Wolfson on Primary Eve

Howard Wolfson, Hillary Clinton's Communications Director, has a blog post up on Hillary's site called "Primary Eve." It's chock full of links to good reading refuting all the latest attacks on Hillary.

It ends with a link to my post on electability:

In Case You Missed It: “Electability: Why Hillary Is More Likely to Beat McCain” Read more.

Thanks, Howard! And yes, I hope everyone reads it. Hillary Clinton is the better candidate to beat John McCain this fall.

< Umbrella Of Deterrence | Obama's Waffle Controversy >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    It doesn't look like tomorrow will be (5.00 / 0) (#1)
    by MarkL on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 09:20:51 PM EST
    decisive either way, does it?
    Oh well.

    WJC is speaking on C-SPAN from UPenn (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 09:32:31 PM EST
    There's a sign in the crowd "PA can't be bought." So, you know, we'll see.

    Money isn't everything (none / 0) (#5)
    by AnninCA on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 09:37:56 PM EST
    I LOVE it!

    Frankly, Ditto for all the grass-roots calls.  It's good to get out the vote, but people were being peppered by both sides and were irritable.

    Too many ads also makes people mad.  

    That old law of diminishing returns is something Obama hasn't quite grasped.


    Ads and Calls (none / 0) (#24)
    by AnninCA on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:33:23 PM EST
    No, because I'm invested, I think getting out the calls for Hillary is great.  Grass-roots, yadda.

    Actually, lots of voters find these calls intrusive.  It makes them mad.

    Same thing with the ads.  People get sick of them on TV.  Surely in your state you did.  I had a hard time voting for the Indian gambling in my state because they so dominated the TV.

    My point is simple.  Money has to be spent smartly.

    Obama failed to pay "walking money."  I think he screwed his supporters out of time-honored Philly money.

    Just my 2 cents.


    Walking Money (none / 0) (#31)
    by AnninCA on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:52:43 PM EST
    Of course it's a shakedown.  Nobody has even denied that.

    However, it's a tradition.

    He rejected it.

    What I don't get about rejecting it is that it's a legitimate way for the unemployed to pick up some quick money.

    I don't think he much likes the poor.


    You are right AnninCA and Welcome... (none / 0) (#33)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:59:21 PM EST
    This is another disconnect for Obama.  He truly does not get regular joes.

    And, isn't it so much nicer over here than HuffPo?


    Nice (none / 0) (#35)
    by AnninCA on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:06:14 PM EST
    I'm so glad I'm not being called a racist every third post.  :)

    He said they wouldn't pay...It is a tradition in (none / 0) (#39)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:14:44 PM EST
    Philly and it might come back to bite him in the butt.  End of story.

    Taking the high road (none / 0) (#40)
    by AnninCA on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:17:44 PM EST
    doesn't really work, because his ads have been very negative.

    But good try.


    Not having as much money as Obama, (none / 0) (#45)
    by felizarte on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 04:15:33 AM EST
    and with the MSM practically all biased against her, Hillary was only left with one viable strategy:  GOING STRAIGHT TO THE PEOPLE; with more personal appearances to small groups, local leaders, and carefully messaged ads.  The result is firmer support from individuals that is not easily swayed by media, because these people saw and heard her themselves. They saw how steady and consistent she was, and what a gracious and warm human being she is.  It has worked well for Hillary in Ohio, Texas and now Pennsylvania.

    Oh so you're with Chris Matthews?? (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by rooge04 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 07:52:16 AM EST
    LOL. She didn't earn it. Please tell me how Obama earned all those Western states and Illinois.  Thanks for the meme just like matthews that she hasn't earned her credentials. You've proven what you drink for Breakfast.

    Hillary is speaking there now (none / 0) (#10)
    by RalphB on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 09:56:06 PM EST
    and it's good!

    Guess (none / 0) (#30)
    by txpolitico67 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:51:50 PM EST
    that should tell the deep pockets over @ Obama, Inc. something

    I think PA might surprise her (none / 0) (#7)
    by Kathy on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 09:43:20 PM EST
    in a good way.

    I would say I am hoping so, but (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by MarkL on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 09:51:43 PM EST
    that word--"hope"---has taken on a bad connotation with me.

    new favorite: (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Kathy on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:01:04 PM EST
    Clinton to Obama:  "I eat your waffle!"

    From your lips to God's ears (none / 0) (#15)
    by angie on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:08:51 PM EST
    and I don't say that lightly.  I've got my candle lit. (and I'm not bitter, in case anyone gets the wrong idea about why I "cling" to my religion).

    Obama apparently hasnt made himself (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by athyrio on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 09:32:20 PM EST
    available to the press for ten days  now according to Jake Tapper....Maybe that is his way of winning elections.....It is starting to be noticed, but you can't win the general this way, but it does remind me of Geo Bush which is something I hope the democrats start to notice....

    His campaign is a copy of Bush's in many ways: (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by MarkL on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 09:35:45 PM EST
    also, the ginned up outrage is a copy of what the Republicans have done so effectively for the last 15 years.

    He also (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by nell on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:03:33 PM EST
    thinks he can tell grown female reporters how to "behave." This REALLY rubs me the wrong way.

    Later that afternoon while taping an interview for "The Daily Show," a reporter tried to ask Obama about a new Clinton ad and the Obama ad that came as a response. The White House hopeful asked the reporter if she was "supposed to be" asking a question at that time and added that he might answer but that "it depends on how well behaved you are." In the end, he did not take the question.



    His sexism (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by AnninCA on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:09:43 PM EST
    is obvious.

    maybe (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Nasarius on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:15:24 PM EST
    Tactless condescension, to be sure. Done to people (the press) he needs to have on his side to win the election makes it truly idiotic. And IIRC, it's a pattern with him.

    Jeralyn or BTD could you please blog (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by athyrio on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:22:46 PM EST
    on this sexism with the reporter...It is so demeaning to all women....thanks....

    IMO sexism displayed to one woman is (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by athyrio on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:40:41 PM EST
    insulting to all women just like racism would be to all AA's. It just isn't right and should never be tolerated.

    Don't know your gender (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by nell on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:42:14 PM EST
    But I am one woman who knows when a man is talking down to me. If you are a male, perhaps this is the kind of insidious sexism that you are unable to recognize because you haven't felt it firsthand.

    Do you really think he would have said to a male reporter, "If you behave yourself"? Seriously? Also, there is a pattern that started with him saying that Hillary was likeable enough, only drank tea with foreign leaders as First Lady, periodically when Hillary is feeling down she lashes out to boost her appeal, not to mention his disgusting appeals to female voters - can I give you a kiss for your vote, calling female factory workers sweetie, and assuring a female voter standing next to him that the vibrating sensation she felt was only his phone.


    Sexism (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by AnninCA on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:48:28 PM EST
    I think it's simple.  It's OK to turn down a reporter question, but it should be done respectfully.  It should be done based upon the content.

    Even politicians aren't required to answer, "Do you still beat your wife?" questions.

    However, when you do so based on some sassy remark about how you "behave," you turn that refusal into a personal interaction.

    Enter......you're the man, you dominate, and you not only turn down the question but you humiliate the reporter.

    Every woman has experienced this.

    Therefore, we relate.


    If you don't want to be demeaning (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by angie on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:12:49 PM EST
    you, as a man, should try not to frame women's reaction to Obama's blatant sexism as "ilk."  Furthermore, it is perfectly fair to Obama to judge him on his deeds and actions.  

    If you demean someone in (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by rooge04 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:31:53 PM EST
    very particular FEMALE way it is obvious that he's sexist. You need not have female genitalia to understand and see sexism (you seem to be arguing that you're not seeing it because you're a man).  However, to tell a WOMAN to behave herself is akin to infantalizing her. Something he would NOT do to any man. He wouldn't tell a man that because it wouldn't make sense you see, it's a particularly FEMININE insult.  Not to mention it goes to a pattern of sexist behavior from him (now shared by many of his supporters). It is obvious simply because it is so CLEARLY sexist.  And when a man denigrates a woman using insults that are based in misogyny and would only be used ON a woman it is sexism that EVERYONE can see.

    Its (none / 0) (#43)
    by Rainsong on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 12:53:36 AM EST
    .. often perceived by women, as being on the same level of insult, as calling an A-A man - "boy", does that make more sense?

    Read The Feminine Mystique (none / 0) (#32)
    by angie on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:53:47 PM EST
    If you really don't understand how talking to a professional adult woman as if she was a "naughty child" is demeaning to all women. I don't have the energy to explain it.

    FrankieAndJohnnie, I've noticed (none / 0) (#49)
    by independent voter on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 07:23:07 AM EST
    there are posters on this blog that have some sort of a "super sense" for discerning sexism. It's pretty amazing, because it is found in many, many statements and actions that I (as a 43 year old woman, and mother of 5, self-employed business owner) just do not seem attuned to pick up on. Rather than asking for clarification of what, exactly, they are objecting to in a particular statement, gesture, etc. I just accept the infinite wisdom of the commenters here. Clearly, they are more skilled than you or I to spot this unfair treatment.

    It's official (4.66 / 3) (#18)
    by angie on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:16:46 PM EST
    Obama has become as arrogant as W in my eyes -- I've always "clinged" to giving him a small benefit of the doubt thinking that his supporters can't all be wrong.  There's no going back now.

    Must make you feel good (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by white n az on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 09:42:52 PM EST
    to have Wolfson call out TalkLeft's blog piece Jeralyn.

    It's nice to be acknowledged.

    of course it would have made me feel better... (none / 0) (#14)
    by white n az on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:07:40 PM EST
    if he had also mentioned by insightful and funny comments but hey, I keep telling myself it's not all about me.

    I think the numbers are OK and with 'late breakers' that always seem to fall her way, I'm really hoping that the can reach double digits like OH.

    When you think about it...there's a reason that Obama can't close the deal, can't cross the 45% threshold on battle ground states and this ultimately tells super delegates - can't beat McSame.


    I started off feeling down about the polls... (5.00 / 6) (#47)
    by Rainsong on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:31:39 AM EST
    but then I thought over the last 6 weeks or so, that according to the Never-Ending Story:

    Obama is the frontrunner, has been for months, in many circles the de facto nominee, all this time. He has had close to two months since he won 11 straight contests by an average of around 20-30 pts and has broken every single fundraising record there is.  

    Ever since Iowa he has gotten the best media coverage and treatment of any politician for years.  Every day and night pundits in the media have annointed him the winner, explained (ad nauseum) how it's impossible for Hillary to win, have implored her to drop out, and generally praised Obama as the Second Coming of FDR & JFK. Even high-profile Senators Dodd and Leahy, Speaker Pelosi, and Howard Dean amongst others, have pretty much proclaimed Obama the winner. (and to make sure of it, they have ignored two big states)

    He gave a speech that was praised by the media as a mixture of Lincoln at Gettysburg and King at the Lincoln Memorial with a good measure of Christ at the Mount of the Beatitudes thrown in.

    and he has a bottomless pit of gold in the campaign treasury, the incredible blitzkrieg of his radio, newspaper and TV campaign, (his ads saturated more than 3 or 4 to 1 for weeks) and blow-out fund-raising capacity - outspending Hillary three or five to one -- and his personal race across the state, bus, train and sell-out venues, and his massive ground-troop organisation, including a massive voter registration drive, negative campaign tricks like the Harry & Louise ads - and to top it off, we keep hearing how he has gained, and gained and gained super-delegate endorsements in a continuous stream.

    Add to that, the fact that Hillary has been hounded and beaten up constantly with such incredibly high negatives throughout the campaign, negatives that scream she cannot be elected to any logical person, (or so I keep being told by all the `experts')  

    But he still can't put her away? With all those odds in his favor, Obama should be winning by 5-10 points, not losing by 5.  

    If Obama can't win this blue-leaning swing state against a weakened, broke, high-negative, unanimously-hated Clinton - what does it say about his electability in November?

    Stubborn lot, some voters.
    I saw one guy being interviewed with his kids, as they were leaving a ball game in Philly, and he said "A woman runs my house, and she does just fine, whats the difference with a woman running the White House? Clinton knows what needs doing."

    Go Pennsylvania!!!


    Just saw Hillary on c-span, AWSOME BABY AWSOME !!! (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by drewohio1 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:16:54 PM EST
    Hillary Hit it out of the Park in her speech tonight !! BRAVO !!!!!!

    Hillary is Lubbbbb (none / 0) (#20)
    by Regency on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:20:13 PM EST
    I officially adore her. Fan club? Dibs on President!

    Best picture in the world is Bill, Hill, and Chelsea. So cute!


    Arnone's and your analyses (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:28:20 PM EST
    have been fascinating, Jeralyn -- this is the third? I've seen, and each has helped me understand where this campaign/election could go better than any others I've read.  So this attention from Clinton's campaign was deserved.  

    But my thanks for these ongoing analyses, too.

    Thank you (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by sumac on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 01:39:07 AM EST
    Jeralyn and BTD,

    I came here approximately 2 months ago in search of a news media outlet that was not in the bag, so to speak, for Obama.

    I have two degrees in journalism, a B.A. and an M.A. (from UT) and I was quick to see the media bias towards Obama.

    Anyway, it's encouraging to know that my girl, "Hillary," knows where to look for good (if slightly biased <wink>) news.

    Thanks, again.

    Clinton Rally on Cspan (none / 0) (#8)
    by Salt on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 09:48:59 PM EST

    Rise Hillary Rise! (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by RalphB on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 09:57:11 PM EST
    I knew it! (none / 0) (#41)
    by Chimster on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:27:27 PM EST
    "It ends with a link to my post on electability"

    I've always assumed the Clinton Campaign read this blog, but to have them acknowledge that, friggen awesome. I love this blog.

    No policy reason for picking Obama? (none / 0) (#54)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 07:41:45 AM EST

    Moore is such an a--h-le (none / 0) (#56)
    by RalphB on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 08:22:50 AM EST
    and Wright wasn't brought in to counsel Clinton.  It was for a photo-op at a prayer breakfast.  Typical mistake of the porcine film maker which make his films less than believable.  

    Wouldn't be right (none / 0) (#57)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 09:23:04 AM EST
    Wouldn't be decent

    Wouldn't be good General Election strategy....LOL!  Obama has Moveon, Kerry, Kennedy and now a Michael Moore endorsement.  The Republican 527's are going to LOOOOOVE this.

    Negative endorsements (none / 0) (#58)
    by AnninCA on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 09:32:55 AM EST
    Moore, like Richardson, spent most of his energy on hateful comments about Hillary.

    His endorsees obviously are obsessed with Hillary.  They seem to ignore him in their comments.

    It's been fascinating to watch.  Her endorsers wax on about her and never mention him at all.  It's a positive endorsement style.