Rasmussen is showing Hillary steadilly gaining ground while Obama has been losing ground. As noted by others some polling outright claims Obama has recovered from his Wright problem. Rasmussen
So Obama lied about sending someone to Canada to reassure them about his NAFTA rhetoric. Politician pad, exagerate & lie.
I wouldn't be bringing that up if I were you. Especially in light of the fact that it was later revealed that it was in fact CLINTON who reasurred the Canadians and not Obama. But if you want to walk around beleiving Hillary's own spin, considering she now has a BIG credibility problem, that's your own delusion, I guess.
Quote:
One story ">out of Toronto today seems to confirm that the conservative Prime Minister's very conservative chief of staff started the ball rolling by telling reporters that Clinton aides -- not Obama -- had provided assurances that the rhetoric was hotter than the reality.
A lot of murk on how it shifted to Obama. But there's also a theory percolating that the story -- really, a pretty unusual invasion of domestic politics by a foreign government -- was "a bum rap cooked up by Canadian rightwingers" to hurt Obama and produce a long slog that will help the GOP.
Y'know, MEM, it's really sad that you seem to be blindly for the candidate that would deceive and mislead you and who's rhetoric is in stark contrast for what she's campaigned and voted for..
Quote:
Hillary's NAFTA Lie Clinton Distortion Kills Her Credibility on Trade Policy
March 22, 2008
by John Nichols.
What is the proper word for the claim by Hillary Clinton and the more factually disinclined supporters of her campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination - made in speeches, briefings and interviews (including one by this reporter with the candidate) - that she has always been a critic of the North American Free Trade Agreement?
Now that we know from the 11,000 pages of Clinton White House documents released this week that former First Lady was an ardent advocate for NAFTA; now that we know she held at least five meetings to strategize about how to win congressional approval of the deal; now that we know she was in the thick of the manuevering to block the efforts of labor, farm, environmental and human rights groups to get a better agreement. Now that we know all of this, how should we assess the claim that Hillary's heart has always beaten to a fair-trade rhythm?
Now that we know from official records of her time as First Lady that Clinton was the featured speaker at a closed-door session where 120 women opinion leaders were hectored to pressure their congressional representatives to approve NAFTA; now that we know from ABC News reporting on the session that "her remarks were totally pro-NAFTA" and that "there was no equivocation for her support for NAFTA at the time;" now that we have these details confirmed, what should we make of Clinton's campaign claim that she was never comfortable with the militant free-trade agenda that has cost the United States hundreds of thousands of union jobs, that has idled entire industries, that has saddled this country with record trade deficits, undermined the security of working families in the US and abroad, and has forced Mexican farmers off their land into an economic refugee status that ultimately forces them to cross the Rio Grande River in search of work?
As she campaigns now, Clinton says, "I have been a critic of NAFTA from the very beginning."
But the White House records confirm that this is not true.
Her statement is, to be precise, a lie.
When it comes to the essential test of the trade debate, Clinton has been identified as a liar - a put-in-boldface-type "L-I-A-R" liar.
Hillary sure seems to have trouble saying the truth, eh MEM? But now that you know what a DLC Democrat is, it stands to reason. THIS is what they do. Stoke the base with empty rhetoric but vote for their corporate donors.
Hillary spokesman now says "on one occasion she misspoke" about Bosnia - no, she said it four times over as many months.
Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson told reporters yesterday that Hillary only misspoke "on one occasion" when she told voters that she arrived in Bosnia in 1996 under sniper fire and had to run for cover after the opening ceremony was canceled because of the gunfire. That's a flat-out lie. Hillary made similar claims at least fourtimes since last December. And what's worse, her campaign repeatedly defended the "misspoken" comments, and even sent surrogates out to defend them, claiming they were true. Rather than admitting that Hillary screwed up, and puffed up her resume, the campaign is now choosing to lie to us about facts we already know.
This is the Keith Olbermann segment about Hillary's false claims: Hillary spokesman Howard Wolfson claimed the following yesterday, per Olbermann: "It's possible she misspoke." Possible? Did she also misspeak the four other times she claimed the exact same story?
Quote:
- In Dubuque, Iowa in December Hillary claimed that Bosnia was too dangerous for the president and that she ran across the tarmac.
- In late February, Hillary claimed during the White House 3 am phone ad roll-out that sniper fire forced the airport ceremony inside.
- In a March 17, 2008 press conference Hillary repeated the claims.
- In her March 17, 2008 prepared remarks - PREPARED remarks, i.e., these remarks were intentional - she said the same thing.
Let's revisit the latest details, per Olbermann:
Quote:
Hillary's spokesman Howard Wolfson is now saying she was on the front lines by landing at the airport. As Olbermann noted, there was an 8 year old girl with flowers on those front lines, the US military commander in charge at the time said there was no threat of enemy fire, and Hillary herself stopped and took photos with military personnel. These were the front lines, but Hillary was doing photo opps with soldiers and 8 year old girls?
Here is Hillary's latest explanation, per yesterday:
Quote:
Hillary: "I was also told that the greeting ceremony had been moved away from the tarmac but there was this 8 year old girl and I can't rush by her, I have to at least greet her, so I took her stuff and then I left."
Again, bull. There are photos and videos of Hillary and Chelsea posing with troops for photos on the tarmac. It was too dangerous for Hillary to linger any longer than a quick hug with a kid but the troops then put the president's wife's and daughter's lives at risk by posing for glamor shots? Then there's this:
[quote][b] Hillary yesterday: "I say a lot of things -- millions of words a day -- so if I misspoke, that was jsut a misstatement."
2 million words a day = 83,333 words an hour = 1388 words a minute = 23 words a second. Yes, you do say a lot of things.
Late February. This time, Hillary "particularly remembered" her heroic tale of valor in Bosnia that never happened. So that makes how many times now that Hillary particularly misspoke only "once"?
A Deliberate Pattern-Clinton Told Sniper Fire Tale on Feb 29
Oh, and here's the CBS report from a reporter who was also on the very trip to Tuzla:
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."
Cuz MEM hasn't responded to Hillarity Clinton's adventures on the war torn tarmac's of Bosnia.
...
Actually my pointing out that Obama has also lied was a response but I guess it's only when it's Hillary you care. I had also posted a story recently that it had only been Obama that had sent someone to talk to the Canadians about his NAFTA rhetoric. Again that was only an issue when Whomod? You got your guy up way to high on a pedastal kiddo.
Cuz MEM hasn't responded to Hillarity Clinton's adventures on the war torn tarmac's of Bosnia.
...
Actually my pointing out that Obama has also lied was a response but I guess it's only when it's Hillary you care. I had also posted a story recently that it had only been Obama that had sent someone to talk to the Canadians about his NAFTA rhetoric. Again that was only an issue when Whomod? You got your guy up way to high on a pedastal kiddo.
Again, since you seem to do nothing but spin incessantly for Hillary Clinton as if the rebuttal to that b.s. had never been done by me.
..just in case you don't have access to the story, let me help you.
Quote:
"At the end of an extended conversation, (Chief of Staff Ian) Brodie was asked about remarks aimed by the Democratic candidates at Ohio's anti-NAFTA voters that carried serious economic implications for Canada.
Since 75 per cent of Canadian exports go to the U.S., Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton's musings about reopening the North American free-trade pact had caused some concern.
Mr. Brodie downplayed those concerns.
Quite a few people heard it," said one source in the room.
"He said someone from (Hillary) Clinton's campaign is telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt. . . That someone called us and told us not to worry."
Government officials did not deny the conversation took place."
Seems the NAFTAgate leak started with -- surprise, surprise -- the Chief of Staff to Canada's conservative PM Stephen Harper. Only the first hint wasn't about stuff the Canadians had heard from the Obama camp. It was about reassurances the Canadians got from the Clinton campaign. According to a reporter who heard the original conversation, Brodie said "someone from (Hillary) Clinton's campaign is telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt. . . That someone called us and told us not to worry."
Only somehow this evolved into a story about the Obama campaign giving such reassurances.
Go ahead now, ignore it again and re-spin 'Obama reassured the Canadians about NAFTA' one more time. While you're at it, I don't think 'Obama is an unpatriotic Muslim' has been completely run down by the Hillary spin/lies campaign yet.
Brodie told reporters that the Clinton campaign had called the Canadian embassy in Washington to tell officials to take her anti-NAFTA rhetoric "with a grain of salt," said local media.
Around the same time, a news agency reported that a Canadian government memo detailed a meeting between Obama's chief economic advisor Austan Goolsbee and officials from the Canadian consulate in Chicago.
The memo reportedly said Goolsbee noted Obama's attacks on NAFTA should not be taken out of context, citing fiercely protectionist sentiment in Ohio about the pact and political positioning as a motivation.
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."
MEM. You might want to tune into Hardball right now. MSNBC is calling her a liar on NAFTA opposition and an idiot for her indignation a while back over Obama's mailer pointing it out and are backing it up with the documentation. Believe me, I'll post that video as soon as it becomes available.
Hillary is a LIAR!!
As I've said repeatedly.
EDIT
The Hillary supporter was unny. Every evidence touted he dismissed by ignoring and then spun furiously about 'looking forward an not back'. In other words, ignore the concrete and documented evidence of Hillary's support for NAFTA from day one and instead believe her rhetoric about wanting to change it.
I dunoo.. you got mad when I suggested a cult of personality but it really bugs me when people brush aside concrete evidence about someones record and instead tell you to believe the campaign's spin instead.
Last edited by whomod; 2008-03-2510:21 PM. Reason: additional response
Let's face it: neither has as good a record as McCain. Both Democrats have short terms in the Senate and minimal experience prior to that. One was a member of the state legislature and the other pretended to dodge imaginary sniper fire while looking the other way as her husband fucked fat chicks.
Yeah, I agree it's very close. But that the party insiders are pushing it toward Obama over Hillary.
But if Hillary wins the popular vote, I don't see how they can deny her the nomination.
Regardless, I'll give Hillary this: She's tenacious as hell, and won't go down easy. She really wants the job, and she's fighting very hard for it.
Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
Agreed pretty much. It will be tough for her to do it but I think it can be done because of the Wright thing.
This has to be fun for some of you guys who are not big fans of liberals
I have to admit, it's pretty fun to watch self-righteous liberals, who at every turn falsely label conservatives as "racist", finally turn that cheap attack on each other, as they fight to each declare themselves the purest liberal progressive of the two.
I only wish the Republicans were providing a better alternative, that I could wholeheartedly endorse. But as I said before, McCain is arguably as bad as Hillary or Obama on immigration/amnesty/border enforcement, NAFTA, campaign finance, and a few other issues. McCain is a budget hawk, and was right on the "Surge" in Iraq, and other foreign policy/military issues. But I'm not sure that's enough, because the immigration and free trade issues are the ones that threaten the very sovereignty of the United States, and even in the best-case-scenario, will still severely change forever the United States, if it doesn't force us against our will into a North American Union as well.
They must all be high-fiving at Clinton HQ this afternoon. Hillary brought up Rev. Wright to change the subject from her serial lies about the trip to Bosnia -- and CNN is dutifully replaying it. Although, at 5:54 PM tonight, a stunning thing happened -- even Wolf Blitzer seems to get that "she tried to change the subject as she comes under scrutiny for some controversial remarks of her own." Yeah, even Wolf gets it.
I expected the campaign to go pretty low, but didn't really expect to see Hillary herself get into the muck like this. How demeaning for her. Last week, Hillary wouldn't answer a question about Wright -- she literally ignored the reporter. Earlier today, at the Pittsburgh Tribune Review (owned by right winger Richard Mellon Sciafe), she jumped right in. It came up again at a press conference this afternoon, which I watched live on CNN. Greg Sargent posted video of the presser at TPM Elections and he accurately reported this key point:
Quote:
Also, note that Hillary appears to be reading much of her material on the Wright questions, suggesting that real care went into working out precisely how she'd deal with the issue.
Clearly, the Clinton campaign thought this messaging very carefully. How much did it cost Mark Penn to come up with the line "He would not have been my pastor"? They've probably been focus group testing that line for a week. But what they don't get is that it just looks extremely desperate and pathetic for Hillary to evoke Rev. Wright now.
The Bosnia trip scandal isn't going away. Clinton made that trip a centerpiece of her campaign. There's too much video and too many lies told by the candidate herself.
The Bosnia controversy has redefined Clinton's campaign -- and created a new story line about Clinton's ability to separate reality from fiction. For example, check this passage from Newsweek:
Quote:
Is it possible that Hillary Clinton really thought she risked her life disembarking from a plane and running for cover "under sniper fire" at the heavily fortified U.S. Air Force base at Tuzla? Clinton has been telling the story of her visit to Bosnia in 1996 for many years, gradually adding embellishment and changing details. Perhaps she may have actually come to believe it.
Ouch.
Clinton brought that on herself. Clinton is the star of all the Bosnia-related videos, not someone's pastor. Her words are at issue, not someone's pastor. Her lies are being dissected, not someone's pastor.
And, like I said, there's plenty of video -- and audio from today:
That is her (prepared) rebuttal. "I am a human being like everyone else". The video of her repeating it again, almost verbatim is even better. She seems snippy about it and then inexplicably goes off into canned laughter. It all seems very handler crafted and staged. Much like everything else about her campaign.
l just spoke with an official of the Democratic National Committee, who asked for anonymity so as to speak candidly, who said we in the media are all missing the point of this Democratic fight.
The delegate math is difficult for Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, the official said. But it's not a question of CAN she achieve it. Of course she can, the official said.
The question is -- what will Clinton have to do in order to achieve it?
What will she have to do to Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, in order to eke out her improbable victory?
She will have to "break his back," the official said. She will have to destroy Obama, make Obama completely unacceptable.
"Her securing the nomination is certainly possible - but it will require exercising the 'Tonya Harding option.'" the official said. "Is that really what we Democrats want?"
The Tonya Harding Option -- the first time I've heard it put that way.
It implies that Clinton is so set on ensuring that Obama doesn't get the nomination, not only is she willing to take extra-ruthless steps, but in the end neither she nor Obama win the gold.
(In this metaphor, presumably, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., would be Oksana Baiul. Does that make former President Bill Clinton Jeff Gillooly?)
When Obama sent out photos to the media of the Clintons pictured with Wright to try to distract from his relationship from his mentor/spiritual advisor I think it was up to Hillary to speak up about Wright.
When Obama sent out photos to the media of the Clintons pictured with Wright ...
Is that a known fact or are you guessing?
I wouldn't be surprised at all to find out it was Obama's camp. However, given your steadfast refusal to believe that Hillary sent out the photos of Obama in his Muslim outfit I would hope you'd give him the same benefit of the doubt that you continue to give Hillary over allegations she was behind the "Obama is a Muslim" rumors.
The NYT reported Obama had sent them photos of Clinton with Wright. I know that's not as good as Drudge making up something that you want to believe but Obama hasn't denied not sending them to my knowledge.
Well, Hillary's camp didn't deny sending out the Muslim photos either. I seem to recall that her spokespersons said something along the lines of how they had no way of knowing in an organization that large whether or not one of the workers did it.
But if you say the NY Times reported Obama's camp sent it out, I'll take your word for it. That's why I asked a question as opposed to made an accusation.
In short, Hillary Clinton’s presidential prospects continue to dim. The door is closing. Night is coming. The end, however, is not near.
Last week, an important Clinton adviser told Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen (also of Politico) that Clinton had no more than a 10 percent chance of getting the nomination. Now, she’s probably down to a 5 percent chance.
Five percent.
Let’s take a look at what she’s going to put her party through for the sake of that 5 percent chance: The Democratic Party is probably going to have to endure another three months of daily sniping. For another three months, we’ll have the Carvilles likening the Obamaites to Judas and former generals accusing Clintonites of McCarthyism. For three months, we’ll have the daily round of résumé padding and sulfurous conference calls. We’ll have campaign aides blurting “blue dress” and only-because-he’s-black references as they let slip their private contempt.
For three more months (maybe more!) the campaign will proceed along in its Verdun-like pattern. There will be a steady rifle fire of character assassination from the underlings, interrupted by the occasional firestorm of artillery when the contest touches upon race, gender or patriotism. The policy debates between the two have been long exhausted, so the only way to get the public really engaged is by poking some raw national wound.
For the sake of that 5 percent, this will be the sourest spring. About a fifth of Clinton and Obama supporters now say they wouldn’t vote for the other candidate in the general election. Meanwhile, on the other side, voters get an unobstructed view of the Republican nominee. John McCain’s approval ratings have soared 11 points. He is now viewed positively by 67 percent of Americans. A month ago, McCain was losing to Obama among independents by double digits in a general election matchup. Now McCain has a lead among this group.
For three more months, Clinton is likely to hurt Obama even more against McCain, without hurting him against herself. And all this is happening so she can preserve that 5 percent chance.
When you step back and think about it, she is amazing. She possesses the audacity of hopelessness.
Heh. "The audacity of hopelessness". Gotta love it.
I read that Brooks column earlier today, whomod. I found it to very insightful. But I thought you left out some of the most insightful passages:
Why does she go on like this? Does Clinton privately believe that Obama is so incompetent that only she can deliver the policies they both support? Is she simply selfish, and willing to put her party through agony for the sake of her slender chance? Are leading Democrats so narcissistic that they would create bitter stagnation even if they were granted one-party rule?
The better answer is that Clinton’s long rear-guard action is the logical extension of her relentlessly political life.
For nearly 20 years, she has been encased in the apparatus of political celebrity. Look at her schedule as first lady and ever since. Think of the thousands of staged events, the tens of thousands of times she has pretended to be delighted to see someone she doesn’t know, the hundreds of thousands times she has recited empty clichés and exhortatory banalities, the millions of photos she has posed for in which she is supposed to appear empathetic or tough, the billions of politically opportune half-truths that have bounced around her head.
No wonder the Clinton campaign feels impersonal. It’s like a machine for the production of politics. It plows ahead from event to event following its own iron logic. The only question is whether Clinton herself can step outside the apparatus long enough to turn it off and withdraw voluntarily or whether she will force the rest of her party to intervene and jam the gears.
"...the logical extension of her relentlessly political life." That's one of the best analyses of everything she does that I've ever read.
Well, Hillary's camp didn't deny sending out the Muslim photos either. I seem to recall that her spokespersons said something along the lines of how they had no way of knowing in an organization that large whether or not one of the workers did it.
But if you say the NY Times reported Obama's camp sent it out, I'll take your word for it. That's why I asked a question as opposed to made an accusation.
Actually I think they did say that they didn't send them out but not in their initial response. Since conservative blogs were posting similar pics back & forth days before & talking about sending them to Drudge maybe they were actually the source?
BTW, I think I posted the NYT piece recently in the Obama thread so you don't even need to take my word for it.
Say has a presidential race ever been this close where the other candidate stepped down?
BTW if Obama really cared about the party he would have supported revotes in MI & FL instead of trying to scoop up unearned delegates by splitting them 50/50.
As I understand it, the states that fucked up in the first place don't want to pay for the revote (among other issues). Under law, each state pays for their own primary. Therefore, unless and until FL and MI decide to do that, they can't even get to the point of going to the DNC for permission on how to have the votes count.
But that's just what I seem to recall. I didn't really research the issue so there may be more to it (and, by more, I mean something substantive on the law, not "Hillary cheated" or "Obama is trying to disenfranchise people").
Also, according to at least one news story, contrary to what MEM seems to be saying, the people in Florida aren't that eager to revote anyway:
Last week... party officials in Florida had proposed a repeat presidential primary on June 3 that would combine mail-in ballots with in-person voting.
But [Congresswoman Karen Thurman, chair of the Florida Democratic Party] said the party was swamped with thousands of responses from voters who voiced opposition to a revote, and noted that several counties "do not have the capacity to handle a major election before the June 10th DNC primary deadline."
"The consensus is clear: Florida doesn't want to vote again. So we won't," she said.
As I understand it, the states that fucked up in the first place don't want to pay for the revote (among other issues). Under law, each state pays for their own primary. Therefore, unless and until FL and MI decide to do that, they can't even get to the point of going to the DNC for permission on how to have the votes count.
But that's just what I seem to recall. I didn't really research the issue so there may be more to it (and, by more, I mean something substantive on the law, not "Hillary cheated" or "Obama is trying to disenfranchise people").
Also, according to at least one news story, contrary to what MEM seems to be saying, the people in Florida aren't that eager to revote anyway:
Last week... party officials in Florida had proposed a repeat presidential primary on June 3 that would combine mail-in ballots with in-person voting.
But [Congresswoman Karen Thurman, chair of the Florida Democratic Party] said the party was swamped with thousands of responses from voters who voiced opposition to a revote, and noted that several counties "do not have the capacity to handle a major election before the June 10th DNC primary deadline."
"The consensus is clear: Florida doesn't want to vote again. So we won't," she said.
I think that's a case of many feeling their original primary should count. Obama says nope that's not fair. He also didn't support a revote. So what option does he leave them with? So far he's suggested splitting the delegates evenly. This would be changing the rules but since it favors him by getting delegates that would have been Hillarys, it's ok by anyone who was upset that Hillary asked for the delegates to be seated. It's because it helps the candidate they like...because he's so great
As I understand it, the states that fucked up in the first place don't want to pay for the revote (among other issues). Under law, each state pays for their own primary. Therefore, unless and until FL and MI decide to do that, they can't even get to the point of going to the DNC for permission on how to have the votes count.
But that's just what I seem to recall. I didn't really research the issue so there may be more to it (and, by more, I mean something substantive on the law, not "Hillary cheated" or "Obama is trying to disenfranchise people").
Also, according to at least one news story, contrary to what MEM seems to be saying, the people in Florida aren't that eager to revote anyway:
Last week... party officials in Florida had proposed a repeat presidential primary on June 3 that would combine mail-in ballots with in-person voting.
But [Congresswoman Karen Thurman, chair of the Florida Democratic Party] said the party was swamped with thousands of responses from voters who voiced opposition to a revote, and noted that several counties "do not have the capacity to handle a major election before the June 10th DNC primary deadline."
"The consensus is clear: Florida doesn't want to vote again. So we won't," she said.
Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
I think that's a case of many feeling their original primary should count. Obama says nope that's not fair. He also didn't support a revote. So what option does he leave them with? So far he's suggested splitting the delegates evenly. This would be changing the rules but since it favors him by getting delegates that would have been Hillarys, it's ok by anyone who was upset that Hillary asked for the delegates to be seated. It's because it helps the candidate they like...because he's so great
I have to agree with M E M.
The tendency is to blame Hillary, when Obama is just as much to blame for this impasse.
And Hillary has just as much right to push for the nomination. Neither has enough votes to secure the nomination, so why should Hillary give up prematurely, when she still has a slim chance of winning, and Obama's campaign... (Rezko, Rev. Wright, "don't worry about it" to the Canadians about NAFTA he vowed to voters to renegotiate, his liberal voting record, his 100-plus "present" votes) ...could still implode?
Hillary is portrayed as evil and selfish (and yeah, she's a hardened infighter, but Saint Obama, for all his above-the-fray-ness, has launched or at best passively endorsed some nasty attacks on Hillary), but she expressed openness to an Obama/Hillary ticket, which Obama rejected flatout. And she was willing to change the rules to allow admission of FL and MI primary results in some capacity, not necessarily in a way that favored her.
They both want the job, and she has just as much right to fight for it. As much as I consistently like columnist David Brooks' commentary, I think he was a bit hard on Hillary in this one, and gave a bit of a pass to Obama's own ruthless ambition.
As I understand it, the states that fucked up in the first place don't want to pay for the revote (among other issues). Under law, each state pays for their own primary. Therefore, unless and until FL and MI decide to do that, they can't even get to the point of going to the DNC for permission on how to have the votes count.
But that's just what I seem to recall. I didn't really research the issue so there may be more to it (and, by more, I mean something substantive on the law, not "Hillary cheated" or "Obama is trying to disenfranchise people").
Also, according to at least one news story, contrary to what MEM seems to be saying, the people in Florida aren't that eager to revote anyway:
Last week... party officials in Florida had proposed a repeat presidential primary on June 3 that would combine mail-in ballots with in-person voting.
But [Congresswoman Karen Thurman, chair of the Florida Democratic Party] said the party was swamped with thousands of responses from voters who voiced opposition to a revote, and noted that several counties "do not have the capacity to handle a major election before the June 10th DNC primary deadline."
"The consensus is clear: Florida doesn't want to vote again. So we won't," she said.
Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
I think that's a case of many feeling their original primary should count. Obama says nope that's not fair. He also didn't support a revote. So what option does he leave them with? So far he's suggested splitting the delegates evenly. This would be changing the rules but since it favors him by getting delegates that would have been Hillarys, it's ok by anyone who was upset that Hillary asked for the delegates to be seated. It's because it helps the candidate they like...because he's so great
I have to agree with M E M.
The tendency is to blame Hillary, when Obama is just as much to blame for this impasse.
And we can't blame Michigan and Florida for holding their Democratic primaries early against the will of the DNC's own rules?
Why blame either cadidate? The states defied the DNC in some attempt to be more influential and fucked themselves. If anyone disenfranchised the citizens of those states, it's the states themselves.
Ideally, i'd just have them re-vote, especially since Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan and still managed to do quite well under the 'other candidate' slot. Having him officially on the ballot so people could actually vote for him and having the voters decide now that he's gained more momentum would only help him. Barring that, which seems likely on account of recent decisions, I say split the delegates or just leave it as a lesson learned for these 2 states.
And WB, I don't see why you think that the guy who's the Democratic front runner, with more delegates is somehow in the wrong to reject the Vice Presidency and hand the Presidenial nomination to Hillary, the person trailing in 2nd place. Like that makes any sense.
And we can't blame Michigan and Florida for holding their Democratic primaries early against the will of the DNC's own rules?
Why blame either cadidate? The states defied the DNC in some attempt to be more influential and fucked themselves. If anyone disenfranchised the citizens of those states, it's the states themselves.
And we can't blame Michigan and Florida for holding their Democratic primaries early against the will of the DNC's own rules?
Why blame either cadidate? The states defied the DNC in some attempt to be more influential and fucked themselves. If anyone disenfranchised the citizens of those states, it's the states themselves.
There's something about the will of the people that Obama supporters & the Republicans who love them, forget about. They remember it when it comes to the role of superdelegates & how it would be a diseaster if they gave the nomination to Hillary. Florida & Michigan won't be mad at their states for moving up their primaries but at the party who are the ones punishing the voters. I think your kidding yourself if you think it will play differently.
BTW other states moved their primaries up didn't they? In fact, I think all of pre-super Tuesday ones did. A political party has a right to make up any rule, any punishment it wants to but it can damage itself when it acts unfairly.
And we can't blame Michigan and Florida for holding their Democratic primaries early against the will of the DNC's own rules?
Why blame either cadidate? The states defied the DNC in some attempt to be more influential and fucked themselves. If anyone disenfranchised the citizens of those states, it's the states themselves.
It's not an issue of me blaming either Hillary or Obama. I'm just commenting on the media's and Obama supporters' tendency to blame it on Hillary.
All I said is that Hillary has just as much right to go for the nomination, and that she's not the favored candidate at this point, she's still viable and has a decent chance. And that she shouldn't be asked to give up just on anyone's say-so.
With all due respect, MEM, my comment was limited to pointing out and/or agreeing with whomod that the people who screwed FL and MI were their own representatives who broke the rules and moved the primary.
I did not point the finger at Hillary or Obama. In fact, I said that neither of them were to blame for this mess.
Similarly, I did not express an opinion on how this may or may not effect the voters in those states. I only noted that the effect was caused by their state representatives.
If those states want to have revote, that's fine with me (assuming its done fairly and ethically) but if they don't that's yet another reason for their residents to be mad at the state representatives, not the DNC, Obama or even Hillary.
Yes, that's Hillary snuggling up to Richard Mellon Scaife yesterday. You remember him. The super-rich leader of the vast right-wing conspiracy that Hillary complained about. He funded the Arkansas Project, which was set up to destroy Bill Clinton. You've heard of Paula Jones, Vince Foster's "murder" (as the far-right calls it), Troopergate, and Whitewater? Mellon Scaife is responsible for it all. And now Hillary is getting all cozy with him over an editorial board meeting at his far-right paper (but it's okay to fire whats-his-name at MSNBC, he was mean to Chelsea). Anything to destroy Obama. Josh Marshall at TPM has far more.
Quote:
This alone has to amount to some sort cosmic encounter like something out of a Wagner opera. Remember, this is the guy who spent millions of dollars puffing up wingnut fantasies about Hillary's having Vince Foster whacked and lots of other curdled and ugly nonsense. Scaife was the nerve center of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. Those of us who spent years defending the Clintons from all that malarkey learned this point on day one.
I liked that bit of the NYT Brooks column that G-man posted last night as this is the only way it explains Hillary cozying up to the very people who were accusing her of all sorts of misdeeds, murder among them.
Hillary claims she considered joining the Marines.
Yeah, she's told that story before to us New Yorkers. Didn't believe it then, either.
And, the sad part is, that Hillary could tell a much more plausible story (maybe even a true one) if she'd say something along the lines of the following:
"You know, during the Vietnam War, a lot of us, myself included, didn't treat the military with a lot of respect. We were young kids, we were callous and we thought we knew better than those guys who were--we arrogantly thought-- stupid enough to get drafted and fight in that war. But now I know better. As you get older you start to realize the sacrifice of the troops and just how much they contribute to our nation. That was really driven home to me as First Lady, having to interact with military personnel of all ranks and branches on a regular basis. So, now, I not only respect the troops but I respect them too much to let what happened to them in Vietnam happen again with Iraq. So I would like to see the troops brought home because our current administration has so completely bungled their response to September 11. And you have my promise that, as president, I'll do everything in my power to make sure than no soldier dies in vain."
But, instead, she cooks up wildly improbable stories.
Oh, and MEM: if I see Hillary give the above speech, or anything like it, after this. You and her owe me royalties.
Clinton down, Obama not so much. The Rev. Wright controversy seems to have done little damage to Obama among likely Democratic voters, but Clinton's negative ratings have reached a new high, NBC/WSJ poll finds.
Posted: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 6:30 PM by Domenico Montanaro Filed Under: Democrats, 2008, Clinton, Obama, Polls
From NBC's Chuck Todd
[b]As expected, one of the two major Democratic candidates saw a downturn in the latest NBC/WSJ poll, but it's not the candidate that you think. Hillary Clinton is sporting the lowest personal ratings of the campaign. Moreover, her 37% positive rating is the lowest the NBC/WSJ poll has recorded since March 2001, two months after she was elected to the U.S. Senate from New York.
The poll was conducted Monday and Tuesday this week by Hart-McInturff and surveyed 700 registered voters, which gives the poll a margin of error of +/- 3.7%. In addition, we oversampled African-Americans in order to get a more reliable cross-tab on many of the questions we asked in this poll regarding Sen. Barack Obama's speech on race and overall response to last week's Rev. Jeremiah Wright dustup.
On that issue specifically, 32% of folks said he "sufficiently addressed the issue," while 26% of those folks believe he needs to address the Wright controversy further; 31% of voters surveyed did not see the speech or had no opinion. Interestingly, of those voters who said they saw the speech, 47% said Obama sufficiently addressed the Wright issue while 37% said he needs to address it further. Among whites, 45% were satisfied with Obama's explanation, 38% were not; Among blacks, 67% said the speech was sufficient while 25% want him to address it further.
Overall, 55% of voters told us that they were "disturbed" by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright videos that circulated so widely on cable TV and the Internet.
As for the damage this controversy did or didn't do to Obama, it's a mixed bag. Yes, Obama saw some of his numbers go down slightly among certain voting groups, most notably Republicans. But he's still much more competitive with independent voters when matched up against John McCain than Hillary Clinton. And he still sports a net-positive personal rating of 49-32, which is down only slightly from two weeks ago when it was 51-28. Again, the biggest shift in those negative numbers were among Republicans.
On one of the most critical questions we've been tracking for a few months, Obama showed resilience. When asked if the three presidential candidates could be successful in uniting the country if they were elected president,
60% of all voters believed Obama could be successful at doing this, 58% of all voters said McCain could unite the country while only 46% of voters said the same about Clinton.
All three candidates saw dips on this issue, by the way. In January, 67% thought Obama could unite the country; 68% thought McCain could do it; and 55% said Clinton would be able to pull it off.
The fact they all three dropped equally in the last three months is a sign that the campaign is becoming more ideological and partisan.
In the head-to-head matchups, there weren't huge shifts in the numbers with Obama and Clinton dead even at 45% in the national Democratic primary matchup (a slight increase for Obama from early March). In the general-election matchups, Obama led McCain by 2 points and McCain led Clinton by 2 points; all margin of error results and nothing to get too excited over.
One thing about these head-to-head matchups: our pollsters found that for the second poll in a row, more than 20% of Clinton and Obama supporters say they would support McCain when he's matched up against the other Democrat. There is clearly some hardening of feelings among some of the most core supporters of both Democrats, though it may be Obama voters, who are more bitter in the long run.
Why? Because among Obama voters, Clinton has a net-negative personal rating (35-43) while Clinton voters have a net-positive view of Obama (50-29). Taken together, this appears to be evidence that Obama, intially, should have the easier time uniting the party than Clinton.
Considering the doom-and-gloom some predicted for Obama with regard to the Wright controversy, the overall tenor of the electorate appears to still be favorable for him. He's mortal, but he's survived... for now. It's not clear whether he'd be this resilient if another controversy exploded as big as Wright, but it appears that voters are giving him the benefit of doubt. There's lots of evidence inside these numbers that voters still would like to know more about Obama, and that is both an opportunity and a potential obstacle.
And we can't blame Michigan and Florida for holding their Democratic primaries early against the will of the DNC's own rules?
Why blame either cadidate? The states defied the DNC in some attempt to be more influential and fucked themselves. If anyone disenfranchised the citizens of those states, it's the states themselves.
As further evidence for the proposition that the states are the ones who caused this mess, I note that a federal judge has ruled the Michigan primary law is unconstitutional:
the ruling likely further damages the already small hope that the Democratic Party would honor the Jan. 15 results. It is unlikely that national Democratic officials would relent in their opposition to seating delegates based on a disputed vote that has now been declared flawed under the constitution.
Furthermore, if the vote was flawed, that would seem to punch a hole in Hillary's argument that the existing vote should be counted.
