomb, bomb, bomd, bomb the middle east" if there is another war.

    You mean Axelrove? (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:34:29 PM EST
    The boy wonder copying the Republican techniques:  
    Fake coalitions, pander stand for nothing, get elected, do nothing.  

    So, if MoveOn is so important to you (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:37:31 PM EST
    are you saying that she had your vote up until just now, because she, not Obama, voted against censuring MoveOn and took a stand for the progressive blogs?

    To quote Jeralyn quoting someone else (please remind me!):

    Rest assured, we know what your position is (anti-Clinton) and we can predict with relatively good precision what you would like to say.  So, there is no reason to belabor your point here.

    I'm saying that (1.00 / 8) (#53)
    by Citizen Rat on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:48:59 PM EST
    Until now-even after Wednesday night's imitation of the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities by Clinton surrogate Georgie steponuppitynegropolis, and after Clinton's pandering to this generation's McCarthyism, and even after her new, grandiose, foreign policy bombshell, I was willing to vote for her simply on the basis of who might be appointed to the Supreme Court. She has never had my support in the Democratic Party Primary. But I was willing to be a good yellow dog.

    But you know what: even yellow dogs get tired of coming back for more when you kick'em enough.

    And Clinton just threw a rock at my ilk and told us to scram.

    Well, no need to ask twice-or even nice.

    When your rooster crows at the break of dawn,
    Look out your window and I'll be gone
    Hillary Clinton's the reason I'll be travelin' on
    But don't think twice, it's all right.


    Now you did it (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:00:07 PM EST
    STEPHANOPOULOS  to you sir.  The little guy is one of my own.  And we are sort of proud of the little Greek.  

    So you consider (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by magisterludi on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:06:00 PM EST
    yourself an "ilk", do ya there, Mr. College Professor?

    I think I speak for many here (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:07:33 PM EST
    when I say that your absence will be sorely felt among the core ranks of the democratic party (not least of all for your excellent rhyming abilities).  Hush, hush, say no more.  Farewell, my friend!  Thank you for going gently into that good night.

    Habermas? (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by kredwyn on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:50:39 PM EST
    Please...Bakhtin is where it's at these days.

    Course when you have candidates wandering around telling pro-choice advocates that they are the ones making mistakes and don't understand the anti-choice position--wrenching as it is...oh...and that we don't have a moral compass.

    This yellow dog gets really tired of being told that I don't have a moral compass because I want to protect my niece's right to physical autonomy when she gets older.


    I think you are bordering (none / 0) (#69)
    by MichaelGale on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:08:24 PM EST
    compelling me to not like you very much.  And you are a lousy poet.

    how old are you? (none / 0) (#78)
    by TheRefugee on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:26:57 PM EST
    anyone comparing Clinton to McCarthy is a moron.  I'm 36 but I have it on good authority that McCarthy was a nutjob and that Clinton is no McCarthy--so says my parents and older relatives who watched the real McCarthyism take place and watched the REAL Murrow remind America what America was about.

    Careful you (none / 0) (#84)
    by RalphB on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:48:34 PM EST
    don't let the door hit you in ths a-s on the way out.  Buh bye.

    Your argument (none / 0) (#112)
    by IzikLA on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:24:55 PM EST
    Just does not hold any water.  It's leaking all over the place.  Obama has played into all the old old talking points about Hillary since day one.  For you to be so mad now when she has done nothing newly horrible is just silly.  By the way, I've heard the MoveOn tape and she hardly slammed them as you keep repeating.  Her words were thoughtful and deliberate, and please remember that it was they that went out of their way to push Obama before the nominee was settled.  

    Also, I am a young, very liberal, college educated Californian that is smart enough to realize that you must project a worldview that is more towards-the-middle in order to actually win the GE.  Hillary has done a stellar job doing what she needs to do to win the GE.  Obama has done a good job winning the primary.  I really don't like Obama after what he's done to her and to Democrats that actually can win, but I will vote for him in November if he is the nominee.  The alternative is worse.  If, as a true MoveOn supporter, you do not see that, then there is just no arguing with you, and no reason to listen either.


    I missed the line about (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by MarkL on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:37:15 PM EST
    "anti-intellectualism" the first read.
    Definitely parody guys.

    Recent Slam....it was tepid at best (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:47:30 PM EST
    Of course, HuffPo had a big banner up before the story even appeared, getting the people worked up and ready for a fight.

    And, sorry, somehow I don't believe you ever intended to vote for Hillary Clinton.


    Troll? (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by waldenpond on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:53:28 PM EST
    First timer, 2 of first 3 comments rated 1.  I'm guessing this is the second visitor from Kos tonight?

    Some people are apparently bored of listening to eachother and have decided to reach out and annoy?


    Trolling, trolling everywhere (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by stillife on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:56:41 PM EST
    Not the kind of behavior I'd expect from the supporters of a winning candidate.  It's a good sign for Hillary on Tuesday!

    If BO's the clean honest winner why mega-troll? (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by Ellie on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:00:15 PM EST
    In a matter of weeks TeamObama swung post-Edwards -supporting Indy-Me from undecided but seeing the potential for good work from HRC and BO,

    to palpable discomfort with the rabid sexism and gratuitous smears of calling any skeptics racist. (Sliming even boring schlubby human rights activists like myself, who organized and did gratis work for groups like Southern Povery Law and the ANC when it was so uncool, Librul Come Lately Republicans turned Nouvel Super "Libs" like Kos and Aravosis were no doubt slamming people like myself as humorless, politically correct hippie feminazi retreads.)

    to being quite comfortable in my current position of seeing Obama as an empty marketed phenom no better than a product placement like Sprite or Camels cleverly targeting.

    Still, tactics like pestering, astro-trolling, egregious smearing and thuggery for the "crime" of holding Obama to his own, freely offered words and deeds only begs the questions.

    If he's so beloved, why the thuggery? Why troll at all? Why be concerned that the people who by TeamObama's own accounts have lost are just talking among themselves?

    If the cause is just, why all the demonstrable lying and ugliness emanating from Obama's campaign? It's not invented -- it's plainly on the record, on tape, in his speeches and in his directions to his mob.

    Sen Clinton didn't make that up, plant it, exaggerate it nor distort it in any way.

    Obama Trolls: why are you even here talking your ridiculous smack?


    Kos diary (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Josey on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:56:57 PM EST
    >>>Clinton said to a meeting of donors. "We have been less successful in caucuses because it brings out the activist base of the Democratic Party.

    Hillary is not talking about ALL Dem activists, but rather Obama activists that have bullied their way through caucuses.
    I dropped MoveOn last summer for their campaign railing against an anti-environmental Senate coal bill in which they never identified the sponsor of the bill, a presidential candidate - Obama.
    That deception was just toooo much Obama worship.



    but you will stay in the Obama Party? (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Josey on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:21:35 PM EST
    that has created so much divisiveness in the Dem Party.
    Seemingly, Obama's Dem activists are only interested in "beating the B***h!" while ignoring all negative info about Obama that the GOP will use magnificently. Remember - they've extinquished more than one Vietnam hero Dem candidate. Think what they'll do to Obama per his associates - Wright, Ayers, Farrakhan, etc.
    Oh and iirc - it was Obama, NOT Hillary, who said he'd bomb Pakistan with or without Musharref's knowledge or permission.

    Will Blogs Like This Help To Bury Obama? (none / 0) (#80)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:33:57 PM EST
    Was looking around and found this, but I don't know much about this blogger.



    wow (none / 0) (#101)
    by Josey on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:39:05 PM EST
    there's an ad for Pajamas Media so I assume it's rightwing. But it's very revealing of things to come - with their comparison of Ayers anti-Vietnam activities with McCain, a American POW held for 5 years by the Vietnamese.
    And the Dems are offering the Republicans a candidate associated with characters who "hate America and the U.S. military."

    Honey, you know nothing of Lee Atwater. (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by hairspray on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:50:31 PM EST
    Unless you can cite some comprable actions between Lee and Hillary you should go back and read some real books. If you think Hillary equates to the GOP you should read "Blinded by the Right"  How old are you anyway?

    Um, Kerry WAS perceived as elitist. (none / 0) (#20)
    by MarkL on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:34:03 PM EST
    He was an idiot.  In fact, there's no question that Kerry is an elitist and is unable to hide the fact.
    You think THAT is out of Atwater's playbook?
    I think you will "say anything to win", myself.

    What's an "elitist"? (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Citizen Rat on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:44:13 PM EST
    An elitist is someone who believes that people of power, property or prestige should have special privileges. I suppose on the other hand we could adopt the Republican definition of elitist:

    If you are pro-choice, pro-teaching evolution in schools, pro-progressive taxes, pro stopping global warming you probably also drink lattes, drive a prius, maybe teach in a University...and are therefore clearly one of those godless secular humanist liberals who make one of those high flying salaries (my own salary as a college professor including summer school puts me only  slightly above the median family income), out of touch with the values of god fearin, hard workin, church goin, rural, value votin, genuwine Merckins!

    That was what Kerry was for sure. I mean, after all, the guy went wind surfing and ordered swiss cheese on his philly cheese steak.

    And I mean did you hear the way he talked-well he was from New England (can you imagine?) and actually talked like he really learned something in law school.

    Now, George Bush on the other hand, there was a genuine man of the people like John McCain, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton (woman of the people). Shucks, I've even heard Hillary talk with a slight PA twang. I mean she wouldn't ever do anything like engaging in Sociological analysis.

    Yep, now that Barack. There's an elitist for you. he went to Yale, orders OK in diners...

    Let's remember: an elitist is not someone who is born to wealth, has real power, prestige and property, uses and manipulates wedge issues to support regressive taxes, aggressive foreign policy, tax give aways to oil companies, is a former CEO of Haliburton...

    Nope, the only people who use that definition of elitist are people who read C Wright Mills and Habermas. And we must never, ever, ever elect a person like that to President.

    In fact, the only way we Democrats can win is if we pander to the lowest common denominator: just like Lee Atwater and Karl Rove.

    Yep: time for a Sister Souljah moment to stand up to Move On.

    Let's get rid of those elitists in the Democratic Party.


    My jaw actually popped (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:46:29 PM EST
    from yawning.  Why didn't my headache go away?

    Substitute a different word if you like: (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by MarkL on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:47:45 PM EST
    your exegesis misses the point entirely.
    Kerry was seen as looking down at the common man. Obama now has the same problem because of his SF remarks.
    Nobody likes a snob--ESPECIALLY a snob who says he knows what's good for you.

    Buh..humbug (5.00 / 4) (#62)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:56:52 PM EST
    Elitists are people who think whether neo con or leftie that they because they are better educated, or come from one of the coasts, should decide or know what is better for the "other" people in America.  People who cringe that someone may choose to live in a small town, go to a church and make a hot dish, green bean casserole and does not really care for fennel in a balsamico sauce.  

    People who were one degree of separation from Kraft macaroni and cheese and now have become experts on penne al pesto.  Yet, they laugh at the people who still eat Kraft as if they are some kind of low life.  

    Elitists who benefited from America's meritocracy and want to keep it all costs for their privileged children and want to tip the balance towards their children.  People who think their kids are so special, and they are so liberal but their kids cannot go to the public schools because they are gifted.  

    (the above list is partial and induced by a great chocolate cake from Alice Waters newest cookbook)


    i for one hate balsamico laced with fennel (none / 0) (#76)
    by TheRefugee on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:22:39 PM EST
    what is balsamico again?

    Vinegar (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:24:25 PM EST
    Elites think they invented it, Italian peasants had it for eons.  A balsamic reduction is awesome.  

    An elitist is someone who won't let people eat (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Ellie on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:19:23 PM EST
    This hooey to peg people as "elitist" who drink latte's and eat balsamico is insulting and ridiculous.

    I went straight from from Mama's boob to the latte bowl and after school, the kids snacked on day-old toasted bread dipped in olive oil and balsamic vinegar and topped with sliced tomatoes. Now it's available at 10x the price on menus as bruschetta.

    Just because some people who learned about it on FoodTV consider that knowledge as part of some smug, self-congratulating foodie movement are ignorant that -- :: shockers :: -- millions have that in their respective heritage is no reason to slam immigrant backgrounds.

    As has been pointed out below, this is peasant food for families like my own, that emigrated from lands that developed those practices in lean times as a way of not wasting food, even lowly dried out bread.

    And for what it's worth, no matter how poor my family was, we always managed to find an extra seat at the table for anyone who dropped by and made sure they were treated as part of the family and not an interloper.


    Not elitist... (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by waldenpond on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:26:23 PM EST
    Sorry to interrupt...   People keep coming back with the definition of elitist as an argument so, I think the word some people want is actually 'snob'....

    one who blatantly imitates, fawningly admires, or vulgarly seeks association with those regarded as social superiors  

    one who tends to rebuff, avoid, or ignore those regarded as inferior b: one who has an offensive air of superiority in matters of knowledge or taste


    You're joking, right? (none / 0) (#27)
    by Coldblue on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:35:48 PM EST
    then you don't fit in here either (none / 0) (#124)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:56:21 PM EST
    And you chatter. You are limited to 6 comments a day (24 hour period.) Enough for today, come back tomorrow if you must, but no cursing or personal attacks.

    Good for Obama (1.00 / 2) (#153)
    by RosaLuxemburg on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:22:18 AM EST
    That money was raised mostly the old-fashioned way, by boat-loads of small donors. The leverage he now is the product of thousands of individual decisions to support his campaign.

    I hope he blasts Hillary out of Pennsylvania and out of politics for good so she can stop hurting our country with her cynical, small-minded politics.

    And I hope (none / 0) (#155)
    by Marvin42 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:35:52 AM EST
    Sen Obama loses by 10+ margin. Because then my faith in democracy will grow stronger, that people don't just vote by ads or whoever spends the most. And yeah, probably because it will be a body blow and we won't have to endure any more Obama supporter posts like this one!

    I guess we will see... (none / 0) (#157)
    by white n az on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:53:33 AM EST
    but I'm quite of the opinion that he loses by double digits on Tuesday.

    of course you're forgetting about his taking boat loads of money from individuals who actually work for lobbying firms while he perpetuates stupid myths like he gets all of his money from small donations and no money from lobbyists.

    Fair assessments don't seem to be your stock in trade.


    And (none / 0) (#172)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 06:00:42 AM EST
    I would hope that you would "educate" yourself more about politics and about issues and not  just jump in to attack a woman who has done nothing to "hurt our country with her small-minded politics".

    Such rants without any substance do you no credit and actually prove the opinion many of us have about Obama supporters.

    You are hoping he "blasts her out of Pennsylvania"? Keep hoping. I'm hoping you are not only wrong but that she wins really big in Pennsylvania. I really don't want to see anyone "blasted" whatever the heck that's supposed to mean.


    I haven't played the clip yet (none / 0) (#1)
    by stillife on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:21:50 PM EST
    but I bet it's "Can't Buy Me Love".

    Let's see if I'm right.

    OK I was right (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by stillife on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:28:16 PM EST
    I enjoyed that vid.  I yearn for the days when people screamed and swooned for musicians rather than politicians.

    They Still Do (none / 0) (#12)
    by ROK on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:30:57 PM EST
    They scream for both and that is a good thing.

    OK for rock stars (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by stillife on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:37:45 PM EST
    a little creepy when it's for politicians.

    agreed (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:53:56 PM EST
    Screaming for a politician is bizarre and cult-like. I'm happy to scream for a great (and great looking, sexy) rock star.

    It shows (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:20:43 PM EST
    a lack of the balance and "sensibility" that one should show when considering a presidential candidate.

    fan=fanaticism. Fanaticism implies irrationality. Fanaticism has no place in politics.


    I always (none / 0) (#173)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 06:05:45 AM EST
    hated the screaming fans at Rock Concerts. I went to hear bands/groups I liked and couldn't afford to do it often. I wanted the screaming idiots to shut up so I could hear what I paid to see and hear. Screaming fans are more about the screamer than the Rock Star. IMHO. :)

    As for screaming for politicians, I find that disturbing. I like some more than others, respect some more than others and loathe more than a few. But screaming for them is creepy IMO and shows a serious lack of maturity. I don't like the constant reciting of campaign slogans either. Creepy too.


    why does he need to spend (none / 0) (#2)
    by TheRefugee on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:23:41 PM EST
    He's been in PA a lot and "to know Barack Obama is to love Barack Obama," at least, so says Barack Obama.

    oh (none / 0) (#105)
    by sas on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:00:15 PM EST
    and don't forget...

    "the more we get to know him, the more people like him....."

    you don't hear that little baby being said much anymore

    or "the movement sweeping the nation"


    What kind of coverage is he getting (none / 0) (#3)
    by MarkL on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:23:44 PM EST
    in the PA media?

    isn't that the same media he's paying big bucks? (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Josey on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:58:36 PM EST
    Should be excellent coverage!

    Why not? (none / 0) (#38)
    by lyzurgyk on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:39:34 PM EST
    That's what political contributions are for.

    Wall-to-wall Obama on television here in Harrisburg.   This was my scene coming home.

    I'm still voting for Hillary!

    I received (none / 0) (#54)
    by ding7777 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:49:01 PM EST
    2 Obama mailings and my 1st robo call ever!

    The robo call was: Vote for Obama/Hillary lies, don't believe her

    x (none / 0) (#74)
    by Mary Mary on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:14:37 PM EST
    Looks like we got the same call. Some lady from Pittsburgh?

    It was a female voice (none / 0) (#93)
    by ding7777 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:15:32 PM EST
    but I don't remember if she said she was from

    Opportunity (none / 0) (#57)
    by Sunshine on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:52:26 PM EST
    I hope he takes this opportunity to explain some his freinships....   I know that people with this much ambition makes freinds for political reasons, somebody that can help them... So, how did these people help him, I know that were lots of fund raisers and is that where he was out raising everybody else before anybody knew who he was and what did he do for these people, some that sound like they would like to distroy this country and just flat scare me....

    This can't do anything but backfire... (none / 0) (#72)
    by reynwrap582 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:12:35 PM EST
    Anyone who is planning to vote for Obama don't need to be swayed, anyone who is planning to vote for Hillary aren't going to be swayed by ads this late in the game, and the undecideds are usually a fickle bunch who don't necessarily enjoy politics and will probably just be very annoyed by the non-stop influx of Obama-related material.

    I certainly hope they're running more than 1 ad.

    Are they new ads? (none / 0) (#83)
    by ineedalife on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:43:02 PM EST
    Because I'm hearing people in PA are getting sick of all Obama, all the time. He better come up with something new and entertaining.

    Obama has done the MAAAAATH!!! (none / 0) (#85)
    by ineedalife on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:50:29 PM EST
    and knows he is in danger. If he goes down by double digits after this all out onslaught he will look more like a loser.

    I wonder if Howard Dean has promised Obama that if he gets a certain target, like under a 5 point loss, the DNC will try to end it?

    Or, if I want to dream, maybe Howard has threatened Obama that if he doesn't perform, Howard will allow MI and FL back in.

    Your thoughts about Dean assume ... (none / 0) (#163)
    by cymro on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 02:27:41 AM EST
    ... that he is acting as a manger who has some degree of control over the primary process, and that he is exercising his influence to direct the process in a rational way. All the evidence suggests otherwise.

    The evils of compentency. (none / 0) (#97)
    by Addison on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:26:28 PM EST
    Are we really back to pretending that ad buys are attempts to "buy votes" again? Or something sinister that reflects badly on the candidate?

    Obama has money. We gave it to him. We expect him to spend it. Candidates should buy ads. They should buy a lot of them in contests that matter.

    Complaining about the size of ad buys -- by couching it in the terms of "buying votes" -- is inane, it doesn't represent reality, and I don't understand why it's such a shopworn tool in the attempt to demonize (and, of course, overvalue) financial success.

    BTW: you know what's REALLY evil... (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Addison on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:28:39 PM EST
    Firefox's spellchecker doesn't work for subject lines for some reason.

    Yes, I have made that discovery. {blush} n/t (none / 0) (#99)
    by nycstray on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:29:47 PM EST
    I agree... (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by white n az on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:47:09 PM EST
    that the issue isn't buying votes.

    The issue is the assumption that you can change people's votes by oversaturation.

    I think that is probably a really big mistake because his supporters won't mind, his opponents supporters will hate it and vent voraciously and the ones he's targeting...those that haven't made up their minds yet (as if they actually exist), are not going to be turned off.

    It's a poor calculation which assumes that the people who are going to drag themselves to the polls on Tuesday just recently started to pay attention to the election.

    What I think has happened is that the Obama magnet has already attracted what it is capable of attracting and that is under 50%. The balance just isn't buying, and no matter what he does, he can't budge the numbers in PA. But we'll see soon enough in PA. My guess remains at about a 12% Hillary win which pretty much says that Obama cannot win the GE.


    I AM SO SICK OF....... (none / 0) (#104)
    by Mrwirez on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:57:28 PM EST
    BARACK OBAMA . He has saturated the Pittsburgh area TV and radio. What I find even more strange is, while the rest of the earlier states were voting, we were wringing our hands to vote. However, with the OBAMA ad waves. I really can't wait for him to get out of here. Talk about the Clintons and the Clinton fatigue? I hate to say this but at this point, me and my girl are gonna sit out the November election if BHO is in. I think I could wait 4 more for Hillary to run again. I will not set myself up for another let down. McCain will easily beat Barack Obama, we are not putting the strongest candidate out there.........

    I think that's what will happen (none / 0) (#134)
    by blogtopus on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:18:20 PM EST
    I said below, too: His smiling, sanctimonious face will piss off more people. His best bet would be to keep cool, but we know he doesn't know how to do that.

    Definitely not neutral (none / 0) (#127)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:00:04 PM EST
    I don't know where you got that. See our about page. Why would a blog be neutral? We blog to express our opinions. That said, we are fair to those who hold different views so long as they are civil, don't spread misinformation and follow the comment rules.

    Overkill (none / 0) (#131)
    by blogtopus on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:10:28 PM EST
    Obama might tick off a lot of people; I think people are so angry at him that seeing his mug on tv constantly will just make them more angry.

    I agree (none / 0) (#140)
    by stefystef on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:31:55 PM EST
    I think it is over kill.

    I know I saw a lot of national ads for Obama during the Super Bowl and I was sick of his face after the third repeat of the commercial.  I was turing him off back then.

    I think the people of PA will start to get real annoyed real fast.


    When will TeamObama play by the rule of neutrality (none / 0) (#142)
    by Ellie on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:33:58 PM EST
    These Obama Roolz that mysteriously hold Sen. Clinton responsible for spending half her resources stumping for him are ridiculous at the outset.

    When has TeamObama ever shown that practice -- and I'm not even applying the expectation here set out by HIS OWN PLATFORM to introduce a new era of non-partisanship.

    What I've seen from them is considerable resources applied to slamming his rival as "divisive" and "ambitious" simply for being unfairly targeted by right wing haters, and being in the running at all despite the "problem" this creates for a weak, unprepared, candidate like Obama when viewed as a potential President.

    I'm not even holding Obama to the metric of neutrality here, but coming out of the gate in smear-mode.

    When you post a diary at DKos asking TeamObama to spend half their resources praising Sen. Clinton in good faith, link to it. Only after you do that can you seriously demand to know why her campaign isn't stumping for him too.

    Until you do that, you're out of bounds.

    Editing after spreading around some Bad Cache (none / 0) (#146)
    by Ellie on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:36:46 PM EST
    Should have refreshed before posting. Let's try that first paragraph again:

    These Obama Roolz that mysteriously hold Sen. Clinton responsible for not spending half her resources stumping for him are ridiculous at the outset

    Re. some of the comments/questions (none / 0) (#168)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 04:06:34 AM EST
    as to what we may call Senator Obama at Talk Left: there are a number of other progressive blogs that allow you to call him by any, and all, of the names he formerly assumed and other names, or initials, by which he is currently known.

    Hint: just look at Talk Left's list of "Blog We Like". Start with No Quarter or Taylor Marsh; hack around other places on the list and you'll see where you can call it as you see it. IMO, the prohibition on identifying the candidate by a name that he formerly called himself, is over-protective/hyper-vigilant.  

    Jeralyn, BTD, whoever, has every right to dictate the terms. However, if we were being consistent, we wouldn't want to see Hillary called HRC  or Hillary Rodham Clinton; it recalls the denigrating adage 'Hillary put the rod in Rodham'; she used to be known only by her maiden name, ergo she was a 'rabid feminist'; HRC is reminiscent of HRH (Her Royal Highness), etc.

    Aaargh, the pussyfooting around the name of the currently designated front-runner. Looking forward to the day when he, and his name(s) are moot.

    DONATE TO HILLARY TODAY (none / 0) (#169)
    by chopper on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 04:11:44 AM EST
    Obama will be spending $465,000 for Philadelphia alone in the final days to Hillary's $91,000.

    Could some of that be from the millions that he didn't collect from the "Federally Registered" lobbyists?

    He only takes money from the unregistered lobbyists, their friends and families, big oil, drug companies, subprime lenders, and the like.

    It's unfortunate that Obama and the media distorted the whole "bitter" issue.

    The insult is not in being called bitter. The insult is in being described as prejudicial or racist.

    "or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment".

    The media missed the whole reason why people are insulted by Obama's stupid and hurtful remark.

    Obama has lied far too many times. He lied about Rezko - taking a little money, then taking $250,000, so far.

    We're still waiting for him to admit he took millions from Auchi, the Iraqi billionaire.

    He lied about his racist anti-American pastor - he didn't hear him, then he did.

    He lied about Hillary's health plan, NAFTA, his stance on Iraq, and so much more. He tells us one thing and tells Canada don't listen to it, it's only political rhetoric.

    I have no respect for him at all. He skated through this whole campaign with the help of the media until in one debate he was finally asked some serious questions and he couldn't handle it.

    Ferraro was right, if he was white he would not be where he is because he has no record of accomplishments, only a record of shady friends.

    I'm sure the GOP will portray him as a Trojan horse for black un-American radicals.  Oprah was smart enough to leave the racist preacher, but Obama wasn't.

    Hillary Clinton offers hope, and the experience, courage, and knowledge to give us another Greatest Economic Expansion in History.

    Here is LA Times blog (none / 0) (#170)
    by oculus on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 05:20:06 AM EST
    re Hillary Clinton comments at a private fundraiser re MoveOn and limitless Obama campaign funds:


    PA could be most important state in the campaign (none / 0) (#171)
    by betsyz on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 05:36:51 AM EST
    Obama already has the nomination. The Democratic Party superdelegates won't rend the Party in two by giving the nomination to the candidate that has lost in every measurable way...the one who has no chance of catching Obama, no matter what happens from here on in. So PA is in a very interesting situation. If they go for Obama, they could be the most important state in the entire campaign, by ending this thing six weeks earlier. If they go for Clinton, they'll be just another one of the handful of states that voted for the loser...and make the entire Party wait another six weeks before this is officially over, by being the state that gave Clinton a pretense of having a reason to keep on with a contest she cannot win. It'll be interesting to see what happens. Does PA want to shed itself of the "rep" their governor and James Carville have given it, of being a retrograde, backward state...not quite ready to join the current century; not ready to vote for a half-black man? Or do they want to lose that tag for good and all? Very interesting.

    x (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by Mary Mary on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 07:45:51 AM EST
    I strongly encourage you to write letters to the editor in all the PA papers advancing that argument. It would be a real winner and sway lots of voters.

    Why the race thing again? (none / 0) (#177)
    by stefystef on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 07:48:20 AM EST
    perhaps the people of PA aren't buying the Kool-Aid Obama is selling.  The people of PA are smart, reasonable people who don't go for fancy slogans and lots of commercials.

    They look for substance and experience.  They are looking for real leadership.

    That is Hillary Clinton.

    Clinton/Edward '08  The Right Team at the Right Time.


    Oh, I forgot (none / 0) (#178)
    by stefystef on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 07:50:50 AM EST
    Obama doesn't have the nomination.  I wish the Obama followers would stop the Rovian technique of perpetual repetition to try and fool people into thinking Hillary doesn't have a chance.

    It starts to sound like Sean Hannity.


    This is what a Clinton has done & CAN DO AGAIN (none / 0) (#186)
    by chopper on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:51:12 PM EST

    This is what a Clinton can do & HAS DONE (none / 0) (#187)
    by chopper on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:52:42 PM EST