Penn Wanted To Scorch The Earth

In a forthcoming article in The Atlantic, Josh Green reports that Mark Penn wanted to strongly contrast his candidate with Barack Obama on the issue of Americanism:

The Penn memo suggesting that the campaign target Obama's "lack of American roots" said in part: "All of these articles about his boyhood in Indonesia and his life in Hawaii are geared towards showing his background is diverse, multicultural and putting that in a new light.

"Save it for 2050. ... Every speech should contain the line you were born in the middle of America American to the middle class in the middle of the last century. And talk about the basic bargain as about the deeply American values you grew up with, learned as a child and that drive you today. Values of fairness, compassion, responsibility, giving back

"Let's explicitly own `American' in our programs, the speeches and the values. He doesn't. Make this a new American Century, the American Strategic Energy Fund. Let's use our logo to make some flags we can give out. Let's add flag symbols to the backgrounds."

We don't have to go down this road too far, but I think there's general election utility in briefly examining this revelation (since we're already rehashing the flaws of primary candidates).

Penn was a man out of options - Obama had rocketed to the top of the Democratic party, while Penn's client teetered on the verge of defeat after her wins in Ohio and Texas failed to substantively alter Obama's delegate lead. Penn had maxed-out the contrast on significant issues, pounding Obama for his health care plan. And absent a time-machine, Penn couldn't do much to draw more contrast with Obama on the Iraq war.

So he pushed for the same strategy Karl Rove had used for years. Perhaps Penn thought the same game plan that ran out of gas for Republicans could get a few more miles out of it if the candidate was black, or already suffered from anonymous internet smears about his religion.

Regardless, this is where we can expect McCain to go. The "celebrity" ad was only the beginning. If McCain wants a shot at states like Michigan, he's going to have to play dirty.

Tags: Barack Obama, Election 08, Hillary Clinton (all tags)

Comments

188 Comments

Re: Penn Wanted To Scorch The Earth

Penn's plan sounds smart.  But in the end Obama's money which allowed him to organize all the smaller states and dominate the caucuses would have carried him.

by RichardFlatts 2008-08-11 05:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Penn Wanted To Scorch The Earth

Smart?  Really?

I bet you think he's patriotic too?

Personally Bush Administration  and british merchants with overtaxed tea aside,  Mark Penn and his wife really beckon me to support the return of tar and feathering.

If we ever let them two steal another dollar from Democrats ever again I will start to just give up on politics.

Everyone knows, right now, this very second Penn's wife is running a scam where she will steal close to a million dollars at the convention?

Also, news is, Clinton will swallow her debt.
I wonder why?

If you are too dense, it's because she can't ask good Americans to pay off Mark Penn's exhorborant bill.

by DemsLandslide2008 2008-08-11 06:32AM | 0 recs
Smart

I don't think the Clinton campaign was sharp enough from the get go.  They waited until Feb to take it to Obama and that was too late.

It is all about winning.  Even the most starry eyed Obama supporter from last summer will have to admit that now as Obama changes positions to track to the middle.

Winning is smart.

by RichardFlatts 2008-08-11 08:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Smart

So you are a racist and a loser too.

So it's ok for Penn to say that I am too exotic to run for office since I have a "funny last name"?

What if it was Wexler and he said "In 2050 America will be able to elect a jew"

Man, tell Penn I said hi.  and tell him the way to make the most money is to start a beltway boys type show with his best friend Dick Morris.

Also, as a republican, I am sure you LOVE how Penn's wife steals money from sucker rich liberals:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/10 /mark-penns-wife-feeding-a_n_112058.html

You can keep your Karl Roves, Dick Morris' and Mark Penns

by DemsLandslide2008 2008-08-11 09:08AM | 0 recs
say NO to torture

... you're better than that!

(tar and feathering is an UGLY way to die of suffocation)

by BlogSurrogate57 2008-08-11 09:03AM | 0 recs
Re: say NO to torture

Ok your right,  now Tar isnt guaranteed to kill you, and I disagreed when they did it on John Adams, but the second time i watched epp 1 of john adams, I realized that the poor merchant was just a pawn in an revolution.

Basically somone had to get tarred that day.

But no, I dont think we need to pour scolding hot tar on Penn's grotesque body (which he had zero intention of not disgusting every tv viewer on hillary's behalf).

Lets compromise,    let's fanatize abot mark pen getting carried out of town choclate syruped and feathered.

by DemsLandslide2008 2008-08-11 09:43AM | 0 recs
*giggles* better! much better!

by BlogSurrogate57 2008-08-11 09:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Penn Wanted To Scorch The Earth

every campaign has a strategy.. I will be waiting for your denunciating article when you hear the "news" that axelrod used racist meme to go after bill and hillary clinton.. how else could he isolate african americans from their favourite first black president unless they could circulate racist memos in SC.. I hope when you write about dirt.. you write both sides.. esp when referring to democrats!

by gladiatorsback 2008-08-11 05:04AM | 0 recs
not in the mood to be polite

African Americans are usually not motivated by racism. We are often motivated by hope and change.  

We have hoped for centuries that shit would change around here and just for the record, Bill Clinton was not running for POTUS.

by epiphany 2008-08-11 06:04AM | 0 recs
Re: not in the mood to be polite

good, then let's get down to the nitty gritty.

If that's the case, then why were black congressional supporters of Hillary Clinton threatened with facing a challenge if they didn't support Obama?  Especially those in districts where Hillary won and Obama didn't?

We have all hoped for centuries shit would change...this election is no different that any other.

by TxDem08 2008-08-11 07:06AM | 0 recs
Re: not in the mood to be polite

The only people doing any REAL threatening were the Clintons to anyone and everyone who wouldn't support them.

Do you see any REAL challengers emerging against black congressmen/women?

by Dale Johnson 007 2008-08-11 07:21AM | 0 recs
Re: not in the mood to be polite

You missed the point, once again.  African American voters were attracted to Obama's message of hope and change.  They did not vote for him overwhelmingly until they heard his message. This comment was in response to the idea that Blacks were being racist in their support of Obama.

You are making a new arguement in the post above.  What happens in political circles might never change, but I doubt your people have been waiting for centuries to be recognized as part of mainstream America.

by epiphany 2008-08-11 08:12AM | 0 recs
read skeptical brotha

... he asks "just what did they get out of endorsing Clinton" -- for the NYC delegation, it was obvious. But not so much for down south delegates whose districts went heavily for Obama.

It's no big deal, to ask "what did you get out of that endorsement?"

And yeah, if they got NOTHING, they fucking deserve to be primaried to hell. Not that I'd believe they got nothing -- not for one blue minute.

by BlogSurrogate57 2008-08-11 09:07AM | 0 recs
REPEAT AFTER ME

first black president NOT a compliment.

reality does not conform to your biases.

by BlogSurrogate57 2008-08-11 09:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Penn Wanted To Scorch The Earth

Okay as a Clinton-lover I have to admit that the worst decision Hil made was having this overpriced a-hole as a strategist.  That being said it's to Hillary's credit that she rejected Penn's advice and ran basically a fair campaign. Actually the Clinton/Obama tussle was pretty tame by historic standards.

by handsomegent 2008-08-11 05:11AM | 0 recs
No She didn't!

Hillary is as much to blame as Mark Penn. Hillary hired this man!!

TO say that she didn't go along is bullshit. Hillary was stoking the flames of Rev. Wright. How about Obama's "bitter" comments? What about her gun slingin' days in PA? Hardworking white Americans comment?

To say that Hillary was just a victim in this is nonsense. Hillary chose to hire Mark Penn and keep him until she no longer really could. I'm sorry but Hillary is at fault and for Obama supporters like myself that saw her running a xenophobic and race-baiting campaign, this is vindication.

by sweet potato pie 2008-08-11 05:47AM | 0 recs
Re: No She didn't!

Race-baiting?  It was Obama that did that from the get-go. Remember Obama stooge Jesse Jackson Jr. who said during New Hampshire that HRC can cry for herself but not for Katrina victims? Or the way Billy Shaheens's remarks were promoted by the Obamaites in the press as racist; or when the Mayor of Atlanta insulted Bill to his face on MLK Day, totally distorting his words about "fairy tale" etc.  The ONLY racially tinged remark (and that's a stretch) was the South Carolina crack about Jesse Sr. Then there was the ultimate insult when Obama promoters like Keith Olbermann tried to make Hillary's accurate remark about the month of June re RFK into a racist last ditch effort to bring up the potential assassination of a black man.  Bullshit.

by handsomegent 2008-08-11 06:17AM | 0 recs
Re: No She didn't!

Enough, already. What campaigns do is to find ways to appeal to irrational prejudices and bigotries without being tagged for it. Clinton did that.  You want to pretend that their acts and remarks had no effect, but I live in Harlem and things like Hardworking White Americans, UnAmerican and the RFK remark had precisely that effect. Part of the problem here is that Clinton supporters want so very badly to believe that Clinton did not do this because if they admitted she did, they would have a shame problem and not be able to ignore it anymore. To admit it in her is to admit it in themselves, and they would rather die than do that.

by Christy1947 2008-08-11 06:49AM | 0 recs
some will admit

... they liked hillary for other reasons. like health care. trusted her, pulled for her -- even when she did things they didn't like.

obama supporters did the same thing -- as obama called edwards a "trial lawyer" as if that was some sort of bad thing. I'd like a trial lawyer as a president -- they know things that constitutional lawyers don't!

by BlogSurrogate57 2008-08-11 09:11AM | 0 recs
Re: some will admit

Everyone has to make a choice about which issues are important to them and which they are prepared to overlook or ignore. The problem here is that this one is one which historically a certain class of Americans first pretended didn't happen at all, and now pretend they are not doing, whether they are or they are not. But that does not mean it did not happen.

It's one thing to conclude that you will not get much AA support, but entirely another to weigh in publicly on the side that has bias issues to get their support, by mouthing and embodying  those biases. It's one thing to pretend you didn't hear your supporters using the N word, without telling them to stop doing that,  and another do act it out yourself in memes like Hard Working Americans, or the RFK nightmare which produced thousands of fearful emails before it even hit the MSM. Hitler was nice to cats, too.

I'm sorry that HC supporters don't want to acknowledge what was said by her, and never corrected or retracted, but that does not mean it was not said, and does not mean the denial of it being said or being meaningful lacks meaning for others who are directly affected by it.  How are people of color or nonChristians supposed to trust HRC after this campaign. That's like saying one should ignore the person who only went to one clan lynching because he hasn't done it again. Saying you like her for other issues only suggests that one can wilfully ignore these because they don't touch that one personally as the other issues one likes do. Many of us don't have that luxury.

by Christy1947 2008-08-11 09:25AM | 0 recs
Re: No She didn't!

I've got three words for you out of the mouth of Mr. Obama--"typical white person".  Can you imagine if Hillary had said so and such was a "typical black person".  This outrageous remark by media darling Obama received scant attention in the press.

by handsomegent 2008-08-12 04:07AM | 0 recs
Re: No She didn't!

I know! Thankfully, oppressed white people everywhere have you to thank for tirelessly promoting this important issue.

I mean...the racial scars caused by mistreatment of whites may never heal.

by Dale Johnson 007 2008-08-12 10:08AM | 0 recs
Ummm...

Billy Shaheen wondered aloud whether Obama was a drug dealer.

Did anyone ask Bill Clinton about that? How about George W. Bush? I don't remember...

by Dale Johnson 007 2008-08-11 07:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Ummm...

Saint Barack said that he spent his senior year in high school in a "haze".  It was legitimate for shaheen to make such remarks about anyone. After all look at the remarks and questions about Bush's drug use and drinking.

by handsomegent 2008-08-12 04:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Ummm...

Yeah! They definitely pushed a meme about George W. Bush being a drug dealer!

by Dale Johnson 007 2008-08-12 10:09AM | 0 recs
December 2007 HILLARY Started It

... we didn't start the fire... but I think I saw hillary with a big ol' flour bomb, trying to make SOMETHING explode.

(note: flour is explosive. go flour power! not insinuating that Clinton was a terrorist. it's a metaphor for chrissakes!)

by BlogSurrogate57 2008-08-11 09:09AM | 0 recs
It is Obma that played race card!

Unfortunately he tried it against McCain too! That really misfired because repugs have no conscience!

by indydem99 2008-08-11 06:27AM | 0 recs
Not Sure It Would Have Worked

I doubt that would have worked any better than the "3am" strategy they used instead. Clinton came about as close as she could have to winning back the nomination after being so far behind on the morning after Super Tuesday. They didn't get the miraculous comeback they wanted, but they came awfully close.

by Hatch 2008-08-11 05:17AM | 0 recs
Campaign with a Glass Jaw

they were supposed to win on super tuesday. no plan for what to do when that didn't work.

by BlogSurrogate57 2008-08-11 09:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Penn Wanted To Scorch The Earth

Sen Clinton had everything going for, it was her crappy, overpaid advisers who sunk her campaign.

by deepee 2008-08-11 05:22AM | 0 recs
McRove...going to have to play dirty.

Future tense? He already IS playing dirty. And if it's helped him, it's only been to staunch his bleeding.

by Glaurung 2008-08-11 05:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Penn Wanted To Scorch The Earth

Obama was willing to, Clinton wasn't. Negative tactics were always riskier for Clinton, she was never going to get the benefit of the doubt, so I don't know how much her reluctance to go as far really hurt her.

The real failures of her campaign, and of Penn, were strategic. She never had a plan for the caucus states, she thought she could win it in the big states. I hate to talk about the math, but the Obama campaign had better arithmetic.

by souvarine 2008-08-11 05:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Penn Wanted To Scorch The Earth

I'm decidedly NOT trying to relitigate the primaries, and I have a lot of respect for Senator Clinton, but are you seriously implying that Clinton didn't go negative?  That strains credultiy, to say the very least.  Now, politics is a contact sport, and there's nothing inherently wrong with going negative.  But denying that she did?  That's just crazy.  

by HSTruman 2008-08-11 05:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Penn Wanted To Scorch The Earth

Lincoln bedroom, D-Punjab, 9-11 speeches, Hsu, etc.

Of course Clinton went negative in the primaries, but as Josh suggests she stuck to issue contrasts. She didn't use character attacks to any significant extent.

As I said in my post I don't think attacking Obama personally would have helped much. Her real problem, and Penn's real mistake, was field strategy.

by souvarine 2008-08-11 05:45AM | 0 recs
No personal attacks?

How about when she called him an elitist?

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politi cs/blog/2008/04/clinton_obama_elitist.ht ml

How about when she attacked his church membership?

How about when her campaign pushed the media to look into his drug use?

by Dale Johnson 007 2008-08-11 07:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Penn Wanted To Scorch The Earth

both sides went negative to a point, IMO Obama more than Clinton.

However, what is being said is that Clinton went nowhere near as negative as a lot of her staff (Under Penn) wanted to.  She knew that to attack a DEM like that would only leave her vulnerable and fracture the party even more. Just as Obama is having to attempt to repair and re-unite the Party now...is tough going and only partially successful (70-75%).

by TxDem08 2008-08-11 05:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Penn Wanted To Scorch The Earth

"both sides went negative to a point, IMO Obama more than Clinton."

was it Obama or Clinton that employed the "kitchen sink" strategy ?

or find me just ONE thing that Obama said that was worse then HRC basically saying McCain is ready to lead Obama not so much ..and now  McCain is using that in a attack ad against Obama

by wellinformed 2008-08-11 06:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Penn Wanted To Scorch The Earth

How about, she'll say or do anything to get elected?

How about using a Republican attack ad, almost verbatim against another DEM?

How about calling her D-Punjab?

How about saying that Hillary is tied to the past?

How about the things Obama said that if Hillary had won, McCain would be using against her now in attack ads?

by TxDem08 2008-08-11 07:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Penn Wanted To Scorch The Earth

I am trying to understand your logic?

Point 1- true (she is a shrewd politician)
Point 2- you mean the ad with Osama Bin Ladin in it?
Point 3- are you kidding?
Point 4- true (Bill Clinton)
Point 5- true

Are you trying to show how well he framed his opponent without saying a woman can't win an election?

Penn's entire strategy rested on convincing Americans that she was more American by virtue of the color of her skin. Give me a break!

by epiphany 2008-08-11 07:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Penn Wanted To Scorch The Earth

Did you even pay attention to the Primary?

1. If that's the case, then Obama is in the same boat...FISA, Gun laws, Campaign finance...he's set himself up for this.  Re: Edwards

2. Um, no...I mean the 90% verbatim Republican attack ad he revived from the mid-90's to use against her healthcare plan.  The same one Lee Atwater used to stop universal healthcare in '93.

3.  His campaign got caught circulating a memo trying to tie Bill to an Indian financier and saying he was getting money for influence.  In the memo, it said Hillary Clinton (D-Punjab)

4.  If Hillary is tied to the past with Clinton, then all of Obama's supporters who have been inside D.C. including his top-campaign advisors and himself are tied to the past, and makes his arguemnt null and void.

5. I'm glad you see the other side of the same coin.  His attacks, would have been just as bad or even worse for her in the GE.

by TxDem08 2008-08-11 07:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Penn Wanted To Scorch The Earth

Yes I paid attention. I'm just trying to understand what your arguement is.  That Obama was more negative than Clinton?  It was a primary.  Were they supposed to tell voters why they should vote for their opponent.  My point was that he didn't lie about anything.

It is a lie to paint yourself as more American than another citizen.  That is the beauty of America- you are either a citizen or not. The entire strategy devised by Mark Penn is disrespectful to the very concepts I was taught to believe in.  I cannot buy into or ignore the fact that Penn wanted to make someone that looks like me less American.

by epiphany 2008-08-11 07:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Penn Wanted To Scorch The Earth

First of all, my argument was in response to this:

find me just ONE thing that Obama said that was worse then HRC basically saying McCain is ready to lead Obama not so much ..and now  McCain is using that in a attack ad against Obama

Then my response to your points were to show you where you were wrong in your assertions.  The fact that he did lie about Clinton saying she would do anything to get elected, issued race themed attack memo's(not counting S.C.), and got behind the meme of Bill Clinton calling him a fairy tale and embracing the race card.

It is a lie to paint yourself as more American than another, I'm glad she didn't do that.  Penn is a dispicable person for even thinking about that, much less putting into a memo.

Yet you are trying to change what the original question was about,

...ONE thing that Obama said that was worse then HRC...

by TxDem08 2008-08-11 10:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Penn Wanted To Scorch The Earth

I believe you have once again failed to acknowledge the point that I was making.  Penn's strategy was reprehensible and did play out to some extent in the primaries.  The common thread of the attacks toward Obama during the primary (and that continue from his current opponent) are one's that paint him as foreign and unacceptable to the mainstream.  For God's sake, they are still argueing over his birth certificate. I only want you to acknowledge just how unfair this is to all Americans who deserve better from our political system.  I find this avenue of attack to be worse than the usual political discourse.  I would find the meme "a woman is unfit for office" just as reprehensible.  Obama never pushed this line of attack.

by epiphany 2008-08-11 12:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn Wanted To Scorch The Earth

1. Do you think D-Punjab moved any votes?

2. Did you know that Obama apologized to Clinton for that and didn't authorize it? It was buried in some memo somewhere. Outside of pro-Clinton blogs whining, it had no impact.

3. Obama also apologized to Indian Americans and probably lost some votes.

You're comparing a silly memo to Clinton basically working for 6 months to make Obama into a radical black man...

by Dale Johnson 007 2008-08-11 07:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Penn Wanted To Scorch The Earth

I do think the D-Punjab moved votes.

I know he apologized for it, AFTER it was proven it came from his campaign...after they circulated it saying you can't say where you got this from!

Obama apologized also, after being forced to.

I'm comparing a "silly memo" in conjuction with other damning attacks he worked against another DEM who apparently chose NOT to go "scorched earth" against him.

And she did not work to make him into a radical black man...if she did then she would have followed Penn's advice.  The continuing meme of that fallacy is proven in this article and leaked memo's.

by TxDem08 2008-08-11 07:37AM | 0 recs
she TALKED TO THE VRWC

about how much of a radical black man he fucking was.

Fuck Scaife, fuck his cheating, adulterous hide, and fuck Hillary for claiming that talking to him was the "ability to reach across party lines".

That has to be one of the most disgraceful moments of the campaign.

(second paragraph is heated. I do like Clinton, honest! It's just that was truly fucked in the head!)

by BlogSurrogate57 2008-08-11 09:18AM | 0 recs
Re: she TALKED TO THE VRWC

She did no such thing, and your hysteria is getting the best of you.

She talked about Wright and how he would not be her pastor, and guess what, because he (Wright) kept talking he is now not Obama's pastor any longer either.

And if you want what's best for the United States, and embrace Obama's "ability to reach across party lines", then you have to acknowledge Hillary's "balls" to sit down with Scaife.

But this isn't the first time she met him.  The very first time she met him was in a recieving line dinner at the Executive Mansion when he showed up as the guest of one of the invitee's.  She met him the nightthe Lewinksky story broke, after his pushing of the Foster murder conspiracy.

So if she can stand toe to toe with someone who is trying to destroy her, and still stand there and represent her country and her President, that is someone who I know can stand toe to toe with the worst leaders in the world and back them down as well.  She answered ALL questions and handled them with grace and aplomb.

That was one of the greatest moments of the Primary campaign.  And if Obama can't stand up to, or even go face to face with someone who's trying to tear him down, I say we're fucked and that he is an asshat, piece of crap who will fold like a house of cards when the really bad people of the world come calling and not only puts my family in danger but the United States of America.

(Yeah, my last paragraph is heated also.  I'm trying to get beyond his actions in the Primary and get behind him, but the continued lies and propogation of hate towards Hillary and those who support her (exclusive of PUMA) makes it harder and harder by the day.  I understand what you're saying, but I just think he's going to get us killed.  And that's how I feel and will be casting my vote for Hillary at the convention...at least on the first roll-call.)

by TxDem08 2008-08-11 10:53AM | 0 recs
Your dedication does you credit

and I do believe that HRC could stand toe to toe with Ahminajad -- or any other fool in the world.

I don't think that she needed to prove that by giving Scaife more press for his failed paper. She could have just as easily dropped some bombshells for the Post-Gazette -- does any democrat read the tribune, anyway??

I don't hate Hillary, she's a damn fine senator for a great state, and frankly, NYC needs all the help it can get right now.

I'm totally impressed that you'll actually be a delegate on the floor!

The guy from Carter's admin, Zigniev, who endorsed Obama, goes a long way towards assauging any ideas that Obama might be an idealist towards foreign policy, in my book.

Now, I want Clark in that administration... but I'll take Carter's spymaster and Volkher for now.

I don't even know if there is a political solution to things that could hurt America, anymore...

by BlogSurrogate57 2008-08-12 10:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Penn Wanted To Scorch The Earth

"How about the things Obama said that if Hillary had won, McCain would be using against her now in attack ads?"

just tell me ONE thing that was worse then comparing Obama with McCain and saying McCain was more fit to lead then Obama ?

you can't do it  can you ?

she Endorsed McCain over Obama she crossed the line and you know it  there is NOTHING Obama did that is worse then that she gave the McCain campaign a gift with that sound byte... I am not saying Obama was an angel he threw is shots too but they were tame compared to hers come on!  be honest with yourself at least

by wellinformed 2008-08-11 07:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Penn Wanted To Scorch The Earth

I CAN DO IT and I have if you would have been reading and learning.

HE USED AN ACTUAL REPUBLICAN ATTACK AD against another Dem candidate.  Not part of one, not the music or frame work, he used the same type of background, method and medium and almost 90% of the same wording of the actual LEE ATWATER ad.  That's right, the mentor of Karl Rove.

Obama crossed the line when he did that and there is NOTHING short of Hillary coming out directly and calling him the N-word that is worse than that.

Be honest, be truthful, don't lie to yourself and everyone else here.  There is nothing worse than that.  And if Hillary had won, McCain would be using that and the NAFTA ad's agaisnt her day & night.  And there is no getting around it.

by TxDem08 2008-08-11 11:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Penn Wanted To Scorch The Earth
do you Honestly think that is worse then saying McCain is ready to lead and Obama is not ?
how can you justify a dem candidate ENDORSING the republican candidate !!!?!!!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!?
YOU CAN"T
by wellinformed 2008-08-12 04:51AM | 0 recs
Re:You have no freakin' clue do you?

Do you honestly think for one second that is what she said?  Honestly?  You can't because it's not what she said.  She said McCain has experience.  She has experience.  Obama had a speech in 2002.

You want the fuckin' quote?!

"I have a lifetime of experience I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience he will bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he made in 2002."

Show me anywhere in that quote where it says that Obama is not ready to lead?  She was talking about her "3 a.m." ad, and her experience dealing with crisis and national security issues.

You, try as you might to be Donna Brazile can't fathom the truth of her statement and are trying to twist her words to suit your flavor of kool-aid and party snacks.

How can you justify a DEM candidate, not endorsing a republican candidate, BUT ACTUALLY ACTING AND USING SLIME ATTACK AD'S AND BEING THE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE against healthcare and slandering another DEM candidate.

WTF?!  YOU CAN'T  and it's exactly what Obama did, and it was the most disgraceful thing I've witnessed since Kennedy at the Convention back in the 80's.

by TxDem08 2008-08-12 05:52PM | 0 recs
Re:You have no freakin' clue do you?
ok you win Obama was more of the "fighter" in the primaries and HRC took the high road
you happy now ?
by wellinformed 2008-08-13 05:52AM | 0 recs
Obama was negative against Hillary from the

begining. Only because the MSM did not talk about does not mean we did not notice it.

He is the one that started with "she can not be trusted"; "She lacks integrity". he was personally attacking her long before she said any thing. His attacks were always personal for example "You are likable enough". He was the first one to attack her for her being on the walmart board.

by indydem99 2008-08-11 06:35AM | 0 recs
toss me a few timestamps?

it might be getting less recogn simply because he was such an underdog -- and they're supposed to be a bit more negative in drawing contrasts.

by BlogSurrogate57 2008-08-11 09:19AM | 0 recs
Hillary did not have guts to follow Penn's plan

and she is on sideline now because she was to soft with her opponent - gentle approach never worked and never will.
I hope she will learn the lesson, because she will have the 2nd chance in 2012.

As a side note: try to replay January 2008 without Edwards - it looks to me now that he behaved as
anti-Hillary device, indirectly helping Obama to create a fake wave.

by engels 2008-08-11 05:45AM | 0 recs
OMG TEH ENGELS!

Since my own attempts at eloquence have failed to win your heart, I'll try to tempt you with the words of another:

Doubt thou the stars are fire,
Doubt that the sun doth move,
Doubt truth to be a liar,
But never doubt I love.

My love for you is epic. Still I wait.

by sricki 2008-08-11 06:37AM | 0 recs
Re: OMG TEH ENGELS!

mojo'd for hamlet.

by Koan 2008-08-11 06:51AM | 0 recs
Re: OMG TEH ENGELS!
Sorry!
I just caught my TR of this comment....WAY not intended!!
;)
by Kysen 2008-08-11 08:29AM | 0 recs
Dude

If you hate Hamlet, just say so.

(Actually, I didn't even check who it was, just assumed it was teh engels or some sockpuppet.)

by Koan 2008-08-11 08:33AM | 0 recs
"I'm not bitter" stickers

what a bullshitter you are.

by JJE 2008-08-11 05:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Penn Wanted To Scorch The Earth

As I said before it really does seem like some of the staff (Penn's people) wanted to go really negative on Obama as early as Iowa.

Clinton throughout the Primary season, knew that doing such would only be a negative if she went too far, and wouldn't be able to come back.

From the article, it clearly seems to me that the leaking of these memo's were from a faction within the Obama campaign maybe even Solis Doyle herself, that are looking to put Hillary in a bad light as we near the convention.

...memos, which were given to me by a recipient sympathetic to Solis Doyle as a way of illustrating that strategic mistakes continued even after her dismissal [announced Feb. 10].

It really seems to me that Hillary's best choice for advisor, would have been to hire Bill, and Ickes, hire some staffers under him and let it ride.  Instead she accepted the deranged and political "insiders" within the Party and we all see what happened.

by TxDem08 2008-08-11 05:40AM | 0 recs
she hired the liberal arts

cocktail party crowd.

shoulda stuck with the hard numbers people (just look who Obama put in positions of power).

Ickes was one of her better advisors, but I think she could have found better (err... Lamont? I am really serious about that!)

by BlogSurrogate57 2008-08-11 09:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Penn Wanted To Scorch The Earth

The argument of this post is that the meme that Democrats aren't all-American patriots like the rest of us had somehow "run out of gas" prior to this year, and that therefore Penn must have had a special reason for thinking it might work again, like Obama's race.

I honestly don't understand how anyone could argue that this meme has "run out of gas."  This has been a standard Republican strategy since Nixon.  It was used successfully against both Gore and Kerry.  Is the suggestion that because the GOP lost one off-year election - where issues of personality aren't nearly as salient given all the individual races - therefore the narrative no longer works?  That's a strange argument.

Penn knew this argument would have results because it is, in fact, a standard Republican argument with a long pedigree.  Now, I think it clearly has extra currency because of who Obama is, but I think it's a bit much to suggest that was the only reason.

Anyway, I think it's to Hillary's credit that she apparently rejected a lot of this advice.  I mean, getting the Wright video into the mainstream a few months earlier, before Obama had the chance to establish himself in a positive way, probably would have worked.  I'm glad they didn't go there.

by Steve M 2008-08-11 05:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Penn Wanted To Scorch The Earth

Yet when Wright came out she had no problem stoking the flames.

I'm sorry but Hillary is to blame here as much as Mark Penn. I don't feel the least bit sorry for her. This is the man she hired and kept on her campaign.

No sympathies from me.

by sweet potato pie 2008-08-11 05:49AM | 0 recs
She said nothing till she was asked!

he was always very negative.

by indydem99 2008-08-11 06:38AM | 0 recs
not true. she repeatedly said no comment

until she was here. talking to the author of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy's failing paper (read his divorce papers).

THEN, and only then, did she bother to make incendiary remarks.

by BlogSurrogate57 2008-08-11 09:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Penn Wanted To Scorch The Earth

Is the suggestion that because the GOP lost one off-year election - where issues of personality aren't nearly as salient given all the individual races - therefore the narrative no longer works?  That's a strange argument.
Well, there you have it.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-08-11 05:50AM | 0 recs
Not for want of trying.

   HRC's campaign was involved in the Wright matter, and the Somali garb and a lot of other stuff. As early as December, the reporting has been that they had Wright material which they thought was a smoking gun and a guaranteed candidate-killer,  and were trying to feed it out to MSM, which didn't pick it up until March 13. But when the Facebook clips which allegedly set it up started coming out, I went looking for the earliest postings, and every one of them that I found on Facebook early was a Clinton fan site. As to the Somali garb, when asked with the observation that members of her staff had been caught distributing it, her response was "How can I be held responsible for what 700 people do," not "my staff didn't do it." And then 'he's not a Muslim as far as I know." and "I wouldn't go to that church." A whole raft of things which said Obama was not really American and didn't have American values because, when you really look at it, the culture imputed to him on grounds of race was itself not American or not American enough. Never any act by him, but what someone did which was negatively characterized, and then imputed to him. By April, he was being called literally UnAmerican for not taking her position on Florida and Michigan, and 'undemocratic' as well. And she was singing the song of "hardworking, white Americans, and drinking boilermakers in bars on camera. I also found the Rendell speech in honor of Louis Farrakhan  delivered in Philadelphia to Farrakhan's face that Rendell gave, which, of course did not make Rendell UnAmerican, although he himself did it, not his minister. Let's not fool ourselves here about how this went down, in order to run the Clinton as martyr meme.

by Christy1947 2008-08-11 06:45AM | 0 recs
Just for the record....

The Clinton campaign went negative in December 2007.

While campaigning on behalf of Hillary Clinton this week, former Senator Bob Kerrey became the fourth Clinton supporter this month to raise a false smear against Barack Obama, one of her main rivals for the Democratic nomination. Adopting the bigoted language of lies that have circulated about Obama on the Internet, Kerrey falsely implied that Obama attended an Islamist school; falsely said that Obama had "chosen" to be Christian; and falsely claimed Obama was repelled by his own middle name. Obama is actually a life-long Christian and a member of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. In January, CNN debunked the smears against him, reporting that allegations that he "was educated in a radical Muslim school known as a 'madrassa' are not accurate." In October, The Nation's Chris Hayes traced how false emails about Obama have gained traction online.

The smears come after several other dirty tricks from Clinton backers were exposed this month. Last week, Clinton Campaign Co-Chair Bill Shaheen falsely implied that Obama had a drug problem or possibly dealt drugs, while Clinton Campaign Pollster Mark Penn repeated similar charges on MSNBC. After over 24 hours of criticism, the Clinton Campaign announced that Shaheen made the personal decision "to step down" because the comments were unauthorized. On Monday, however, Clinton said that actually "we asked him to step down." Earlier this month, two volunteer chairs resigned from the Clinton Campaign after sending emails lying about Obama's religion, while a third Clinton volunteer was on the same email chain.

by Glaurung 2008-08-11 05:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Just for the record....

As long as we're being clear...for the record Obama went negative in December 2007 also:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/ 2007/12/obama-launches.html

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., has launched the first broadcast advertisement of the Democratic race to mention rival candidates by name, with a radio spot that escalates a long-running battle with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., and former senator John Edwards, D-N.C., over whose healthcare plan would cover the greatest number of people.

The ad, which is airing in Iowa and New Hampshire, quotes media reports that favorably portray Obama's healthcare plan -- and portray Edwards' and Clinton's plan as ineffective.

**Empahsis mine

by TxDem08 2008-08-11 06:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Just for the record....

It isn't "negative" to contrast proposals.

by Glaurung 2008-08-11 06:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Just for the record....

Really?  Then to follow that ad with the Harry & Louise-Republican attack ad b/c that one didn't get enough traction?  That's not negative?  That's a Lee Atwater ad...it doesn't get more negative.

But also in 2007:

"It's that experience, that understanding, not just of what world leaders I went and talked to in the ambassador's house, who I had tea with, but understanding the lives of people like my grandmother, who lives in a tiny village in Africa," he said.

And in case you want more, there is plenty.

*Emphasis mine

by TxDem08 2008-08-11 06:20AM | 0 recs
Whatever.

by Glaurung 2008-08-11 06:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Whatever.

Yes, whatever.  And the Obama campaign went negative first with their "circulate the D-Punjab memo, but don't say it came from us" fiasco in June of 2007.

by TxDem08 2008-08-11 06:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Whatever.

The D-Punjab ad was really the watershed event of the campaign. Yes, this "ad" moved many votes. It was very important.

by Dale Johnson 007 2008-08-11 07:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Whatever.

It was one of the watershed moments that the Press seemed to notice and then move on quickly.

Change?

The more things change the more they stay the same...

by TxDem08 2008-08-11 07:42AM | 0 recs
Got Bitter?

by Glaurung 2008-08-11 08:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Got Bitter?

LOL...funny, bitter, whoo!  Not.

Your bitter comments only reinforce Barack's.  So when those who are bitter, gun owning bible thumpers don't vote for him...you can look in the mirror and be glad.

Your work paid off.

by TxDem08 2008-08-11 08:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Got Bitter?

"when those who are bitter, gun owning bible thumpers don't vote for him..."

As if they ever voted for Bill Clinton, Al Gore, or John Kerry?

Some votes aren't worth trying to get.

by Glaurung 2008-08-11 08:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Got Bitter?

Um, they did vote for Bill.  They didn't vote for Gore or Kerry.

ALL votes are worth trying to get, especially as close as the GE is shaping up to be, they're going to be needed.

by TxDem08 2008-08-11 09:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Got Bitter?

Actually....no, they mostly voted for Ross Perot.

by Dale Johnson 007 2008-08-11 12:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Just for the record....

Quoting the Media that says your plan is better then your rivals plan is not a negative,

and it isn't even near the level of the post you are quoting.

but why are people really re-fighting the primaries? its all a matter of perspective

by TruthMatters 2008-08-11 06:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Just for the record....

Criticizing one's health care plan is a very different style of negative attacking than implying your opponent is a secret Muslim or drug dealer.

Not all negative attacks are equal. The traditional media tries to sell that crap but it is simply not true. Clinton's negative attacks were always based on his personality or "all hat no cattle" experience attacks. Experience is fair game, but I think they purposefully tried to invoke ideas of affirmative action with Obama. Especially since she praised McCain as having passed her test.

by Lolis 2008-08-11 06:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Just for the record....

I agree not all negative attacks are equal.  However, I don't know or recall that Hillary ever said Obama was a secret Muslim or a drug dealer.

Now, before we get into comments like the original poster is trying to do with surrogates, let's make sure the comments are coming from the campaign, or this opens up into a whole new world of evidence.

However, I never saw any ads that tried to invoke ideas of affimative action on Hillary's part, as she wasn't talking about her test, but the test that a CNC threshold the American people have in their minds.

I, however, do recall a lot of stuff coming out of Obama's campaign that was circulated, supposedly under the radar, that was designed especially to be negative that another DEM was taking pay-off's.

From June 2007:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/ 06/15/the-backstory-on-obama-clinton-att ack-memos/

Mr. Obama's aides circulated the memorandum to news organizations on the condition that news organizations not say where they obtained the information.

These documents - with their bold type and grabby headlines, including one that referred to Mrs. Clinton as (D-Punjab) - are text-book examples of old-school opposition research practices.

The memo's from the Obama campaign are very "informative".  So good that you should see the work yourself:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pd f/politics/memo1.pdf

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pd f/politics/memo2.pdf

Now, should we talk about JJ Jr.'s crocodile tears?

by TxDem08 2008-08-11 06:31AM | 0 recs
I have a list of fifty bad things clinton did

multiple bad things listed in december.

not randi rhodes, "why the hell is this person a surrogate" nonsense.

but ferrarro, shaheen, highly placed people in the campaign are fair game.

Not that this matters. she played hardball.

by BlogSurrogate57 2008-08-11 09:33AM | 0 recs
Re: I have a list of fifty bad things clinton did

So did Obama, and he was throwing 'em high and tight.

She however, didn't go as far as to use an actual Republican attack ad.  That is the ultimate hard ball, and only one of them did it.

by TxDem08 2008-08-11 09:58AM | 0 recs
I think that is flatly untrue

the whole wright affair was much more "ultimate hardball" than ANY discussion of policy, no matter how framed.

by BlogSurrogate57 2008-08-11 10:02AM | 0 recs
Re: I think that is flatly untrue

No, I don't think so.

Obama chose to continue with Wright, and the audacity of his comments never being made in front of Obama is ludicrous.  He chose him, he had to deal with the fall out.  There was a reason he was dis-invited to speak for Obama.

The attack ad, was put out in '93 to villify the Clinton's and to scare the American public.  Obama embraced that and used it to attack her.

That is what is the most dispicable.

by TxDem08 2008-08-11 11:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Penn Wanted To Scorch The Earth

Penn actually did a pretty good job with the thing he knew about-- winning the message battle in large states. Obviously they had to ratchet down his tactics, but that's not unusual, in fact pretty typical, for all campaigns.

Penn was just too big an ego to realize what he didn't know, and what was necessary to win, in 2008-- the caucus state delegates...

It's crazy, cause Karen Hicks and Harold Ickes did know about that part, and yet Penn locked them out of the strategy through super Tuesday in Feb.. But by the time they knew it mattered, Obama was two feet ahead from the caucus delegates and all he needed to do was lose the remaining states by inches to win.

Caucus states. That's all the difference. Anyone who says otherwise is full of it.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-08-11 05:55AM | 0 recs
Excuse me?

Penn actually did a pretty good job with the thing he knew about-- winning the message battle in large states.

Um, Jerome, if you consider race-baiting and xenophobic "doing a good job" that is pretty offensive.  Hillary stoked the Rev. Wright flames and lets not forget the "hardworking, white americans" comment.

I would also say that Hillary really did well in these states because she was ALREADY known.   I would hardly give credit to Mark Penn for being good at what he was doing rather he had a built in advantage to work with.

by sweet potato pie 2008-08-11 06:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Excuse me?

Yea, the "built in advantage argument". That was supposed to be why Obama wouldn't lose PA by the 55-45 margin it started out as.

"race-baiting and xenophobic"

Are you suggesting that Clinton campaigned and won on that effort?

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-08-11 07:40AM | 0 recs
um, Jerome...

the polling started out as 65-35. He dropped into single digits, in a very elderly state with a known history of voting for people with known names (see: Casey).

He also won highly Republican regions -- in many cases flipping the county into more Democratic registrations.

I think he did good, particularly for appalachian standards.

by BlogSurrogate57 2008-08-11 09:36AM | 0 recs
Re: um, Jerome...

No. That's your imaginary PA primary you are thinking about. In the real one,  it started off as a 9 point lead (46-37) in Feb, then went to a 16 point lead in March (52-36). From April first to the primary, it was a consistently less than 10 point lead, with Clinton never polling above 50, and Obama never above 43. The last poll average was 6%, and Clinton won by 9%.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-08-11 06:37PM | 0 recs
I think the March number is more fair

to 'start' from, but I'll acknowledge your point, and mea culpa on the hyperbole.

by BlogSurrogate57 2008-08-12 05:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Penn Wanted To Scorch The Earth

Jerome, this sounds like the whole "but the caucus states are unfair" argument all over again.  I hope you just mean that the Obama campaign knew how to use them and the Clinton campaign didn't, given that the rules were the same for both of them.  

by ProgressiveDL 2008-08-11 06:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Penn Wanted To Scorch The Earth

Um, isn't that what he just said?

by Denny Crane 2008-08-11 06:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Penn Wanted To Scorch The Earth

And if there had been some delegate literacy, it wouldn't have been all Penn's fanatical message pushes. There's a point of diminishing returns if there's only one without the other.

by Josh Orton 2008-08-11 06:06AM | 0 recs
Instead of complaining about caucuses......

I'd like to see some proposals to improve the Democratic nominating process. I don't remember the people who don't like it now thinking so before Hillary failed to win them.

I've been advocating a national primary with IRV for years. Some people don't like it and we've had many debates, but I have yet to see anyone put forward a different solution that is any less open to manipulation than the current one.

by Glaurung 2008-08-11 06:11AM | 0 recs
Oh! there's plenty!

for one, just moving out of Iowa and New Hampshire would decrease the influence of a lot of local politicians.

I say Oklahoma and New Mexico (but that's just because I like Clark)

I don't like the "big everything at once" because that means more Kerrys and Clintons and Dukakis' -- party insiders all.

by BlogSurrogate57 2008-08-11 09:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh! there's plenty!

"I don't like the "big everything at once" because that means more Kerrys and Clintons and Dukakis' -- party insiders all."

Two of the 3 you cite won under the current type of primary system -- and Hillary was supposed to.

The current system was designed to allow party insiders to control the process by breaking it into parts. In a national primary with Instant Runoff Voting all candidates would compete on one equal ballot and all voters ballots would carry equal weight.

It amazes me how many Democrats oppose a simple and direct form of democracy for choosing their nominee. They actually WANT a republican kind of system that can be rigged from the inside -- and complain when their candidate doesn't rig it as well as another. Unbelievable.

by Glaurung 2008-08-11 10:03AM | 0 recs
super tuesday ends the campaign

this is how kerry and dukackis won, and how hillary was supposed to win.

JUST HOW is making SUPER tuesday any bigger supposed to make things more FAIR???

by BlogSurrogate57 2008-08-11 10:09AM | 0 recs
Re: super tuesday ends the campaign

What is it about everybody voting at the same time and every vote carrying equal weight that is anathema to so many Democrats?

Why don't they trust the people in their own party to be able to decide who they want to be their nominee without a corrupt, manipulative, and drawn out system that eliminates most candidates before they even get a chance to vote?

So instead of simply saying a national primary is unfair without any factual justification, please justify the current system that so many complain about.

by Glaurung 2008-08-11 10:32AM | 0 recs
Factual Justification: No one has Heard of

Kucinich.

If you give people ten things, and two have been advertized, they will pick one of the advertised. This is purely marketing and backed up by tons of psychology studies.

The larger a scale people need to advertise on, in the smaller amount of time, the more money is necessary.

Winning many smaller battles garners a lot of free press, so that even someone without much money at least has a chance, if they can get popular in enough places.

I'm elitist. I admit it. I know that most people dont' care enough about politics to make an informed decision -- and that they tend to listen more to ads and less to issues. 50% of people decide based on character!

Biasing things towards party insiders is a BAD plan.

by BlogSurrogate57 2008-08-11 10:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Factual Justification: No one has Heard of

Why does everyone overlook the fact that Kucinich and many others not only failed miserably under the current corrupt system, but were forced out before 80-90% even had a chance to vote for them? With a national primary their names would at least be on the ballot.

There is some real disconnect going on here. But then, that's what being an anti-democracy elitist will do for you. I just expect it from Republicans rather than Democrats.

by Glaurung 2008-08-11 10:42AM | 0 recs
i'm not anti-democracy

despite being an elitist.

I'm pro republic. ;-)

Kucinich won in Asheville, NC four years ago -- and I still don't know how he was still on the ballot.

But that's a high information community.

I believe Kucinich was still on the ballot for many of the states??

by BlogSurrogate57 2008-08-11 10:57AM | 0 recs
Re: i'm not anti-democracy

OK.....lets say Kucinich was on the ballot in every primary. How many voted for him? More or less than would have in a national primary?

The illogic of the pro-primary/caucus crowd just doesn't hold water. It's just a bunch of lame excuses for keeping the current corrupt status quo -- which can then be griped about when some people think it hurt their favored candidate.

Make the Democratic party democratic.

by Glaurung 2008-08-11 11:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Penn Wanted To Scorch The Earth

Caucus states didn't make "all the difference".  If  one accounts for the 14 caucus races (I'm excluding Iowa, which, clearly, was contested, and Texas, which has that odd hybrid system) Obama won 258 delegates to Clinton's 135.  The difference was 123.

Obama finished the primary season with a lead of 120 pledged delegates (I"m not counting Michigan and Florida).  If Clinton had vigorously contested the caucus states it's still likely that Obama would have won by smaller margins (almost all were in states where he seems to have had some bona fide advantages with respect to popularity).

If Clinton had contested the caucus states, the result, almost certainly, would have been a tie.  A 50/50 result in every one of these caucus states would have meant a flip of 60 delegates.  That's just too small a number to have put Clinton ahead.

Even if one includes any settlement for Michigan and Florida (ie. a revote, the current DNC award, this award at full strength, etc.), you're still talking about razor thin margins (ie. probably < 50 delegates).

Would Clinton have won it at the convention?  Who knows?  That it would have gone to the convention, however, seems likely.  She couldn't have won the race by contesting the caucuses (and the argument that she lost by not competing in them is overblown, too few delegates were at stake).

by IncognitoErgoSum 2008-08-11 06:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Penn Wanted To Scorch The Earth

Your math?

I'll just go by your numbers without checking, but if Obama won 258 delegates to Clinton's 135 in caucuses, and that was checked by primary delegates (outside of FL & MI), then, say Clinton won 1/3rd more in those caucus states, then you have a 218-175 advantage of 43 delegates, not counting MI & FL.

Of course, I advocated that Clinton, and all of the candidates, should compete in MI and FL, and that would have easily eclipsed the 43 seat margin for Clinton's advantage.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-08-11 07:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Penn Wanted To Scorch The Earth

I got my numbers from the entry for the Democratic primaries from Wikipedia (which are good, they account for every race by state, distinguish between the results on primary night and later,  and account for every half delegate).

Among these states and territories, which do you think Clinton could have won: Nevada, Alaskas, American Samoa, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, North Dakota, Nebraska, Washington, Montana, Hawaii, Wyoming, and Guam.

Granted, we'll never know, but if Clinton had campaigned vigorously in all of these states I don't think she could managed better than a 50/50 split.   Obama had (and still has) some bona fide advantages in this part of the country.  

Under your scenario, you're basically suggesting that the race would have ended in tie of pledged delegates.  Let's go with your assumption: Clinton contests the caucuses and so Obama finishes the season with a lead of 43 delegates.

The DNC settlement for Florida (which recognized the election) led to a swing of 14 delegates.  Let's let them vote at full strength: 28 delegates.  Let's assume away the Edwards delegates who switched to Obama.  38 delegates.

Michigan,  can we agree, is a tougher nut.  The whole state (only voting at full strength) only had 128 pledged delegates, though.  Does one go with the solution eventually adopted by the DNC? (5 delegate swing).  Let them vote full strength? (10 vote swing).  Try to predict what might have happened in a revote? (who thinks Clinton would have won the state by more than 10%?).

And since I'm not trying to refight the primary wars, can we agree on this much: any result would have been friggin' close.  

Clinton couldn't have won the race by contesting the caucus states.  What she could have done was made it so the pledged delegate race was more competitive at the end.  

Why is the distinction important?  Because some people, I think, do have this erroneous sense that if Clinton had contested the caucus states she could have won the pledged delegate race by 100 delegates or more (and that's simply not true).

Not saying she couldn't have won, just that one can't pin too much on this one mistake.   In some bizarro world where Clinton campaigned in the caucus states full throttle and Florida and Michigan had revotes she still might have lost.

by IncognitoErgoSum 2008-08-11 09:28AM | 0 recs
Small correction

On the list of caucus states, I put Montana when I meant Maine.

by IncognitoErgoSum 2008-08-11 09:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Penn Wanted To Scorch The Earth

Sorry Jerome, but after his wife's scams I give this man the branding of a bad agent.

Thank god we have been able to prove just how disgusting this man realy is.

Folks, aside from his wife stealing money from sucker Democratic Donors (well Penn is trying to make that money jump in his pocket) we should be relieved that Penn is now a disgrace.  

Think about what kind of damage he can do, think about if Fox hires him.  Fox hired Oliver North and Ron Furman for god's sake.

Man, I had no idea we had such BAD people in our party.   Funny how these insider slide right into the money pits of politics and true activists grind it out for a few cents.

This is a dark dark dark day for us,  one thing I hace learned from this election is BEWARE OF DEMOCRATIC STRATEGISTS that don't blog, network, go to conventions, don't volunteer etc etc.

My main beef with people like Penn, and those who licked his boots, is I honestly don't know why they are in the busineess of politics.

I would bet my soul that Penn cares NOTHING about the Democratic Party or it's ideals.
I doubt his heart beats a drop of the patriotic blood that any MYDD'er has shown (that goes for the trolls too).....

Someone tell me what needs to happen to make sure that vile human never steals another red cent from us again.

Oh, Hillary is,  I just red she will default on her campaign loans.
I relish the image of Penn's face, with these memos making him into a historical political villain, and then realizing he gets no hard earned sacrificed Democratic Donor money.

by DemsLandslide2008 2008-08-11 07:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Penn Wanted To Scorch The Earth

The celebrity ad had nothing to do with his race if that is what you are implying , however i can understand where that is coming from afterall you  " lost patience " with Clinton supposedly on the basis of your ridicoulous interpretation of what she said  regarding the JFK thing .

We don't have to go too far on that one.
 

by lori 2008-08-11 05:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Penn Wanted To Scorch The Earth

But the "Messiah" ad has everything to do with race, trying to paint Obama as the other and the antichrist who will somehow bring about Judgement Day.  Way to stay positive, McCain.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-08-11 06:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Penn Wanted To Scorch The Earth

wtf, are you serious?  I must not be getting out far enough on the reading angle....

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-08-11 07:49AM | 0 recs
yeah - im not getting that either...

what it is however is effectively making the election about obama rather than the issues.

by canadian gal 2008-08-11 07:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Penn Wanted To Scorch The Earth

Jerome, your right, you need to start reading more.

Everyone in the progressive media/blogosphere has ceded this point:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/03 /obama-anti-christ-mccain_n_116588.html

and

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mara-vande rslice/new-mccain-ad-implies-oba_b_11706 8.html

and/or:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-mitch ell/obama-is-anti-christ-musl_b_113015.h tml

and that is just from one site.

by DemsLandslide2008 2008-08-11 07:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Penn Wanted To Scorch The Earth

LOL.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-08-11 07:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Penn Wanted To Scorch The Earth

Whats so funny Jerome.

There are right wing nuts PROCLAIMING that he IS the anti-christ.

McCain is capatilizing on this.

Jerome, were you raised a Christian?

Well unfortuantly I was (not orthodox, my parents were liberal evangelicals).  

And these people are nuts, if one Christian thinks Obama could be the Anti-christ, then its good night irene to that voter.

Jerome, why would you LOL me,  you shot down the other commentor, claiming you had no idea what he was talking about.
I got you some links and you laugh at me?

Do you want more links?

by DemsLandslide2008 2008-08-11 08:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Penn Wanted To Scorch The Earth

He only likes links that show Hillary winning the nomination at the convention.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-08-11 08:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Penn Wanted To Scorch The Earth

Jerome, were you raised a Christian?

What sort of question is that? Are you trying to prove something here by applying some sort of a religious test? I was raised not to ask about other's religion or religious preference..it's a personal thing...

by louisprandtl 2008-08-11 12:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn Wanted To Scorch The Earth

God Louis your trollery sucks so bad, I back off from even saying that.

You want to troll for the detriment of the Democrats, be my guest.

You will be the lonely loser next January, while all us Democrats are super happy.

Now, for those not farmiliar with trolling, allow me to tear this douchebag down a notch.

I asked in an honest question, that you tried to frame differently.  "Jerome were you raised a christian"

I know you read the next part, but you don't care because you are a deadender troll.

In the next part I explain my question, as someone who grew up in America's evangelical adn baptist churches, especially ones OBSESSED with revelation (a book of the bible NOT in the Torah, and I dont think recognized by Islam)  you would know that most Christians are bat shit crazy.

Crazy to the point of being as dangerous as extremist Islam.      

Do you know how many times as a child I was told by church mentors that I should feel so ready to die that I should not fear walking through a shoot out/drive by (I used to live in LA for a while as a kid).

Do you not remember all the Christian terrorists who assasinated people and blew up buildings in the 90's.

Thats why I asked him if he was a Christian.

Because assholes like you, Texas Darling, and the unic named Larry Johnson  are all behind trying to convince these crazy christians that Obama is the anti christ.

Im sure Larry dropped his pants and a viagra and went to work over the news of an assasanitation plot against obama in FL.

The thing you and Jerome fail to realize is all this talk that Obama is the antichrist will cause more people who want to kill him.

Oh to any Christians I have offeneded, please spare me.
My parent's were 7th day adventists, a church who prides themselves in getting Revelation as accurate as you can any made up story.

What I dont get is why so many "Adventists" are so obsessed with the end of the world, to the point they want to prevent it.
Yet with it's coming, supposedly christians should be real happy.  

Also tell Texas Darling she will never be as famous as Larry.  When they brought up the fake birth certificate story on the MSM, they gave credit to right wingers.

Well with Texas Darling and Larry Flowbee Johnson, I guess they were right.

by DemsLandslide2008 2008-08-11 01:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn Wanted To Scorch The Earth

DemsLandslide, please note the following:

1) Please refrain from personal attacks.

2) If you want to be seriously taken here, please stop lying about me or conflating me with somebody else. I don't know Texas Darling or Larry Johnson nor do I traverse their websites. If you are so much into them, please feel free to join them in their realm.

3) You crossed a boundary here that is definitely that is beyond a civil discourse. You have been called out because you asked Jerome about his religous upbringing. If you cannot understand that, that's your prerogative.

4) Consider this my last reply to your continuous vitriolic drivel. Thank you.

by louisprandtl 2008-08-11 01:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn Wanted To Scorch The Earth

No, I am not lying.

You obviously agree that Barack Obama is the Anti-christ.

If you did not grow up around zealous christians, or other religous extremists you wouldn't get the question.

If you did, you would realize that power wielding christian extremists calling Obama the anti christ is a very dangerous thing.

But all i have seen you do is support that new smear.

you think that is slander, well you walked into defending the antichrist memo.

For more context, I know many people who grew up atheist, or without relgion, and without observing all the christian terrorism of the last 4 decades in this country, they would have no idea how dangerous it is for people with the publics ear start making these accusations.

Louis,  you need to take it back.

I made a great point, and you thought you would troll by and ruin it.

How CFO holds onto people like you and Linfar is beyond me.

by DemsLandslide2008 2008-08-11 02:33PM | 0 recs
You're continuing to dig a big hole.
  1. If you wanted to make a point as rightwing Christian extremists you could've easily made it without making Jerome's religious upbringing a context
  2. You have slandered and insulted me personally in your previous messages violating MyDD user guidelines and every netiquette.
  3. Yes you're continuing to lie about why you've been called out.
  4. CFO as a group has nothing to do with this.
 
by louisprandtl 2008-08-11 03:33PM | 0 recs
Re: You're continuing to dig a big hole.

sadly that poster is one of the protected ones here on mydd, Todd will give him a gold star or something

by zerosumgame 2008-08-11 05:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn Wanted To Scorch The Earth

Way fuckin' overboard...

by hootie4170 2008-08-11 09:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn Wanted To Scorch The Earth
Yea, I did grow up going to church, even went to a fundamentalist college for a few years while my parents paid for it. Yes, I know, been there; and the amount of people that actually subscribe to this sort of thinking is probably offset by the amount of people that go around proselytizing how lunatic they are too.
 
by Jerome Armstrong 2008-08-11 06:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn Wanted To Scorch The Earth

Here's a nice MSM link for you.  Enjoy.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/articl e/0,8599,1830590,00.html

by ProgressiveDL 2008-08-11 08:23AM | 0 recs
nothing to do with his race

You'd have to ask the people who made the ad if they meant anything racial by putting his image with two lily-white women.

by Glaurung 2008-08-11 06:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Penn Wanted To Scorch The Earth

The worst bart is how the ugliest  and most dishonest attacks have lived on and grown. Sure an advocate might cook up the most extreme funny math to try to win, but now we have people who actually believe the election was stolen from Hillary.

If we could just shrug it off as tactics, that would be one thing but I fear the consequence will be the consolidation of the changes to the country of the last 8 years.

Hillary's most passionate supporters are, in my opinion, doing terrible damage to her legacy and future.

by wrb 2008-08-11 06:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Penn Wanted To Scorch The Earth

bart->part

Now that was a weird typo

by wrb 2008-08-11 06:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Penn Wanted To Scorch The Earth

They have continued on both sides, let's make that perfectly clear.

The fear should be realized as, if there is no party unification, the last 8 years don't become the past.  They become the present all over again.

The most passionate suppporters ON BOTH SIDES are doing terrible damage to both Obama and Clinton, and even more damage to the Party and the countries chances to have the Bush years erased.

by TxDem08 2008-08-11 07:23AM | 0 recs
It's a credit to Hillary's morals and integrity

that she didn't go so far down that road and do all the things Penn advised.

by sricki 2008-08-11 06:24AM | 0 recs
Re: It's a credit to Hillary

I agree.  And common sense.

What I don't understand is why we are still fighting the primary here.

by mady 2008-08-11 06:33AM | 0 recs
Who knows?

People are addicted to the primary wars.

by sricki 2008-08-11 06:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Who knows?

You want me to be serious for a minute?

Here is a frontpage post about the man who fucked up Hillary's chance for the White House and all I'm reading upthread is how Barack Obama race baited in order to win the primary. How he's such a bad man and how great Bill and Hillary are. Bill and Hillary never campaigned dirty! NEVER! It's the lamest part of coming on this blog. Hillary is goooood. Barack is baaaaaaad. They are both politicians and each got down in the mud a couple of times. What's so hard to understand?

Even though I don't remember that last time a user on this site openly criticized Hillary.

They talk about the Obama cult but upthread you can see who's really blinded by fanatical hate.

We should all be giving a big FUCK YOU to Mark Penn, and for the most part a primary war broke out.

by spacemanspiff 2008-08-11 07:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Who knows?

i might also add that we are hearing that a former 2 -term democratic president and sitting senator are racists and otherwise vile human beings - the commenters here (yes almost all) are trolling.

by canadian gal 2008-08-11 08:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Who knows?

Who called them racist?

Im tired of people using Hill and Bill as human shields for these racists that ran their campain into the ground.

For the record CG, I DONT HOLD them responsible for their campaign.

These strategists will be the death of our party.  

I honestly think there will be an activist push for a governing/vetting body for strategists.

We have too many dem strategist that have ZERO loyalty to our party, little patriotism or love for office/government, too many work for outside governments, etc etc.

We got to clean our houses.

by DemsLandslide2008 2008-08-11 08:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Who knows?

Nah, I still read plenty of Hillary hate on this site, but it's mostly from the same handful of overzealous pro-Obama trolls. Most of the reasonable people have stopped.

The cult meme is all the PUMAs have left. It's gotten so old I don't even respond to it anymore.

I refuse to read the rest of this bullshit thread. I would advise everyone to steer clear of it.

by sricki 2008-08-11 08:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Who knows?

you might say the primaries are our answer to the adbucted young, blonde, wealthy, white woman in some impoverished Caribbean nation.

by the mollusk 2008-08-11 08:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Penn Wanted To Scorch The Earth

I couldn't agree more with Penn.  Sounds like a winning plan to me.  Obama clearly didn't have any problem taking the low road with the Clintons (yet, he seems so hesitant to go after the Republicans...hmmm...) Again, Hillary is a much better person than I could ever be.

by BRockNYC 2008-08-11 06:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Penn Wanted To Scorch The Earth

Fuck off troll.

by turtlescrubber 2008-08-11 07:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Penn Wanted To Scorch The Earth

You couldn't agree more with Penn? A winning plan?

Painting your African American opponent as less American because he looks like me?

Are you being snarky?  

Hillary is a better person than you could ever be, she couldn't get all the way behind that one.

by epiphany 2008-08-11 07:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Penn Wanted To Scorch The Earth

No, he's not being snarky

There will ALWAYS be a dead ender on this site, that supports McCain, Lieberman, Mark Penn, Condi Rice, etc etc (all true, can prove).

Dont be too suprised.      

The more evil they are the more likely a troll will defend them.

Back in March I posted a request for people to examine the petition http://condimustgo.org    
And I got several folks attacking me and defending her.     It was primary season if that meant anything in it.

by DemsLandslide2008 2008-08-11 07:23AM | 0 recs
Billy C. got the memo.

It'd be a great thing if we had an election where you had two people who love this country, who were devoted to the interest of the country and people could actually ask themselves who is right on these issues instead of all this other stuff which always seems to intrude on our politics.

by JJE 2008-08-11 06:33AM | 0 recs
UPDATE: Clinton swallows debt

I wonder why?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/080 8/12429.html

by DemsLandslide2008 2008-08-11 06:33AM | 0 recs
Re: UPDATE: Clinton swallows debt

Because her vociferous supporters talk the talk but didn't walk the walk with their checkbooks in their hands. O's did, but are not prepared to bail out the person who in the minds of those who post here is a saint wronged, always wronged, by others. When Hilliary said "I'm Hillary Clinton and I approved this message," they believed her and still do.

by Christy1947 2008-08-11 07:44AM | 0 recs
What?

But I thought the PUMAs raised $10 million in one day to retire Hillary's campaign debt?

Whatever happened to that?

by Angry White Democrat 2008-08-11 09:19AM | 0 recs
Any news on Penn's wife Convention Scam?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/10 /mark-penns-wife-feeding-a_n_112058.html

If we let her collect any profit, what a shame.

I hope the DNC gets a list of her clients.

What a scam, she lied about the "celebrities" you would meet,  and not a red cent of this million dollar scam will see the DNC or Obama 2008 campaign fund.

by DemsLandslide2008 2008-08-11 06:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Any news on Penn's wife Convention Scam?

Funny I got zero responses from ANYONE on this.

by DemsLandslide2008 2008-08-11 09:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Penn Wanted To Scorch The Earth

Man reading some people's comments here makes me feel like I have stepped into an alternate universe where Barack Obama didn't upset the highly favored Clinton machine to win the Democratic Nomination.

We should all be relieved and gratified that Mark Penn didn't get to take his scorched earth strategy to its ultimate conclusion.

by wasder 2008-08-11 06:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Penn Wanted To Scorch The Earth

I really don't think front-paging this issue was the greatest idea.

by Steve M 2008-08-11 06:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Penn Wanted To Scorch The Earth

Its a hard bargain to expect anything different from someone who had " lost patience " with Clinton over the JFK thing .

Remember that ?

If we are going to re - litigate the primaries , we might as well bring that up.

Very little credibility as a front pager in my view.

by lori 2008-08-11 07:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Penn Wanted To Scorch The Earth

Oh, believe me, I remember it well.

To be fair, I don't think Josh's post actually seeks to relitigate the primaries, I think he's making a forward-looking point.  But all you have to do is read the comments to see that people are not prepared to move on, and it's not like this should come as a surprise.

If the site needs more arguments about whether Hillary implied Obama is a Muslim, then by all means, more posts of this type.

by Steve M 2008-08-11 07:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Penn Wanted To Scorch The Earth

arguments are at the core of political blogging.  and without the primary wars, what are we left with?

support Barack
Republicans are bad
daily tracking polls
occasional world affairs
meta-diaries about mydd
candidate diaries

there are days when the total number of comments on the rec list is lower than the comments on this one post.  we love ourselves a good fight.

by the mollusk 2008-08-11 08:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Penn Wanted To Scorch The Earth

It's clear that folks aren't able to deal with this maturely. If anything, I'd think Hillary supporters would be willing to cede an issue re: Penn.

by Josh Orton 2008-08-11 09:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Penn Wanted To Scorch The Earth

I think there is a pretty solid consensus regarding the odiousness of Mark Penn.

by Steve M 2008-08-11 10:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Penn Wanted To Scorch The Earth

Why do some think that exposing Penn for the fraud and bad actor he is, that it is an attack on Hillary.

This was a bad guy before Hillary, and after.

When ever we attack Dick Morris, NOONE ever accuses us of attacking Bill Clinton?

It sucks, I think this could have been an awesome story if played right.

I think alot of the weak sauce strategists/advisors that drive campaigns in this direction, or who think captiulating to Repbublicans over and over is some slick strategy NEED TO BE SHOWN THE DOOR.

Look, I am not saying every strategist needs to drink a cup of republican blood every morning, but it kills me how many Talented and overly qualified people we have in the blogosphere that could give solid advice.

by DemsLandslide2008 2008-08-11 10:27AM | 0 recs
seriously steve.

the comments here are trollilicious on both sides!  

that said - its interesting that this article confirms that that the clinton campaign knew about wright and didnt use it.

by canadian gal 2008-08-11 07:52AM | 0 recs
Re: seriously steve.

Everybody knew about Wright. I think it would of backfired like Bill's comments about Jesse Jackson did.

I'm glad they didn't use it but I do recall Hillary making a statement a couple of days after the story broke. So they did push it a bit. Right in the middle of Snipergate. I don't fault her or her campaign for that though. Both Hillary and Barack made questionable desicion and took the low road on numerous occasions.

Same old Washington politics?

Not ready on Day 1?

Both are guilty of their fair share of attacks.

This was a pretty tame campaign but all some people want to do is rehash the primary wars.

I'll I ask for is for supporters on both sides to admit their candidates are politicians who did what they needed to do in order to win.

by spacemanspiff 2008-08-11 08:05AM | 0 recs
OMG!!!!

both are guilty of their fair share of attacks??????  blasphemy - i say.

lol.

by canadian gal 2008-08-11 08:10AM | 0 recs
Re: OMG!!!!

LMAO!!! Wow. Just read through all the comments.

This thread has officialy gone off the deep end.

by spacemanspiff 2008-08-11 08:40AM | 0 recs
Re: OMG!!!!

yeah, there was one yesterday by Blazer's Edge that disappeared shortly after it was posted.  But now there's one on the front page that seems to be attracting the passersby.

by the mollusk 2008-08-11 08:43AM | 0 recs
Re: OMG!!!!

the difference BE had the sense to pull it when the trolling stated.  this one, not so much - the anti clinton and anti obama trolling is going hard.

by canadian gal 2008-08-11 08:46AM | 0 recs
Re: OMG!!!!

I remember when this story broke last FRIDAY, not a peep here, barely a peep on Kos, and a bit of concern and calling of troops on the PUMA/GOP sites.

I knew that when it hit, people would use it as an EXCUSE to bring back their "glory days" (pretend I am humming the tune from Springsteen's hit in your ear)

This has nothing to do with Barack or Hillary,

This has to do with the slew of criminals, losers, and America haters that the DNC allow to slither into our party.

These same guys who say "split and destroy our own party, do you know we will make millions if our candidate wins"  or  "it will be another 50 years before Americans elects a non-wonder bread candidate"

Its these same guys who not only take Millions for doing nothing, these are the guys who turn on us the second the money tap runs dry.

Take a look at Dick Frikin Morris.

I guarantee you, Penn and him will start their own Beltway Boys show on Fox.

by DemsLandslide2008 2008-08-11 08:49AM | 0 recs
Re: OMG!!!!

Maybe they could call it "Below the Belt-way Boys".

by the mollusk 2008-08-11 08:56AM | 0 recs
Who cares.. Its water

under the bridge. We have to defeat McCain now. Both sides need to get over it. Our country's future depends on it.

by TennesseeGurl 2008-08-11 07:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Who cares.. Its water

Personally, I dont think anyone on this board "cares".

I was concerned that the media would go nuts with it.  They love the primary battle story.

Fox had "PUMA" members on their shows every day to humuliate our party and Hillary.
The other MSM tried to ignore it and then piled on.

This should have been saved for a book (the journalist is an idiot, he coulda made millions with a book)

I just hope it passes on,

If it threatens the Clintons position at the Convention, then I must implore both Clintons and their supporters to publicly repudiate Penn and Ickes and Wolfson.   If the Clintons repudiate them publicly and vociferously, then they might have to get behind Edwards in the line for Demoratic jobs.

by DemsLandslide2008 2008-08-11 07:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Who cares.. Its water

Penn for sure.  Ickes and Wolfson, I don't think so.

No one is going to have to get behind Edwards for future political jobs, even Penn.

The only problem w/ being "pure" is when you're found not to be, the fall is fast and furious, and deep.

by TxDem08 2008-08-11 07:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Who cares.. Its water

With Wolfson standing next to Penn so often, he always looked like the good guy.  He also seemed like he regreted his job.

Now today Wolfson blames EDWARDS for not clinching Super Tuesday.

Remember that whole argument?   Back then I said the opposite that it was perposterous to think the Edwards voters in Iowa wouldn't have gone for Barack.   I dont know rememember or care, but I think Edwards clear cut populist policies are what got him those votes in iowa.   Hillary and Barack wouldnt get as specific, nor did they decide to pander to such a specific demographic as edwards did

by DemsLandslide2008 2008-08-11 07:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Who cares.. Its water

Yeah, I just saw that a little while ago while surfing (instead of working), and that was a really stupid thing to even mention.

If Edwards wasn't running, his supporters would have split up between Barack and Hillary probably as much as they had after he dropped out.  Hillary might have gotten more since she had her healthcare plan before his, but overall I think it would have played out as much the same.

by TxDem08 2008-08-11 08:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Who cares.. Its water

Your right, its history, and something we will never know.

If we want more "what-if"s

What if Edwards dropped his pride and never ran (he had the affair way before running)

Hmm, maybe Chris Dodd would be our nominee?

who knows, noone will ever.

so yes,  Paul Wolfson,  STFU  you wanna be republican!

by DemsLandslide2008 2008-08-11 08:52AM | 0 recs
Save it for 2050

Bo one else see's that,seriously?  The projected year whites in America are no longer a majority. Do you think he just picked that year at random while making refence to Obama "unAmericaness." Get real.

by Brandon 2008-08-11 07:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Save it for 2050

That was a terrible insult.

So Mark Penn,  my parents moved to America from Greece to make a better life.

They didn't chop the last name like many did at Ellis Island.
Am I too exotic to run in the Dem Primary mark penn?

I wonder if my fellow Greek Dukakis had to be attacked this way for his ethnicity when he got nominated?

WhyTF are people talking about the "Primary Struggle" again.

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT, YOUR FEELINGS OR ANYTNING ELSE.

This has to do with the fact that we have political HENCHMEN stealing our money and embaressing our principles.

To the ???? that keep trying to deflect attention away from Mark Penn,  WHY?

I often speak of the cancer of weakness that is killing our party.

Well the source of that cancer lies in these "Democratic Strategists"  whose only goal is to win elections and issues, so the next sucker politician and sucker donor pays them more money to tell our leaders how to bend and captitualte to the republicans, and how best to split our party apart.

I encourage you to examine, but DO NOT BUY Mark Penn's guide to destroying the Democratic Party, Losing a primary for the first viable female candidate, and how to steal 6 million.

Look at this book, and Mark Penn's BS will be loud and clear:

http://www.amazon.com/Microtrends-Forces -Behind-Tomorrows-Changes/dp/0446580961/ ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books& qid=1218470510&sr=1-1
http://www.amazon.com/Microtrends-Forces -Behind-Tomorrows-Changes/dp/0446580961/ ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books& qid=1218470510&sr=1-1
http://www.amazon.com/Microtrends-Forces -Behind-Tomorrows-Changes/dp/0446580961/ ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books& qid=1218470510&sr=1-1

I always post this when bashing this loser, another blogger pointed out that the main idea is take 2 small groups and turn them against each other.

There is no room in the DNC for a Karl Rove.
We need attack dogs, but we dont need criminals.

by DemsLandslide2008 2008-08-11 08:02AM | 0 recs
Orton lacks any credibility

I wrote a diary the other night covering this same topic and I bailed on it the moment trolls started infecting the posts.  I suppose Orton is giving HRC credit for not going with Penn's strategy, though he does not say it explicitly.  

by Blazers Edge 2008-08-11 08:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Penn Wanted To Scorch The Earth

One, two, three, four, let's have a flame war!

by snark adam excuse 2008-08-11 08:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Penn Wanted To Scorch The Earth

I dont see what over?

The villains are clear as day:

Democratic strategist that are NOT DEMOCRATS.

If we cleanse our party of people like Penn and that other guy who now smears the clintons every chance he gets on Fox, then I promise the captitualtion and crying uncle to the repubs will decrease.

I guarantee it!

by DemsLandslide2008 2008-08-11 08:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Penn Wanted To Scorch The Earth

Landslide,

I don't disagree with your point.  However, some users' feelings are a bit raw at the moment, with the recent rash of primary fights that have erupted in the last week.

We both know that there is a subset of folks here that will take this opportunity to rip the scab off...again.  And that there will be some folks, who will fight back.

That is the nature of MyDD at the moment.  It's more of an observation, even though some of us Obama supporters would see it as an innocuous subject.

by snark adam excuse 2008-08-11 10:55AM | 0 recs
Refighting old (already won) battles he?


I mean, what the heck is going on here?

Rehersing past already won battle when the current one is getting Tough? Really?

Unbelievable

I am almost inclined to advise you to go see a psychologist.

by TaiChiMaster 2008-08-11 08:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Refighting old (already won) battles he?

Tai,  who is rehearsing the past.

This is news, its out there in the MSM.

Should we ignore it?

Sure, I agree, because there are going to be about 10 dumb asses who want to restart the primary wars when THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.

It has to do with criminals stealing our money and cheapening our brand.

No MORE PENN

No MORE DICK MORRIS.

Whats wrong with us,  how do we hire these people.

I guarantee you that Penn will replace Colmes on Hannity's hate fest.

by DemsLandslide2008 2008-08-11 08:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Refighting old (already won) battles he?


sorry but by not adding
"No more AxelRod" to your list

you lost all credibility to me

by TaiChiMaster 2008-08-11 09:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Refighting old (already won) battles he?

You tell me when Axlerod has used racism and religious bigotry to smear McCain.

let me know.

Also let me know when Axlerod's WIFE steals money right out of our coffers:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/10 /mark-penns-wife-feeding-a_n_112058.html

As soon as you show me how Axlerod cheated the Democrats and American people I will give you some credibility.

Get it through your head, Penn is NOT CLINTON.   We are attacking Penn, a fake Democratic strategist, who will happily join his menor Dick MORRIS.

get over it, the primaries are OVER, PUMA is OVER, and if we are lucky, the career of Mark Penn, the man who loved to inject racism in the DEMOCRACTIC party is over.

or do you want him to stay?

by DemsLandslide2008 2008-08-11 09:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Penn Wanted To Scorch The Earth

This was a fun set of comments to read.  My God, the inability of some people to see both sides.

by freedom78 2008-08-11 09:51AM | 0 recs
And this is the guy whose debt

that we as Obama supporters, are supposed to help retire?

Save it for 2050 indeed.

by highgrade 2008-08-11 11:29AM | 0 recs
Old news

When Hillary lost Iowa, Mark Penn had recommend this strategy already. But it was Hillary who refused to go along. For those of you who think Hillary is the devil, i hope you see the light now.

Mark Penn deserves more credit as he is famous for 2 things - statistics and negative campaigning. Hillary refused to go with the latter so we can count that out. As for the statistics part, well you can't poll caucus accurately for many reasons especially when you base are the ones who can hardly caucus. And the software used is not up to times yet. Check out an article about polling in wired magazine if you want to know more about polling. In about 4-8 more years, and we would have the necessary software to get statistics down to each home. Then you would appreciate what Mark Penn has contributed to this political arena.

However i do blame Mark Penn for Hillary's loss as he's the campaign manager and he mismanaged many things, the 2 major flaws were not focusing on bring out caucus voters, and thinking that California is winner takes all @@WTF!!. So for those major errors, he should be held responsible.

Credit should be given where it is due and it is due to Mark Penn's negative campaigning that won Hillary's senate seat in NY in 2000. And it is due to his ignorance to the nomination system which caused Hillary to lose in 2008. Maybe if Harold Ickes were to be the campaign manager at the start things would have been really different.

by stevent 2008-08-11 11:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Penn Wanted To Scorch The Earth

I doubt McCain could talk about being born in middle America, Central America, yes (he was born in Panama), but middle America..no.

by farpispan 2008-08-11 02:52PM | 0 recs
The primaries are over.

Can we stop the primary fights already?  MYDD we are less than 3 months from the election, let's quit crying over spilled milk and get on with the business at hand.

by temptxan 2008-08-12 04:44AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads