Friday’s campaign round-up

Today’s installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn’t generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:

* I get the sense that supporters of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are borderline obsessed with hypothetical general-election polls, each hoping to prove they could beat John McCain while the other couldn’t. In the newest fuel for the fire, Time magazine shows Clinton and McCain tied nationally at 46%, while the same poll found Obama leads McCain, 48% to 41%. The pollster who conducted the survey said, that “independents tilt toward McCain when he is matched up against Clinton, but they tilt toward Obama when he is matched up against the Illinois Senator.”

* Clinton wants weekly debates, Obama isn’t anxious to have any more debates at all. Yesterday, Obama agreed to two more debates, so long as one of them is in Ohio. “We have such a compressed schedule, it is important for us to be able to travel around Ohio as much as possible. Whenever there is a debate, that is a day that is lost,” he said.

* The race for the Republican nomination is over? Not officially: “Mike Huckabee said Thursday he will continue his quest for the Republican nomination, and directly appealed for support from backers of Mitt Romney’s now suspended presidential bid. ‘As a true authentic, consistent, conservative, I have a vision to bring hope, opportunity and prosperity to all Americans, and I’d like to ask for and welcome the support of those who had previously been committed to Mitt,’ Huckabee said in a statement. ‘This is a two-man race for the nomination, and I am committed to marching on.'”

* Whether this is an elaborate head-fake is unclear, but Rush Limbaugh told his audience yesterday that he’s considering raising money for Hillary Clinton, to help her get the Democratic nomination. The phrase Limbaugh used was, “Keep her in it so we can win it.”

* You may have noticed that Bill Clinton is keeping a lower profile these days. That’s not an accident — the former president conceded yesterday that he probably went a little overboard in the week leading up to the South Carolina primary. “The mistake that I made is to think that I was a spouse like any other spouse who could defend his candidate… I think I can promote Hillary but not defend her, because I was president,” he said.

* Obama encouraged Hillary Clinton to follow his lead and release her and her husband’s income tax returns. “I’ll just say that I’ve released my tax returns. That’s been a policy I’ve maintained consistently. I think the American people deserve to know where you get your income from. But I’ll leave it up to you guys to chase it down,” Obama told reporters on a flight to Nebraska.

* CNN: “In an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-California, explained and defended the involvement of so-called ‘superdelegates’ in picking her party’s presidential nominee. Superdelegates were established, Pelosi explained, in order to allow grassroots Democratic activists to attend the nominating convention without having to compete with high-ranking Democratic party officials for a coveted spot on the convention floor. ‘So, again, I don’t think that members of Congress, governors and senators are not attuned to what’s happening in their states and in their districts,’ said Pelosi.”

* Obama picked up two gubernatorial endorsements yesterday: Chet Culver of Iowa and Christine Gregoire of Washington state.

* Hillary Clinton picked up the support yesterday of Arkansas Senator Blanche Lincoln.

* Oddly enough, we still don’t know who won New Mexico’s Democratic presidential primary.

* The “F7” February 7 fundraiser was billed as a “grassroots campaign by Rightroots to mobilize thousands of Republican donors to contribute to our party’s nominee on Thursday, February 7, 2008.” How’d they do? They raised $2,290 dollars from 26 donors. Ouch.

Steve, yesterday when I saw the Time poll article, I couldn’t find a margin of error. Did you?

  • Times poll has been the same for months. Have you ever listened to any of their writers on Hardball praising the golden boy as the savior of the second coming. Not that I wouldn’t vote for Barack but less get seriuos it is their way of tring to influnce the electorate. After the fire dies it will be all McCain all the time in Time and MSNBC no mattter who the democratic nominee is. I don’t beleive any of the polls that come out.

    One other note on Baracks Governor endorsements he doesn’t do to well with them.

  • I wonder why Clinton can’t beat McCain? Maybe because the Iraq war* issue is practically off the table?

    DUH.

    * Yeah, that old thing. Isn’t it over? That is so yesterday.

  • I have never voted for a democrat in my life (1992 was my first election).

    I will vote for Obama if he is on the ballot in November.

    I would never vote for Hillary, Chelsea or Bill Clinton for anything. They are some of the biggest crooks in our nation’s history.

    I do not understand how the issue of character is so overlooked in the Democratic Primaries. This issue will not be overlooked in the General Election. The lack of emphasis on the issue of character in the primaries could be the Democrats downfall this year, should Hillary gain your nomination.

    Does anybody dispute this?

  • The reason why Obama can beat McCain is because he does not have the major character flaws that Hillary has.

  • I’m one of those Indies. I voted for Billy twice. I’m not about to pull the trigger on a Clinton again.

    Obama’s got my vote, but Clinton v. McCain…I’ll be voting libertarian again.

  • “independents tilt toward McCain when he is matched up against Clinton, but they tilt toward Obama when he is matched up against the Illinois Senator.”

    How come it is so difficult for democrats to see this? The Clintons are a very polarizing family. Independents don’t like them.

    There is nothing corrupt or untrustworthy about Obama. He is a president we can be proud of.

  • Oh yeah, and the reason I am an independent? Because of Bill Clinton’s Era of Scandal and Corruption.

    I used to be a democrat. I even voted for Dukakis.

  • “I don’t think that members of Congress, governors and senators are not attuned to what’s happening in their states and in their districts,’ said Pelosi.”

    Oh yeah, that’s for sure, Ms Pelosi. You’re so “attuned” that your job approval is even lower than the worst president ever. You’re so “attuned” that you think the worst president ever should be left alone so that you can pass all your watered down legislation that he will simply veto or ignore.

    Jesus fucking christ on a pogostick we need new leadership.

  • Geeze, isn’t this the same stuff I am being yelled at and called wrong for saying in another comment section?

    Hillary cannot unite our country. Too many people hate her.

    Obama is a fresh face that moderates and independents will give a chance. There is no outstanding hate against him.

    Hillary and Obama have very similar political views, but Obama doesn’t have the tarnished reputation. So why not go with the guy we can trust over the gal who will sell her values to the highest bidder?

  • I spent 8 years defending my party against right wing whackos attacking my president’s character in the 90’s. You know what? I’m tired of it. And you know what else? Those attacks were not baseless, the Clintons were tremendously flawed in many areas.

    I’m finished defending the Clintons. We have a new face of our party in Barack. Let him step in and represent us with pride.

    No need to return to the bickering of the 90’s. Going to sit back and enjoy Barack’s ride. It is much more pleasant on this side of the line than trying to make excuses for Hillary.

  • of course the Clintons have a tarnished reputation because. . . people like our commenters keep tarnishing their reputation!

    nice bootstrapping argument ya got there.

    todays Electric Company is brought to you by the number 4 and the word “tautology.”

  • SaM Malone #5 said:

    The reason why Obama can beat McCain is because he does not have the major character flaws that Hillary has.

    Yeah, and Obama doesn’t have the major character flaws that McCain has either.

    !Beware of candidates who’s only goal in life is to be President of the Unted States for no good reasons!

  • Zeigeist do you really think that the press is 100% responsible for Hillary’s bad reputation? Do you deny the dirty tactics they used running up to SC? Do you really think her judgement has been as good as Obama’s?

    I agree with you that the press is unfair to her. Hillary hating is a sport. And whenever Chris Matthews gloats over her weeping or something I feel BETTER about her, not worse, because the media has been treating Democrats badly for a long time.

    And yet despite this I have a negative opinion of Hillary. The media did not do this for me. She and Bill did it ALL BY THEMSELVES with their behavior.

  • Take a look at what Joe Wilson says when comparing Obama and Hillary’s credentials on Foreign policy. Wilson knows how important foreign policy will be since he was a Republican/Democratic appointed Ambassador and since his wife was a CIA agent.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-wilson/the-real-hillary-i-know-_b_77878.html

    Trust Obama at our peril. We already know what happens when we put an inexperienced, unknowledgable, naif in charge of our international relations. We don’t need another easily led, act on gut feelings, President.

  • I have to admit, McCain makes me nervous. he may just swipe enough votes from swingers and indies that he could win. I just can’t even contemplate another Republican President. If he does get elected, America is toast.
    Having said that, I will have to vote for Obama, for two reasons: He matches up against MCCain better, and he will pull us out of Iraq sooner than the other two.

  • zeitgeist, is it tarnishing the Clinton’s reputation to bring up Hillary’s wrong-headed votes? Is it tarnishing their reputation to bring up Bill’s championing of NAFTA and his loss of the Congress? How about Bill’s recent junket to Kazakhstan?

    To say that they had Vince Foster killed, or to say that they enriched themselves fraudulently through Whitewater is to indeed tarnish their reputation.

    To say that Bill invoked Executive Privilege (And was shot down by the court) in an attempt to keep his aides from being questioned in the Lewinsky investigation is a simple fact.

    There’s a profound difference between mindless ad hominem attacks and stating the factual reasons why you’d prefer that someone other than another Clinton should be the nominee.

  • Zeitgeist @ 13: of course the Clintons have a tarnished reputation because. . . people like our commenters keep tarnishing their reputation!

    Phew. I’m glad you explained it. Let’s ignore Whitewater, pardons for sale, Lewinsky, the failed health care plan, and Bill’s way-out-of-line campaign rhetoric. None of that matters; the Clintons’ reputation problems are the fault of the commenters here.

    Me, I like both candidates and would vote for either, though I have a slight preference for Obama. However, I think it’s crazy to assert that the Clintons’ reputation problems are manufactured by anyone other than the Clintons.

    In a way, you’re right, though: if everyone would just ignore bad behavior from the Clintons, they would have a great reputation. Maybe your word for tomorrow can be “sophistry”?

  • You beat me to it, Jen @ #9. I was going to say that this must be what Ron Paul-bots morph into when their boy’s fifteen minutes of fame are up.

    And based on the continuity of grammar and spelling errors in a lot of these posts, I suspect that there’s one guy filing under multiple identities to try and make it appear like there’s more than one of him. It’s not working, but ten points for being a scheming little weasel. 😉

  • The pollster who conducted the survey said, that “independents tilt toward McCain when he is matched up against Clinton, but they tilt toward Obama when he is matched up against the Illinois Senator.

    It is a no brainer.
    And should he beat her in November.
    I’ll need stitches for a gut busted open from laughing….

    And trust me, I will be so divested from politics by then…
    It won’t be pretend laughter:

    http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=103274&title=hillarys-laugh-track

  • Huckabee has just said for he umteenth time that he has beaten the “Clinton Political Machine” four times. Does anyone know what he is talking about?

  • ROTFLM:
    You make some
    interesting comments sometimes.
    But the stream of….
    consciousness style makes them.

    Really hard to parse
    If you wrote more like prose…
    people would pay.
    More attention.

    To you. That said…
    there is some charm to the
    more poetic style.

    Post however you want, I just thought…
    you might not know that your message
    is sometimes lost…
    because of…
    its form

  • Danp@22,

    I think that he means the Arkansas Democratic party. My guess is that they stopped being a part of “Clinton Political Machine” and returned to electing Arkansas Democrats to office as soon as Clinton left the governorship. Makes a nice sound bite though.

  • I love this.

    You guys have an easy road to the White House in Barack Obama.
    Yet you are going to put up a candidate who might lose to McCain in Hillary.

    Why? Because you are stubborn and unwilling to accept change. You think that nominating Hillary to lose to McCain somehow justifies the Clinton Scandals.

    And now we are going to have a 100 yr war in Iraq. Everytime an Iraqi baby dies, remember that you could have stopped it by voting for Obama over Hillary.

    Meanwhile, I’m going to spend my tax saving on a nice gas guzzling SUV!!!

    LONG LIVE REPUBLICANS!!
    THANK YOU DEMOCRATS FOR VOTING FOR HILLARY!!

  • Do you think the TRUTH ABOUT VINCE FOSTER comes out in September or October of the General Election?

  • todays Electric Company is brought to you by the number 4 and the word “tautology.”

    Gee, and here I thought it was brought to me by the number 2 (as in the number of factions in charge) and the word “oligarchy”.

  • #4 Sam Malone says:
    “I have never voted for a democrat in my life (1992 was my first election).

    I will vote for Obama if he is on the ballot in November.

    I would never vote for Hillary, Chelsea or Bill Clinton for anything. They are some of the biggest crooks in our nation’s history.”

    #12 Sam Malone says:
    “I spent 8 years defending my party against right wing whackos attacking my president’s character in the 90’s. You know what? I’m tired of it. And you know what else? Those attacks were not baseless, the Clintons were tremendously flawed in many areas.

    I’m finished defending the Clintons. We have a new face of our party in Barack. Let him step in and represent us with pride.”

    Funny that you’ve never voted for a Democrat yet spent 8 years defending “your party” against against the right wing whackos.

    I smell a right-wing-whacko-concern-troll.

  • WHY ARE PEOPLE VOTING FOR HILLARY?

    DO THEY WANT MORE DEAD IRAQI BABIES?

    A VOTE FOR HILLARY IS THE SAME AS VOTING FOR MCCAIN!!!!

  • Concerned Democrat / Republican Dominance:

    Please knock it off. Or learn to spell Hilary. Or stop using all caps to misspell it.

  • You have to love Rush:

    He was dumping all over McCain for weeks. He said that he would rather have a democrat win than McCain win.

    Now, in less than 24 hours, he has decided the best chance McCain has is to face Clinton.

    It might be true that McCain’s best chance is against CLinton but it appears that Limbaugh is going to forget everything he has said over the last few months about McCain. I wonder if he will use the prescription drug excuse?

  • Sam Malone has wandered into the wrong bar -but I’m sure Norm and Cliff will be along shortly to take him back to “Cheers.”

  • In my very humble opinion, the sex scandals of the Clinton administration actually helped the man as a politician. Certainly, they hampered his legislative ability to get anything done. However, it is impossible to critique the Clinton administration because any critique is met (rapidly) by the accusation of Clinton hating.

    I could give a rat’s ass whether he cheated on his wife or not; it was beyond stupid and childish that the Republicans hounded him nearly out of office over it.

    It is possible to have nothing against the Clintons personally, while having a great deal against the policy decisions of the administration.

    Often, critiques of the administration throw in the “trust” issue in hopes of clinching the argument…which immediately invokes the irrational Clinton hatred clause of political discussion. This situation is clearly the fault of the critic; however, the situation has become so normalized that even if the critique remains entirely rational, the irrationality is simply assumed.

    In all such cases, the defense of NAFTA, welfare reform, banking “modernization”, etc. can be wholly ignored by the defender.

    Bill Clinton’s sexcapades may well have been his most brilliant, if unintentional, political move. And he may owe a debt of gratitude to the Republican party for spending eight years frothing at the mouth over them.

    But what do i know…i’m probably just an irrational Clinton hater.

  • #8 Independent voter said: “Oh yeah, and the reason I am an independent? Because of Bill Clinton’s Era of Scandal and Corruption.”

    Yeah, it’s so great the Bush was elected and restored dignity and ethics to the White House…

    I wonder how many of these so concerned independents who say they will vote for Obama actually will. I think their lips say “Obama” but their hearts say “The Republican”.

    I don’t think Democrats even need Independent and Republican voters this year. This primary season has seen Democrats voting at twice the numbers of Republicans, and that includes states with closed primaries. All the democrats need is their base to come out and we win.

    Why else is someone like Republican Dominatrix posting Vince Foster crap here? The poor neocons have no candidate and are stuck with McCain who they detest more than Hillary. They know this election is lost and now they’re just positioning themselves for the next 4 years of Democrat bashing. Expect to see more and more concern trolling in progressive blogs.

  • Well, if it helps get you all off the Hillary Hate, consider that Condi Rice is being pushed as a possible VP for McCain, according to Think Progress:

    Reporting from the Conservative Political Action Conference, the Wall Street Journal notes that conservative activists Crystal Dueker and Rich Holt are attempting to build support for their 527 group Think Condi, “a grassroots movement to get the secretary of state on the presidential ticket as vice president. Dueker and Holter said “they believe Rice is the best running mate for McCain in part because she can bring Bush supporters into the fold who may be wary of his one-time electoral foe.”

    Kinda shifts the focus a bit, huh?

  • Ooohh! Condoleeza Rice as the running mate for McCain?

    I love the smell of a Democratic victory in the morning.

  • Brooks @ #31:

    Please knock it off. Or learn to spell Hilary. Or stop using all caps to misspell it.

    WTF?
    More. Better. Self. Assigned. Stupid. Thread. Cops. Please.

  • It’s pathetic that people who have access to the internet still believe the lies about the Clintons regarding Vince Foster, Whitewater, and so on and so on and so on. And it’s also pathetic that they believe Clinton has no defense against these “arguments”. She could shoot them down easily by laughing in their faces and pointing out that they *are* all lies, that even Ken Starr wasn’t able to find any law-breaking.

    Not that they’d listen. They’re blinded by their Hilary Hate.

    I’m voting for Obama. I like his politics marginally better. But if there’s one thing New Hampshire proved, it that the more the repubs and the media trash Clinton, the more the voters *like* her. Anyone who really wants Obama over Clinton, be mindful not to let Hilary Hate blind you.

  • Anne: Kinda shifts the focus a bit, huh?

    I think it is a fascinating idea.
    Very exciting. Going to create lots of buzz.
    It will invigorate that tired-old-man ticket with a shot of Gender-itol.
    I see it as a real win-win for the Republicans; who have, let’s face it, a knack for choosing the best possible candidates from what’s available to them.

  • Regardless of what CB posts, it seems every comment section devolves into Clinton v Obama, so rather than spew the same old shit, let me ask the Clinton-bashers this — how much of the hate you harbor for them is based on fact and how much is based on:
    (1) they way they were trashed by the Republicans for denying GHWB his rightul second term?
    (2) the sheer number of investigations of them that really never turned up any wrong doing?
    (3) the way they were and continue to be scrutinized in the media vs the free pass that teflon-Ronnie and now GWB have been given?
    (3) the fact that HRC is a woman, and some people just can handle a woman with ambition (like men politicians aren’t ambitious?)

    I’m no Clinton apologist and I’ll vote Obama next Tuesday, but anytime hatred runs so deep as it does against the Clintons, it’s time to examine the source — and that means the people who harbor hatred, not the object of it.

  • Condi for VP! What a masterstroke for the Republicans: run a VP nominee who will remind voters at every turn of the man whose name the Republican candidates have almost completely failed to utter other than in “the Bush tax cuts”.

  • One thing I think we have to take into account when looking at those “who beats McCain polls” is that the polls have been off alot this year and many times Obama has been polling higher than his actual voting day numbers (and sometime the reverse- same for Hillary)/
    Also remember Kerry was beating Bush in these type of polls by larger numbers at this point in 2004. In short, the polls tell us very little. We should go back to every person making the choice that they think is best and see where that takes us.

  • Monica Lewinsky’s ex-boyfriend’s wife is now claiming that she is the “candidate of dreams”… Nightmares more likely, Mrs. Clinton. Continuing the Bush occupation of Ireq and Afghanistan and keeping American health care corporate. What a foul choice a Hillary nomination would give us: Corporate Hillary or Canal Zone John McCain. It would enough to make some of us want to move north to lovely Canada. Pray for an Obama victory and an honest counting of our votes.

  • how much of the hate you harbor for them is based on fact and how much is based on

    I don’t hate Clinton, so it isn’t any of the reasons you provided.

    I’m just not a big fan of oligarchies.

  • I’m voting for Obama. I like his politics marginally better. But if there’s one thing New Hampshire proved, it that the more the repubs and the media trash Clinton, the more the voters *like* her. Anyone who really wants Obama over Clinton, be mindful not to let Hilary Hate blind you.

    Case and point, Memekiller, after watching Obama’s speech on Tuesdays:

    Obama answered all my reservations in that speech.

    God, I love that man.

    Memekiller, after two days of listening to Obama supporters:

    Here’s an idea, Doc — I think it would be real smart to agree that all your fellow Obama supporters are cock suckers, and that because I hate them, they can’t possibly be electable.

  • “the Bush tax cuts”

    Actually Dennis, I think the phrase resounds in the body politic this way: “tax cuts.”
    And therein lies the problem for the Dems in November:
    Everybody is hurting financially.
    Everybody feels every dime taken away in every paycheck.
    Everybody wants a tax cut. No wait…
    EVERYBODY WANTS A TAX CUT!

    So here is the problem for the Dems: How do you win the tax cut game in November?
    You see the problem? The “Bush tax cuts” thing doesn’t necessarily gain traction with our high-school educated electorate. They don’t differentiate out the “Bush” part. Worse, here is what does impact them: Their paychecks aren’t big enough!

    It is a very difficult argument for the Dems to make. “Bush tax cuts” demands a voter’s attention span gets engaged by the chosen candidate. There is no room for error. It will take charisma to sell it. Like Bill Clinton had in the run-up to 1992.

    Whereas the republicans will keep their message simple:
    Their slogan in the fall will be:
    Tax cuts. Tax cuts. Tax cuts.
    And that my friend, will resonate powerfully.

  • Zeitgest:

    You have to have your head in the sand to be completely unaware of the vast amount of damage the Clintons have done to themselves just in the past month to claim that noting tarnished reputation is somehow the tautological. Nobody here made Hillary get up and smile through her teeth on a stage with Bob Johnson while he called Obama, in effect, an Uncle Tom (Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner? REALLY?). Nobody made her do that, and nobody fabricated that. Nobody here prevented her from denouncing those comments; she chose instead to lamely (and inaccurately) defend Johnson on them. Nobody here made her campaign go on background as calling Obama the “black candidate” or made Bill dismiss Obama as another Jesse Jackson.

    There’s nothing tautological about any of that.

    What is tautological is claiming that anyone who thinks lowly of Hillary does so for irrational reasons, and her reputation is tarnished only by those who dislike her irrationally… it’s a nice closed feedback loop you concocted out of whole-cloth there, and Hillary must be pure and good because, well, if only there weren’t these crazy people who think lowly of her, then her reputation wouldn’t be bad, and if her reputation wasn’t bad, then there wouldn’t be people who think lowly of her!

    Nice.

    But no.

    I used to like the Clintons, a lot. They’ve burned all their bridges with me, and that’s a very rational response to the smut they were peddling in January. They brought this upon themselves of late, which makes me question the assumption that they were just victims in the 90’s, too. No doubt the GOP was crazy going after them, but it doesn’t seem so crazy (anymore) to think that maybe they did some of that work themselves. They certainly have of late.

  • I don’t think that members of Congress, governors and senators are not attuned to what’s happening in their states and in their districts…

    If this is an argument for having rules that allow the super delegates to take the nomination away from the candidate who won the most pledged delegates, via eligible voters, and giving it to the other candidate, then it’s an extremely weak one.

  • Beep52:

    Regardless of what CB posts, it seems every comment section devolves into Clinton v Obama…

    This is a nice observation. Dead on true. I’m sure most of us have noticed it, but Beep should get 2 points added to his commenting account for bringing it into prime time. And I want 4 points for amending these observations onto Beep’s:

    First:

    This is the political argument of our lifetimes.
    I seriously doubt we will ever see another election like this one for many election cycles.
    Never before have I had so many conversations with perfect strangers regarding: Barack or Hillary. It seems to just spontaneous ignite. People are engaged. Like never before.

    [Note to the Obama campaign people reading this: You need to dump several millions into defeating the “experienced” meme. It really is all she has got. They are clinging to it. Find a way to kill that. Hurry. Get Zbigniew Brzezinski out there. etc. etc. etc.]

    Second:

    This is the first inter-party spat to be battled on the net.
    Yeah Howard Dean had net roots. But this is several orders of magnitude different.
    This is the first real engagement of net roots, from the very beginning to the very end.
    And after 4 years of anything goes in the left blogosphere versus right blogosphere arena….
    The hostile language that was allowed to proliferate there….
    Has quite natually, seeped into Barack versus Hillary affair.
    It is anything goes…
    And the left has no one to blame but themselves…
    It might even be a good thing.

  • The Clintons started getting attacked before Bill stuck his hand on the Bible. Dems had already caved and made the hatred bipartisan, the press had begun with Whitwater shortly thereafter, and the Republicans felt “robbed” because after 25 years of Republican Presidents with a brief Carter intermission, that was the way of the world, and all they had to do was rid themselves of the Democratic Congress and the country would be one big Republican family. Clinton had broken the rules by winning when Mr. 95% approval had been a shoe-in. As Digby says, Conservatism is failed, never fails.

    Back then, no one had our leaders’ backs, and the spineless Leibercrats were scrambling to make any investigation bipartisan and thereby legitimized all the scandals, and Clinton renewing the Independent Prosecutor statute and refusing to fire Freeh, and Reno giving the GOP every single thing they wanted to dig through his underwear drawer to appear above board. As today, “open-minded” Dems are always on hand to agree with anything you accuse any leading Democrat of, and to complain how their candidate falls short of Jesus when he’s running against George W. Bush.

    We had no infrastructure in place to push back until the rise of blogs, MediaMatters and ThinkProgress, Cable News was entering the OJ Simpson trial era, talk radio was in ascendence, Drudge was figuring out how to inject lies into the bloodstream of the national discourse, the wack-os were unchecked and imbalanced, and Dems were all attempting to out “third way” Clinton by shifting right. Conservative Think Tank meme-generators had reached their nadir. Clinton was alone, with all of DC against him, and only the support of the American people keeping him aloft.

    Back then, people didn’t realize how bald-faced Republicans lied, and assumed there was some truth to it, they didn’t think Republicans could be angry for cynically partisan reasons, and assumed we had brought it on ourselves, they didn’t believe you could pursue an investigation for purely political reasons, and that where there’s smoke there’s fire, and liberals thought, since they hated the extremists on the right, they were not extremist if they hated the extremist straw-men of the left.

    So, you had Clinton alone, no one watching his back, a public that had not yet been duped by the new tricks of the cable news/talk radio/Drudge game, a cowed Democratic Party, and no one willing to say it was BS out of fear of looking like a blind partisan. Then, just when people started to catch on to the new Gingrich politics and realize all these fruitless investigations had gone nowhere, the idiot Bill Clinton got caught doing something he actually did with an intern, thus giving his enemies the opening they had been striving for for years. And I’ll never forgive him for that.

    Today, the conservative movement is shattering, not ascendant, the public has caught on to the politics of swiftboating, we have our own memekillers in place, and a united, enthusiastic party watching our leader’s backs and not leaving them hanging out to dry. Harry Reid has yet to catch up to us, but so it goes.

    As you can tell, the rules have changed. McCain can’t get away with the swiftboat smears so easily, and will be acting “statesmanlike”, attacks on Clintons always backfire and make them more popular, and Obama is teflon. The Republicans will still refuse to compromise and be obstructionist, but will have much, much smaller majorities, and we will be able to strip leiberman of his committee assignments and replace Reid.

    The game has changed.

  • I want to piggy-back on Michael’s no. 49 post.

    I too have rational reasons for being extremely uncomfortable with Senator Clinton. Of course, for most of us, it began with her refusal to admit her mistake regarding her vote for the war authorization. But that was one issue…a significant issue…but just one.

    Then, not long before the Iowa caucuses…she voted in favor of Kyl-Lieberman. What was she thinking?

    Then, if you recall, when Obama began to gain traction…still in Iowa…all those trial and error attacks (kindergarten paper, drug use, etc.).

    Then…New Hampshire. Personally, I had no problem with Clinton’s MLK remark. I thought it was a weak argument, but I didn’t see it as offensive (maybe because I’m white). What I did find offensive, however, is for her to accuse those who took offense (Brazil, Clyburn and others) of being Obama orchestrated puppets. The backlash from her comments was genuine, but that didn’t stop her from falsely blaming the Obama campaign for the controversy (i.e. she lied).

    Then…Nevada. She lied about Obama’s comments regarding Reagan (while listing him as one of her favorite presidents on her website) and lied entirely about his comments regarding the Republicans being the “party of ideas”.

    You see, this is how my mistrust takes root. Bad judgment is one thing (Iraq, Kyl-Lieberman). Weak arguments are something else (the fact that Obama removed his speech from his website is evidence of something or belittling Obama’s ethics legislation or discouraging “false hope”).

    But, for me, lying is another thing altogether. Not just one lie…but lie after lie after lie:

    She lied about Obama orchestrating the MLK flap.

    She lied to Iowa and New Hampshire voters when she pledged not to support the seating of MI/FL delegates until a nominee is selected.

    She lied about Bob Johnson’s reference to Obama’s admitted drug use as a young man.

    She lied when she pledged not to campaign in Florida.

    She lies when she says or implies that she wanted to give the inspectors more time (big, giant lie).

    She lies about the contents and meaning of the Levin Amendment, which she voted against.

    We all know nice people that we warn others about: “He’s cool, but don’t believe a word he says.” Hillary Clinton has become one of those people. So, I don’t believe her when she says that she’ll release her income tax returns if she gets the nomination. (If, as some claim, she has a good reason for not releasing them, then she should make that argument. Instead, she says “I’ll release them later.”)

    If Zeitgest and Anne and others want to believe that people who feel as I do are “irrational” and conditioned by the right-wing media…then so be it. But holding onto such belief is, I would argue, itself irrational.

  • I think the polls are way off because they usually poll “likely voters” but when you look at the actual primary voters, dems are showing up in huge numbers while repubs just aren’t. If the number of voters is any indication, dems will win – no matter who the candidate is. People like to throw their opinions in the ring, but if they don’t get off their duffs and actually vote, it doesn’t matter.

    It’s sad to note that even dem-leaning people hate the Clintons because they bought into the “where there’s smoke there must be fire” mindset…

  • If Hillary is the Nominee I will certainly support her and if Obama is the Nominee I will certainly support him. The anti-Clinton attacks from the Right are well known. It now appears that the Religious Reich is going to try and push the Obama-Muslim button. They are stating that while his father was not Muslim, the man who “raised” him was and his mother was a “secular humanist”. The Repug smear machine is gearing up whichever way we go.

  • Another Election Night Blunder – Emily Carlson
    Another election night, another wrong projection.
    Late Super Tuesday, the Associated Press jumped the gun, calling Sen. Hillary Clinton the Democratic primary winner in the state of Missouri.
    An hour and twenty minutes later, they withdrew their call. Another hour and twenty minutes later, the AP gave the state to Sen. Barak Obama.
    The blunder brings back memories of the 2000 presidental election, when the media declared Florida to Al Gore, then withdrew the call and awarded the state to George Bush, only to then declare the state undecided.
    The aftermath of the mistake was ugly. Democrats and Republicans alike were irate at the media. Many voters went to bed thinking Al Gore was the winner, only to wake up to see the state was undecided. The public couldn’t understand how the media could screw up so bad.
    Eight years later, many viewers are still skeptical when the networks declare a “projection.”
    There is no excuse for these kind of mistakes. The public looks to the media for the facts. They want to know the truth. When colossial mistakes like calling a state for the wrong canidate happen, the media’s credibility chips away. Viewers don’t forget when huge blunders are made, and it takes a long time to earn that trust back. There’s really no excuse for it to happen again. This election could be the most watched/higest voter turnout in history. The media should be extra viligant to make sure the same mistakes don’t repeat themselves.
    http://emilyacarlson.wordpress.com/
    http://emilyannecarlson.tblog.com/
    http://clearblogs.com/emilycarlson/

  • Bottom Line:

    Like all of you. I know that health care is the most critical, and important issue facing the American people. Now, and in the coming elections. And like the vast majority of the American people, I want HR 676 (Medicare For All) passed into law NOW! “Single payer, Tax Supported, Not For Profit, True Universal Health Care” free for all as a right. Like every other developed country in the world has. See: http://www.house.gov/conyers/news_hr676.htm

    “HR 676:
    For church goers: less money to insur. companies and more to the church- lots more.
    Srs on Medicare: save way over $100/wk. Because no more medigap, long term care & dental insur. needed. No more drug bills.”

    But if we the American people fail to bring enough pressure on our current politicians to get HR 676 passed into law before the elections. We will have to identify, and replace all the politicians standing in the way of passage of HR 676. And, I think the best first place to start is with the politicians that blocked the bipartisan SCHIP bills for the kids. Passed by congress four times.

    But what about the President. It was Bush after all that blocked the bipartisan SCHIP bill passed by congress to assure more health coverage for Americas kids. So which of the presidential hopefuls do I think will be most supportive of implementing the demand of the majority of the American people to have HR 676 (Medicare For All) passed into law immediately!

    We have some very fine presidential candidates who would make good presidents. But none of the top Presidential candidates directly support HR 676, the only true Universal Health Care plan. So I am supporting Hillary Clinton. She is the only top candidate that has ever actually fought for universal health care before.

    I have enormous admiration, and respect for Hillary Clinton. She fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds back in 1993. To prevent this disastrous health care crisis that is now devastating the American people, and America. She fought so hard for the American people that she risk almost completely destroying her husbands presidency. I haven’t forgotten her heroic effort. If any Presidential hopeful for universal health care deserves my support, it’s her.

    Also, if we the American people fail to bring enough pressure on our government to give us HR 676 which we all so desperately need NOW! Then we will need the most skilled politician we can get on our side to broker the best health care plan for the American people that we can get. Though it will be less than we need, and less than we deserve. The politician I think to best do this is Hillary Clinton. The Clinton’s are probably the most skilled politicians in American history.

    The insurance industry, and medical industry that has been ripping you off, and killing you has given Hillary Clinton so much money because they fear her. They have also given Barack Obama so much money because they fear Hillary Clinton. They think they can manipulate Barack Obama against the best interest of the American people better than they can manipulate Hillary Clinton. There is no race issue with Hillary Clinton. The Clinton’s are the poster family for how African Americans want white people to be towards African Americans.

    As always, African Americans are suffering, and dieing in this health care crisis at a much higher rate than any other group in America. The last time there was any significant drop in the African American death rate was when Bill Clinton was president.

    My fellow Americans, you are dieing needlessly at an astounding rate. In higher numbers than any other people in the developed world. Rich, and poor a like. Insured, and uninsured. Young, and old. Men, women, children, and babies. And we the American people must stop it. And fix it NOW! Keep Fighting!!! Never! give up hope. There are millions of lives at stake. Bless you all… You are doing great!

  • Comments are closed.