Update on Whether Obama Will Offer to Help With Hillary's Campaign Debt

An update to my earlier post about the Barack Obama campaign considering offering to pay off Hillary Clinton's campaign debt and cammpaign expenses if she drops out:

Edsall has this update:

Under federal campaign finance law, the Obama campaign cannot directly pay off Clinton's debts, or the $11.43 million she has loaned the campaign, because that would violate campaign contribution limits. But if Obama is the nominee, he and his donor base could provide invaluable help to her in raising money through signed appeals, joint fundraisers and by other methods.

The Obama campaign does not want to be identified as having discussions about Clinton's finances. Obama aides used the term "chit-chat" to dismiss any such discussions.


The campaign is also considering whether its supporters will be "outraged" by offers of helping Hillary, particularly if any of the money goes to Mark Penn.

It's late, we'll make this an open thread.

Update: 1:00 am, comments closing.

< Thursday Night Open Thread | Who Would Obama Pick for Attorney General? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Well, if Obama's supporters are outraged (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by tigercourse on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:51:30 PM EST
    by Clinton getting helped out, they can all just go right to hell. Unity my caboose.

    And (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:00:05 AM EST
    Mr. Unity Pony, Mr. Leader, could find a way to make it all okay, now couldn't he?  If not, how the heck does he think he's going to get along with Republicans?

    Besides the Bowers coalition is pretty small.. Not many people to convince.  Gee, they could have them all over for drinks and get them to go along. Of course, the party will be exclusive, no non-Bowers allowed.  They can call it "The Bowers Party" (not unlike the Donner Party, sorry, couldn't resist ;-))

    Not that I want Hillary to drop out...Even if the lead is insurmountable (which is unclear), she needs to go through the whole process -- then suspend.  If Mr. Wonderful melts down, she'll then be able to step in.


    Premature to even discuss (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:23:10 AM EST
    I have to keep reminding myself that this race is far from conclusion. If Hillary were to take this kind of deal from Obama, we all know he would consider her debt to him greater than her gift of handing him the nomination.

    Neil Cavuto today gave the best interview I've seen this entire campaign to an Obama campaign operative, Flavia Colgan. She could not keep up. It was awesome!


    Everyone is missing the point ... (none / 0) (#186)
    by Robot Porter on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:52:09 AM EST
    this story is just a way of getting Clinton's "debt" into the news.

    I just watched it (none / 0) (#190)
    by otherlisa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:56:50 AM EST
    You're right. That was amazing.

    I shudder to think of Obama and his surrogates as our standard-bearers in the fall...

    Except...oh...wait...that's right. They don't need me! So they aren't my standard-bearer.


    Did you not read the rest of the sentence... (3.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Addison on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:00:34 AM EST
    ...the issue is mainly with her advisors, not her.

    I don't particularly like the idea of helping Penn out, he led the charge of a lot of anti-Obama stuff -- and as an Obama supporter that matters -- and quite frankly he did Hillary no favors at all either. So the idea that he'd get paid by Obama's folks via the woman he served so poorly is troubling.


    Well (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:04:36 AM EST
    I hope she doesn't take the money.  She doesn't need Obama's tainted cash.  I'm sure she or Bill can make it back in a heartbeat.

    I think it's up to Hillary... (none / 0) (#26)
    by Addison on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:05:20 AM EST
    ...if she wants help I hope she gets it, and that the story is buried and no one talks about it.

    She doesn't need help. (none / 0) (#34)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:08:24 AM EST
    Campaign debts (none / 0) (#115)
    by PattyinArizona on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:46:35 AM EST

    Obama is handing out checks to a guy who (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by tigercourse on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:05:05 AM EST
    put together an ad that morphed Dean into  Bin Laden.

    But Obama is the nominee... (1.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Addison on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:06:39 AM EST
    ...Penn did a disservice to Clinton not because he was negative -- that's just the reason Obama supporters are loathe to pay him -- but because Clinton should've had this in the bag, but has almost certainly lost. Something went wrong on the strategic/message level. And that's his thing.

    If Obama Were the Nominee (5.00 / 5) (#35)
    by BDB on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:08:33 AM EST
    he wouldn't be offering to pay Clinton to quit.

    I honestly don't understand why his campaign seems absolutely desperate to get her to quit when supposedly they'll get that in three weeks.  


    WV and KY will look bad (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by andgarden on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:10:11 AM EST
    plus disenfranchising FL and MI is messy and unDemocratic.

    Exactly (4.75 / 4) (#60)
    by BDB on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:19:54 AM EST
    If he really had this thing wrapped up, he wouldn't need to take all these steps that will hurt him in November.

    I still expect him to be the nominee, but it's very weird.


    i guess they want all the hard working (none / 0) (#206)
    by hellothere on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:27:25 AM EST
    democratic core to leave and take the clintons with us when we go. since we form the majority of the party, i'd say that should be quite interesting. the young and restless won't give them much. in fact they'll try and hit up on bitter boomer mom and dad for it. the aa community i am sure will want to but their resources are limited. so donna, dean, just where are you getting your moola for the new dem party? the latte drinkers? some but they'll get tired of hearing from you once obama has gone down in defeat and perish the thought that you might expect THEM to do hard work in a campaign. listen, good luck with that. when you get some humility, don't give us a call. we'll think about it depending on your attitude. (snark)

    WV and KY (none / 0) (#221)
    by stefystef on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:53:30 AM EST
    and MO and PR will look bad for Obama too.  After all this talk about Obama breaking into Hilary's base, it seems to be the total opposite.  Obama has been losing the working class/white voter in each election.  Hillary has actually vitalized that base.

    I doubt if Obama , with a couple of flowery speeches, can unite that Hillary core, which is the Core of the Democratic Party, to vote for him.


    They do seem a little panic (5.00 / 4) (#44)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:11:06 AM EST
    stricken.  It's funny to watch.

    This from the winner?


    He isn't offering... (none / 0) (#42)
    by Addison on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:10:33 AM EST
    ...these are just stories floating around the media because it's a good, easily BS'd upon, factless story that fits in their little preconceived narrative.  And I'm assuming you don't trust the media on this issue when you distrust them on so many others, right? Because that would be strange.

    at Daily Obama (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by Josey on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:32:35 AM EST
    there are Hillary-hate diaries on the Rec list based on an "anonymous source" of a friend of a friend who heard it somewhere that Hillary really did eat vanilla ice cream!! gasp!
    She's a racist!!!
    Addison, have you rec'd those diaries?

    Here.... (none / 0) (#116)
    by Addison on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:47:13 AM EST
    ...I made my diary rec's visible just for you.


    Obviously there are many diaries there that are pro-Obama, and many that are anti-Clinton. But I think the one of the only clownish, non-factual Hillary hit-diary I rec'd was Melquiades' one. But I found that insightful because it pointed out how Obama's problems (Wright) could be dealt with decently for a time with a speech -- obviously it resurfaced later -- while Hillary's problem at the time (Bosnia sniper thing) couldn't. It was a good point about that juncture of the media ginned up idiocy-wars.

    Additionally, 5 out my last 7 ratings (that's all I can see, since I almost only 0-rate comments anymore and it's only the last week or whatever of ratings) were to hide-rate comments insulting to Hillary Clinton.

    Actually, you know, here's a diary about Hillary Clinton and race I rec'd. So, maybe you're on to something.


    KOS? (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by AnninCA on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:53:06 AM EST
    I thought all the Hillary supporters abandoned that sight weeks ago out of protest.

    There are sites now growing by leaps and bounds because of the boycott.


    I'm not a Hillary supporter... (none / 0) (#128)
    by Addison on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:54:26 AM EST
    Well, you said it. (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:58:50 AM EST
    Obviously there are many diaries there that are pro-Obama, and many that are anti-Clinton.

    I don't understand... (none / 0) (#141)
    by Addison on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:01:52 AM EST
    ...many of the diaries I rec'd were pro-Obama, that is they were favorable to Obama. Some of them were anti-Clinton, in that they were critical of Clinton. Those are the sorts of diaries I have rec'd, apparently, obviously not the kinds of diaries y'all would rec, but also not the sorts of diaries that Josey was talking about.

    I am still stunned. (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:10:45 AM EST
    First like I said before I never partook of the Orange one.  Don't like the format and never liked the attitude about politics.  So, you keep saying as if there is a  difference in being Pro-Obama and anti Hillary.  Those are the same point of view, is that not right?  

    Right (4.00 / 1) (#63)
    by BDB on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:22:08 AM EST
    But why are they floating the stories? It clearly comes from the Obama campaign.  These are the kinds of deals one would think would usually be struck by, you know, talking to the Clinton campaign, not the Huffington Post.

    Again, I expect Obama to be the nominee.  But this sudden pressure on Clinton to quit now instead of three weeks from now is  not in Obama's best interest in the long run since he's going to need some of her supporters.  It's all very, very weird.


    Given (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by AnninCA on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:46:21 AM EST
    that Obama has consistently outspent her 4 to 1 or 3 to 1 and still never managed to close the deal, I'd say you're reasoning is off-kilter.

    The DNC elite (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:13:41 AM EST
    backing, the netroots, the money, and no SD rush yet.  All he can muster is psychological warfare.  

    Here's the insane (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by AnninCA on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:31:25 AM EST
    part of this story.

    You're still talking about him catching up to her.

    Yet, saying she's done?

    I'm sorry.  I'm just too rational for that kind of nonsense.


    No DNC (5.00 / 2) (#173)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:37:29 AM EST
    Pelosi, Kennedy, Kerry, Brazille...etc.  Stop with the small donors clap trap...I don't buy that BS.  Obama is the corporatist candidate, packaged to delude you faux liberals into giving up the last chance for healthcare, workers rights and sane foreign policy.  He is here to protect the status quo and make the naive buy his progressivism.  On one hand he is not progressive in the other he is so weak and inexperienced that nothing will happen.  So, the corporations win and our democracy loses.  

    You are deluded (none / 0) (#202)
    by Manuel on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:13:49 AM EST
    There are as many DLC types associated with Obama as there are with Clinton.  Policy wise there isn't much difference between then and Obama is the one who plans on kissing up to Republicans.

    What are you doing, isn't Obama inevitable?  Why are you spending time arguing with us when you you should be helping Barack figure out how to unite the party?  Hey, wait a minute.  Are you a McCain troll?  That would be Rovian and brilliant.


    Long-time Dem (none / 0) (#208)
    by AnninCA on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:36:35 AM EST
    here, and this "Are you a Republican" talk is really just a form of denial.

    You don't wish to consider the truth, that many people will exit from the Democratic party now.

    I understand the urge to "guilt" people.

    But it won't work.

    It's a legitimate division, based on very legitimate philosophical issues.

    Frankly, there are times in history where it's smarter to lose than to back a losing idea.

    This is just such a time.


    Inevitability wasn't ever (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by AnninCA on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:07:08 AM EST
    her message.  It was how the critics' message.

    Hillary's campaign made strategic errors (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by Manuel on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:09:23 AM EST
    in their planning for the caucus states and in not being prepared for relentless negative attacks from fellow democrats.

    BTW The inevitability meme was entirely a media creation.  


    Right (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by Eleanor A on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:49:02 AM EST
    Obama gets money from the likes of this lot hand over fist and Clinton gets criticized for trying to keep up?

    That dog don't hunt.


    He is limiting contributions because (5.00 / 2) (#195)
    by Manuel on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:06:06 AM EST
    he hopes to opt out of his pledge to take public financing and limiting the contributions will make breaking that pledge look better.

    Meanwhile contributions to the DNC have dried up.  Can Obama bankroll them?  There are a lot of mouths to feed.

    Don't kid yourself, the party will be hurt financially if Clinton's supporters start limiting their contributions.  This is a reason the party establishment is worried about the rift that has developed.

    My take is that the amount of money raised and spent by both campaigns is obscene and could have been put to much better uses.


    Deflecting his 3:1 burn rate to get 'her' voters (5.00 / 3) (#153)
    by Ellie on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:10:06 AM EST
    That's what it was in PA after 6 wks to remain exactly where he started but I never saw any figures of what it was in Indiana.

    Ex rectum: this is all about burn. I'd bet that the new projections of spending needed to get a votership she won't turn his way by folding or joining that floated Unity Ticket are sobering. It wouldn't hurt to get her impending donors thinking twice about supporting her continuing run.

    Jeralyn or BTD no doubt have a better idea of what's going on.


    My opinion (none / 0) (#198)
    by AnninCA on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:09:20 AM EST
    is she needs just enough to pay off the debts, but nowhere what she needed before.

    The rest of the primaries don't require a lot of money.

    Maybe Oregon....

    But W.VA and Kentucky?  Just show up.

    The big "Ad" war is over.



    My opinion (none / 0) (#200)
    by AnninCA on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:09:26 AM EST
    is she needs just enough to pay off the debts, but nowhere what she needed before.

    The rest of the primaries don't require a lot of money.

    Maybe Oregon....

    But W.VA and Kentucky?  Just show up.

    The big "Ad" war is over.



    Do you have a source? (none / 0) (#188)
    by Manuel on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:55:58 AM EST
    A quote, a link, anything that shows that Hillary has asked for any money from Obama?  As far as I can tell, this was started by chatter on the Obama side and leaked to the media.

    Actually (none / 0) (#232)
    by notableabsence on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:28:43 PM EST
    Hillary planned for the eventual nomination and rather than burn all her money in the primary she set an amount aside into a general election fund that, due to campaign finance laws, she can't touch.  I don't think anyone expected the primary to carry on this long, so perhaps in retrospect she should've allocated less to the GE.  Regardless, I don't think that you could call it poor budgeting on her campaign's part, planning to win and planning financially for that eventuality.

    Wrong (none / 0) (#204)
    by dishwithdi on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:20:47 AM EST
    Obama has out the checkbook and it's a lot more than $10 million.  And it's buying silence not paying off campaign debts.  The real nuclear option was never on the table.  The Clintons refused to go there.  But it will all probably come out.  Those Republicans won't be so discreet.  Watch.  They will go after Michelle just the way they went after Hillary only Mrs. Obama won't be able to take it and Obama will dissolve when his myth and his Mrs. are destroyed.   America is so Puritanical.  It will be our undoing.

    They Want To Depress The Vote In WV And KY n/t (none / 0) (#219)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:16:07 AM EST
    Obama (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:09:16 AM EST
    is not the nominee. He hasn't reached the 2209 mark.  Sorry, end of story.

    If he were the nominee, he wouldn't have to beg her to quit, now would he.


    Please provide the quote... (4.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Addison on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:11:35 AM EST
    ...where he is begging her to quit.

    He doesn't want that at this juncture. Obama needs Clinton to stay in for a while.


    It's buried somewhere (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by mulletov cocktails on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:23:14 AM EST
    in the link(s) where he agreed to the debate(s) after PA....

    You (none / 0) (#50)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:15:17 AM EST
    don't think these trial balloons are being hoisted by Axelrod?  Are you really that naive?

    Don't bother answering that.  I made the mistake of responding to you.  I won't make that mistake again.  It's futile.


    My last comment... (3.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Addison on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:21:00 AM EST
    ...on this subject: you don't have any more actual facts than I do. You have suppositions and presumptions. What's futile is asking someone for the quote they're basing a comment on when there's none to be had.

    Obama is NOT the nominee (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by Eleanor A on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:10:52 AM EST
    And we'll thank you to refrain from anointing him so until Hillary's officially out of this race.  Which may or may not happen, I might add, since Obama can't win the general and a whole lot of superdelegates from purple states assuredly know that.

    but they have no problem paying (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by nycstray on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:11:54 AM EST
    David Plouffe and Axelrod, who will be totally exposed in the GE?



    Ok..so about money (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:15:08 AM EST
    No money street money in Philadelphia, but he is willing to fork over millions for Hillary.  Now, if I was a ward leader in Philadelphia I would really be peeved.  Not only that, he gives this big talk about ethics.  Sounds like he is trying to buy the race to me.

    Thank you. (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Addison on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:18:01 AM EST
    Thank you for reminding everyone how Obama refused to pay street money in Philly as a rebuttal to all the folks saying he's trying to buy the race based on the media's story about him paying Hillary's debts.

    No honestly...why not pay poor (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:19:26 AM EST
    people but give millions to a millionaire white racist woman?  I just don't get it.  

    Look, this is a smear (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:00:13 AM EST
    and you know it.  You guys used this after Ohio.  Go back and come up with a new one.  

    Oh please (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by AnninCA on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:03:14 AM EST
    that's silly talk.  They will get paid.

    They complained, like all business do.  They wanted a 30-day turnaround. ha!

    They also, I would be willing to bet, padded.  Those bills have to be reviewed.  90-day turn-around or even 6 months is reasonable.

    This was an Obama story, planted and cultivated by netroots.

    It's garbage.


    You know (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by AnninCA on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:38:13 AM EST
    you are just trolling.


    I hate it when people come in and demand answers to fake questions, as though that's dialogue.

    No, it's just being controlling and ridiculous.

    I can guarantee you that every vendor will be paid.

    The Clintons always pay their way.

    They are fiscally sound, always have been.

    To suggest otherwise?

    Irresponsible slander.


    Your compassion astounds me (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:51:10 AM EST
    why did Obama not pay the poor people with Street money but paid the TV stations and Axelrod's company?  C'mon.  Spread the wealth.  Just giving it to the Creative Class?  

    Penn may or may not have been good... (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by OrangeFur on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:41:26 AM EST
    ... but this election wasn't decided by him.

    For Hillary to have equal Obama in the national popular vote, with African Americans making up 20% of the vote, she needed to either (1) get more than 10% of the AA vote, or (2) get 60% or more of everyone else.

    I don't think the first was ever possible, (false) allegations of race-baiting or not. The second was not impossible, but very nearly so. 60% is a landslide.

    She came close, but apparently not close enough.


    How are AAs 20%? When they're more like 10% of (none / 0) (#110)
    by Eleanor A on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:44:56 AM EST
    the population?

    Not trying to confront, just wondering how I am hearing a different number...


    Just math, no idea about reality (none / 0) (#131)
    by Step Beyond on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:56:40 AM EST
    I don't know if their numbers are valid, but mathematically speaking they could be 10% of the population and be overwhelming Democratic and thus be 20% of the Dem voters. Or they could have turned out to vote at a higher rate than other groups.

    Those are just 2 ideas off the top of my head.


    The first one. (none / 0) (#143)
    by OrangeFur on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:02:57 AM EST
    I took the number from the 2004 exit poll, in which AA's made up 21% of Kerry's voters.

    They made up 11% of the overall vote, but as they're almost all Democratic voters, they make up a much larger fraction of the primary vote.

    It may be a little more or a little less, but the basic point remains: with such a huge block of voters on your side, you can lose everyone else by quite a bit and still win.

    Unfortunately for us, in the general election, at 11% of the vote, the Republican needs only to win everyone else by 10 points to win the popular vote, which they've shown they can do.


    AA Are A Larger Share Of The Democratic Party (none / 0) (#220)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:23:36 AM EST
    than they are of the population.

    Re-examine (none / 0) (#118)
    by AnninCA on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:47:37 AM EST
    the numbers.

    10%.  Sorry, but he could register and personally drive every single person to vote in the Fall....and he'll get 10%.


    As mentioned above... (none / 0) (#146)
    by OrangeFur on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:04:13 AM EST
    Primary vs. general. AA's are 11% of the national vote, but because they're heavily Democratic, they make up a much larger fraction of the Democratic primary vote.

    And this is why Obama will lose (none / 0) (#223)
    by stefystef on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:07:29 AM EST
    in the General Election.

    The Democratic Party let the progressive left/elitist and the African American dictate the direction of this primary season.  The media helped with their love affair with Obama.

    In the general, that 11% will mean nothing.  McCain is already courting the Hispanic vote and Obama has failed miserably to secure that vote.  McCain can get more crossover votes than Obama.


    Well, I think (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by AnninCA on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:42:12 AM EST
    it makes sense that she had to find her footing.  Obama was tough.  The first AA candidate?  There goes her first woman candidate argument.  They share votes?  There goes any real policy distinction.  And his gift is big crowd oratory.  yikes!!

    Anyone who argues that this was a true puzzle for her to figure out isn't a fair person.

    I was furious with Obama for bashing Clinton, until I figured out that how else could he run against her?

    I got over my anger about that.

    If you are still spouting the nonsense I see in your post, then I'm guessing you're just not getting over your superficial thinking about this race.



    That's fair (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by AnninCA on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:11:28 AM EST
    although I think his accountability is highly questionable.

    Wright?  Big issue.  Bitter?  Even bigger.  

    He's got a sizeable load of baggage, and he's not even really had to ever vote.  :)


    His speech (none / 0) (#218)
    by AnninCA on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:26:19 AM EST
    is now a joke.

    I did say, from day 1, what a joke.

    Wright is my biggest feather in my own cap.  That was a bad speech.  The accoaldes given to it?


    Now, he's a joke due to that speech.


    Absolutely! (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by otherlisa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:46:07 AM EST
    After all, George W. Bush ran a fantastic campaign!

    And we all know how that worked out.


    Anyone (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by AnninCA on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:53:42 AM EST
    who doesn't recognize the hill she had to climb being the wife simply is sexist, frankly.

    It's total baloney.


    Listening to the talking heads (none / 0) (#191)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:02:17 AM EST
    requires concentration and a search for true logic. Hillary is non-stop on the campaign trail creating policy, looking at ways to solve the issues she's learning about while she connects with the people of the country.

    Obama isn't doing that, it doesn't take much time to stump with his message "Hillary isn't playing nice" and sending people to his web site if they want to know his policies. Although, those aren't current.

    He changed his tax policy to the same as it was during the 90's instead of mirroring Reagan's just today. He must think it's safe now that he's pretty sure he's convinced the country that Hillary must drop out.


    Penn's Fees Are Capped (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by BDB on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:05:55 AM EST
    Unlike Axelrod's.  He is earning a few hundred thousand dollars.  The rest of the bill from his firm is for vendor purchases made through his firm.

    And while you can relax about the money going to Penn, I'd be a little more concerned about why a guy who supposedly has this thing wrapped up is floating offers of more than $10 million to try to get Clinton to quit.  Seems like if he's won this thing, he could save his - and your - money.


    Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by andgarden on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:09:01 AM EST
    Obama, as I recall, is the only one left who has an old-style percentage deal with his ad people. At the presidential level, that's license to print money.

    it certainly explains (5.00 / 3) (#123)
    by p lukasiak on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:50:30 AM EST
    why his media buyers outspent Clinton by 3 to 1 on television advertising, without any apparent regard to the effectiveness of the ads, now doesn't it?

    Neil Oxmann, PA ad genius, (none / 0) (#135)
    by andgarden on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:58:26 AM EST
    was supposedly going to do some work for them, but decided against it when he saw how obscene their spending would be.

    Candidates often pay the debts of their rivals... (none / 0) (#36)
    by Addison on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:08:52 AM EST
    ...it's not some special thing that only Obama is doing. And you don't even know who's floating the number. AND he doesn't WANT Clinton to quit because it's better if he loses KY and WV to a viable, still running candidate.

    As noted above, capped or uncapped, Axelrod was successful, Penn was infamously not so. It's not about the money as far as the disservice to Hillary goes, it's about cost-benefit.


    I Think You Can Argue about Axelrod's Deal (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by BDB on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:18:55 AM EST
    All those television ads poured into Pennsylvania didn't buy him much.  Axelrod got a commission for every one of those ads.  It tends to cause candidates to prefer media buys over more traditional voter interaction.  

    Obama has run, for the most part, a good campaign.  But that doesn't necessarily mean he's also not paying Axelrod too much.


    Actually... (none / 0) (#65)
    by Addison on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:22:35 AM EST
    ...that's a really good point. But I think we all know that in politics advisors are mostly paid not to screw-up (which is a problem). Or, rather, if there's a win any screw-ups are successfully masked.

    The Ad Commission Issue (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by BDB on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:35:22 AM EST
    is actually an old problem among democrats.  John Kerry paid Bob Shrum enormous fees for ads.  If the senior advisor gets paid every time you make an ad buy, guess what they often advise you do?

    The Republicans don't do this.

    This round both Clinton and Edwards capped ad commissions.  And Clinton (I'm not sure about Edwards) capped the total pay out to her top people.  For some reason, Obama didn't and went the old way.  I've always been surprised by that.  


    Bones to Hillary? (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by AnninCA on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:52:15 PM EST
    I doubt it's at all needed, and I thought it was just an angle the news folks picked up on.  How often can they repeat....she's toast?

    Hillary Won't Take Jack From obama....She (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:53:47 PM EST
    will prevail on her own.  

    Brazile's comments (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by AnninCA on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:55:23 PM EST
    were all the rage tonight on my radio.

    Omigosh....she really made an impression.  :)

    By the end of my drive and listening, I decided that I like her.  She's such a loose cannon that she's actually saying what the "insider" campaign strategy actually is.  Now, I get it without such direct talk.

    But the public often needs a "bitter" comment or now, "we don't need them" comment to really get it.

    So she's a real asset.  :)

    OK you lost me (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by waldenpond on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:05:04 AM EST
    Were people pleased with her comments?  Did people think she was correct to throw specific demographics out of the party?  

    Tell me more.... :)


    No (5.00 / 3) (#105)
    by AnninCA on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:43:16 AM EST
    She's the talking point for radio hosts.

    They are all crowing that the DNC has kicked out white working class, claiming it's "racism."  It's a joke, given the 90% AA vote for Obama.

    She managed to make the issue into a beautiful talking point.

    In short, she's the best advertisment that Hillary is right on the money.


    Is there an implied... (none / 0) (#17)
    by kredwyn on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:02:02 AM EST
    /snark tag attached somewhere?

    No, I was laughing (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by AnninCA on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:04:46 AM EST
    at how transparent she was and how now the real agenda has become the focus.

    She was so insulting.  Did you listen to her?

    It was breathtaking.  

    Taylor Marsh suggested that her remarks would be the real story of the day.  She was right on the nose.

    It's all the talk about how Obama doesn't really want the white working class or Latinos.  yikes!

    What a gaffe!


    I turned the TV off earlier... (none / 0) (#31)
    by kredwyn on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:06:54 AM EST
    have been listening to this "Crossing Jordan" compilation that I've been creating. This website and i-tunes are truly a dangerous combination.

    She introduced herself today on CNN as (none / 0) (#80)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:31:42 AM EST
    "a NEUTRAL superdelegate"

    And the worst part is (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by Serene1 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:46:02 AM EST
    she is still getting away with the "neutral" theme with nobody daring to question her on it. Incidentally DB was one of the first ones to imply racist undertones and overtones in Bill C's "fairy tale' comment.

    Kind of feels like the McCarthy era now with Hillary and her supporters being targeted and ostracized by the Democrats.


    YIKES (none / 0) (#124)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:51:49 AM EST
    maybe McPeak being lead on stage by Obama to compare Bill Clinton to McCarthy was a pre-planned attack for the future...it fits beautifully in McCain's description of the political tactics Obama is using.

    GHAAAAK! And this is the same network that fired (none / 0) (#106)
    by Eleanor A on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:43:17 AM EST
    Carville (not that I'm a huge fan of his, just that what's good for the goose ought to be good for the gander...)

    Krewdyn (none / 0) (#51)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:16:00 AM EST
    I read a post u had on an earlier thread about Fort Worth, Tx (where I live).  Obama won here handily:  large black turn out.

    That, of course, after I had to turn in a number of his volunteers to local elections officials because they were breaking electioneering laws left, right, front and center.

    It got so bad that Art Brender, the Dem party chair here had to go and shoo them away, only for them to come back and break more elections laws.

    I've been to Denver but don't see the comparison to FW.  Denver actually reminded me more of Dallas...esp Capitol Hill to Dallas's Oak Lawn.


    I was thinking of (none / 0) (#73)
    by kredwyn on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:27:00 AM EST
    the cattle town/stock yards part.

    I'm still mad at Dallas for the crack in my windshield.

    Have only been to Oak Lawn once...long ago and under dissertation director distress...


    They're Floating This to Try To Get Her to Quit (5.00 / 8) (#19)
    by BDB on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:03:10 AM EST
    Notice they didn't say they were talking to Clinton.  They're talking to each other and then floating it through the Huffington Post.  

    I was quite depressed on Wednesday, but the Obama campaign's seeming desperation for Clinton to drop out has me wondering what the heck is going on.  For a guy who is supposed to have this thing wrapped up, he sure isn't acting like it.  

    I'm genuinely confused because on Wednesday, I generally agreed that while it wasn't 100% over, it was likely Obama would be the nominee.  But he's certainly not acting like a guy who has won this thing.

    I would give quite a bit of money to hear what the Obama campaign is hearing from Super Delegates.  Maybe they can read exit polls after all.  

    Of course I'd give more money to hear Chris Bowers explain to the Teamsters that the Democratic Party will not be placating unions anymore.    

    Yep, (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:06:30 AM EST
    Shoot isn't Gravel still in the contest?  He doesn't seem to be trying to force him out.  If he's won, he should ignore her.  

    He obviously hasn't won.


    If he's won, he should ignore her.. (5.00 / 2) (#164)
    by Rainsong on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:18:28 AM EST
    That is the usual way front-runners behave. They ignore the internal opposition, and go after the real Opposition, as a warm-up for the GE.

    Obama, his campaign and his supporters should just ignore her, but they just won't get off her case!

    I can't remember where ANY candidate has been publicly pressured to concede during the primary, let alone hounded to just "disappear".

    Second or even third-runners, can stay in to the end. Nobody told Teddy Kennedy to drop out in 1980, even when he was over 900 delegates behind Jimmy Carter.  

    This issue seems a beat-up to me if its all coming from the Obama surrogates.

    If he is so confident of victory, get off her case and ignore her. Maybe he should start digging around for stories and dirt on McCain's campaign fund-raising instead, and show us he can even remember who the real enemy is. Perhaps he can pay out McCain to leave the GE race by telling him he just can't win either, becoz Obama has the math already!


    BINGO! (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by AnninCA on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:24:11 AM EST
    and all that's been accomplished by these brilliant DNC leaders?

    They have truly aroused the woman's movement again.  LOL*

    Amazing.....stupid idiots.


    I thought he left the party (none / 0) (#72)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:26:02 AM EST
    when he quietly left the race recently.

    Yep (none / 0) (#103)
    by Step Beyond on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:43:03 AM EST
    He's a Libertarian now.

    Oh the fantasy world it would be (none / 0) (#216)
    by BrandingIron on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:56:47 AM EST
    if the DNC said SCREW IT, SDs, pick Gravel as the nominee and settle it as that.  

    ...Then there'd be a fight for the VP slot.


    They are vastly underestimating (5.00 / 5) (#32)
    by Eleanor A on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:07:28 AM EST
    how tough our girl is.  She's not going anywhere anytime soon, I suspect - other than to D.C. and Denver to make the DNC count those votes.

    I wonder ifVote Vets (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by cawaltz on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:10:09 AM EST
    likes the kick in the ass it's getting for its help in 2006. VoteVet ads were pivotal.

    These are the kinds of exchanges we need more of (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:18:48 AM EST
    If you've been on some of the other blogs today, you may have had a chance to see the exchange between FOX's Neil Cavuto and Obama's Flavia Colgan. He challenged her on the MI and FL delegates, calling Obama a winner at this stage and challenging the accuracy of their campaign claims that the math is against her. It's 5 minutes of pure bliss, IMHO.

    Obama surrogate embarassment.

    That was excellent (none / 0) (#62)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:21:09 AM EST
    Blissful end to the day (none / 0) (#75)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:27:56 AM EST
    IMHO. Why can't the rest of the media be so focused?!!

    Flavia seems to channel (none / 0) (#84)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:33:19 AM EST
    to channel an Ann Coulter , Arianna  with a dab of Camille Paglia persona.  Frightening.  

    But, when Neil called her on the cr*p (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:48:13 AM EST
    it was very clear that she knew full well that nothing she was saying was based in fact...just a whole lot of manipulated campaign spin intended to make idiots of the listeners.

    Sweet! (none / 0) (#152)
    by AnninCA on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:09:18 AM EST
    400,000 posts......

    and he absolutely spelled it out in one interview.  LOL*



    Clinton Campaign (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by Bob Boardman on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:27:19 AM EST
    Does anyone really believe that Hillary and Bill Clinton will have any trouble retiring Clinton's campaign debt?

    That's a non story.

    As for this ludicrous idea that Clinton will bargain for the vice president spot..... Should it come to that, I don't thing Obama would be smart enough to ask her, and I don't think she would be stupid enough to take it.

    I can tell you one thing, the Obama crowd is making it very easy for me to feel fine about voting for McCain.

    Exactly! In fact their arrogance (5.00 / 4) (#86)
    by Serene1 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:34:31 AM EST
    and their belief in their own moral superiority actually makes McCain look more human and nice.

    They are bullies (5.00 / 4) (#93)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:37:41 AM EST
     they learned from their oppressors.  They used the Bush/Rove tactics.  They wanted to win, win at any cost.  

    After McCain's calling out of Obama's (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:40:03 AM EST
    old politics strategy so beautifully today, I sure wanted to at least give him a hug! His wife was on the TODAY show and gave a very interesting interview.

    Cindy McCain (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by kredwyn on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:46:33 AM EST
    has always hit me as not of the Stepford Wife mold.

    She looks like a Stepford wife (5.00 / 3) (#130)
    by oculus on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:55:26 AM EST
    standing next to him while he speaks while campaigning, but, it turns out she has some guts afterall.  

    Once she opens her mouth... (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by kredwyn on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:02:29 AM EST
    she is a force to be reckoned with. And she's no Mrs. Quayle.

    Cindy McCain is hot. (none / 0) (#222)
    by BrandingIron on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:06:58 AM EST

    Really, that's all there is to it.  I like her, a LOT, and I wouldn't mind seeing her as First Lady if it came to that.

    I do believe... (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by AX10 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:45:26 AM EST
    that McCain is a better person than Obama.

    May not agree with some of his ideas (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by RalphB on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:05:22 AM EST
    but I do fundamentally like John McCain.  At least, we know what we'll get and the Dem congress can keep him in check.  If they find some backbone.

    Over the years, divided government has been good to me.


    This is an issue? (4.00 / 1) (#102)
    by debrazza on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:42:55 AM EST
    The last I read, this idea has been entirely invented by the media, which is evidenced by the fact that we now know that it would be against campaign finance laws.  I am sure both campaigns know what the laws are.  So what you are saying is that because the media created this fake issue (he obviously cannot do anything more than help her with fundraising), to you it shows arrogance and a reason not to vote democrat?  I know we are all upset, but let's get real here.

    You ought to be ashamed (4.00 / 2) (#207)
    by Newt on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:29:53 AM EST
    to say you'll vote for McSame because of the Obama crowd.  Who's the enemy here?  Stupid college kids posting on blogs?  Or a Republican who will appoint judges to roll back civil rights and civil liberties that we've worked for decades to get?  Get real.  Ignore the Obamabots' displays of immaturity.  They have no political savvyness and even less sense of decorum.  So what.  We're all Democrats, we all want to make our country and the world a better place for our kids.  And most of the Obama supporters are NOT on these lists, they're quietly waiting to vote next fall.  Which is what all of need to start getting ready to do, regardless how this all turns out.  

    You know (none / 0) (#231)
    by Nadai on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:58:18 AM EST
    it's perfectly possible to have more than one enemy.  I can loathe McCain and Obama at the same time.  I can even throw in a bit of gum-chewing at the same time.

    Who knows how these stories get started? (5.00 / 0) (#145)
    by Get 27 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:03:57 AM EST
    I've given about $1k to Obama, and I hope he neither offered, nor ends up paying Hillary's campaign debt. As people pointed out, she can take care of her debt on her own. Watching Obama on CNN and NBC today, he is not trying to push her out of the race through innuendo. It would be a politically dumb thing to do in such a closely competed race.

    For what its worth I went through moments where I thought I couldn't vote for Hillary in the general, but I am past that, and I will vote for her if she becomes the nominee.

    I say this as a registered Independent voter who has proudly never voted for a Republican.

    More from Donna Brazile (5.00 / 3) (#161)
    by Emma on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:18:07 AM EST
    Party unity at its finest.  Email response to a Clinton supporter urging the DNC to seat MI and FL:

    Thanks Natalie,

    As of today, I am not going to respond to any more anti American, Anti Democratic emails. Have a nice day.

    I am sorry because you are sincere, but the Hillary forces are uncivil, repugnant and vile. When you come up for air and would like to email a person who cares about America and not just a personality, I will respond.

    Thanks for your time and your interest.


     Read it all here, if you want.  Seriously, what did Hillary DO to this woman? Kill her dog?  Torch her house?  What?

    Well, since I'm so repugnant and vile, guess I'll take my toys and go home.

    I like the way DB (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by Serene1 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:40:16 AM EST
    repeatedly tells us the same message - We don't matter - in innovative syntax.

    Is this for real? (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by AnninCA on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:44:41 AM EST

    I wait to see ......

    Is this for real?


    I dunno, but if so... (none / 0) (#225)
    by BrandingIron on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:34:55 AM EST

    ...Joe can find out!

    There are additional places to write (5.00 / 4) (#183)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:50:43 AM EST
    DB also appears regularly on ABC's This Week with George Stepha.....s. I have sent short notes requesting ABC find a panelist who more closely represents the beliefs of middle America.

    And, another to the DNC attaching a declining contribution to DB. "For every divisive word she says about the members of the party, or biased comment against the Clintons, I take another $50.00 off my $5,000 planned donation. Her ranting on Tuesday cost the DNC $1,750. Add'l comments on Wednesday caused an additional $600 reduction. Thursday $850 disappeared."  


    Your idea sounds like a FAB way (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by nycstray on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:19:15 AM EST
    to get Obama votes . . . not

    Keep working on that Unity issue . . . .

    Right (5.00 / 2) (#212)
    by Steve M on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:44:40 AM EST
    "at some point I'll stop mocking Hillary, and expect everyone to snap right in line once I bring up Roe v. Wade."  We've seen that act many times.

    A gentle 1992 reminder... (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by Alec82 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:29:33 AM EST
    ...I thought this might add some levity to the convesation, since this is an open thread:

    "There's a real tug-of-war up here," said one House member. "Especially on this side, there are a lot of people who are terrified that all the character questions, all the negatives about Clinton that showed up in New York, make him so weak that a lot of people will lose their seats."

    A prominent Senator, who also asked not to be identified, added, "lots of people are hearing from home, 'Keep it open, even if the odds make it look impossible,' because Clinton may self-destruct before the convention." As a result, predicted the Senator, who remains uncommitted, "it's not going to shift into cruise control for Bill Clinton very soon."

    THE 1992 CAMPAIGN: The Front-Runner; Like Voters, Superdelegates Have Doubts About Clinton

     As for the issue of assisting the Clinton campaign (indirectly, of course), I don't have a problem, even if this included payments to Mark Penn (admittedly I find him largely useless as a campaign strategist, but he did his job, so he gets to be paid).  That is when, and if, Senator Clinton exits the race.  

    So glad to hear (none / 0) (#179)
    by Serene1 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:44:57 AM EST
    that you have no opposition to Obama helping out Hillary with money. I know money can buy so many things including monopoly in this campaign. Am really excited to see how far this money power takes you all and if money can buy you love in the GE.

    sheesh (none / 0) (#229)
    by VicAjax on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:39:09 AM EST
    it's an interesting article, posted in a non-threatening, light-handed manner, which shows that one of the most popular and effective Democratic presidents ever faced the same doubts as Obama at this time in the '92 election...

    and all it gets is a snarky reply about "buying a monopoly" in the campaign?

    even though the lion's share of that money came from hundreds of thousands of independent, small donors.



    TIME Magazine cover a disgusting spin. (4.80 / 5) (#48)
    by BrandingIron on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:13:47 AM EST

    I'm glad I don't subscribe to TIME magazine.

    So I made this little graphic to show my disgust, as a Clinton supporter, at TIME's attempt to continue the b.s. "presumptive nominee" meme.



    Reason #85856868683 (5.00 / 5) (#52)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:16:37 AM EST
    that I won't vote for him.

    The media corruption in his favor is pathological.  The media supported the war, the media supported Bush, now the media supported Obama.

    I'll run in the other direction.


    Amen (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:18:12 AM EST
    the same media that pushed the war.  

    Wish I could uprate a whooooole bunch of times n/t (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Eleanor A on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:19:53 AM EST
    They are the magazine (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:30:00 AM EST
    that published that fairy tale about Obama's mother just a few weeks ago. They must not have fact checkers on staff.

    I wish I did have a subscription, so I could cancel it - loudly.


    Do you have a link (none / 0) (#205)
    by BrandingIron on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:21:33 AM EST

    to the article?  If not, it's okay, I'll hunt for it meself.  I have some time to do a little hunting.

    I'm especially curious because I know exactly what Obama wrote in his own book about his "race and inheritance" about Mom and it sure wasn't exactly endearing.


    Make phone calls please!!! (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by nycstray on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:35:37 AM EST

    they need to know it's not over and their vote COUNTS!


    The cover photo was weird... (none / 0) (#70)
    by Addison on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:24:25 AM EST
    ...I hated it.

    Dewey Defeats Truman (none / 0) (#224)
    by stefystef on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:14:29 AM EST
    Let's remember that too.

    Obama's arrogance will do him in....


    Thanks for all your hard work today (1.00 / 2) (#1)
    by digdugboy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:49:51 PM EST
    See you tomorrow for my daily allotment of chattering. :)

    Clinton didn't earn it (1.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Rashomon66 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:43:14 AM EST
    It's Hillary and Co that are the bullies. Face it they don't only want MI and FL to count [which is fine] but they want it to count to the point that it gives them a lead they didn't earn.

    People voted (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:48:42 AM EST
    votes were certified.  

    They were certified votes (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:04:35 AM EST
    in elections with other issues.  The DNC had rules.  How rules are enforced is not always fair and or just.  I watched the 2 hour or so DNC hearing on the Fl issue and I found the DNC to be a kangaroo court.  This is nothing to do with Hillary or Obama. It had to do with how they DNC enforced the rules.  I cannot find the link, but after watching this I have no respect for the Rules committee and particularly Ms. Donna.  

    They were valid (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by Step Beyond on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:04:41 AM EST
    The DNC RBC decision does not make the elections invalid. They simply ruled they were out of compliance with the delegate selection rules and removed the delegates. The elections themselves were fine. And those delegates can be given back either by the DNC RBC, the convention credentials committee (is that the name?), the convention delegates or the nominee.

    Well if it was unsanctioned then (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Serene1 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:07:28 AM EST
    what stops DNC from re holding Primaries there instead of places like Guam etc.

    Knowing how tight this race is, the historical connotation of both the candidates and making the process of nomination seem seem fair, the sensible thing for DNC to do would have been to reconduct primaries in Fl & MI and sacrifice primaries in smaller states. That would have been the right thing to do instead of trying to mouth rulz and rulz. Anyway with this the DNC has lost any right to henceforth say that Bush stole the election from Gore in 2000. In fact that process was seemingly more fair than the current one of ignoring FL & MI.


    The entire Fiasco happened well before the (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by Serene1 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:51:18 AM EST
    Super Tuesday when everyone thought that by ST we would have a clear winner who would reach the magic number of delegates even without FL & MI. Unfortunately that didn't happen and instead we have a very tight race with both candidates not being able to reach the magic figure. In such scenarios logic demands that the establishment take account of the changed ground realities and hold primaries again in FL & MI so that there is fair outcome. Rulz are not some 10 commandments that can't be modified to take into account the changed realities and make the process fair. Why even the 10 commandments have been modified.

    DNC offered to repeat the elections in both states (4.00 / 1) (#192)
    by Newt on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:02:21 AM EST
    but no one would pay for it.  Costs a bundle to hold an election.  The DNC can't afford it and FL & MI both refused to do it at their own expense.  Besides, taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for a second round.  

    And again (5.00 / 1) (#211)
    by Steve M on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:40:32 AM EST
    a gold star for the "Soviet-style" talking point!  Apparently the new kind of politics is going to be every bit as repetitious and trite as the old kind.

    Gee (5.00 / 2) (#217)
    by Steve M on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:04:45 AM EST
    if Obama removes his name from the ballot in West Virginia, will it therefore become a "Soviet-style election" that means nothing?

    Here's the thing that you, as a person unlikely to receive TL's Rookie of the Year Award, apparently do not recognize:  Stalin's political opponents did not simply remove their name from the ballot of their own free will for strategic reasons.

    Five individuals connected to five different campaigns have confirmed -- but only under condition of anonymity -- that the situation that developed in connection with the Michigan ballot is not at all as it appears on the surface. The campaign for Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, arguably fearing a poor showing in Michigan, reached out to the others with a desire of leaving New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as the only candidate on the ballot. The hope was that such a move would provide one more political obstacle for the Clinton campaign to overcome in Iowa.

    Now, if you happen to notice that people on this site are particularly dismissive of your vacuous talking points, perhaps you'll start to understand why.


    Doesn't that cut to the heart of it? (none / 0) (#163)
    by tandem5 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:18:12 AM EST
    If you want to include FL and MI in such a way that they have the same impact as if they weren't included at all then what's the point? Is it a more palatable form of disenfranchisement or do we just differ on the definition of the word count?

    Here's the part I liked. Such (none / 0) (#5)
    by oculus on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:55:05 PM EST
    faux concern:

    The second is less obvious: Mark Penn.

    For many Obama backers, Penn, the former chief strategist for Clinton
    and head of one of the biggest PR-lobbying conglomerates in the nation's
    capital, is the quintessential Washington insider, capitalizing on political
    connections to become a multi-millionaire.

    Leadership and DNC and Oxymoron (none / 0) (#7)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:55:53 PM EST
    Back in February, after Super Tuesday, I had this idea that Dean and the alleged leaders of the Party, should have taken everyone in one room and cut deal.  I do not care how.  They should have said, ok, we see what your individual strengths are, but we are leaving here with a ticket, a compromise.  A joint ticket, and the inclusion of Florida and Michigan.  The ideal would be Hillary/Obama.  12 years in power.  But the DNC has no leadership, and the leadership was resolved to destroy the Clintons.  Political solution.  

    Donna Brazille as the mouthpiece of the new Democratic party can be thanked for this coalitions that Chris Bowers proclaims today has usurped the alliances of the Democratic party.  

    Reminds me of my ex-husband (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by AnninCA on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:59:06 PM EST
    I so believed for so long.  :)

    Speaking of ex husbands (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:01:56 AM EST
    I managed to do a nine year arrangement with my ex where the kids stayed in the house and we moved in and out.  Took a lot of fortitude and we stayed friends.  Now, that he is for Obama, we literally cannot talk to each other.  We agreed, no mention of politics, its our DMZ.  

    Feisty group here tonight, eh? (none / 0) (#9)
    by oculus on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:57:20 PM EST
    The Bowers article (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:58:26 PM EST
    and Donna's comments affirmed our collective distaste for the Obama movement.  

    I'm sensing alot of bitterness (5.00 / 5) (#20)
    by oculus on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:03:13 AM EST
    but no clinging.

    For all we know, the DNC may have already (none / 0) (#182)
    by Newt on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:47:40 AM EST
    proposed a joint ticket back in February. If so, I'm guessing neither would agree to #2 spot.  At this point, Obama shouldn't even consider Clinton as VP, given their very different perspectives on solving the problems we face as a nation.  By perspective, I mean approach and framework, not just policies.

    Speaking for myself (none / 0) (#8)
    by Serene1 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:57:12 PM EST
    I am kind of offended both by Obama campaigns' offer of closing Hillary's loan which came across more as a bribe to me and their talk now of how paying off Mark Penn is unpalatable to them.

    Looks to me as if the only thing going on for Obama is the money he has amassed. Let's see how far this money power takes him.

    I read today that he is thinking of limiting (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by oculus on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:58:19 PM EST
    how much money he is bringing in!  Such self-sacrifice.

    He's an idiot (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by AnninCA on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:00:57 AM EST
    for talking about that.  He should do it, though.

    The supporters sending in money have no clue that they are spending the tax money that he's going to wring out of them next year.  LOL*

    Truly, I've worried about this all along.  It's not right.

    Everyone can scream about lobbyists, but Americans can't afford to pay for elections and then also pay for the tax hikes, too.  That's insane.


    Huh? What taxes has he promised to raise except (none / 0) (#53)
    by debrazza on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:17:33 AM EST
    The capital gains tax, to allow the Bush tax cuts to lapse and increase the cap on the social security taxation.  Hillary agrees with the first two but not the last.  And the last does not affect anyone that makes below $97k.

    I know it is fun to make digs at Obama, but lets at least keep them rational.  His tax policy is almost exactly the same as Hillary's except for the Social Security cap.


    On Capital gains, he intends to raise it 8 points (none / 0) (#64)
    by tigercourse on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:22:15 AM EST
    more then she does. Clinton wants to bring it from 15 to 20. Obama wants to bring it from 15 to 28.

    Almost, but that is not quite there (none / 0) (#92)
    by debrazza on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:37:09 AM EST
    She committed to raising it back to 20, which is where it was under the Clinton administration.  Obama commited to raising it, but would not commit to how high, but he did say that he would not raise it higher than the level it was in the Reagan administration, which was 28.  So that would be the ceiling.

    Very shortly afterwards... (none / 0) (#100)
    by OrangeFur on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:42:36 AM EST
    ... he walked it back to 20.

    And windfall profits taax to offset (none / 0) (#69)
    by oculus on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:23:34 AM EST
    gas tax holiday.

    Both have proposed this tax (none / 0) (#85)
    by debrazza on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:34:31 AM EST
    However Hillary proposed using it to fund the transportation trust fund in lieu of the taxes received from the tax holiday and Obama proposed using the funds to provide "rebates" to consumers for gas prices.  Economists say both plans would be unlikely to have benefits to consumers because the companies would just eventually pass all of those taxes on.

    What about Esatate Tax? (none / 0) (#76)
    by nycstray on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:28:04 AM EST
    Do you know where he stands on that?

    That is part of the Bush tax cuts (none / 0) (#81)
    by debrazza on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:31:52 AM EST
    Both Obama and Hillary have campaigned that they will let the totality of those tax cuts lapse.

    She's proposed other options (none / 0) (#108)
    by nycstray on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:43:44 AM EST
    and voted on a bill recently (March) that would be in favor of my Repub parents passing their money on to me.

    If the taxes laspe, we go back go higher rates, IIRC. She was for a 5-7 mil tax free break. Lets more families, small family farms and businesses continue. I was wondering where he was at.

    Seems to me, the missing in what is said, is where/at what level the tax will start


    I believe it was 3 million (none / 0) (#122)
    by debrazza on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:50:06 AM EST
    Before the tax cuts passed, so it would go back to that level.  Also, if I remember back from the "death tax" debate, there really was not a massive universe of family farms or businesses that would be subject to the tax at that level.  It was a number under 200, but I cannot remember what the exact number is.

    Obviously though in a place like NY, it would probably affect more people who did not consider themselves mega-rich, particularly if their parents owned an apartment and they bought it like 35 years ago.


    My family is in CA (none / 0) (#160)
    by nycstray on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:15:49 AM EST
    which is where I'm moving back to so I'll be there for my parents. We are talking your average middle class American family. I've seen the 1 mil number floated around, but admit to needing to refresh my memory.

    Still don't know where Obama stands though . . .


    Oh, you missed the tax (none / 0) (#158)
    by AnninCA on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:12:48 AM EST
    discussion then.

    He's talking about capital gains, claiming it's to hurt the big guys.  Actually, it's going to kill the little guys like me in the stock market.

    He's talking about raising taxes 100,000 grand and above.  yikes for coastal folks.  Dual income?  You're dead.

    He's talking about raising the payroll tax.

    Small business?  You're dead.

    He's definitely tax and spend.


    Consider that a pre-excuse (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:35:19 AM EST
    for a major reduction in his ability to keep the flood of donations coming.

    Just a PR (none / 0) (#18)
    by AnninCA on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:02:19 AM EST
    way of saying it's over.

    Nothing new.


    That's why I'm running for President, Sweetie (none / 0) (#33)
    by nycstray on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:07:41 AM EST

    Somebody tell me I heard that wrong. Was on CNN, Obama walking through DC today answering shout outs from the crowd . . .

    what? (none / 0) (#41)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:10:25 AM EST
    remember some of us are not turning on the tvs or radios, I really have put myself in an isolation tank.  

    I saw it earlier today (none / 0) (#66)
    by nycstray on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:22:37 AM EST
    and didn't comment on it because I thought I perhaps heard wrong. Just saw the clip again and I'm not sure I did. (I had flipped to CNN from a comment here earlier today saying he would be interviewed) I was watching just now hoping to catch the Manson story, and saw a replay. I don't know if they will have a clip online, but if he said it, I'm hoping it will get picked up like the last ones.

    You heard correctly (none / 0) (#91)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:36:20 AM EST
    The arrogance knows no limits.

    Damn. He's more than sealed the deal (none / 0) (#140)
    by nycstray on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:00:42 AM EST
    for me. He didn't speak to what I wanted to hear in the first place, and then this crap.

    His pandering for our votes (if he decides to do it) will be obvious and insulting.


    I don't understand (none / 0) (#47)
    by debrazza on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:12:46 AM EST
    In the first post about the debt issue, people were offended that the offer was being made.  Now people are offended that he is not doing it?  Maybe I am missing something.

    As a Hillary supporter myself, I think that the financial issue is serious and I would tend to agree with the Obama people that Penn should never get paid back a dime.  That man ruined our campaign. Anyone notice the difference since Garin signed on?

    The week before Garin arrived, it was Penn meeting with the Colombians.  Since it has been Hillary on a tear as a working class hero.  Every dime the campaign owes to Penn should be paid to Garin as a bonus and Penn should be told to write off the rest off what he is owed as a loss.

    NY Times Editorial (none / 0) (#71)
    by Serene1 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:24:31 AM EST
    had decided to shed all pretensions of objectivity and are asking Hillary to quit.


    What really gets me in this pretentious high minded article is that it barely glosses over the amount of negative campaigning Obama camp has indulged in. From tarnishing Bill Clinton's presidency to trying to paint Hillary as a a conniving monster who will say and do anything to win, Obama campaign had gone the whole hog on negative campaigning. In fact their whole campaign was built arround the theme - Hillary is bad bad bad its o.k and cool to dislike her and I am not Hillary.

    Earlier I thought inspite of all the errors in nytimes reporting that they were the last of the genuine gentelman/woman objective journalists in a world increasing populated by partisan hacks. Well now with great pain I realize that nytimes is an elite and more sophisticate foxnews.

    The Last Time the NYT Got Its Knickers in a Twist (5.00 / 5) (#125)
    by BDB on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:53:00 AM EST
    over WWTSBQ?, I posted this at Corrente:

    Today is not the first time the New York Times has urged elites to step in and stop people from destroying the country by voting.  From the 1915 New York Times Editorial on the proposal to give women the vote:

    The question involved is not new, all the arguments of the suffragists are old and were long ago refuted and sent to limbo.  Their ceaseless and noisy agitation has not developed a single new idea.  Woman suffrage would result either in a needless political muddle or in a social and political turmoil which would tend to weaken the State, to stir up discord in society and in the home, and would put obstacles in the way of progress which the wisest statesmanship might fail to overcome.

    Same as it ever was.

    (h/t Tennessee Guerilla Woman)


    Your Mission Accomplished post (none / 0) (#150)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:06:27 AM EST
    over there today was so great I copied it to send to my Hillary supporting family members to enjoy!!

    Is that for real? (none / 0) (#210)
    by Steve M on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:38:33 AM EST
    Holy crap.

    *shrug* (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by AnninCA on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:56:46 AM EST
    What's new?  That's been their message for months.

    The division in the party isn't over either personality.  It's over the very principles.

    If the "new" coalition wishes to reframe the Democrats around one minority group and urban vote?

    OK.  So be it.  Pelosi and Brazile have every right to back the horse they see as the winner.

    But......there are consequences.

    Those are showing up and will be long-lasting.


    Nuclear option talk: (none / 0) (#79)
    by oculus on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:31:27 AM EST
    In addition to abandoning the attack ads, Mrs. Clinton must drop her plans to fight to seat the delegations from Florida and Michigan, which defied the Democratic Party and moved up the dates of their primaries. A lot of people voted in Florida anyway, but Mrs. Clinton should not pursue this nuclear option. It would make the Democrats look unable to control their own, just when they want to make a case that they can lead the entire nation.

    Plus, does the NYT editorial bd. really believe that if Clinton does not attack Obama there will be a conversation about health care and the mortgage crisis?


    Why are there no comments on this claptrap? (none / 0) (#87)
    by Eleanor A on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:34:49 AM EST
    I just went to log in at NYTimes.com so I could make a fuss, but my login isn't working for some reason...anyone?  Anyone?

    Well (none / 0) (#95)
    by Emma on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:38:46 AM EST
    the Dems can't lead the nation!!  The MI/FL debacle is the PROOF of that!!!  Oi!!! Just how much is this woman supposed to sacrifice to cover up Dem incompetence and bias?

    "Hillary, go away.  Your very existence is proof of how biased, incompetent, and misogynist the Dem Party is.  Your insistence on talking about Dem values is killing our chances of winning."

    Jon Stewart was right:  Democracy is being killed by too much democracy.


    I dunno. Stewart was pretty bad tonight (none / 0) (#98)
    by Eleanor A on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:41:00 AM EST
    making fun of HIllary's comment about "white voters".  Maybe it wasn't a great choice of words, but Stewart doesn't seem to get it vis a vis BO not being able to win, given his current demographic profile.

    Missed it (none / 0) (#107)
    by Emma on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:43:21 AM EST
    I don't really like Stewart any more, and I certainly don't think he's a Hillary supporter.  I just thought that line was funny.

    Problem with Stewart is how many Young People (none / 0) (#156)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:10:43 AM EST
    say he's their source for news.

    The "white voters" comment caused Anderson Cooper to use "race card" against Hillary in his teasers before his show tonight. I wouldn't watch him because of it.

    Even Media Matters is letting all this stuff go by as though it's fine while they complain McCain isn't getting enough bad press.


    Any good ideas on how Obama COULD win (none / 0) (#209)
    by Newt on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:38:02 AM EST
    the white, working class voters?  

    Given that we may have to try to get them on board to vote for him next fall, do any of you have ideas on how that might be done?


    Nixon wanted to shut the Times down. (none / 0) (#109)
    by AX10 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:44:33 AM EST
    Too bad he never did it.

    They need to stop discussing FL (none / 0) (#78)
    by Step Beyond on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:30:03 AM EST
    From Naked Politics

    Unpledged superdelegates Rep. Tim Mahoney and Ron Klein got a chance to meet today with Barack Obama who told them he'll see that the Florida delegation is at the party's convention this summer with "their party hats on."

    But, Mahoney said, Obama remains concerned about seating the delegation in a way that reflects the unsanctioned January primary.

    "He understands it's important that the Florida delegates get seated and he's committed to doing that,'' Mahoney said. "At the same time he's concerned that the primary wasn't reflective of how well he could have done had he campaigned in the state.''

    HE CHOSE NOT TO CAMPAIGN. I seriously would love to be on hand when someone says that just so I can yell that out. Why can't they understand that seating the delegates isn't what matters, it's seating the delegates according to the vote.

    But, he did campaign in FL through media (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by oculus on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:33:10 AM EST
    buys and a presser after a fund raiser.

    And that does count. (none / 0) (#94)
    by Eleanor A on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:38:36 AM EST
    Particularly if his people are going to continue to cling to this "roolz" business as an excuse to disenfranchise.

    don't forget (none / 0) (#96)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:38:47 AM EST
    the Kennedy endorsement and all the press was on the eve of the Florida vote, that was mega campaigning.  And he still lost, like he did in Florida.  

    When he CHOSE NOT TO CAMPAIGN (none / 0) (#189)
    by Newt on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:56:25 AM EST
    he was simply following the DNC party rules. You know, the ones that they both signed when they agreed to them...?

    Comments closing (none / 0) (#193)
    by Jeralyn on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:02:29 AM EST
    It's 1 am and if I don't close this thread now, the comments will be at 350 by morning when I wake up. Thanks for your thoughts, and get some sleep.

    Last minute (none / 0) (#203)
    by janarchy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:16:27 AM EST
    Thanks for the video clip, Jeralyn. It's the one thing that made me smile tonight. :)