If there's anything worse for a candidate than being attacked by the press, it's being ignored. Yet that is precisely the fate that's befallen Clinton, as per Charles Mahtesian's item in this morning's Politico: "...she’s struggling to get her message out and remain part of the campaign conversation . . ."
Mahtesian recalls the good old days for Clinton...but things have changed dramatically. Losing 11 consecutive contests by an average margin of 33% will do that to a candidate. As the old line goes, Hillary can't get herself arrested. Here's how Mathesian words his unkindest cut [emphasis added]: "It sometimes seems as if Clinton is no longer there, not quite a Democratic version of Mike Huckabee
If she loses on Tuesday I could see a case being made that she's irrelevant but to do so now is premature. Although I suppose for people who want Obama to be the nominee it helps his chances with Texas & Ohio.
Wow. That was really stupid. It comes off as a bad parody... and does Hillary really think that the voters want to see her endorsed by fictional characters (most of whom were villains)?
Seriously. Hillary should fire whomever produced this.
Clinton Leads Obama in Ohio, Even in Texas, Poll Says (Update1)
By Nadine Elsibai
March 2 (Bloomberg) -- Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are in a close battle for support among likely Texas primary voters, while Clinton leads Obama in Ohio, an American Research Group Inc. poll shows.
Clinton, a New York senator, and Obama, an Illinois senator, are tied with 47 percent support each among Texas voters, the poll conducted Feb. 29-March 1 found. A similar poll taken Feb. 27-28 had Obama leading 51-44 percent.
In Ohio, Clinton is ahead 51-44 percent among the state's likely Democratic primary voters. That's little changed from the 50-45 percent advantage she had in an earlier February poll. Four percent of voters in both Texas and Ohio remain undecided, the new poll found.
Democratic primaries in Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island and Vermont are scheduled for March 4. Clinton is counting on wins in Texas and Ohio to boost her standing after 11 straight losses to Obama.
The poll showed Clinton leading Obama 52 percent to 40 percent in Rhode Island, while trailing him 34 percent to 60 percent in Vermont. ...
These numbers might spell trouble for Obama as it suggests that Hillary has been able to stop his momentum & even caught back up in Texas. Texas like California has a huge latino population that pollsters have been undercounting. Also Obama had been recieving some dubious GOP crossover voting that may favor Hillary now that she's the underdog. Hillary could potentially walk away this Tuesday winning 3 out of the 4 states that are up for grabs.
Maybe, but as noted before it's generally accepted that she needs to not just win those states, but win big. However, neither of the polls in the article you cited show her doing that.
Today, on This Week with George Stephanopolis, they noted that she needs to pretty much win 75% of the delegates from here on out and that's a very tough row to hoe for anybody in her position.
Basically, the wins you're talking about give her an opportunity to further fracture the party which, I guess, is good for the GOP.
In fact, I'm sure you've seen that Rush Limbaugh is telling his listeners to cross party lines and vote for her in Texas and Ohio because he sees wins by her as fracturing the Democrat party.
The pundits (David Brooks, George Will, Donna Brazile and one other) made a similar observation on "This Week," insofar as the idea that she is going to fracture the party if she keeps this up until the convention.
The problem with that scenario is that a fracture happens because neither candidate was able to get the nomination by being the clear winner. If Obama continues his winning streak he'll win the nomination but if Hillary breaks his momentum on Tuesday & continues to do well it no longer becomes a case of Hillary fracturing the party.
Btw Obama doesn't automatically get my vote. I found his talk about being able to get Hillary votes & her not being able to get his divisive & self serving. That & a huge lack of experience.
Another Clinton supporter attacked the delegate selection process. Mind you, the Texas delegate selection plan was submitted in August of 2007. On November 7, 2007, the Texas Democratic Party announced that the DNC had approved its delegate selection plan. And, the TX Democratic Party put the approved plan on its website. But now, suddenly, we're to believe that the plan sucks.
But, wait. The Clinton campaign has come up with a strategy, via Burnt Orange Report:
Quote:
The Dallas Morning News is reporting that Clinton campaign training materials regarding Tuesday night's caucuses ominously advise supporters to take control of caucus sign-in sheets and vote tallies especially "if our supporters are outnumbered."
[Clinton caucus training material] goes on to say, "If our supporters are outnumbered, ask the Temporary Chair if one of our supporters can serves as the Secretary, in the interest of fairness*.
"The control of the sign-in sheets and the announcement of the delegates allotted to each candidate are the critical functions of the Chair and Secretary. This is why it is so important that Hillary supporters hold these positions."
Um, why is that? What do you plan on doing with those positions - in the interest of fairness, of course?
It makes sense that a campaign would try it's best to have these things Whomod. In a race where superdelegates are getting death threats because their not supporting Obama there is very little trust on the causus stuff.
From what I understand, a bunch of Clinton's advisors helped create the dual system. They're only balking now because Obama handily wins caucuses.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
Heading into an Ohio primary that has the potential to revive her presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton is holding onto a solid lead in the Buckeye state, according to a new poll of likely primary voters there.
Clinton receives support from 51 percent of probable Ohio Democratic primary voters while Barack Obama has the support of 42 percent of the same group, according to a new Ohio Poll released Monday (.pdf). The poll, conducted between Feb. 28 and March 2, shows Clinton increasing her support in Ohio since the previous poll a week ago, which showed her leading Obama 47-39. ...
...Barack Obama's senior economic policy adviser privately told Canadian officials to view the debate in Ohio over trade as "political positioning," according to a memo obtained by The Associated Press that was rejected by the adviser and held up Monday as evidence of doublespeak by rival Hillary Rodham Clinton....
Barack Hussein Obama isn't the only one with a record of doublespeak on NAFTA, however:
“I think everybody is in favor of free and fair trade,” Hillary Clinton said in 1996. “I think NAFTA is proving its worth.”
In her 2003 book, Living History, Clinton warmly calls NAFTA one of her husband’s “legislative victories.”
“I think, on balance, NAFTA has been good for New York and America,” she said in 2004.
Personally, I think Hillary was correct back in 1994-2003 when she was supporting NAFTA. Unfortunately, right now, pandering to the unions is a big deal for both candidates and attacking NAFTA is one of the ways they pander.
So, as a result, we're treated to two disingenuous candidates attacking something when probably neither of them really mean it.
Hillary wasn't caught secretly telling Canada to never mind her anti-NAFTA rhetoric where Obama has been. Much of his appeal is that he's somehow different from the politics as usual.
MEM, I'm not sure this latest defense of Hillary's you have going, namely, that both she and Obama are liars but it's only wrong when Obama does it, is a winner.
Basically, your argument seems to be boiling down to "it's okay for Hillary to lie and act like a typical politician because we expect that of her."
Is that really the spin you want to be trying to put out here? It comes close to admitting that Hillary has a long history of cynical, if not dishonest, behavior.
and I hadn't heard of this yet in the caption, but i'll check it out...
US Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama speaks to an audience about economic issues in Austin, Texas on February 28. A bitter row erupted Friday as Obama accused Clinton of scare tactics over a provocative presidential campaign ad hinting he was too inexperienced to protect US kids. (AFP/GETTY
(CNN) — On the heels of Hillary Clinton's new campaign ad suggesting Barack Obama is ill-equipped to handle an early-morning foreign policy crisis, the Illinois senator said he thinks his rival for the Democratic presidential nomination is becoming a "little desperate."
"I think she has got a little desperate toward the end of this campaign," Obama told ABC in an interview set to air Monday night. "[She] has been a lot more aggressive in her negative attacks."
Obama's comments come only days after the Clinton campaign released a hard-hitting television spot in Texas that portrays children asleep in their bed while a phone rings in the background. The ad's narrator raises the prospect of a foreign policy crisis and asks, "It’s 3 a.m. and your children are safe and asleep. Who do you want answering the phone?”
Obama's campaign denounced the ad, and the Illinois senator himself quickly hit back, saying Clinton's "red phone moment" came when she voted to authorize the war in Iraq. His campaign also released a rebuttal ad saying the person who answers the phone should be the one who had the "judgment and courage to oppose the Iraq war from the start."
"As I've pointed out, we've actually had a pretty significant moment in the last several years, that called people's judgment into question," Obama said in the ABC interview. "And that was the war in Iraq."
Speaking with reporters Sunday night, Clinton described the ad — and her tougher rhetoric on the trail — as an effort to draw distinctions between herself and Obama.
"I think it's a contrast that needed to be sharpened, because this is a big decision for people," she said. "And I want people to have as much information as possible as they make these decisions. So I think we are helping to get out the differences and raise some issues that are important."
That's an interesting way to spin what I said G-man & if that was actually what I was saying you would have a point.
My take however is that Obama is being selling himself as being better than the usual politician. That includes Keating 5 McCain as well as Hillary. When he does things like double speak on Nafta & it's proven that he's lying, he just shows he's just like the rest of them. Plus since his cult of followers have put him way up high on a pedastel it looks even worse.
My take however is that Obama is being selling himself as being better than the usual politician....
Again, however, by that argument you're saying that Hillary is selling herself as a "typical" politician. Is that really the argument she wants to be making?
Hillary wasn't caught secretly telling Canada to never mind her anti-NAFTA rhetoric where Obama has been. Much of his appeal is that he's somehow different from the politics as usual.
I have to agree. This is a real blow to Obama's integrity.
He's been exposed as a panderer, who says things he doesn't mean, just to get elected.
If Hillary can pull off primary wins in Texas and Ohio, I think the tide will turn, and the media as well will give Obama more scrutiny from this point forward.
Hillary is promoting herself as tougher than Obama. But the core of her argument is her superior experience, and tenacity to fight and win the really hard battles. I don't see her message so much being that she's a typical politician, as that she's a tough-as-shit SOB (or female equivalent) that nobody wants to mess with.
i dont think its an argument on her behalf, but rather an argument of why obama is worse than her. her claim is experience, track record, while his was i may not have done anything but im honest. so you take the honest away and now his platform is really nothing...
...btw my workplace is full of Obama zombies, and you wouldnt believe how this news played today, there was a considerable distancing from him by several people, many feeling duped. this story couldnt have came at a better time with the polls opening at 6:30 tomorrow morning here...
That's not an arguement she's making though. I'm making it.
Yes, but do you really think that's a persuasive argument on her behalf: that's she really no different or better than any other politician?
In reguards to campaign rhetoric it's just the truth. They all exagerate their own & each others records. Obama has been benefitting from the perception that he's somehow above that. Clearly not the case as we all know now.
That's not an arguement she's making though. I'm making it.
Yes, but do you really think that's a persuasive argument on her behalf: that's she really no different or better than any other politician?
With Hillary's record (to give one example) of voting to go to war in Iraq, and then pandering to the anti-war Left when things were going wrong, and now absolutely refusing to acknowledge the success of the Surge... no, I think it can be argued she's not any different, in her attempts to get on the bandwagon of popular issues, and dump them when they get unpopular.
With Obama's record in the Illinois Senate, where on politically sensitive issues he voted "present" instead of "yes" or "no" over 100 times, to avoid looking like the socialist liberal he truly is, I think he doesn't have any high ground to allege he's any less of a pandering typical which-way-is-the-wind-blowing politician. Of the two, I think Hillary might be the more clever and gutsy of the two.
I'd really like to see Hillary stay in the race at least a few weeks more, where Obama might have to actually endure some real scrutiny, on a level playing field with Hillary.
... I'd really like to see Hillary stay in the race at least a few weeks more, where Obama might have to actually endure some real scrutiny, on a level playing field with Hillary.
Is that because you see a benefit for McCain? I'm just asking because from what you've said in the past neither candidate seems to really have a chance at getting your vote. Personally I still like McCain & can't say I would feel that awful if he ended up winning. (unless he picks a VP that really scares me)
Anyway we should find out tomorrow if Hillary will be staying or going. If she doesn't win both big states it's really over unless something catastrophic happens to Obama's campaign before the convention. My guess is she'll have enough of a win tomorrow to stay in till the convention. If she wins 3 of the 4, Obama still maintains his frontrunner status but has to fight to keep Hillary from getting to close to closing the gap. Right now it's being played that she has to get to the convention with more pledged delegates to get the superdelegates to back her. I'm thinking she only has to get close enough to call it virtually a tie & have a chance at winning.
As you've seen in my recent comments, MEM, I'm very conflicted on McCain.
I support McCain for his criticism of Bush on the Iraq war over the last 4 years, along with Republican senators Hagel and Lugar, and Democrats Levin, Biden, and Lieberman, among others. Constructively critical, without exploiting the issue in a divisive fashion, as most of the Democrats and quite a few republicans have done.
McCain also has taken a stance throughout his career on deficit reduction. But I want a candidate who will not only end the deficit, but also reduce the now 9.2 trillion dollar debt.
But...
More importantly, I strongly oppose what McCain proposes for amnesty to illegals.
And also oppose the mess he's made with the McCain/Feingold bill for campaign finance reform.
There is so much that McCain supports that is in complete opposition to what Republican conservatism has been that I don't want to support him. If I was going to support the lesser of two evils as I did in 2004, I'd vote McCain. But that's a compromise I'm not willing to make, with an immigration policy that will change this country more negatively than costly foreign wars, and trillions in national debt.
I may vote Ralph Nader this year, as I did in 2000, in support of an alternative to the Republican and Democrat offerings.
I really lost enthusiasm for this election when Romney dropped out of the race, because I see him as the only candidate with the proven leadership to really move this country in a productive and truly conservative direction.
Romney's campaign took a while to clarify its message, and I think what he should have campaigned on from the beginning is his proven management skill toward long-term objectives --as a corporate executive in the private sector, as manager of an Olympics committee in Utah, and as governor of Masachussetts-- putting that state on a path away from deficit and toward long-term growth. As he has proven he could in all those positions, he would do with the nation. And with a 250-million-dollar personal fortune, Romney's a candidate who can pay for his own campaign, and doesn't have to make backroom deals to stay in the race. I see Romney as a leading contender in 2012 or 2016, now that he's made bridges in the Republican party by conceding early to McCain, and developing name recognition, along with political lessons learned. He will emerge in 4 years as a far stronger candidate.
McCain is worlds apart from Bush and the Neo-cons, but with immigration, campaign finance reform and other concessions, he still isn't a Republican I can wholeheartedly support.
Between McCain, Obama, and Hillary, I don't know which could do the most damage to the nation. I sincerely hope whichever wins the election, they pleasantly surprises us with unexpected vision and genius. This is a breaking point, and the country needs a true leader, not another G.H.W Bush, Bill Clinton, or George W. Bush.
I'm just surprised that MEM is so adamantly behind Clinton despite the fact that she continues to sink lower and lower character-wise.
I've received heat from Wonder Boy on account of the fact that Hillary has been orchestrating a lot of attacks. I disavow her vehemently because some if not A LOT of these attacks that can be traced directly to her doorstep, regardless if the right wing noise machine picks up the ball and runs with it. I wonder why you feel she is such a great candidate that you cannot similarly condemn or disavow her. THIS is not what the Democratic Party should be about.
Just this evening, the Canadian Government completely negated the story the Clinton campaign spread about Obama reassuring the CAN govt about Obama's comments about NAFTA just being lip service. That she spread this story in order to score points in NAFTA ravaged Ohio is despicable. It's a win at all costs mentality. And i'm sure no apology for spreading this crap will be forthcoming tomorrow.
and then this:
Quote:
Rachel Maddow:
"This is what you say if you want to be McCain's choice for Vice President. It is not what you say if you are running for the Democratic nomination."
Keith Olbermann:
"Unbelievable."
MEM?? WHAT THE FUCK??!!!
Olbermann did a good job of laying it out.
The LA Times also had a pretty good job on the disarray and finger pointing in Hillary's campaign and the tug of war and ego's in her camp. THIS quote was sort of telling:
The campaign also had trouble settling on a way to confront Obama. Top aides could not agree on whether, or how, to attack him.
"Why aren't we attacking him?" Bill Clinton asked at a high-level staff meeting Dec. 1 at the Clintons' Washington home, according to people familiar with events. With aides sitting around the dining room table, Bill Clinton said it was time to get more aggressive with Obama.
The following day, in Iowa, Hillary Clinton called a news conference to execute the strategy of questioning Obama's character. "Now the fun part starts," she said.
and even more telling:
Quote:
Last month, after a series of defeats, Hillary Clinton chose a new campaign manager, replacing Patti Solis Doyle. But she left in place many senior people, including Penn and Ickes, who have been involved in incessant turf wars.
As the campaign faces a make-or-break moment, some high-level officials are trying to play down their role in the campaign. Penn said in an e-mail over the weekend that he had "no direct authority in the campaign," describing himself as merely "an outside message advisor with no campaign staff reporting to me."
"I have had no say or involvement in four key areas -- the financial budget and resource allocation, political or organizational sides. Those were the responsibility of Patti Solis Doyle, Harold Ickes and Mike Henry, and they met separately on all matters relating to those areas."
Howard Wolfson, the campaign's communications chief, answered that it was Penn who had top responsibility for both its strategy and message. Another aide said Penn spoke to Clinton routinely about the campaign's message and ran daily meetings on the topic......
Penn countered that the reason for many of her defeats, particularly in smaller states, had been a lack of organization, not the message -- a swipe at Henry and others in field work.
In the end, Clinton backed Penn. Henry left the campaign. And Clinton has been casting herself as someone in the "solutions business" -- a message she repeats as she makes a stand in Ohio and Texas.
The campaign dubbed her final weekend appearances in Texas and Ohio "Solutions for America" rallies.
" 'Solutions for America,' " one campaign aide said. "It sounds like something you'd buy at the pharmacy."
Mark Penn just sounds like a fucking asshole with a losing strategy and a vicious streak of self-preservation and finger pointing for his crap strategy. And this again speaks volumes about Hillary Clinton's judgement and character.
Again, MEM, how in the hell do you condone her? In good conscience?
Obama responds to her "3AM" ad quickly and expertly.
Matt Yglesias has the Clinton campaign's attempt to answer a reporter's question "What foreign policy moment would you point to in Hillary's career where she's been tested by crisis?" That was the point of the Clinton campaign's 3 a.m. phone call ad, after all. Let's just say, Matt was less than impressed with the answer and notes "an uncomfortably long moment during which neither Mark Penn, Howard Wolfson and Lee Feinstein have anything to say."
In other Hillary Clinton leaps of logic and truthfulness, the Clinton campaign is now saying that if Obama doesn't win every single primary/caucus this coming Tuesday with a decisive victory, then he's lost big. Forget the fact that if she doesn't win 65% of the delegates in both Ohio and Texas, it's actually over for her - the math says she simply can't win the nomination without that margin of victory.
What's really disturbing here is that the Clinton campaign is making it clear that if Obama doesn't win Texas, Ohio, Vermont and Rhode Island on Tuesday, and by a huge margin, Hillary plans on staying in the race for the long haul, even if Tuesday is the coup de grace to her campaign. Yes, it sucks to lose, but once you've lost it's better to get out than take us all down with you. This race is getting far too bitter. It went from friendly competition to a death match about 4 weeks ago. If Hillary doesn't get her 65% of delegates in Ohio and Texas on Tuesday, she needs to accept that she lost, and quit the race. If she doesn't, then I suspect the negative attacks that are going to be making news next week won't be Hillary's at all. They're going to be from the rest of the party demanding that she concede.
It's starting to look more and more as if Hillary refuses to accept the fact that she's probably not going to be the Democratic nominee and she's willing to split the party to get what she feels is her due. And that is also part of her lack of appeal. This notion that she is owed this.
The math itself will tell you who is going to win the nomination. And currently, there is no way, even under a rosy scenario, that Hillary can get enough delegates to win.
Using delegate projection software created by Matt Vogel, I ran a scenario yesterday showing how tough it will be for Hillary Clinton to catch up to Barack Obama's earned delegate lead....
So -- under these most rosy of scenarios -- since March 4, she'll have earned 520 delegates to Barack Obama's 461, having reduced his earned delegate total by about 80 -- or -- by about 60 percent -- but he'll still have a lead of approximately 100 delegates in total.
Whomod the WP gave Obama a couple of Pinocios for some severe parsing of the facts on the Canada matter. He got caught & it's just stupid to think another campaign isn't going to use it.
