Clinton Conference Call Live Blog

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:35:44 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

By Big Tent Democrat

NOTE - The big news from the call was the categorical denial of the Drudge Report post that Clinton internal polling has Clinton up 11. There is no such polling says Garin. Indeed, he implies there is no recent internal Clinton polling at all, citing "frugality."

I will live blog the Clinton Conference Call starting now. They will discuss their closing ad. Garin and Wolfson on. Garin discusses the ad. Says the ad is about issues. (I have not seen the ad.) More . . .

Garin is saying this election is about having a President ready to take on the tough challenges. etc.

Wolfson says Obama has outspent Clinton 3-1, inlcuding 7 million in TV ads. If Obama can't win a big swing state with such an enormous spending advantage how can he win such a state. Obama has had problems winning key states like Florida, Michigan and Ohio. Obama is doing all he can to WIN, not come close, in PA. In an attempt to knock Clinton out of the race. If he fails to, it will again raise questions as to whether he can win these key states. The stakes are very high for Clinton and Obama. etc.

Singer says Obama has become concerned about his ability to deal with the issues raised against him and thus he has gone negative as a result. His comments on small town Americans are being used to attack Dems down ballot and in other races. Mentions a few instances, including the NM GOP using his comments.

Super Ds will consider all of this. Obama has not answered these concerns instead just going negative on Clinton. Clinton camp feels comfortable making its arguments on who will be the nominee for the Democratic Party.

David Corn asked what Hillary Clinton thought about the pardon of FALN terrorists by Pres. Clinton. Wolfson said he did not know if she had an opinion. Corn did not like the answer.

Andrea Mitchell asked a question about Obama's ability to beat McCain. Garin says Clinton better equipped to win the swing voters in PA and beyond. Garin discusses the ad. Bland ready to lead stuff is the response. Says it is not negative.

Mitchell asks about the fundraising. Wolfson repeats what is known publically already.

Bill Sammon asks CW is that if Obama is within 5 or 6, then Hillary does not win, doesn't Clinton need a 20 point victory?

Garin say no, Obama has thrown all his resources in PA to deliver a KO thus the stakes are now different.

Wolfson adds that no SD is going to say "Obama outspent you by 3-1 and you only won by a few points."

A question is asked about whether Clinton camp thinks Obama is no longer viewed as a unifying figure by whites and why that might be. Garin answers yes, he is no longer viewed as a unifying figure for many reasons, including bitter, Wright etc. But also argues that a big part of this is that white working class has great affection for Sen. Clinton.

Sam Stein asks about McCain better than Bush remark from Obama. Wolfson says Clinton will not say that McCain will be better than Bush as he will be an extension of the Bush policies, indeed wants to double down on them.

Jim Axelrod of CBS discusses winning the popular vote. He seems to be entirely referencing the Bloomberg article I referenced earlier. Wolfson does not address the Bloomberg math, but discusses the narrowing of the popular vote. Wolfson reject the theory that a certain kind of victory in PA is necessary. A win in PA is a win in PA says Wolfson.

Wolfson and Garin categorically deny Drudge Report of Clinton internals showing 11 point lead.

FactCheck asks about the 1.8MM Obama has taken from "corporations, lobbyists and [ ?]." Wolfson says that number is ironclad.

The call ends.

Here is the ad.

NOTE: I do not blog about some questions because they do not interest me. sorry about that.

< Poor Report On Popular Vote Count From Bloomberg | Scared Of An Image Of bin Laden? >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Clinton Conference Call Live Blog | 180 comments (180 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Tell them we love her! (5.00 / 9) (#2)
by Kathy on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:37:59 AM EST

God, I am so pathetic. I'm not just in the tank--I am the tank.

Thanks for reporting, BTD. I hope you get to ask them about these polls to see what the spin is and what they are expecting tomorrow.

I must be in there with you Kathy...Pray hard (5.00 / 6) (#13)
by athyrio on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:52:44 AM EST

and she shall prevail.....I just keep trying to think positive thoughts...My life depends on it...


meh (5.00 / 1) (#51)
by boredmpa on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:16:18 AM EST

I still haven't decided whether or not to call my mother before she votes. She's a preacher in a college town in PA and I'm sure she's had more than enough pressure from both sides.


Pathetic (4.75 / 4) (#16)
by Stellaaa on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:55:17 AM EST

Who was that chick that debated Jeralyn and made fun of us female TL commenters who "cry" and get emotional? Yo, if you are reading this, we admit to being pathetic. Now go out and get the same admission from the Creative Class.


Yeah! (none / 0) (#21)
by Kathy on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:57:43 AM EST

If you can catch them in their Hummers!


: they can't be going too fast (none / 0) (#43)
by boredmpa on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:11:49 AM EST

when they're so busy fluffing their star.
zing.

: Hybrid hummers? (none / 0) (#46)
by Stellaaa on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:13:03 AM EST

with Obamamama signs?

That would be Ann Althouse (nt) (none / 0) (#23)
by Cream City on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:58:40 AM EST

Name thing getting really bad (none / 0) (#24)
by Stellaaa on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:59:28 AM EST

"woman of a certain age" here.


: althouse... (none / 0) (#190)
by white n az on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:40:57 PM EST

is worth forgetting

re (none / 0) (#25)
by az on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:00:12 AM EST

at the end of the day , she is going to win by a

55 - 45 margin.

obama's ceiling is 45 if he maximizes his potential while Clinton's is 55.

That is where it would end up at the end of the day tomorrow , both camps will maximize their resources.

You can congratulate me tomorrow for getting it right


I am still holding out for (5.00 / 1) (#177)
by FlaDemFem on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:48:56 PM EST

60-40. Or better. I think that PA is where Obama is going to have to really think about taking second place. He won't, of course, because that would not be hopeful or audacious, but he should.


But it won't matter. (1.00 / 1) (#106)
by lilybart on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:43:11 AM EST

I know everyone here loves Hillary, and I will of course vote for her if she wins the nomination....but she can't win it.

When are you all going to wake up and smell the coffee? Don't the numbers say she can't win this thing unless Obama drops out or grows horns?

What is it you are all hoping for?


Oh, lilybart (5.00 / 3) (#111)
by Kathy on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:46:08 AM EST

you are so right. We totally agree with you now. Your work here is done. Coffee smelled. Hopes dashed. Buh-bye.


: Trolls R a bit thick today 'n I don't mean in Nos (none / 0) (#134)
by Ellie on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:57:29 AM EST

But thick in a "duh duh" way.
"Lovely wo/man but a bit of a thickee." [/husb's Scottish mum]

I'm hoping (5.00 / 1) (#141)
by Nadai on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:02:07 PM EST

that Obama drops out or grows horns.

Oh, and a rainbow Unity Pony. I hear those are still on backorder.


: Plenty of muddied donkeys, though. [nt] (none / 0) (#149)
by ahazydelirium on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:06:53 PM EST

I am hoping for (none / 0) (#118)
by Marvin42 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:50:54 AM EST

a day when people are civil, intelligent, can carry on discourse, take positions without trolling, don't think that just because they say something then it must be true.

But alas I don't think I'll get that...

Oh, and can I be 10 pounds lighter too?

Oh, oh, and a pony. Hopeful one of the unity kind.


: Hillary on KO Tonight (none / 0) (#182)
by BackFromOhio on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:30:39 PM EST

Is anyone else concerned about Hillary's appearance on Olbermann's show tonight? I understand she will be on Larry King Live tonight as well.

Apparently there is only one kind of hope (none / 0) (#123)
by ahazydelirium on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:53:00 AM EST

and it doesn't involve winning the General.


Howard Dean... (none / 0) (#145)
by lookoverthere on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:04:05 PM EST

is hoping I'll send him some money.

Does that count?


: All this hope in the room (none / 0) (#148)
by ahazydelirium on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:06:17 PM EST

must count for something, right?

Congratulations (none / 0) (#32)
by Emma on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:04:11 AM EST

I'll be happy to. Let's hope I get the opportunity.


re (none / 0) (#52)
by az on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:17:06 AM EST

By the way regardless of what happens tomorrow , Obama would still be the nominee .

Drudge's headline is just about right ( I am sure he just pulled the numbers out of his behind ).

You can't really get much of a blowout in PA with 2 strong candidates .

However she would keep it close in Philly and the suburbs and pretty much beat him handily in the rest of the state.

The closing ad she has on now is targeted at the undecideds ,she pretty much has a base of 50% that has pretty much being stable with undecideds moving from her camp back to undecideds and vice versa . They aren't moving to Obama as far as I can tell from all the flurry of polls out.

I don't know if the ad would push them into her camp or maybe they'll just stay home.

Bottomline is Obama will still be the nominee but don't let the polls fool you , her win is still going to be about 10 points.


Wow (5.00 / 2) (#68)
by Kathy on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:25:34 AM EST

you seem pretty certain about that. My prediction: after he loses tomorrow, Obama will make a speech under a "Mission Accomplished" banner.

He is not the nominee. Votes need to be counted. Wishing it so does not make it happen.


votes (none / 0) (#80)
by az on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:30:31 AM EST

would be counted , the primary would run its course but she won't get the supers , most of them would fall in line with Obama.

I don't see how he is denied the nomination .


The way he doesn't win the nomination (5.00 / 3) (#88)
by Kathy on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:35:33 AM EST

is he keeps losing. No one is entitled to (or will be "denied") the nomination. Whoever wins will have to earn it, and the super d's will take into account several factors, none of which anyone has any control over.

Though, I am certain, "az" that you are much more qualified to make these predictions than anyone here, so perhaps we should all just stop posting now and bow our heads in Unity with the Great Changer. I suppose it's called the Donna Brazile effect, wherein instead of fighting, we just give in to someone else's certainty.

Not this democrat, and not for that candidate.

Rise, Hillary, rise!


Hillary Clinton (none / 0) (#102)
by az on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:41:42 AM EST

would continue the fight , I ultimately think she is a better candidate , both of them are decent . She is not going to catch him in popular votes or delegates and she is running out of money to compete.

Sooner or later she has to come to terms with it.


: superdelegates aren't bound (none / 0) (#147)
by Josey on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:05:57 PM EST

by primary results or popular vote.
http://tinyurl.com/6ozzxu
How many other anti-American Obama associates are yet to emerge?
Obama's elitist explanation for Democrats choosing their God, guns, and racism over voting for him - is problematic in downticket races.

I hope you're prepared (5.00 / 1) (#101)
by echinopsia on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:41:29 AM EST

to live with disappointment.


You are probably right. The guys (none / 0) (#189)
by hairspray on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:07:59 PM EST

that brought us John Kerry are at it again. We will get Barack Obama because they "groomed him for this job" way back in 2004. That is why he got the speech and limelight at the 2004 convention and all of the bills they gave him in the Ilinois senate the last year so his record would look good. There is more, but you get the idea. He has been on the inside track for quite a while and we just found out in the last few months.


You do (none / 0) (#65)
by kenoshaMarge on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:24:26 AM EST

and I will.


I'm the tank too! (none / 0) (#83)
by alexei on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:32:10 AM EST

Can't help it - I think that she is the person to get us out of this mess.


Right Next to You (none / 0) (#174)
by chrisvee on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:41:41 PM EST

We may need to be tanked tomorrow night to stay calm during the reporting of the election results. :-)

I'm surprised about the 'no internal polling'. Isn't that like the campaign having no 'eyes'?

I do agree with them about the 'expectations' game. If Obama can't win in PA given that he's deploying all of his resources, that matters.


New add (5.00 / 2) (#4)
by TalkRight on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:40:26 AM EST

link to the new add
Clinton's closing spot stresses the gravity of the job, using images of Roosevelt, Kennedy, Osama bin Laden, and New Orleans.
It's more or less the red phone message, encouraging voters to listen to their doubts about Obama's readiness -- though it doesn't refer to him. Cites Truman line "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." Clinton used quote on the campaign trail last week when referring to Obama's criticism of the questions he received during the ABC debate.

It's a serious concern. (5.00 / 3) (#8)
by rooge04 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:47:40 AM EST

Look at how he dealt with the FIRST debate where he felt attacked. He behaved like a petulant child. And uses it to attack Hillary. Because he got some tough/stupid questions? She's been dealing with those types of inanities for 16 years and is graceful and polite and STRONG throughout. That's what I want in a President.


: Actually... (5.00 / 4) (#26)
by Salo on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:01:05 AM EST

...I go back to the first debate about one year ago, when Edwards excoriated Clinton and Obama for not speaking out against the war in the Senate.
Obama hit back with what the press called a zinger:
"you are 4 1/2 years too late John."
Clinton smirked a bit as Obama said it.
When I heard that "zinger" I was surprized it wasn't picked apart by the press because it was so inaccurate.
A quick recap of recent history shows you why this comment was innaccurate and ridiculous. Edwards was the VP nominee in 2004 (one year after the invasion) He was very critical of the war and voted against a war funding bill in 2003-04. If he'd been VP to Kerry's President, the war would be over by now. The implications of the stupid comment by Obama and obama's own voting record lead me to some disquieting conclusions.
I thought at the time--"Hello, if the press let this lie go they will let anything go. The press will let Obama lie and then they will hang him for those lies."

I'm glad that ad like all her ads puts the job (5.00 / 4) (#6)
by thereyougo on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:45:31 AM EST

and the tasks ahead of any bickering.

Its why I stand with her. She knows the rigors
and she's up for it. Not fluff, not hype, just
downhome getting in there to fix the mess left
by GWB.

Wolfson (5.00 / 5) (#7)
by Lahdee on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:47:02 AM EST

open an interesting door, if Obama can't win PA after his spending spree and the full court press, what does that mean in terms of the general. Yes, the stakes are enormous, but as the front runner I believe they are higher for him; his inability to close her out could be perceived as a dent in his "electability."

That's what gets me. (5.00 / 2) (#11)
by Salo on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:50:28 AM EST

He's assumed to be the nominee by the media. He's got more ad cash. He's got a better organization...why are they not bending to his will out there in Pennsylvannia?


Interesting thing about the dough. (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by Fabian on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:01:21 AM EST

Apparently Obama has $9 million that he can only use in the GE.

That's a lot of maxed out donors. How much more can he raise?


Obama has stated - (5.00 / 1) (#44)
by Josey on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:12:24 AM EST

he can carry on indefinitely from online support.
Obama has also stated he'd take public financing....what's the latest on that?


His online support (1.00 / 1) (#48)
by IndiDemGirl on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:14:41 AM EST

IS public financing.


No it's not (5.00 / 1) (#75)
by Salo on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:28:10 AM EST

Public financing is intended to make the money even between all candidates.

So that the meassge quality is amplified instead of the quantity of ads.


Most of his money is not on-line (5.00 / 2) (#85)
by dianem on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:33:28 AM EST

Not anymore. The initial numbers were based on on-line small donations, but have you noticed that he has stopped trumpeting how most of his donations were from small donors? As soon as he became a frontrunner, all of the corporations that he criticized Hillary for taking funds from started contributing to him. He may talk about old ladies giving him envelopes with small change, but his campaign is no longer based on small donors.


: West Coast fund-raising trip (5.00 / 4) (#132)
by ineedalife on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:57:03 AM EST

He would not have made the west coast fundraising blitz that got him in so much foot-in-mouth trouble if he could just auto-pilot with on-line donations.

He's against public financing (none / 0) (#74)
by boredmpa on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:27:48 AM EST

He's said that it needs an overhaul AND that his online support IS public financing.

Apparently he thinks campaigns should be spending a billion per election cycle. The fact he doesn't understand what's wrong with constant individual-based media buys disturbs me.

Personally, I think limited contributions to candidates paired with unlimited contributions to issue groups (and clear regulations and severe fines and jail time for blatant lies) would be far more productive for democracy.

Advertising and canvassing on issues encourages folks to fund specific policies they believe in, publish soundbites on those policies, and work together on those policies across cycles. Candidate based funding mostly fuels last minute attacks (in addition to organizational infrastructure). This could be addressed by what other countries do, which is to limit last minute advertising--but that wouldn't work here where the media is complicit in last minute scandal production. Example: the nytimes same-day op-ed comparing clinton's 3 am ad to a KKK movie on the day of the Mississippi primary.


Public finance... (5.00 / 2) (#79)
by Salo on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:30:15 AM EST

....is intended to give equal airtime to two opposing views.

Obama has conflated the colooquial meaning of public withthe philosophical principle that public fiunace is intended to create.

Not that I blame him for keeping a huge cash advatage. I wouldn't give up a patronage machine like that.


I would (5.00 / 1) (#117)
by boredmpa on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:50:33 AM EST

But then again, I have an MPA, I'm not a flip-flopper like Obama, and I am a strong supporter of functional democracy (it will likely determine my vote if obama is the nominee).

I say flip-flopper because his view isn't just about his money machine--it's about maintaining control. He's clearly flip-flopped (or re-prioritized his political capital) now that he has money. What about power? Will he suddenly decide the executive is "just about right" after the Bush changes or will he reform them?


Surely, you mean millions (5.00 / 2) (#121)
by Kathy on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:51:16 AM EST

as in millions of people seeing Wright humping the podium, screeching "GOD D*MN AMERICA," Ayers saying he wished he had done more (perhaps with some victim statements from Weather Underground targets interspersed), or Obama sitting on a board that is pushing against gun ownership or Obama sitting on another board helping Palestine. And that's not even getting into Michelle.

They are such amateurs that it would be funny if not for the fact that he's gotten this close to the nomination.

Thank God people seem to be smartening up and voting Clinton.


: The Pope and my Mother In Law (5.00 / 4) (#129)
by katiebird on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:55:33 AM EST

I was dozing on the patio yesterday when my MIL came outside and said she really liked hearing the Pope say God Bless America.
She paused for a second or two and the muttered, "It's a lot better than God Damn America" ...
I wonder how many other people made that connection.

And he has the delegate count (none / 0) (#109)
by lilybart on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:45:14 AM EST

I don't understand why people here are not dealing with the numbers. I haven't read a report that she can win unless Obama steps into quicksand or something.


He doesn't have the delegate count (5.00 / 3) (#115)
by cmugirl on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:48:47 AM EST

If the supers decide that he is not the most electable in the fall. She is still ahead there, and many supers have put off making a commitment until they see how this plays out to the end.


I don't understand why he doesn't declare victory (5.00 / 5) (#122)
by Ellie on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:52:09 AM EST

Gosh, it doesn't make sense ... if it's been over all this time and he has ALL the delegates and ALL this support, and ALL the party machinery behind him and ALL the numbers, where's his sash scepter and crown?

Why has he had to spend like crazy in PA and pull out every stop if it was so obviously his anyway?

Could you show me the math again cause it shur is a head-scratcher.


What numbers? (5.00 / 3) (#135)
by americanincanada on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:57:45 AM EST

The supers have not voted yet...the race is not over...and the pledged delegate lead is only one metric that the super could use in their decision.

So, what numbers are we supposed to be looking at? The real questions it, have YOU looked at the numbers. Have you seen how close the populr vote is? Do you really think the supers won't take FLorida and Michigan in account as well as electability in the fall?

We can't change anything if we don't win....


The delegate count does not work for Sen. Obama (5.00 / 1) (#162)
by FLVoter on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:17:34 PM EST

either. The magic number is 2,025. Niether Sen. Obama nor Sen. Clinton can reach this magic number without the superdelegates. You can push the "delegate math" all you want, but it does not work for Sen. Obama until he reaches 2,025. The superdelegates do not have to take pledged delegates into consideration when they decide who to vote for.


: And if neither of them wins on the first ballot (none / 0) (#179)
by FlaDemFem on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:02:48 PM EST

at the convention, then the pledged delegates are free to support the person they think can win the election. Pledged delegates are not pledged for the entire nomination process, they are only pledged until the first ballot. And neither of them has the numbers to take it on the first ballot. And since Obama seems to be inserting his foot in his mouth on an almost daily basis, I would think that a lot of the pledged delegates are rethinking their votes. It isn't over until it's over, and it isn't over yet!!

Nah -- PA was Clinton's territory (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by Maggie on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:52:05 AM EST

Obama would have a problem if after all the spending he failed to make a bit of a dent in the demographic landscape favoring her. But it's not reasonable to expect him to win. (Anymore than it would be reasonable to expect her to beat him in a state demographically favorable to him). SDs have to know that the big push on Obama's side was to keep her margins down.


Obama has a problem with demographics (5.00 / 6) (#18)
by Kathy on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:57:20 AM EST

Have you looked at the demographics of the United States lately?

He doesn't just have a problem; he has a crisis.


: If he doesn't win PA, Obama=Box Office Poison (5.00 / 1) (#172)
by Ellie on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:38:36 PM EST

I mean the guy's had every reasonable assist here propping him up, bought with cash-money or bestowed.
"Close but no cigar" against a competitor he's been saying for months is "divisive", riddled with unfavorables, detestable, no one wants her, yadda yadda ...
Maybe at the outset he could call himself the underdog months ago but in PA? No way, no now.
He's the Yankees barnstorming the Punxatawney Patoots here. BTD's right on target up top: this is also a proving ground for what Obama has to do in sizeable areas his game wasn't able to win using his Inspire to Pester strategy or with an assist from Repug distortionists.

Not reasonable to expect him to win? (5.00 / 6) (#22)
by americanincanada on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:57:53 AM EST

he is the presumptive nominee...he is THE ONE...he has more money, and they have already been calling for her to drop out.

He has outspent her 4 to 1, had the media behind him and the wind at his back...not to mention that we have been told for weeks that this was over. He has been pratically anoited for this...

And yet it is not reasonable to expect him to be able to beat her?


I think that 4-1 is wrong (none / 0) (#30)
by Kathy on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:02:48 AM EST

Someone who can do math, please check into that number. With his unprecedented ad buy in PA, it has to be more than 4-1. No way it's that low.


She was the presumptive nominee (none / 0) (#56)
by Maggie on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:19:12 AM EST

But then she lost a whole bunch. But nobody here seems to think that's a dispositive reason for us to conclude that she shouldn't get the nomination. So to claim that Obama should be DQ'd cause he can't win one unfavorable state seems like a case of special pleading to me.

Kathy, Obama doesn't have a demographic problem with the country as a whole -- as his advantages in all measures clearly indicate.


spit in one hand (5.00 / 1) (#63)
by Kathy on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:23:32 AM EST

want in the other. See which fills up the fastest.

His demographic crisis will put him in free fall with the sd's.


Maybe because (5.00 / 2) (#69)
by ahazydelirium on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:25:52 AM EST

many of the states she lost were caucuses (which don't reflect popular vote) and Republican strongholds (which are in play for the General)?


: That should read aren't in play. [nt] (none / 0) (#70)
by ahazydelirium on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:26:14 AM EST

Country as a whole (5.00 / 2) (#73)
by nycstray on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:27:11 AM EST

Women, Seniors, Older Voters, Hispanic, Blue Collar, Catholics, Jewish . . . .

These are problem demographics for him. Many of which could fall towards McCain.


Right. He doesn't have (5.00 / 1) (#91)
by rooge04 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:38:35 AM EST

a demographic problem with the country as a whole. Just demographics as a whole. White voters, Hispanic voters, women voters, Conservative Dem voters. Yup. Shouldn't be a problem at all in the GE.


: You forgot Asians! (5.00 / 2) (#97)
by Kathy on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:40:29 AM EST

Gays and lesbians, too.
The guy is a demographic NIGHTMARE.
I'm sure McGovern is pleased, though. That's not a distinction you want to have for the rest of history.

tactical shortsightedness. (5.00 / 2) (#81)
by Salo on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:31:22 AM EST

He gets a unicorn pony for coming in second in every large media market.


Oh the media (5.00 / 2) (#14)
by TalkRight on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:53:43 AM EST

David Corn asked what Hillary Clinton thought about the pardon of FALN terrorists by Pres.

Obsessed with pardon of FALN terrorist while all the time ignoring Ayer's ties to Obama while hosting a fund raiser for Him... VOW.. don't they get to ask question's on Obama's conference calls?.. or are they given a handouts having the allowed questions to be asked?

: David Corn asked the very same question (5.00 / 1) (#36)
by TalkRight on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:05:39 AM EST

last time also.. I think he is trying to beat Stephnapolous and Olberman combined :)

: Like Corn... (5.00 / 2) (#71)
by Salo on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:26:39 AM EST

...doesn't romanticize the FLN.
Presidents get to pardon old criminals who plea for clemency and show regret.
It's in the constitution.
Ayers is a political problem that belongs to Obama.

: Not pardons -- commutations (5.00 / 1) (#103)
by Cream City on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:42:04 AM EST

which means they were let out of prison after serving 16 years -- but they're still convicted of the crimes.

Corn is a fool (5.00 / 3) (#19)
by Stellaaa on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:57:21 AM EST

Does this not feed the RNC? I think the "alleged left" is out of their mind.

Corn FALN Pardon (5.00 / 1) (#181)
by BackFromOhio on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:26:26 PM EST

Let's not react to Corn's question regarding FALN pardon the same way Obama reacted to the difficult questions posed to him in the last debate. And, I think it would be more helpful to us and HRC if we do not attack people who ask those questions by calling them names.

As I recall, the pardon was given by Bill, not Hillary.


: I am not Hillary!! (none / 0) (#183)
by Stellaaa on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:32:59 PM EST

Did they address PA delegate count? (5.00 / 3) (#20)
by Cream City on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:57:28 AM EST

Just saw this, looks like southeast PA -- almost half AA in Philly plus lots of students and academics -- is weighted, if the results are close, for Obama to get a disproportionate number of delegates (again):

"The delegates are distributed to the 19 congressional districts based on how Democrats performed in 2004 and in the 2006 governor's race. Congressional districts with larger number of delegates at stake tend to favor Obama.

"Seven of the state's 19 congressional districts yield 50 of the state's 103 elected delegates. All but one of those districts are concentrated in and around Philadelphia."

After this election is over, (5.00 / 1) (#130)
by eleanora on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:56:01 AM EST

I hope the DNC takes a long, hard look at delegate allocation. The fact that a candidate could win the state but lose on delegates is a disgraceful sham. And not just for Clinton, although Texas was a whopper; I believe it happened to Senator Obama in Georgia (?) too, and Senator Edwards got more votes in Iowa than Senator Clinton, but came in third on delegates.

We should at least do winner-take-all for the delegates within each county or congressional district, so that a win is truly a win. This 67%=3 to every 15%=1 and/or fewer voters=more delegates depending on where you live thing is just bizarre. A vote is a vote, they should all count the same.


: Alabama (none / 0) (#136)
by Kathy on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:58:02 AM EST

Why waste two questions (5.00 / 2) (#29)
by standingup on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:02:16 AM EST

on Andrea Mitchell?

PA puts Obama's run for the WH run in context (5.00 / 5) (#35)
by Ellie on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:04:52 AM EST

Win or lose, given what he spent up to PA and beyond, where he's shown little talent or interest outside generating personal applause and leveling tiresome attacks on Sen. Clinton, is this what he plans to bring to the GE or the White House?

A mastery of cribbed fluffery when doing well and whining, blaming and complaining when not?

Unity (5.00 / 2) (#38)
by Stellaaa on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:08:00 AM EST

Yeah...that one fell with a big thud early on.

Tight Race BUT (5.00 / 2) (#49)
by AnninCA on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:15:09 AM EST

Glad to hear that she's not going to cave if she doesn't hit double digits.

It sounds to me as though his negative campaigning has worked. He sacrifices, however, the right to crow about how he's different. The editorials are all noting that he says she's negative, but he's the one at this stage. That is a good set-up for Indiana for her. She has to undo the image that he's sugar and apice and she's the wicked one.

This is turning out to be very interesting.

I think he's undone his argument that the voters cannot handle the negativity. Obviously, they can. He's, therefore, undermined the call to end the race.

One thing that bothers me still is that nobody is calling him on the fact that he may be damaging her as a nominee. There's still the narrative going that he's the winner.

Let's hope she hits a big enough gap to start to unwind that story.

So when will she cave? (1.00 / 2) (#116)
by lilybart on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:48:57 AM EST

When will the numbers, which don't lie or spin, be taken seriously?

She needs to leave graciously, the sooner the better so we can get to the business of saving the country from McCain.


When will he cave? (5.00 / 6) (#127)
by Kathy on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:54:50 AM EST

When will he realize that his numbers, his demographics, his straw wins in caucus states and his complete and total lack of experience would be a disaster for the country?

But, then again, he probably doesn't care since he thinks McCain will be better than Bush anyway.

Tell me ONE THING this man has fought for other than trying to get the dem nom. One thing he has taken political heat for. One thing he has taken a stand on that cost him something other than...words.

You want that person to go head to head with McCain? PLease. McCain is already drinking the guy's milkshake. Obama just hasn't realized yet that the ground under his feet is empty.


: Exactly!! (5.00 / 0) (#175)
by abfabdem on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:46:41 PM EST

I think his record in the state senate will get hammered given he did very little until his last year when his name got slapped on a number of bills to make him look good for the US Senate run. And I also read he took credit for working on some bills in the US Senate that he really didn't. He likes the trappings and adulation but does he like the hard work that goes along with it?

How about (5.00 / 1) (#156)
by Nadai on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:13:05 PM EST

when (if) Obama gets enough of the delegates to win? For all your vaunted numbers, that hasn't happened yet. This will come down to the superdelegates and they don't vote until the convention. No one wins until then. Why should she give up early?

And how many times are you going to ask the same question? I count three times on this thread alone.


The key statement: (5.00 / 3) (#60)
by Robot Porter on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:22:20 AM EST

Obama has thrown all his resources in PA to deliver a KO thus the stakes are now different.

This is the argument that Clinton will use with Supers not matter the margin of victory.

And it's a good argument.

If Obama can't use his financial advantage to win a key swing state in the primaries, how will he do it in the GE?

I just watched the ad (5.00 / 2) (#72)
by Steve M on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:26:49 AM EST

I am shocked that anyone's takeaway from this could be the bin Laden footage. It's like half a second and it fits seamlessly into a montage of news footage. There's certainly no comparison with the infamous ad that was run against Howard Dean.

To me, it's a positive ad, but the rules of this campaign seem to be that anything positive Hillary says about herself is automatically negative because it implies Obama doesn't have the same qualities. So I guess it depends on who you ask.

: CNN (none / 0) (#100)
by Josmt on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:41:28 AM EST

already is doing that...
CNN Ticket

It's long past time to demmand the counting (5.00 / 1) (#87)
by WillBFair on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:35:24 AM EST

of FLA and MI, either the original vote or a do over. And the dem committee should pay for it. They're flush with corporate cash this year, and they messed things up by excluding the states in the first place. Sing it from the rooftops.
http://a-civilife.blogspot.com

I'm sorry, but Obama's response to the (5.00 / 1) (#160)
by Anne on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:16:00 PM EST

Clinton ad just sounds desperate and grasping-at-straws, but then, I think he always gets kind of testy when she has the audacity to remind people that we have real problems and all the hope in the world is not going to solve them. I mean, if only she would just shut up already about reality, he could get back to basking in the glow of adoring faces lit up with hope.

Maybe it's just me, but I see so much more value in her let's-roll-up-our-sleeves-and-get-the job-done approach than in his believe-in-Me-and-all-things-are-possible message: we have real work to do, and as my mother would say - "if wishes were horses, then beggars would ride."

The only glimmer of "hope" that I see, in the event Obama is the nominee, is that McCain seems to be having extreme difficulty holding onto a position for more than a minute, to the point where McCain's age is going to be a significant problem for him.

It doesn't change my feeling that Clinton stands a much better chance of beating McCain than Obama, and a decisive win in PA tomorrow ought to make a difference to superdelegates who actually want to win in November. We'll see.

: Testy? Testy? (none / 0) (#188)
by echinopsia on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:18:41 PM EST

I think he always gets kind of testy
Heh. "Periodically, when he's feeling down..."

Clinton in Scranton (5.00 / 1) (#163)
by karen for Clinton on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:17:40 PM EST

She and her audience were at the most pep rally heartfelt "do or die" "Clinton or bust" emotional level - with just one day left to go as we have seen in previous states on the day before votes.

She got to me, tears and cheers. There wasn't anybody there who was on any fence. This crowd knows her and they knew the opposition and the conversations while waiting were fiercely for her.

Somebody yelled out "we got your back" and she told us she'll have our backs if she gets in.

The first poster on this thread is right, we do love this woman and we ARE in the tank!

Go for it guys, there's so much to do and so little time.

Also, I just got an email from Howard Dean asking for money... I told him he picked a heck of a time to ask what with my state to be decided tomorrow and let him know my loyalty is now with her and Florida and Michigan and not the party.

After 32 years of voting for them all I can't do it this time if the slug and thug gets the nod.

Clinton or bust.

Get the vote out in PA tomorrow. Go find some smear out there and tell them how it really is.

This is the Osama ad (1.00 / 1) (#1)
by MarkL on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:37:18 AM EST

(that's what it will be called.
GO HILLARY!!!

explain please (none / 0) (#10)
by Faust on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:50:17 AM EST

what are you refering to?


She's pulling out Osama in her latest ad (none / 0) (#39)
by IndiDemGirl on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:08:30 AM EST

New Hillary Ad Shows Bin Laden, Asks: "Who Do You Think Has What It Takes?"

Sorry, I don't know how to do links. By the way, Obama's camp is already out with a response ad showing Bill Clinton saying...
"Now one of Clinton's Laws of Politics is this: If one candidate's trying to scare you and the other one's trying to get you to think; if one candidate's appealing to your fears and the other one's appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope. That's the best."


Response may be too cute by far (5.00 / 1) (#165)
by ineedalife on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:19:47 PM EST

Using a spouse's quote against someone may rankle the sense of fair play in many a voter. That will trump any advantage they think they get by pointing out the fear factor.

Besides they just spent 6 weeks and 30 million dollars trying to convince PA voters that Bill Clinton was the worst president ever. Now they are relying on him? The desperation is palpable.

Obama's rapid response team is a little off. They responded to the 3AM ad with a copycat ad. It was quick, but the question was leadership and it displayed him following her lead. Not good. I don't think he has recovered in public perception.


: And it was from his campaign for President (none / 0) (#180)
by FlaDemFem on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:15:57 PM EST

as I recall. So Obama is also reminding people of how good those years were, the ones with The Man from Hope. Thanks, Obama..snicker

Osama is the target of Obama's (none / 0) (#50)
by Salo on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:15:17 AM EST

Pakistan crusade.

Obama's is on record saying he wishes to redeploy troops to Pakistan to counter Osama's growing influence there.

Also, He's America's public enemy #1. Why the hell not point out that Dems won ww2 and would deliver Osama the coup de main


: I made no comment about (5.00 / 1) (#59)
by IndiDemGirl on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:20:41 AM EST

it being a good ad or bad ad. Someone asked a question in regards to another post and I answered it describing the ad and the response. For all I know it will swing a few more points her way.

I just watched her ad (none / 0) (#54)
by nycstray on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:17:25 AM EST

It really seems more like a reality based ad than a fear one. Osama is just a blip in the ad, but he's more than a blip to many of us that want him caught. It's not like Obama hasn't mentioned him for political gain ;)


: I would agree he (Osama) is a legitimate (none / 0) (#67)
by IndiDemGirl on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:25:13 AM EST

campaign issue.

Links are simple - once you know the trick (none / 0) (#112)
by dianem on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:46:32 AM EST

Go to the web page you want to link to and copy the hyperlink address (http://whatever).
As you're typing your comment, there should be a row of symbols just above the box: b, I, U, a thing that looks like a chain, a letter and " mark. Select a word that you want the hyperlink attached to and click on the little chain (hint: link) symbol.
A box will pop up for you to paste your link into. You can also type your hyperlink, but I don't recommend that - it's too easy to get one space or letter wrong. Don't forget to overwrite the intial http:// that appears in the box, or you'll have double letters and the link won't work.
Preview your message. If you did it right, your link will look like this.

: Thank you for the assist. (none / 0) (#125)
by IndiDemGirl on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:53:12 AM EST

drudge has her by 11 pts. in giant red letters! (none / 0) (#3)
by thereyougo on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:40:08 AM EST

the internals that is ~! (none / 0) (#5)
by thereyougo on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:41:22 AM EST

is there anything about her (none / 0) (#9)
by Salo on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:48:39 AM EST

that is particularly better about her than Obama on this score?

The internet is a good place for research (5.00 / 2) (#15)
by Prabhata on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:54:54 AM EST

HRC has worked her lifetime to deliver changes to those who needed change the most. Women and Blacks have been very important. I didn't know this until I did my homework. It's easy.


Obama's resume (5.00 / 2) (#47)
by katiebird on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:13:59 AM EST

I found a site called Obamasresume.org that claims to be a nice simple resume for Obama supporters to use to convince people (like me presumably) to suppport BO.

But is it the resume of a presidential candidate?

This leads with his education -- isn't that a sign of a lack of real work experience?

And jobs? It doesn't look like he's ever held a real job....

I don't know what comparison you're looking for. But, using this resume, I think Hillary beats Obama at every step.


The degree at the top (none / 0) (#55)
by Salo on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:18:33 AM EST

makes it more of an academnic than job thing.

But it follows a standard format. So no biggie.


For a 46 year old man his work history (5.00 / 1) (#58)
by katiebird on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:20:40 AM EST

looks thin to me.


: 8 year old reading levels (none / 0) (#64)
by Salo on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:24:07 AM EST

are the target for public or copy writing.

: You're forgetting ... (none / 0) (#76)
by Robot Porter on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:29:00 AM EST

all that experience he got in Indonesian schoolyards as a child.
;)

for starters - (3.00 / 4) (#17)
by Josey on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:55:36 AM EST

Hillary doesn't cavort with "anti-Americans."


Yeah (1.00 / 1) (#28)
by mbuchel on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:02:10 AM EST

Her husband just pardons them to help her get the PR vote in NY.


Could you please look into these pardons (5.00 / 6) (#33)
by Kathy on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:04:21 AM EST

and Hillary's involvement in them, then report back to us? I want to know more about them, and you seem to have quite a lot of information. Just a couple of paragraphs would suffice. Thanks.


firstly they are not pardons. (5.00 / 1) (#41)
by Salo on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:09:36 AM EST

Also, What I do not like about Obama's fans is that they appear to believe things that are absurd--like Ayers not being a big politcal problem. A pol who makes his followers believe in the absurd will eventually have them commit atrocities. Like Ayers himself.

One of the nice things about Clinton is that she provokes critical thinking skills in her rivals and opponents. That way she can't get out of hand with any wacky ideas. She appears to make people think.

Obama has a cadre TBs ready willing and able to say anything, go anywhere and do anything on his behalf.


Did David Corn call them pardons? (none / 0) (#120)
by Maria Garcia on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:51:07 AM EST

..because they weren't pardons. The sentences were commuted and IMHO rightly so. Those sentences were grossly unfair and as someone said above...at least they served time. And by they way they were convicted of conspiracy, not bombing. I am very, very biased about this because a student of mine was the daughter of one of the so-called terrorists and what the FBI put these families through was a disgrace. So I know my position on this isn't "mainstream" and that's all I'm going to so. And, for the record, association with Ayers doesn't bother me either, but trying to pretend that Ayers isn't what he is or that the "Puerto Rican terrorists" are somehow worse makes me very angry.


: I don't have anything against the WU (none / 0) (#150)
by Salo on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:07:23 PM EST

to any great extent. It's surprizing that the US didn't have a fully fledged Maoist rebellion in the 1960s.
The WU look kinda comical in comparison to teh Bader Mienhof RAF or the Tamil Tigers really.

I'm a mildly in favour of Obama. (none / 0) (#133)
by Salo on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:57:05 AM EST

On Ayers He wasn't a radical--he was a terrorist.

I'd also point out that I don't have a problem with Ayers. If anything it adds a little bit of credibility to the argument that Obama's a real leftwinger.

You're just scared that this association with Ayers will get out in the sleey confines of the Democratic voting base--before Obama's the nominee and we'll be forced to protect him from the inevitable hits that will come his way for FOX.

I'd prefer it if leftwingers and moderate Dems got a good idea about the likely political damage from Ayers among other things. The Goons in the press and the Obama wing of the party kept it out of sight for Iowa. Swept it from dicussion boards in a deliberate attempt to keep a lid on it.

It was effectively concealed for the early primaries and I'm not happy about that.


Call it lame all you like... (none / 0) (#143)
by Salo on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:03:05 PM EST

...but it's very obvious that these associates are going to be the issue the GOP use.

It suited Obama's fans to ensure that this was not discussed openly among rivals and in the press until it was too late to cross examine Obama about any of it.

If you are not a Fox viewer, like 99% of Dems you'd never have heard the case that has been built aainst Obama by a competent and hostile Oppo team. Clinton and Edwards never went there and that suited Obama. But it's also left out half the info that Dems needed to evaluate Obama in the light of a General Election campaign.

there's bound to be buyers remorse among moderate s who had flocked early to Obama--and that is refelcted in polling in Ohio, Penn and Texas.


pardoning and personal relationships (5.00 / 2) (#37)
by Josey on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:07:11 AM EST

are 2 different animals.
Hillary didn't pardon anyone, but Obama cavorts with anti-America characters.
Obama will also hurt downticket races for calling voters in small towns 'racists and gun toting Bible thumpers.'


Cavorting and serving on a board with (none / 0) (#53)
by IndiDemGirl on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:17:17 AM EST

someone are also 2 different animals. And I disagree with you characterization of Obama's remarks about small towns.


It's not a characterization -- Obama SAID IT (5.00 / 1) (#93)
by Ellie on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:38:40 AM EST

I want him to own the few original words he's said.


ahem. (none / 0) (#61)
by Salo on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:22:39 AM EST

cling to guns and religion, don't like people who don't look like them (racists?) and they are protectionist and Xenophobic.

It was a politically disasterous formulation of what rural voters are like.

He can't claim guns are a good if he juxtaposes it with nativist anti-immigrant sentiment.

He can't say religion is bad if he juxtaposes it with latent racism.

he's stuck with that insult.

and... (none / 0) (#62)
by Salo on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:23:17 AM EST

and he can't oppose NAFTA if he links it to racism.


If the voters in PA (none / 0) (#78)
by IndiDemGirl on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:29:56 AM EST

really believed he meant it "that" way then he'll lose by 30 points. We'll see. The polls about the comment show that people understand what he meant.


you conflate two things (5.00 / 1) (#86)
by Salo on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:34:30 AM EST

the primary and the GE.

Obama crippled himself in the GE with the loose talk about gun and religious culture.

Democrats are not going to care about such things.

Swing voters in Penn Ohio Mich Missouri will kill him at the ballot box for the comments.


If you really think Clinton has (5.00 / 3) (#114)
by Kathy on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:48:36 AM EST

gone after him the way the republicans would (not that I think they'll get the chance) then you are deluding yourself to dangerous proportions. Clinton has handled him with kid gloves. She could have flossed her teeth with Obama's jugular months ago.

He has had every advantage. He has the money. He has the press so far up his butt that Tim Russert's face is indelibly seared into his colon, and yet--

He. Still. Cannot. Win.


Exactly. (none / 0) (#151)
by cmugirl on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:08:13 PM EST

"What Clinton Wishes She Could Say"

HERE


We know that teh Clinton team... (none / 0) (#166)
by Salo on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:20:34 PM EST

...from the 1992 and 1998 fights can weather a grossly unfair onslaught and maintain high popularity and then go on to win a general election.

Their team have the earned credentials.

All Obama has shown is that he he can cow a few jelly spined rival Democrats into submission and run a campaign that gets about 1/2 the party on board even though he's got 4/5s of the entire party's cash resources.

That's more or less what McGovern and Dukakis did.


: So why do you mildly favor Obama? (none / 0) (#170)
by MarkL on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:27:12 PM EST

Obama will not win CO, though (none / 0) (#158)
by ding7777 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:14:37 PM EST

And he's picking up moderate Republicans because of his pro-Republican/anti-Democratic comments wrt Social Security, Health Insurance, etc.


CO is a caucus state (none / 0) (#187)
by echinopsia on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:11:55 PM EST

And caucuses aren't democratic.

If we'd had a primary he would have lost.


NOT (none / 0) (#155)
by Salo on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:11:50 PM EST

in the Democratic party. If anything it solidifies his support.

Dems are as much bound by a specifical regional and cultural identity as conservatives.

His comments create profound damage in the GE.

That's why the Conservatives were all over the issue. It's manna from heaven for them to hear a Dem make a cockeyed sociological pronouncement about guns and god.


Ayers (none / 0) (#154)
by ding7777 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:10:58 PM EST

held a fundraiser in his (Ayers) home for Obama.

So the relationship is definitley more than just neighbors as Obama described it.


Much more than serving on a board (none / 0) (#169)
by ineedalife on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:25:58 PM EST

And the republicans will point that out.

In 1996, just a year after the Oklahoma City bombing,the unrepentant bomber, Ayers, was hosting fundraisers in his house to kick off Obama's state senate run. That is what the republicans will stress.

They didn't serve on the board together until much later


Ayers hosted a fundraiser for (none / 0) (#186)
by MarkL on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:05:30 PM EST

Obama and advised him on his first campaign in 1996.
Isn't that cavorting, politically speaking?!


Now if there's ever... (none / 0) (#82)
by mbuchel on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:31:22 AM EST

a comment that should be deleted, yours, I assume, would qualify.

And so if she can't be questioned about the pardons because it was her husband's presidency, doesn't that undercut her claims to experience. What, she only gets to take credit for the good stuff?

I'm not trying to argue that she doesn't have experience. I'm just trying to point out that you can't have it both ways. And it's laughable for you to think that he's going to get smeared and end up unelectable in the Fall, but she won't get hammered for all of this stuff in the GE.


Ayers is Obama's problem (5.00 / 1) (#94)
by Salo on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:38:52 AM EST

and this has nothing to do with Clinton.

We already know that The GOP will go after the Clenis issues. They will not get bogged down in the WU with Bill Clinton. He's seen as a moderate. They will go after the USS Cole, and The Kenyan Embassy response.

Obama can and will be successfully painted as a militant leftwing radical.

Ayers, Wright, Rezko are clearly going to be hammered away at for months.

For leftwingers asscoaitions with Ayers might even be a net positive in the primaries but he's poson in the general election.


mbuchel, you saw the post from Inky (5.00 / 1) (#168)
by lookoverthere on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:25:35 PM EST

up above? The one from CNN's Chris Black saying Sen. Clinton opposed Pres. Clinton's clemency?

If not, let me repeat it for you.

First lady opposes presidential clemency for Puerto Rican Nationalists
From CNN White House Correspondent Chris Black
September 5, 1999
Web posted at: 11:34 a.m. EDT (1534 GMT)
WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, Sept. 5) -- First lady Hillary Rodham Clinton opposes her husband's offer of clemency to a group of Puerto Rican nationalists saying they took too long to renounce violence.
Howard Wolfson, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton's U.S. Senate exploratory committee, said Mrs. Clinton felt that the prisoners had waited too long to accept the condition for the commutation of their prison sentences -- the renunciation of any future violent activity.

Thank, lookoverthere! (none / 0) (#173)
by Inky on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:39:18 PM EST

it's the weirdest thing. My cooment seems to have vanished. I'm glad you captured it, since I don't feeling like retyping it.

Although for some reason, your link doesn't work. Here's a working link.

Cheers!


: Cooment = comment (none / 0) (#176)
by Inky on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:47:01 PM EST

I accidentally pressed "Post" rather than "Preview". I'll stop "coomenting" now.

We don't have to wait for the fall (none / 0) (#92)
by Kathy on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:38:35 AM EST

he's already unelectable now. All the money, all the press, all the advantages...and he still cannot close the deal.

And that's before the republicans get hold of him.


But (none / 0) (#105)
by cmugirl on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:43:08 AM EST

When the Republicans bring up all the so-called (and actual) dirty stuff from the 90's, people will just yawn and say "old news". Obama tried it last summer with the "let's look into Bill Clinton's sex life since he left the WH" bit - it didn't go too far if you notice. Obama himself has said he is a "blank slate" that people can project things on -that's not a good thing.


Camp Obama (none / 0) (#131)
by Kathy on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:56:58 AM EST

already made several pathetic attempts to dredge up Clinton scandals. How'd that work for them? Did anybody care?


: Well that was already (none / 0) (#167)
by Salo on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:21:57 PM EST

on the minds of many of the Obama voters.

The commutations are perfectly (none / 0) (#34)
by Salo on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:04:21 AM EST

legitimate.

If Ayers had served his time for crimes committed this wouldn't be happening to obama.

Presidents get to pardon and commute because that is legally part of their job.


careful now. (none / 0) (#31)
by Salo on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:03:04 AM EST

She's a political survivor but she's only got so much credibility as a warrior herself.


Well, except that she's been in a giant (5.00 / 1) (#66)
by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:24:34 AM EST

atrocious swingfest for months and hasn't blinked. She teared once but no blinking ;) I wonder how well she would do in a real fight? Let's face it, she seems to be bringing along the Clinton ability to attract the bare bones no excuses affective and not just the politically popular invective. How many Generals signed on to follow her? No early retirements there! She isn't a POW but she taking a heck of personal political beating and she keeps on ticking along just fine just like clockwork.


: That was the reference to ... (none / 0) (#107)
by Salo on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:44:01 AM EST

...being a political survivor. Which she obviously is.
But is that political skill the same thing as timely competence?
Bush was a man who went from crisis to crisis like a bumper car. She's being buffeted in a similar way--Obama OTOh can't handle minor scrutiny without howling in pain. So she appears to be better than Obama in one way.
I'm not suggesting that Obama is competently dealing with minor adversity in the campaign of late either. He's an unknown unknown.

Oooh I don't like (none / 0) (#45)
by Marvin42 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:13:02 AM EST

Is this serious? I have issues with Sen Obama's message and positions, but not this. We aren't doing this are we?


: I think it was meant as an example (5.00 / 1) (#184)
by FlaDemFem on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 02:04:43 PM EST

of what would be used against Obama by the GOP. And it will be, you know it will.

what do you mean by "this score"? (none / 0) (#40)
by Josey on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:08:53 AM EST

would she be any better (none / 0) (#42)
by Salo on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:11:39 AM EST

at handling unexpected events? and why?

It's not an unfair question to ask.

It also allows Clinton supporters to back the assertion of the video clip with facts and character witness.


Character Witnesses (5.00 / 1) (#171)
by Edgar08 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:27:45 PM EST

Have you noticed the Military Folks who have endorsed her?

They SEEM to think she'll be able to handle a crisis.


we know how Obama handled (none / 0) (#57)
by Josey on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:19:46 AM EST

"unexpected" debate questions. HE WHINED!
And it was a longgggg elitist whine.


Just let the man eat his waffle! (5.00 / 3) (#84)
by nell on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:32:42 AM EST

Not like he wants to run the country or anything!!!

"SCRANTON, Pa. - As Sen. Hillary Clinton was preparing to campaign here today, Sen. Barack Obama was meeting with voters at a diner and apparently pretty hungry.

"Why can't I just eat my waffle?" he said, when asked a foreign policy question by a reporter at the Glider Diner."

http://tinyurl.com/53p9j3


perhaps (5.00 / 2) (#89)
by americanincanada on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:37:52 AM EST

because he took the working press with him to breakfast?


Why can't I eat my waffle? (5.00 / 2) (#95)
by rooge04 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:39:21 AM EST

I don't like answering questions about stuff!


Like, eight times! (5.00 / 2) (#99)
by Kathy on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:41:23 AM EST

You are majoring (none / 0) (#138)
by Molly Pitcher on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:00:23 PM EST

in waffling, Bud!


: I can see the repub ads now . . . n/t (5.00 / 1) (#164)
by nycstray on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:18:31 PM EST

Campaigning... (5.00 / 1) (#108)
by cmugirl on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:44:39 AM EST

...is hard work!


: Leggo my Eggo! (5.00 / 1) (#119)
by nell on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:51:07 AM EST

Why does he come across (5.00 / 2) (#142)
by waldenpond on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:02:45 PM EST

as being annoyed by people? Is this just more of the elitist meme that is going to go with him in the GE?


Did anyone see the Daily Show . . (5.00 / 2) (#178)
by abfabdem on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:55:29 PM EST

last Thursday night? The debate coverage included a clip of Obama decrying that the questions weren't about "gotcha" moments and not real issues, then they showed a montage of him hemming and hawing and being incoherent responding to said issues questions. Stewart concluded with, "maybe we'd just better ask him about the flag pin."


Yahoo News Headline (none / 0) (#77)
by BarnBabe on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:29:15 AM EST

Obama predicts Clinton win in Pa. but says it will be close

David Corn? (none / 0) (#96)
by OxyCon on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:39:58 AM EST

Is he a hard core Obama supporter along the lines of Josh Marshall?
I'm just wondering why Obama supporters are allowed to be on the campaign conference call.
Thanks for the round up!

: Corn is an ex CIA operative. (none / 0) (#157)
by Salo on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:14:06 PM EST

The Obama campaign response to Hillary's (none / 0) (#98)
by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:41:23 AM EST

closing ad

The Obama campaign weighs in with this quote from Bill Clinton in 2004: "Now one of Clinton's Laws of Politics is this: If one candidate's trying to scare you and the other one's trying to get you to think; if one candidate's appealing to your fears and the other one's appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope. That's the best."

If you can't think tangibly on your feet because of the heat stay out of the kitchen should be the evolved Clinton's Law of Politics.

I again recall (5.00 / 1) (#104)
by Kathy on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:42:24 AM EST

my cat hiding in the laundry basket, like I can't see his bushy tail poking up.


Basically (5.00 / 1) (#128)
by Davidson on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:55:31 AM EST

We're not supposed to take serious issues into account because they cause us "fear." Clinton's ads, including the notorious 3 AM ad ask you to think about the serious challenges we have to face. The fear card can only be applied to lies or exaggerations, not legitimate issues.

Obama asks you to largely ignore them or he uses the actual fear card himself with regards to Social Security, health care, Iraq (Clinton's judgment led us into Iraq; you can't trust her), etc.


Reality (none / 0) (#159)
by Davidson on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:14:49 PM EST

An ad doesn't need to address specific policy but highlight the reality: we are a hot mess on every level--domestic and international. Her putting out that 3 AM ad is to remind everyone that this is not some media game, but the consequences are serious: we need someone who can handle the grave challenges ahead.


: To clear it up (none / 0) (#161)
by Davidson on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:16:41 PM EST

I should have written: "She released that 3 AM ad to remind everyone that this primary is not some media game, but something that will have serious consequences..."

Obama seems to be counting on (5.00 / 1) (#146)
by madamab on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:04:13 PM EST

people not remembering how George Bush used the fear card in 2004. Remember the "wolves" ad?

What she is doing is showing what we're dealing with now and asking who you think can handle it better. Reality sucks right now, but just pointing out reality doesn't make you a fearmonger.


Wait - I thought he hated Bill Clinton? (none / 0) (#185)
by echinopsia on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 02:31:16 PM EST

Milk, Cookies, and a Red phone (none / 0) (#140)
by boredmpa on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:01:47 PM EST

That ad really should end with her sitting at a desk with a red phone and bill setting a tray of cookies and milk on the corner. preferably in an apron.

then again, my sense of warmth and humor could be jarring with the rest of the ad ;)