So Obama's negative attacks are just merely responses? How was it a response when he milked the sniper fire gaffe? That & other attacks happened even before he flubbed up that last debate & whined about needing to rise above that type of thing. Sorry but Obama's talking points just fall flat when you examine his "responses".
Conflating Barack Obama and CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC and FOX doesn't make a whole lot of sense. It wasn't Obama playing and re-playing the videos of Hillary's bald faced lies, it was the media.
Don't deny that Obama's campaign used it to also attack her Whomod. I think the talking point at the time was that they were just "responding" to questions by reporters. Now it's a case of Obama decrying the use of these types of distractions while his campaign conducted a conference call trying to revise the sniper fire story that she apolgised for at the last debate. Political Punch
You can't give him credit for being above it all when he's willing to get in the gutter too IMHO. And let's be clear I don't blame him for trying to have it both ways, it's just dissapointing that your willing to run with it.
Survey USA finds Clinton leading McCain, Obama trailing McCain in Missouri
The latest Survey USA poll has good news for John McCain and Hillary Clinton supporters in the Show-Me State. But Barack Obama's efforts to put Missouri into play if he is the Democratic nominee still have much work.
The poll was conducted last weekend in the middle of the furor over Obama saying Midwesterners cling to God and guns but before the ABC debate.
Survey USA, which has had a good track record in the primary season, finds Clinton leads McCain 47 to 46 percent, which is within the margin of error. The good news for Clinton supporters is that she has steadily gained against McCain since March in the Show-Me State. He had led in the two previous polls by close numbers.
But McCain leads Obama 50 to 42 percent, which is outside the margin of error. ...
Primebuzz It's been a good day for Hillary poll-wise. While the gallop one showing her recapturing the national lead is probably the big news, it's nice to also see she's still tops in Missouri.
Originally Posted By: whomod at #926855 - 02/23/08 05:01 PM
As for this stupid right wing obsession with the phrase "flip-flop"...You act as if being stubborn and hard headed in your support is some virtue in the face of new evidence. Which explains why you're still proud to call yourself a conservative Republican
Speaking of flip flops, Obama's campaign had this to say today...
Quote:
"Unable to sell his out-of-touch ideas on the economy and Iraq, John McCain has stooped to the same smear politics and low road that he denounced in 2000," said Obama spokesman Bill Burton. "The American people can't afford a third term of President Bush's failed policies and divisive tactics."
"You have a real choice in this election. You know, either Democrat would be better than John McCain, but, and all three of us would be better than George Bush," Obama said.
Last edited by Matter-eater Man; 2008-04-2112:45 AM.
The March FEC reports have been posted for the presidential campaigns. Obama's is here. Clinton's is here. McCain's is here.
At the end of February, Clinton's campaign was in the red when her debts and loan to herself were factored in. It appears that at the end of March, her financial situation has worsened. In fact, at the end of March, Hillary Clinton's campaign debts alone exceeded her cash on hand. That's quite stunning for a campaign that was supposed to be built on fundraising prowess.
As of March 31, 2008, Clinton reported cash on hand totaling $31,712,197.67. However, that's not the real number -- a good chunk of that money, over $22 million, can only be spent in the general election. The Associated Press is even reporting that Clinton is in the red:
Quote:
Clinton reported raising $20 million in March and had $9 million for the primary available at the beginning of April. But she also reported debts of $10.3 million, putting her in the red.
To be exact, the campaign owes debts totaling $10,321,562.87 -- and that doesn't include the $5 million loan she made to the campaign. Mark Penn's firm is owed over $4.5 million.
Further proof that Clinton's fundraisers and donors should have been spending their time raising money instead of attacking Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean.
Obama raised over $40 million in March -- and had cash-on-hand for the primaries of approximately $42 million.
Meanwhile, John McCain continues to break the campaign finance laws. Hopefully after Tuesday people can start to focus much more attention on that.
It is worth noting that Obama has been outspending Hillary by something like a 3 to 1 ratio & lost his national lead in the gallop poll! Nor does it look like he will be able to buy PA off.
Clinton lead hits double digits in new poll Email|Link|Comments (27)Posted by Foon Rhee, deputy national political editor April 21, 2008 09:49 AM
A new poll out this morning gives Hillary Clinton a 52 percent to 42 percent lead over Barack Obama in Pennsylvania on the eve of Tuesday's showdown primary.
The Suffolk University telephone survey of likely Democratic voters found only 4 percent undecided and suggests that Clinton is within striking distance of the double-digit win she badly needs to build new momentum for her candidacy. Other recent polls have given Clinton a single-digit lead.
A new Quinnipiac University poll released today, for instance, gave Clinton a 51 percent to 44 percent edge, little changed from the 50-to-44 percent lead Clinton had in a similar poll a week earlier. ...
If, as Hillary and her supporters like to say, the question is "electability," that is, who has the best chance in November, doesn't the fact that her campaign is currently in the red undercut the argument that she's more electable?
Right or wrong, campaigns are about money and Obama has a lot more of it than she does. Furthermore, a certain amount of his money presumably comes from sources that would not necessarily donate to Hillary.
So, while Hillary might be enjoying a blip in a poll or two, given Obama's clearly superior fundraising skills, isn't she really much less electable than he is?
It is clear that, as leaders, we have a choice who we associate with and who we apparently give some kind of seal of approval to. And I think that it wasn't only the specific remarks, but some of the relationships with Reverend Farrakhan... You know, these are problems, and they raise questions in people's minds. And so this is a legitimate area, as everything is when we run for office, for people to be exploring and trying to find answers.
So i'll just sit here and wait for Hillary to repudiate Ed Rendell and Louis Farrakhan.
Then again, you know what they say: A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little candidates.
If, as Hillary and her supporters like to say, the question is "electability," that is, who has the best chance in November, doesn't the fact that her campaign is currently in the red undercut the argument that she's more electable?
Right or wrong, campaigns are about money and Obama has a lot more of it than she does. Furthermore, a certain amount of his money presumably comes from sources that would not necessarily donate to Hillary.
So, while Hillary might be enjoying a blip in a poll or two, given Obama's clearly superior fundraising skills, isn't she really much less electable than he is?
Given that reasoning McCain is doomed, correct?
However what you & Whomod leave out in Hillary's case is that it's not that she's in the red because of donations being down. The previous time Whomod posted the fundraising to show that Hillary was finished (how many times has that been been decried & yet here she is poised to win one of the biggest states) it ended up being her second biggest amount she's raised during the nomination process. The campaign is reporting that their online donations are on the rise & the 2.5 million that Elton John raised hasn't been added in either. If she wins PA she'll probably also see a further increase in donations.
If it was a case of the incoming donations drying up I could see where your coming from but I think you would have to agree that isn't the case here G-man.
Perot was wealthy, but he didn't have major party backing. In addition, he severely damaged his credibility by dropping out of the presidential contest in July and remaining out of the race for several weeks before re-entering. He compounded this damage by eventually claiming, without evidence, that his withdrawal was due to Republican operatives attempting to disrupt his daughter's wedding.
Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man love User Ultimate Final Justice 10000+ posts Tue Apr 22 2008 12:59 AM Reading a post Forum: Politics and Current Events Thread: Hillary in 2008
On one side is the city's aging Democratic apparatus, a collection of pro-Obama ward leaders and committee people whose tools of persuasion are yardsigns, campaign hats, buttons, stickers and "street money" -- cash handed out before the election to juice turnout.
On the other is the Obama campaign team, a network of young aides from out of state who eschew the traditional trappings of a campaign and think that elections turn on intangibles: grass-roots organization and an ever-expanding web of volunteers motivated by a deep belief in the candidate.
The Obama camp isn't bent on planting signs in every yard. Nor is it paying street money to party bosses in hopes that they'll get people to the polls. Instead, the campaign wants to build an efficient and more loyal apparatus by enlisting volunteers who have one agenda: an Obama victory....
For decades, candidates have passed money to city ward bosses, who in turn give it out to the committee people and party loyalists under their jurisdiction. Called street money, it is used for any number of purposes. In its most noble form, it reimburses people for gas, coffee or other legitimate expenses rung up on election day.
But even the system's proponents acknowledge the cash payouts are occasionally abused.
"I bet in those neighborhoods where things are harder you'll find the street money doesn't get used the way it should be," said Dock Brown, 43, a Democratic Party committeeman who lives in Germantown. "It just gets pocketed. You'll find people working both campaigns trying to make as much money as they can."
The Obama campaign has told the local ward bosses they're not paying out street money this year, a position that has stirred criticism. At a time when Obama is pulling in tens of millions of dollars in campaign money every month, the city's ward bosses are mystified. They know he can afford it.
"Maybe in other parts of the country you can come in and you have people who are not really into politics and they're excited about working for a candidate, but Philadelphia is not one of those places," said Betty Townes, a committeewoman from Germantown.
"This is old-time politics here."....
"We always said that we're not going to do politics the way it's always been done because it's always been done that way," Bird said. "In South Carolina, the kind of politics that have always been done there -- give some money to ministers and to some people on election day -- to me is disempowering. Why not build a real grass-roots [model]?"
So the machine politics that Clinton is betting on does quite literally "buy votes". Obama has repudiated that tack. Just because he outspends Hilary on ad and organization, doesn't mean he's buying anyone.
..the machine politics that Clinton is betting on does quite literally "buy votes". Obama has repudiated that tack.
Pollster.com crunches the numbers and finds a pretty consistent trend: A 6% lead for Hildebeast over Barry, with about 9% undecided.
I'm betting undecideds break toward Clinton -- not only has Obama had a rough time of it lately, the Obama campaign's decision not to pay "street money" (ie, buy votes) could seriously hamper their Philadelphia get-out-the-vote efforts.
..the machine politics that Clinton is betting on does quite literally "buy votes". Obama has repudiated that tack.
Pollster.com crunches the numbers and finds a pretty consistent trend: A 6% lead for Hildebeast over Barry, with about 9% undecided.
I'm betting undecideds break toward Clinton -- not only has Obama had a rough time of it lately, the Obama campaign's decision not to pay "street money" (ie, buy votes) could seriously hamper their Philadelphia get-out-the-vote efforts.
Oh I think that's a case of Obama finding a different way of getting the money out there. For example I'm sure he has alot more paid volunteers than Hillary. It's like his claim that he doesn't take money from oil companies. Technically true but what he doesn't say is they just have bundlers collect it from the indivuals high up in those companies.
Clinton Wins Pennsylvania Primary, Networks Project (Update1)
By Kristin Jensen and Catherine Dodge
April 22 (Bloomberg) -- Senator Hillary Clinton won the Pennsylvania primary, Fox News and MSNBC projected, reviving her prolonged battle with Senator Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Pennsylvania was a must-win state for Clinton, 60, who after more than 40 contests is trailing Obama, 46, in the popular vote and the race for delegates.
With about 3 percent of the vote counted, Clinton was leading with 55 percent to Obama's 45 percent. ...
Still early but a 10 point spread would be very good for Hillary! Bloomberg.com
He won Texas in the end, as well as Georgia. Both are in the "top ten" for population.
Either way, I don't see the "big state" argument as dispositive. As you point out above, a win is a win and, so far, he has more wins than she does and, as a result, more delegates and (at before tonight) a higher popular vote total.
As I said before, it's enough of a win to keep her in the race. But, objectively, it may not be enough to get her the nomination.
I think he eventually just barely won Texas in delegates although Hillary actually had more votes. If the general election utilized caucuses & doled out proportional delegates instead of winner takes all Obama would have it made.
As MEM noted he won more delegates in Texas than Hillary. Since the whole point of the primaries is to score delegates, if he won more delegates in Texas he won that state.
It's like baseball. You can add up hits and strikes and errors. But, in the end, the winner is the team that scored more actual runs. Right now, Obama's the one scoring the runs.
I understand that you, like MEM, favor Hillary. But that personal feeling doesn't mean she's ahead on any level that matters, logically or otherwise.
it doesnt matter who i favor, maybe you didnt understand my question it wasnt about delegates. i asked if he won any big states besides illinois, not did he get more delegates. by win i meant the majority of votes. and from what you are saying georgia is the only large state he won the majority right?
As I said before, in the end, the winner is whomever claims the most delegates. That's the only standard that counts in terms of the nomination.
Obama took more delegates in Texas than Clinton. By any measure that matters, that's a win.
To argue otherwise, is to end up like those Moonbats who still want to whine that Al Gore "won" the 2000 election, even though Bush won the electoral vote that actually decided the Presidency.
For all the campaigning and money spent, Hillary Rodham Clinton won Pennsylvania with the same base of white women, working-class voters and white men that revived her candidacy in Ohio last month. The demography that has defined the Democratic race went largely unchanged, according to exit polls.
To Clinton's relief, Pennsylvania proved more of a repeat of her win in Ohio rather than an echo of Wisconsin, where Obama won with the support of white men and blue-collar Democrats while neutralizing Clinton's base of white female support.
There were few surprises in Pennsylvania, according to the exit polls conducted by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International for television networks and The Associated Press. Clinton held about 65 percent of white women and about 55 percent of the key swing bloc of white men, a strong showing though slightly weaker than her Ohio showing.
Clinton has now won white men in 12 states and Obama has done the same in 10 states.
Obama did win more than nine in 10 black voters, continuing his unbroken support of African-Americans. And Clinton continued her trend of winning white women in all but a couple of contests. But other trends may prove disconcerting for Obama.
Obama won six in 10 voters age 29 and under. But Clinton split young white voters, as she did in Ohio. In early February, Obama heavily lost whites in Missouri but narrowly won the state with the help of 57 percent of the white youth vote.
Young Democrats made up only 12 percent of voters, however. In comparison, fully 22 percent were age 65 and older. Clinton won more than six in 10 senior voters while winning a majority of all voters 40 and older.
Also similar to Ohio, Clinton won nearly six in 10 of those voters without college degrees, a strong indicator of working class status. Obama's bus tour and advertising blitz targeting working-class voters appears to have had little effect. The same can be said for the row over Obama's remarks about "bitter" Midwestern small town voters, though that too was expected, as polling indicated that it was mostly non-Democrats who were offended.
Obama won only a slight majority of voters with college degrees, again largely reflecting the Ohio results. That is a disconcerting result for Obama, as the Illinois senator needed to dominate voters with higher levels of education to overcome Clinton's advantage in the state. It has been Obama's base of blacks and highly educated whites that has formed the bedrock of his victories throughout the primary race.
Clinton won about six in 10 of those who had decided in either the past three days or the past week whom they were going to support, again mimicking Ohio. One in four Pennsylvania Democrats decided their vote in the past week. Six in 10 voters said they chose their candidate more than a month ago, a higher proportion than usual and one more indication that many Pennsylvanian Democrats had their vote resolved early on in the race.
As has been the case throughout the Democratic primary, the economy was the most important issue to voters. Of the more than half of voters who said the economy mattered most, Clinton won a clear majority of their support. About one in four voters said the war in Iraq mattered most to them, and Obama won a clear majority of them. Only 14 percent of voters said health care mattered most, and Clinton won a majority of their support.
Fewer than one in 10 voters said electability mattered most, a trend that has long been true in the primary as Democrats focus less on pragmatism than on personal identity.
A slim majority of Democrats said the capacity to bring about "change" was the candidate quality that mattered most. Obama won seven in 10 of that bloc, but as in other large states, that strength was not enough to overcome their unsympathetic breakdowns by race and gender.
One in four Democrats said experience mattered most and as expected Clinton won over 90 percent of their support.
Clinton won six in 10 Democrats who had a gun in the home and nearly six in 10 weekly churchgoers. Half of Democratic voters lived in the suburbs and a quarter in small cities or rural areas. Clinton won a strong majority of both groups, while Obama won a strong majority of those voters in cities with populations over 50,000.
Obama won about six in 10 voters from the suburbs and the city of Philadelphia, though only about three in 10 voters overall. Clinton won a strong majority of Democrats in every other region of the state, winning nearly seven in 10 voters in the rural northeast where she has family roots.
Liberal and conservative Democrats effectively split between Obama and Clinton. It was moderates, four in 10 Democratic voters, who went heavily to Clinton's favor -- she won more than six in 10.
Obama won six in 10 new Democrats, but they made up only slightly more than 10 percent of voters. Clinton won more than 55 percent of those Democrats who were registered with the party prior to January.
Clinton's victory with traditional Democrats also carried into strength with blue-collar white men and those from union households; she won a majority of both groups.
More than half of Democrats said they expected Obama to be the Democratic nominee, despite Clinton's win Tuesday. While the demographic breakdown of the race and the delegate lead of Obama remain largely unchanged as the race pushes on, there were once again disturbing signs for Democrats as they looked toward to the general election.
About one in four Clinton supporters said they would back John McCain in the general election should Obama win, while fewer than one in five of Obama's voters said they support McCain if Clinton should win.
About 35 percent of Democrats said they would be dissatisfied if Obama won the nomination, while roughly one in four Democrats said they too would be dissatisfied should Clinton win.
