US Presidential Primaries, 2008

[drankin]

Personally, I've always liked Obama despite that some of his views are contrary to mine. If he could reitterate his statement and explain what he meant to say I'd be happy to hear it. I'm not even from the East coast and I was a bit offended. I'd like to think he didn't mean it the way it came out. I know he said just that but it will require a little more explanation to satisfy a lot of folks.

Clinton is a whatever she needs to be to win. Some would call that a *****. At least Randi Rhodes thought so! LOL

 

[G01]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

A couple of pundits stated recently that a consensus is emerging this will be decided in Indiana.

I really hope this is over soon. If it keeps up it will really hurt the democrats.

On the topic of the poll numbers, does it annoy anyone else that if Hilary wins PA by 5 points, she's going to claim it as a major victory, even though she was initially shooting for a 20 point win?

 

[turbo]

I really hope this is over soon. If it keeps up it will really hurt the democrats.

On the topic of the poll numbers, does it annoy anyone else that if Hilary wins PA by 5 points, she's going to claim it as a major victory, even though she was initially shooting for a 20 point win?

I don't give a damn about the polls or the PA results. Hillary cannot blow out Barak and if she does not, there is no chance that she can win the nomination. My biggest fear is that when she fails to pull off the PA miracle that she needs (and even 20 points would not get her there), she will pursue a scorched Earth policy to try to make him look unelectable, further damaging the party, so she can make a "comeback bid" in 2012. Make no mistake - if there was a conservative Republican in the race that wanted to end the Iraq war and try to restore the economy of the US, he or she would probably get my vote. I could not possibly vote for McCain (4 More Years of Bush!) and Clinton has demonstrated that she is ready to continue Bush's policies, so she's not getting my vote. She attended Wellesley and was a member of the Young Republicans, she was on the staff of the Rose law firm (one of the most anti-union law-firms in the country), and she was on the board of Wal-Mart, which pays slave wages with no benefits and requires "associates" to work uncompensated overtime, and she claims to be for working people? I gag when I hear her say that. Obama isn't the best we could have, but he's the best out of the three choices that we've got. Sorry. I'm getting bitter.

 

[BobG]

Personally, I've always liked Obama despite that some of his views are contrary to mine. If he could reitterate his statement and explain what he meant to say I'd be happy to hear it. I'm not even from the East coast and I was a bit offended. I'd like to think he didn't mean it the way it came out. I know he said just that but it will require a little more explanation to satisfy a lot of folks.

A lot more explanation? I don't know if Obama's elitist, but "bitter" seems to be the most popular word on TV the last few days. Or maybe no explanation. Maybe only TV analysts care about the comments.

Funny which things actually wind up having an effect. Wright's comments and Obama's response didn't affect the polls much. Clinton's Bosnia comments did more than I would have expected, but Bill seemed bent on extracting the maximum amount of pain from Hillary's comment.

Even in PA, I don't think his comments affected the polls by more than a point or two. Nationally, he picked up a point since his comment. He seems to be riding the wave of the Audacity of Bitterness.

I think we need the primary to hurry. Obama and Clinton bowling? Clinton knocking back shots? If the break between primaries goes on any longer, Chris Matthews will declare he's running for Arlen Specter's seat in the Senate.

 

[Poop-Loops]

On the topic of the poll numbers, does it annoy anyone else that if Hilary wins PA by 5 points, she's going to claim it as a major victory, even though she was initially shooting for a 20 point win?

I just heard on Countdown about that. Keith thought it would be more like before she would have won by 5 points, but now it will be "Obama only lost by 5 points? Not bad." since people are expecting him to bomb.

 

[turbo]

I just heard on Countdown about that. Keith thought it would be more like before she would have won by 5 points, but now it will be "Obama only lost by 5 points? Not bad." since people are expecting him to bomb.

At this point, it's all about managing expectations. Clinton has a lead in poorly-educated poor and middle-income people (the same idiots that shoot themselves in the foot by voting in Reagan and the Bushes) while Obama has a lead in well-educated, higher income people. PA has a whole lot of people who are HS (at best) educated so the polls show Clinton well in the lead. There may be a surprise in the wings, though. Pollsters call voters on published numbers on land-lines. Obama has solid support among well-educated young people, especially on college campuses, and his campaign knows how to get these young people to the polls. The pollsters will never know what these kids are going to do because they are increasingly wireless (with their computers on campus) and cell-based, with no land-lines. What does a poll with 850 likely Dem voters tell you in a college town where most of the young voters cannot be surveyed? Not much. We'll have to wait until Tuesday next.

 

[Poop-Loops]

That's why I love The Internets. Complete paradigm shift for the 21st century with things like Google and Youtube by themselves, which aren't even the main goal of the internet.

 

[BobG]

I don't give a damn about the polls or the PA results. Hillary cannot blow out Barak and if she does not, there is no chance that she can win the nomination. My biggest fear is that when she fails to pull off the PA miracle that she needs (and even 20 points would not get her there), she will pursue a scorched Earth policy to try to make him look unelectable, further damaging the party, so she can make a "comeback bid" in 2012.

She trails by around 140 (depending on which website you check) and she should gain 10 delegates or less in PA, unless she or Obama do something really spectacular this week.

As far as who would do better in the general election against McCain, check this comparison. You have to actually move your cursor over the state to get the story. For instance, Obama's listed as doing >5% better than Clinton in Texas and Texas isn't listed as a shoo-in for McCain, but in reality Obama has some shot against McCain in Texas while Clinton has none.

In Michigan, Obama is in a dead heat with McCain while Clinton gets whomped by McCain (do you think she'd really like a do-over in Michigan?). In Florida, Clinton is in a dead heat with McCain while Obama gets whomped by McCain, so she could at least make some case Florida's primary reflected voter opinions even if the rules say Florida shouldn't count.

The page is kind of fun, but regardless of the polls right now, neither are really likely to beat McCain in Texas, nor do I believe McCain could beat Obama in New York. It would be interesting to get an idea how the candidates might do in a general election in the battleground states, but I don't think this page does it, yet. It might just be too early for anyone to really give a good idea of what might happen in November.

 

[turbo]

Interesting map, Bob! With Pat Buchanan predicting a 50:50 chance that the US would have attacked Iran by the fall of 2008, I wonder where this would put the polls. There are a lot of red-state, knee-jerk "patriots" that would vote for McCain in the general election just because he's a "hero", but I'm hoping that there are a lot of US voters who will take a hard look at our foreign policies and determine that we can't keep attacking people and killing them because the policies of our administrations and theirs don't dovetail. The Bush administration refuses to talk to the people that they label as "our enemies" but that's an ignorant view. We don't need to engage in high-level diplomacy with governments that already agree with our administration - we desperately need to engage in diplomacy with governments that DON'T agree with our administration's policies. Bush is like a playground bully who lacks the wisdom and tact to deal with another kid, and instead decides to round up a group of mouth-breathing thugs to help him attack a kid that he doesn't dare attack on his own. Our current government and it's pretense at "foreign policy" is a shameful shell-game. The gutless Democrats will never address the international laws that Bushco has broken and the war crimes that they have committed, and we will forever be diminished by that.

 

[quadraphonics]

The Bush administration refuses to talk to the people that they label as "our enemies" but that's an ignorant view. We don't need to engage in high-level diplomacy with governments that already agree with our administration - we desperately need to engage in diplomacy with governments that DON'T agree with our administration's policies.

True; however, given that Bush doesn't understand diplomacy, and isn't good at getting qualified people to fill positions, it may actually be a good thing that he's not pursuing high-level diplomacy with adversaries. I suppose what I'm saying is that no diplomacy may well be preferable to bad diplomacy...

Anyway, it's high time we shifted our foreign policy debate away from "what's wrong with Bush" to "what are we going to do?" Saying "do some diplomacy" is a good start and all, but it's not some panacea that's going to give us everything we want. Unless the incoming President is provided with some ideas about what sorts of compromises the public might accept, and what sort of time frame they have the patience for, there's a very real risk of him getting stuck in a reactionary posture that ends up not much different than Bush. I fear that focussing all our attention on Bush's failures is a distraction from the much harder task of coming to grips with what are options really are, and then having a meaningful discussion of what the costs and benefits of each option are. And unless we do that, the new president isn't going to be able to get us anywhere satisfactory.

 

[BobG]

I cracked up when I heard Clinton call Obama "elitist"!

Right, a mixed-race kid raised by a single mom...that's just what I think of when I hear the word "elitist" !

I think Michelle Obama killed that idea. She spoke while wearing a horrid outfit with messy hair and kept wiping her nose while talking about life on the South side of Chicago. It was pretty convincing. How can Obama be an elitist? He's married to a homeless bag lady.

Maybe a little mean, but her wardrobe department ought to be fired after that appearance.

 

[Poop-Loops]

Hey, just be grateful her wardrobe didn't have a malfunction, okay?

 

[turbo]

Hey, just be grateful her wardrobe didn't have a malfunction, okay?

Hi, P-L! We can also be grateful that Michelle wasn't knocking back shots of Canadian Club with beer chasers. Hillary is looking pretty desperate at this point, and desperate = reckless/vindictive/poison in my estimation. She is as determined as McCain to deny Obama the nomination and I fear that she will fail to fall in when he eventually wins it. Clinton cannot get the nomination without a mass suicide-pact among super-delegates (most of whom are elected or nominated officials whose positions rely of the success of the general election). The Super-delegates cannot be elected on Clinton's coat-tails because she has none. All Republicans and most Independents hate her. A Clinton candidacy would guarantee a McCain win. Obama's our only hope this time around.

I wish that some real statesmen like Bill Cohen (R Maine) had tossed their hats in the ring. All we've got is plain-vanilla light-weights.

 

[lisab]

I think Michelle Obama killed that idea. She spoke while wearing a horrid outfit with messy hair and kept wiping her nose while talking about life on the South side of Chicago. It was pretty convincing. How can Obama be an elitist? He's married to a homeless bag lady.

Maybe a little mean, but her wardrobe department ought to be fired after that appearance.

I like Michelle! She's much preferable in my mind to Cindy McCain . Very plain-speaking, incredibly bright woman. And you're almost right about her in one respect: she's not 'elite' in the sense that she was not born into money. But to get to where she is on guts and brains, she's intellectually elite in my opinion.

elite: The best or most skilled members of a group.

Kind of a contrast to the Bush crowd...?

And yeah, the outfit was not good.

 

[TVP45]

Hi, P-L! We can also be grateful that Michelle wasn't knocking back shots of Canadian Club with beer chasers. Hillary is looking pretty desperate at this point, and desperate = reckless/vindictive/poison in my estimation. She is as determined as McCain to deny Obama the nomination and I fear that she will fail to fall in when he eventually wins it. Clinton cannot get the nomination without a mass suicide-pact among super-delegates (most of whom are elected or nominated officials whose positions rely of the success of the general election). The Super-delegates cannot be elected on Clinton's coat-tails because she has none. All Republicans and most Independents hate her. A Clinton candidacy would guarantee a McCain win. Obama's our only hope this time around.

I wish that some real statesmen like Bill Cohen (R Maine) had tossed their hats in the ring. All we've got is plain-vanilla light-weights.

I live in "a shot and a beer" PA and I about fell on the floor watching that crew pretend to be drinking. I can forgive Hillary - she's small and would probably be on the floor after two, but there were big guys sipping their CC. Sipping! It's amazing what hoops we put our politicians through.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Hillary cannot blow out Barak and if she does not, there is no chance that she can win the nomination. My biggest fear is that when she fails to pull off the PA miracle that she needs (and even 20 points would not get her there), she will pursue a scorched Earth policy to try to make him look unelectable, further damaging the party, so she can make a "comeback bid" in 2012.

I think you have nailed it. Hillary knows what the delegate count is and she knows this year is a lost cause for her. Her best strategy is to have McCain win so she can run against him in 2012. If Obama is the next president she will have to wait until 2016 and that's probably too late. Clinton is for Clinton, not the Democrats. She is the spoiler, not Nader.

 

[chemisttree]

Obama is no fool, but his comments are being portrayed as if he is elitist and out-of-touch. Clinton is a Republican.

Make no mistake about it, Clinton believes what Obama said as well... she's just not stupid enough to say it. Obama wasn't thinking that this would get out to the Hoi Polloi. He thought he was speaking somewhat privately with like-minded fat cats in the mansions of power. He spoke his mind with a group of liberal elitists never thinking that someone would record his statement and release it to 'them'.

 

[chemisttree]

I live in "a shot and a beer" PA and I about fell on the floor watching that crew pretend to be drinking. I can forgive Hillary - she's small and would probably be on the floor after two, but there were big guys sipping their CC. Sipping! It's amazing what hoops we put our politicians through.

Down here in Texas we import http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sdl86KNkt_M" I think it's amazing what we put ourselves through!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

...According to a new CNN analysis of several recent polls, the Illinois senator now holds a 9-point lead over Clinton, 50 percent to 41 percent. That compares to the 3-point margin Obama held over Clinton at the end of March. [continued]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

 

[Gokul43201]

Anyone watch the tabloid slimefest on ABC tonight...the one "moderated" by Clinton's Press Secretary?

 

[TVP45]

Anyone watch the tabloid slimefest on ABC tonight...the one "moderated" by Clinton's Press Secretary?

I'm old enough to remember the "fixed" game shows and I'd swear Senator Clinton knew some of the questions in advance.

 

[Astronuc]

Anyone watch the tabloid slimefest on ABC tonight...the one "moderated" by Clinton's Press Secretary?

I had other things to do.

Clinton Uses Sharp Attacks in Tense Debate
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/17/us/politics/17debate.html

PHILADELPHIA — Senator Barack Obama found himself consistently on the defensive as he and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton met Wednesday night in a tense debate that left him parrying questions and criticism on issues including values, patriotism and his association with onetime radicals from the 1960s.

Well, it would have been better to say Obama found himself under attack - and of course on the defensive. What is with the questioning of Obama's patriotism?! What exactly has Obama allegedly done to warrant charges that he has been unpatriotic?

I suspect Clinton was trying to put words in his mouth.

The result was arguably one of Mr. Obama’s weakest debate performances. He at times appeared annoyed as he sought to answer questions about his former pastor, his reluctance to wear an American flag pin on his lapel and his association in Chicago with former members of the Weather Underground, a radical group that carried out bombings in the 1960s that were intended to incite the overthrow of the government.

Just because he doesn't wear an Americal flag pin on his lapel or wave a flag at every opportunity doesn't mean he is unpatriotic or uncaring about his country. It does mean that he is not ostentatious or flamboyant about it, and he is certainly not as hypocritical as those who wave the flag and the act in ways to undermine the security and integrity of the Constitution and the US, e.g. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, . . . .

 

[chemisttree]

I'm old enough to remember the "fixed" game shows and I'd swear Senator Clinton knew some of the questions in advance.

Yes, yes, yes.

I love Hillary's answer to the question, "Can Obama win?"

 

[TVP45]

The question about the flag pin was an ambush. The woman was quoted in the NY Times on April 4, asking the same question. So, ABC obviously went to Latrobe (BTW, they knew so much about the town, they mispronounced it), found Ms. McCabe and put her question on. I don't know why they didn't just use Chelsea's questions and drop all pretense of objectivity. I suppose I ought to be thankful George Stephanopoulos didn't ask Senator Obama about being uppity.

 

[chemisttree]

I met a gentleman in Latrobe who had lost his job and was trying to figure out how he could find the gas money to travel to find a job. And that story, I think, is typical of what we're seeing all across the country.
People are frustrated, not only with jobs moving and incomes being flat, health care being too expensive, but also that special interests have come to dominate Washington, and they don't feel like they're being listened to.
I think this election offers us an opportunity to change that, to transform that frustration into something more hopeful, to bring about real change. [

Barak Obama's opening statement at the debate suggests that he would do things differently in Washington regarding special interest group influence.

Why does he http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/08/09/pacs_and_lobbyists_aided_obamas_rise/" if he wants to eliminate their influence?

Obama admits that his "angry/bitter" statement was offensive.

GIBSON: ...And you said they get bitter and they cling to guns or they cling to their religion or they cling to antipathy toward people who are not like them. You said you misspoke. You said you mangled what it was you wanted to say. But we've talked to a lot of voters. Do you understand that some people in this state find that patronizing and think that you said actually what you meant?
OBAMA: Well I think there's no doubt that I can see how people were offended.

Clinton's common sense reply was dead on. It's amazing that Obama still doesn't get it!

CLINTON: And I similarly don't think that people cling to their traditions, like hunting and guns, either, when they are frustrated with the government. I just don't believe that's how people live their lives.
Now, that doesn't mean that people are not frustrated with the government. We have every reason to be frustrated, particularly with this administration.

What is truly amazing and hasn't been sufficiently commented upon, is that Obama lumps gun owernership and religion (good things to many americans) with hateful things like antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment.

Anti-trade sentiment is currently a campaign promise of the Democrat leadership and both Obama and Clinton's campaigns.

 

[Poop-Loops]

Barak Obama's opening statement at the debate suggests that he would do things differently in Washington regarding special interest group influence.

Why does he http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/08/09/pacs_and_lobbyists_aided_obamas_rise/" if he wants to eliminate their influence?

That was for a spot in Congress. His Presidential campaign is different. Something like $100 is the average amount donated?

 

[Gokul43201]

Why does he http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/08/09/pacs_and_lobbyists_aided_obamas_rise/" if he wants to eliminate their influence?

Nothing in the linked article says he continues to raise money from lobbyists or PACs.

 

[chemisttree]

You mean like this?

Though Obama has returned thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from registered federal lobbyists since he declared his candidacy in February, his presidential campaign has maintained ties with lobbyists and lobbying firms to help raise some of the $58.9 million he collected through the first six months of 2007. Obama has raised more than $1.4 million from members of law and consultancy firms led by partners who are lobbyists, The Los Angeles Times reported last week. And The Hill, a Washington newspaper, reported earlier this year that Obama's campaign had reached out to lobbyists' networks to use their contacts to help build his fund-raising base.

This activity, along with Obama's past contributions from lobbyists and PACs, has drawn fire from opposing campaigns. Some political analysts say Obama, by casting himself as an uncorrupted good-government crusader, has set himself up for charges of hypocrisy.

"If you're running a campaign about credibility, that credibility and persona are so important you better be squeaky clean," said Richard Semiatin, a political scientist at American University. "While he's getting good traction out of this, I think in the long term he's really got to be careful."

From the day he entered the presidential race, Obama has projected an outside-the-Beltway persona, positioning himself as the Washington change agent that Americans are pining for. Last week, his campaign began running a new TV spot in Iowa, in which the narrator says, "He's leading by example, refusing contributions from PACs and Washington lobbyists who have too much power today."

In the Democrats' previous debate, on July 23, Obama was unequivocal when challenged by former Alaska senator Mike Gravel about who his donors were.

"Well, the fact is I don't take PAC money and I don't take lobbyists' money," Obama said, touting his work on an ethics reform bill that just passed Congress. "That's the kind of leadership that I've shown in the Senate. That's the kind of leadership that I showed when I was a state legislator. And that's the kind of leadership that I'll show as president of the United States."

He took PAC money and special interest money as a State legislator and during his Senate campaign. He claims that he will continue to do it as president.

 

[Poop-Loops]

He took 1.5 million dollars?

Compared to the 55 million or so he's raised in FEBRUARY ALONE?

 

[TVP45]

You mean like this?


He took PAC money and special interest money as a State legislator and during his Senate campaign. He claims that he will continue to do it as president.

Could you give sources on these quotes?

 

[chemisttree]

Could you give sources on these quotes?

I already did. Follow the link. It's more than one page, by the way.

 

[chemisttree]

If you are interested in just how indebted Obama (and everyone else) is to the special interests, http://accountablestrategies.wordpress.com/2007/12/13/reining-in-the-campaign-bundlers/"

Here is a taste:

Here’s the quid pro quo. Public Citizen found that one out of every four elite fundraisers to the Bush campaign in 2000 and 2004 received some form of governmental appointment, including ambassadorships and cabinet posts.

How far into the body politic have the bundlers buried themselves? Public Citzen’s http://www.whitehouseforsale.org/ website reports that top tier candidates for president have used them to raise hundreds of millions of dollars:

Hillary Clinton raised $88.5 million from 320 bundlers
Barack Obama: $78.9 million from 354 bundlers
Rudy Giuliani: $46.5 million from 218 bundlers
Mitt Romney: $44 million from 346 bundlers
John McCain: $31.4 million from 442 bundlers
John Edwards: $29.9 million from 666 bundlers

The rise of the bundlers is a natural result of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995. In that act, special interest groups and lobbyists changed their shirts and became bundlers. The campaigns don't have to disclose them or their sources if they employ some crafty slight of hand numbering system.

This is the Obama magic? Still think that Obama is a Washington outsider? Dream on... the more that things change, the more they stay the same.

 

[chemisttree]

That was for a spot in Congress. His Presidential campaign is different. Something like $100 is the average amount donated?

But a careful read of the article reveals,

A Globe review of Obama's campaign finance records shows that he collected hundreds of thousands of dollars from lobbyists and PACs as a state legislator in Illinois, a US senator, and a presidential aspirant.

and

In addition, Obama's own federal PAC, Hopefund, took in $115,000 from 56 PACs in the 2005-2006 election cycle out of $4.4 million the PAC raised, according to CQ MoneyLine, which collects Federal Election Commission data. Obama then used those PAC contributions -- including thousands from defense contractors, law firms, and the securities and insurance industries -- to build support for his presidential run by making donations to Democratic Party organizations and candidates around the country.

 

[BobG]

Clinton's common sense reply was dead on. It's amazing that Obama still doesn't get it!

CLINTON: And I similarly don't think that people cling to their traditions, like hunting and guns, either, when they are frustrated with the government. I just don't believe that's how people live their lives.
Now, that doesn't mean that people are not frustrated with the government. We have every reason to be frustrated, particularly with this administration.

What is truly amazing and hasn't been sufficiently commented upon, is that Obama lumps gun owernership and religion (good things to many americans) with hateful things like antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment.

Anti-trade sentiment is currently a campaign promise of the Democrat leadership and both Obama and Clinton's campaigns.

Neither do most of the news media. In fact, I sometimes wonder if they even live in America. They don't understand elitism and the American public.

People don't want someone "just like them" elected as President. They want someone from the "elite" class to be President. What they don't want is someone so far removed from the real world that they have no touch with reality at all - in other words, politicians from families that have passsed their money on for so many generations that no one in the family remembers how that money was earned in the first place are elitists.

Ronald Reagan on a ranch isn't elitist and it isn't "just like the guy next door". It's a guy that still remembers where his money came from (even if it didn't actually come from ranching) and still knows how his ranch runs. Bill Richardson fixing the plumbing under his own sink, complete with sagging pants, isn't going to be nearly as pretty of a picture. People don't want to elect the plumber next door, especially if his underwear won't stay up. A politician working on his own 1963 Corvette and getting oil and grease on his hands is okay as long as he's working in a well equipped garage and has hand cleaner available. It's okay for politicians to get their hands dirty as long as they wash their hands immediately after. A politician working on his rusted, 1970's Pinto in his front yard isn't going to get the same respect.

Elitism isn't the issue with Obama's comments. Clinton did hit on the real issue, which is that his comments were insulting to voters' religious beliefs and their political beliefs.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Obama is a very religious person. To take this as an attack on religion is barnyard thinking.

This was nothing but a poor choice of words on Obama's part, and swift-boating from the opposition. And swift-boating is what gave us Bush and helped to bring this country to its knees.

I would bet that of those who claim to be offended, 90% never would have voted for Obama anyway.