The yardstick for spin

by Jerome Armstrong, Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:06:41 PM EST

A lot of posters like to gripe about what constitutes being intellectually dishonest, with regard to all the polls and so forth that are put forward.

I submit for exhibit A, this memo put out by the Obama campaign today.

I don't know that I've ever seen anything a campaign poll memo that so obviously cherry-picks polls over the last 4 months to make their case. It's almost satire. Some rookie mailed it in on behalf of the Obama campaign's "memo to the superdelegates". I couldn't imagine a known political blogger creating this list, and not being laughed and mocked out of the blogosphere. On the other hand, maybe Andrew Sullivan will use it to make the case for Obama.




Tags: 2008 election (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 176 Comments :: Post a Comment


Re: The yardstick for spin (1.85 / 14)

Aha. You support Clinton because of her lack of spin, Jerome? ;)


Serious question- Is This Snark?
by ragekage on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:08:17 PM EST

fallacious argument (1.25 / 4)

off-topic and off-point
by zerosumgame on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:46:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: fallacious argument (2.00 / 1)

The post to which you so punaciously respond appears a question, not an argument.

Also, for the people in the cheap seats, please explain the difference between off-topic and off-point.


I'm as strong as a bull moose, and you can use me to the limit. - Teddy Roosevelt
by fogiv on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:33:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama: "No We Can't" personified.. (none / 0)

is more like it. They can't offer universal healthcare, surprise, because of the vested interests, so - they offer ESCAPE from it for those who don't think they can afford it (whie Clinton shows us all how we can!)

Obama says 'no we can't' to economic security for Americans, talking out of both sides of his mouth on a number of important issues, from Social Security, to NAFTA, to disappearing good jobs. Why can't he? Because he is too busy placing the blame for the current economic nightmare on BOTH parties in his effort to not give the Clinton administration (or by extension, the Democrats) credit for the periods of prosperity we HAVE had in the recent past.

What a mess. No wonder people can't endorse him.


public option=not affordable for middle. It cant cover all affordably, google adverse selection for why
by architek on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:36:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: they feel best when insulting (none / 0)

Well, it's an excellent way to prove your point of how horrible Obama supporters are because they insult people... by insulting people.


Serious question- Is This Snark?
by ragekage on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:26:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: i wasnt insulting (none / 0)

Ah. So, if I explain all Clinton supporters are racists, or somesuch other stupid argument like that, and parse it off as explaining... it's okay?


Serious question- Is This Snark?
by ragekage on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:22:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The yardstick for spin (1.75 / 4)

Yikes. I guess Clinton supporters seem to feel the need to throw a few troll-rates in there if an Obama supporter gets too many mojos?


Serious question- Is This Snark?
by ragekage on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:02:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

So let me get this straight (none / 0)

Jerome waits to develop his "yardstick for spin" until Obama releases one memo to the Super delegates to counter the months of spin from the Clinton folks (where are they at now? oh yeah...the supers should decide alphabetically)...

All in an effort to show what exactly?


by Nazgul35 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:34:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The yardstick for spin (2.00 / 12)

You make a post that Hillary is leading in the popular vote (if you count Florida, Michigan giving Obama zero votes, and don't count caucus states) and you are pointing at someone else for absurd spin?  /boggle



Lost rate and rec for issuing a '1' to a trollish comment. The troll, not so much.

by map on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:09:56 PM EST

Re: The yardstick for spin (2.00 / 3)

Exactly.  Biased much?


by Bobby Obama on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:16:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The yardstick for spin (2.00 / 5)

Jerome is an objective commentator. It's reality that has the bias. Reality is responsible for Obama's popular vote lead, pledged delegate lead, and rapid closing of the superdelegate gap. If it weren't for objective reality, Clinton would be the nominee right now! And she'd be flying around the country on a dragon.

Reality: It's the only reason Obama's winning and dragon-riding Clinton isn't.


Unable to rec or rate
Still supporting Obama
Still not putting up with "preening" posts
by jaiwithani on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:20:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (2.00 / 4)

How condescending.  Jerome is the only reason I come to this site.  He actually talks politics - unlike the game playing on the other sites.  

As you will see in November, the rest of the country will remind you they are very real.  

And it's a very real mistake to believe by patting each other on the back and driving out people who disagree with you on a blog, you have dismissed them from the equation.


by Larissa on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:31:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (2.00 / 2)

Nobody's been dismissed.

A few misguided individuals came to believe that the best way to convince other people to support their candidate was to retreat from any area in which they were a minority.

Similarly, the candidate they support decided to ignore contests in which she did not expect to do well.

The result of this approach has been something less than successful.

I know that "condescending" is the hot new slur to use against Obama, but it doesn't make very much sense in this context. Dismissing all-of-the-blogospher-but-Jerome as simply "game playing" is something beyond condescending. It's asinine, and disingenuous to boot. No one else is "talking politics"? I'm confused as to what this charge even means, much less how it applies to any of the blogs I read.

"As you will see in November, the rest of the country will remind you they are very real."

I'm not aware of exactly how I implied that most of the country didn't count. I'm reasonably sure I didn't dismis 30 states as "insignificant", but I could be wrong. In any event, I'm all for the will of the people. http://gallup.com http://realclearpolitics.com


Unable to rec or rate
Still supporting Obama
Still not putting up with "preening" posts
by jaiwithani on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:45:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (2.00 / 6)

Hey, believe it or not, I come here for Jerome, too.  So many times, Jerome is on-topic and on-point, nailing the issues and framing them in a way that not only makes sense, but also sometimes makes you re-think something you thought you already knew.

I'm fairly confident that, once we have a nominee, we'll see eye to eye again.

For now, it is my opinion that he's just wrong on this one.  Actually, just wrong is too easy--he's almost intentionally wrong and completely immovable.  All of the arguments being made in support of HRC kind of remind me of a story I once heard:

An older lady calls the cops on her neighbor.  She informs them that he keeps exposing himself to her through his window.  The cops, understandably concerned, go over to her house and start asking questions.  They ask where she sees him, so she takes them upstairs to her bedroom and opens the window curtain.  The cops tell her they can't see anything, it must be some kind of mistake.  She tells the cops you have climb up on top of the dresser and sort of lean over, putting your face right up against the top of the windowsill...

This is what I'm talking about.  HRC, losing in nearly every respect imaginable, has been reduced to this:  "I'm leading in the popular vote IF you count FL, IF you count MI, and IF you ignore the caucus states that don't report total number of votes.  I know I'm behind in every other objective measure."  Many others have laid this out in a way that makes clear and perfect sense.  For Jerome, a blogger I very much respect, to make such specious arguments on HRC behalf as he did this morning re: the popular vote is not only disappointing, its somewhat demeaning and insulting.

If you want to be honest and just say, "Hey, I'm all about HRC, and I know this argument is super-weak but it's all I have," then fine, I'll accept that.  If you want to be honest and say, "I'm totally cool with the supers picking a candidate who has less pledged delegates, less state wins, and less popular votes (by all but one calculation)," then fine.  And if you want to say, "My girl can win, your guy can't," even in the face of so much evidence to the contrary, then hey, that's fine, too.  Just stop trying to feed a line that isn't based in reality and pretend that it is.  That's where the disconnect happens.

I'll say it again (for the thousandth time):  if the roles were reversed, I'd be calling for Obama to stand down.  Additionally, the media and political pressure in the Democratic party against Obama to do so would be staggering.  He certainly would not have withstood losing 11 consecutive contests.  I'm sure you would make the case that HRC survived losing 11 straight because of her strength and Obama wouldn't because of his inexperience--and you'd be right.  That statement doesn't change in any way the Obama reality of state/delegate/vote leads.

Note in all this my argument isn't against HRC the candidate.  I think she would beat John McCain and make a fine President.  I also happen to think that Obama would beat McCain and make an equally fine President.  Different electoral maps, same outcome--if we can wrap this up sooner rather than later.  If we could have a poll of the supers tomorrow, and if she were to prevail, fine.  Let's do it.  What we have to do is stop running Carville et al out there sabotaging the potential (nay likely) Democratic nominee for President of the United States.  Even the most diehard of true Democrats, in support of either HRC or Obama, should be able to agree on that.

Come on, Jerome.  I know it's in you.

Do the right thing.


by Ray in AK on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:43:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

We believe we have valid points to make, or we would not be making them.  Comparing people who disagree with you to a figure in an unrealistic, sexist story is not a very effective strategy (but then again, I keep hearing, despite the pronounced and demonstrated gender gap making the difference in elections for Democrats, that winning over women is not considered important.)  What is driving Hillary supporters is that we wanted Democrats to win the election in November, and we have serious doubts Obama is the candidate who can make that happen.  Just because you don't agree, that does not mean your position is superior and we are wrong - if that's just a tactic to make people stop disagreeing, then it's not working.  But if it's truly your view, then I would say, open your mind - intelligent, reasonable, experienced politicos can and do have valid arguments in opposition to yours.


by Larissa on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:30:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (2.00 / 2)

From where I sit, it's Jerome who writes with the condescending tone. In fact, that week he was away was a relief.

Anyway, to the post's point, I've seen so many Hillary supporters cherry pick polls, I thought I was an orchard. Fact is, both teams are going to present info that sells their candidate better. Only difference is Team Clinton's spin makes the Tasmanian Devil look like a slug.


by abrxas on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:52:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re:game playing (none / 0)

hey, i just came over from kos, james wolcott, sic semper tyrannis, antiwar, crooks and liars, firedoglake, where i was playing games. i'm so glad now that i have found a "serious site" where i can have some real fun!


by hueydixiepearl on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:20:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (2.00 / 2)

i think jerome talks spin. that's about it these days.

Singer and Todd sometimes go beyond this primary race and not everything that comes from them is spin.

take from it what you will. But I'll do this once again. top 5 diaries on DK:
1.Reporters: "Who Cares About Voter Registration, We Want Conflict!"

  1. Obama gained in Central PA
  2. Charles Krauthammer:  Dishonest Hypocrite (on McCain).
  3. Forgotten, USA (on mcCain)
  4. The down-ballot races

You may not agree with DK or you may hate DK but judging by facts, that site does look at politics  at a relatively broad level while hitting at McCain at a fairly deep level.


!
by alex100 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:38:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ironically enough (none / 0)

I find Todd, who is a devout Clinton supporter, to be more objective at this point in the primary on this particular subject...

Some of the more "grab for anything" diaries can be laid at many people's feet however


by Nazgul35 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:38:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Exactly! (none / 0)

Hypocrisy rules!!!


by UrbanRedneck on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:22:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The yardstick for spin (2.00 / 4)

That is a pretty silly memo.

But not quite on the level of stupidity as "Michigan Counts As Is".

Silly Season, indeed.


by edmandspath on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:10:21 PM EST

Re: Obama blocked the revote (none / 0)

Yep...they'll get seated as soon as the delegates leader in the other states is clear.


by wengler on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:04:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: think your mad now - wait (2.00 / 1)

If you want to repeat this mindlessly, at least get the spelling right.

It should be "Think you're mad now? Wait." I can take nonsensical argument, or bad grammar, but not both at the same time.


Unable to rec or rate
Still supporting Obama
Still not putting up with "preening" posts
by jaiwithani on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:01:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

After we have a nominee (none / 0)

I'll be grinning ear to ear.


by UrbanRedneck on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:36:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama blocked the revote (none / 0)

Yeah, we've been down that road before...and I think that an honest assessment still yields the conclusion that Obama in a sense obstructed a revote by not offering an outline of what would have been acceptable to him. That is different from singlehandedly "blocking" a revote, but I'll give you that his campaign was obstructive. But then of course, it later became clear that it never would have happened anyway.

But let's run with your story for a second, just for fun. If Obama blocked a revote in Michigan...then Clinton owes the only metric by which she can claim any sort of lead, however tenuously, to Obama. Because she doesn't have more popular support, and the only way she can stand there in front of cameras and say "more people have voted for me" is by counting Michigan as-is, with no votes counting for Obama. If there had been a Michigan re-vote, she would not even have that tiny corner of spin left on which to stand. Exit polling in Michigan indicated that more people would have voted for Obama, had he been on the ballot, than voted uncommitted. I.e., crediting Obama with the "uncommitted" votes underestimates his popular support. I.e. some of the people who voted Clinton in Michigan only did so because Obama was not on the ballot.

But, as Clinton supporters have been reminding Obama supporters ever since Obama developed an insurmountable lead in the pledged delegates: no one wins until they hit the magic number, therefore the superdelegates are going to decide this one. Good luck convincing the superdelegates that Clinton "is winning the popular vote." Put another way, good luck convincing them that no one in Michigan would have voted for Obama in a real primary.


by kydoc on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:46:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm from Michigan (none / 0)

and I could give a fig less.

We broke the rules (agreed to before hand by everyone...even Clinton) and should be punished for no other reason than the precedence set.

How can you enforce rules designed in the future if you allow Florida and Michigan to get away with it...Iowa and New Hampshire will only use these excuses to their advantage in the future.

Besides, it won't matter anyway. It will all be over but the crying by June...and the united Democratic Convention will vote for Obama unanimously come August.

But they still must be punished (maybe half their delegates)...

As a Michigan voter I surely don't want our Potemkin election votes to count!


by Nazgul35 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:43:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The yardstick for spin (2.00 / 4)

Oh come on, from a blog saying Clinton is ahead in the popular vote if you don't include a bunch of caucuses and if you do include two primaries that don't count...

It is the whole glasses houses and stones thing Jerome.  I can't wait til this thing is over and I can enjoy this blog like I have for years.


Tony Romo for Secretary of Awesome
by kasjogren on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:11:51 PM EST

Re: The yardstick for spin (2.00 / 5)

I used to love MyDD. The battle in the Democratic Party makes me sick. The arguments here and conversely over at Kos have lost all value to me, right now.

I'm going to go read a book now and save my sanity.


by gert on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:17:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I just don't get it (2.00 / 6)

You used to inspire with your posts and add to the dialog in a way few could ever hope to. I don't know what this primary has done to our party, or the community you built but your willful ignorance of the faults of Clinton's campaign combined with the way you seem to take perverse glee in the faults of Obama's campaign really disturbs me.

You are, of course, correct in your analysis of the memo. It is, quite clearly, absurd. What I just can't get past is the way that you, and certain other Clinton supporters, revel in it while completely ignoring it when her campaign and her supporters do and say things that are equally stupid and dishonest.


Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America
by JDF on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:13:09 PM EST

Re: I just don't get it (2.00 / 1)

this is a valid point you make.

I don't hold anyone that is critical of the media yet dumbs down the debate to a high regard.

but that's not his goal. His goal is to push across the DLC candidate. The wife of the ex-president, the establishment candidate.

He is not "Crashing the Gate".


!
by alex100 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:51:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I just don't get it (2.00 / 2)

Heaven forbid, the wife who had 8 years of training by the side of a man who left office at a 68% approval rating after 8 years of peace and prosperity.  A brilliant, gifted politician who is the only Democrat to get himself elected president in 28 years.  Heaven forbid.

And establishment?  You haven't looked at Obama's career to date, obviously.  What a rude awakening some people will get if they get their wish.


by Larissa on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:55:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I just don't get it (none / 0)

Bill Clinton has done a great job in turning off lots of Democrats to him. He's sure done it for me, to the point that I don't want him anywhere near the White House.  The other day he said folks played the race card on him and the next day he denied that he said that -- even though the remarks were on tape.  

Let me repeat: He said something one day and the next day claimed he didn't say it, even though it was on tape!

I'm sorry, but I'm done with him.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:33:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: thank the gods (none / 0)

Think of this person as a proxy for many, many more in the reality-based community.  


by zadura on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:36:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

reality based? lmao n/m (none / 0)


What would Eleanor Roosevelt do?
by ricardo4 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:19:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I just don't get it (none / 0)

i'm not sure it would be a rude awakening. I know what we'll get if we have Hillary in the oval office. More lobbyists as usual. At least with Obama you'd have a platform that at its very mimimum weakens those people's power who have had a hand in destroying our government's pledge to the people.

I'm not going to get into Bill too much. He was the best politician in my lifetime but his policy was lukewarm at best (some good, some bad). That has no bearing on Hillary and if it does, it's a negative IMO. i'm not big on DLC candidates, their platform or anyone whom associates with them. You might think otherwise but the DLC is establishment, something that Obama has not been entrenched in, no matter what you may think.


!
by alex100 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:09:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think you do (2.00 / 4)

All the boy blogs are 100% pro-Obama 100% of the time.  MyDD is 50% pro-Obama.  But that's not good enough for some Obama supporters.

Look, all that is being accomplished by such behavior is, oh, turning off half the party you are going to need to win in November.

Play games with numbers, but in your heart of hearts, you know this is a close race, and Hillary has a lot of supporters - indeed, as many as Obama.

How about sharing the party - and the blogosphere?  Or you will find yourself alone in an echo chamber.  While we either sit home or look to the other side.


by Larissa on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:51:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think you do (1.00 / 1)

thanks for the threat


by obamaforprez on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:27:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think you do (2.00 / 1)

Say what?  Dismissing me with a mis-characterization like that?

No, I'm not going to let you.

The exit polls in states Democrats need to win clearly show that greater numbers of Hillary supporters are saying they will not vote for Obama.

There is a wealth of information demonstrating how pivotal it is for Democrats to win elections - or come close.  Google "gender gap".

This is the reality of elections.  


by Larissa on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:39:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think you do (1.50 / 2)

You are right a great number of Hillary supporters will not vote for Obama. They are sore losers and can't get over it.  It is not our fault they have overtly sensitive feelings and don't have the concept of understanding that the majority of people don't want the Clintons back in the White House.  If they can't respect the votes of the majority I won't lose any sleep over them.  Maybe Hillary can do a hug-a-campaign after this is done so they can feel better about themselves.

Talk about entitlment, what's next Chelsea in 2020?


by obamaforprez on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:46:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You want to see sore loser. (none / 0)

Take a look at DailyKos in the day or two after Hilary has won a primary.  Like, say, right now.  The level of over-the-top hysteria by the Obama fanboys is astounding.


by KathleenM1 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:52:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You want to see sore loser. (none / 0)

haha yet we are not the ones whining that we won't vote for Hillary if she is the nominee.  Man you guys are a riot!  


by obamaforprez on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:58:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think you do (none / 0)

overtly sensitive

hugs

feelings

I got the code words loud and clear.

You just demonstrated my point.

Thanks.


by Larissa on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:00:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think you do (none / 0)

code words?  Let me be clear, I am not going to pander to you or beg you to vote for Obama, go for McCain, I really don't care. I am here to talk and discuss in nominating my democratic candidate to the White House. I will do everything in my power to see that happen.  

60-75 million voters did not vote in 2004, I will concentrate on those people


by obamaforprez on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:06:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: for some voters (none / 0)

It comes down to this. Some voters look at their own state legislators and say is there a single person here that I would want to see as president during a time of war and an economic downturn worse than the seventies? ( I know a lot of you were even around during the seventies) Then they say sorry, I don't like Clinton that much but I want someone with a few more years of at least life experiences to handle these hard times.
Unfortunately Axelrod and company want to turn any white voters who vote for Clinton into racists. That is what is really dividing this party.
What would Eleanor Roosevelt do?
by ricardo4 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:25:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think you do (none / 0)

A lot of those Hillary supporters polled are Limbaugh democrats-for-a-day...  and many of the rest won't vote for Hillary in the general anyways.  I think the exit poll out of PA said that 20% of Hillary supporters plans to vote for McCain anyways  Those are the "reagan dems" (plus Limbaugh democrats) that no one can win over, but the argument to try is made anyways... as it is every election... and it always fails...

So, it really is even in the end... I'm sorry, but it is...  


"This was never part of our arrangement, Specter" "I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!" "This deal keeps getting worse all the time!"
by LordMike on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:57:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think you do (2.00 / 1)

Not so.  Here is the link to the exit poll:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primari es/results/epolls/index.html#PADEM

Go to page 5.

Of the 87% who were registered as Democrats in January, 57% voted for Hillary compared to 43% for Obama - HILLARY GOT THE DEMOCRATIC VOTE

Of the 5% who were registered as Republicans in January, 50% voted for Hillary and 50% for Obama - OBAMA & HILLARY SPLIT THE REPUBS


by Larissa on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:09:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: thank you (none / 0)

that is an example of "reality based" blogging imho. no spin just data.


What would Eleanor Roosevelt do?
by ricardo4 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:27:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think you do (none / 0)

I see what you mean!  Thanks for the support, I appreciate it.


by Larissa on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:13:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think you do (none / 0)

I try but I go to school full time and work full time as well.

/In other words, I am an elitist


by obamaforprez on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:14:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think you do (none / 0)

So are you voting for HRC because she's a woman? Are you ok with the lying and about her breaking her pledge regarding MI & FL? You know - a pledge - like in the pledge of allegiance. How would you trust her?


Obama 08!
by comingawakening on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:37:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think you do (2.00 / 1)

What did the pledge say? That they couldn't campaign in those states? No one campaigned.

That they couldn't have their names on the ballot? Yet, every candidate had their name on the ballot in Forida and Dodd, Clinton and Kucinich all had their names on the ballot in Michigan. So, obviously, it can't be that.

So what pledge did Clinton allegedly "break" that wasn't also broken by the other candidates?
 


"Who are you for? That is the wrong question. It should be who is for you?" HRC
by skohayes on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:50:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think you do (none / 0)

The pledge said that they would agree that FL and MI wouldn't count. As a result, they shouldn't campaign in those states.

I can find you Clinton's quote on it from November and January if you want?


Obama 08!
by comingawakening on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:27:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think you do (none / 0)

She pledged to not participate in the elections.  

Not only did she participate in MI by having her name on the ballot, she's now arguing that those vote should count.

And before your ask, FL laws meant that no one could remove their name from the ballot there without withdrawing from the race nationally.


by ChrisKaty on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 03:17:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think you do (none / 0)

My concern is not how pro- Obama or Pro- Hillary the site is. I love both candidates and am supporting Obama because I happen to love him more. My problem is the tone of certain people; including, at this point, Jerome. They take glee in pointing out the faults of Obama they way they would with a Republican...its become a civil war and that depresses me.


Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America
by JDF on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:11:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Double standard personified... (1.00 / 1)

So, when you Obama-philes were making stuff up about Hillary for months that didn't count?

Look, its human nature to want to see justice done in this world. Obama has been playing a nasty game and trying to pretend that he isn't. As its become increasingly obvious more and more people have turned sour on his brand of vague promises and often, anti-Democrat slur. Can you really blame people for wanting to see some light thrown onto this situation?

>My concern is not how pro- Obama or Pro- Hillary the site is. I love both candidates and am supporting Obama because I happen to love him more. My problem is the tone of certain people; including, at this point, Jerome. They take glee in pointing out the faults of Obama they way they would with a Republican...its become a civil war and that depresses me.


public option=not affordable for middle. It cant cover all affordably, google adverse selection for why
by architek on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:42:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Double standard personified... (none / 0)

"When you obama-philes?"

All I can say to that is go to hell.

You have never offered a reasoned response to anything on this site anyway.

Go back to hillaryis44, or better yet, redstate.

I have never once lumped all hillary supporters together and I have never been one of the Obama supporters who guns at Hillary for no good reason either.

The fact that you live in a world that to like one of these great candidates you have to hate the other is pathetic and sad. Get over yourself.


Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America
by JDF on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:21:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think you do (2.00 / 2)

we know this is not a close race. That's why anyone who's objective should be appalled by Jerome's recent approach to this race. It's straight from the  Hillary playbook. It reeks of desperation, it lowers the discourse of how to get progressives (or anyone) elected and it plays on division.

tell me, at what length will you go to get Hillary elected?


!
by alex100 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:14:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

If -THIS- ISN'T A CLOSE RACE.... (none / 0)

what IS?

>we know this is not a close race. That's why anyone who's objective...


Hillary is ahead in popular votes, the votes of real people, Obama's ahead in the math department.

Which matters more? Its anybody's guess. If this isn't a close race, pray tell, what is?


public option=not affordable for middle. It cant cover all affordably, google adverse selection for why
by architek on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:45:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If -THIS- ISN'T A CLOSE RACE.... (none / 0)

If it were a close race, Clinton wouldn't need about 85% of the undeclared non-add-on super delegates to get the nomination.  Delegates decide the nominee.


by CA Pol Junkie on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:12:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If -THIS- ISN'T A CLOSE RACE.... (2.00 / 2)

"the votes of real people."

you have to hate those "fake" people right? How dare they foil Clinton's fate as prez?

I'm not willing to put words in your mouth but i can only shake my head at what is implied.

and clinton leading in the popular vote thing? well, that's so silly I won't ever get into it.


!
by alex100 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:26:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"Play games with numbers?" (2.00 / 1)

You mean, counting the votes? Counting the delegates? That kind of "playing games?" Clinton's only (for the moment) successful metric comes from pretending no one would vote for Obama in Michigan in a real election. Counting all the HRC votes from the election that everyone acknowledged before hand did not count, and counting no votes for Obama even though exit polling shows he would have gotten almost all of the uncommitted vote and some of the Clinton vote had it been a real election, and had he been on the ballot, she can for now (not before PA, and almost definitely not after NC and IN) claim that "more people have voted for me."

Who's "playing games" with numbers? Who is denying something they know in their "heart of hearts" to be true?  


by kydoc on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:00:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The yardstick for spin (1.77 / 9)

"I don't know that I've ever seen anything a campaign poll memo that so obviously cherry-picks polls over the last 4 months to make their case."

Ummmm... haven't you looked at the front page of your own site lately?


"This was never part of our arrangement, Specter" "I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!" "This deal keeps getting worse all the time!"
by LordMike on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:14:19 PM EST

Heh (2.00 / 1)


John McCain on social security.
by heresjohnny on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:14:35 PM EST

Re: The yardstick for spin (2.00 / 6)

I can tell from the hysterical overreactions by the Obamabots here that you really hit a nerve with the popular vote thing, Jerome.

It's what Obama Nation fears -- the great unwashed masses rearing their ugly heads to once again have the gall to expect the Democratic Party to listen to them.


by Jim J on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:14:56 PM EST

Re: The yardstick for spin (2.00 / 2)

i learned from Hillarybots that calling someone hysterical is nothing short of misogyny.

regarding hitting the nerve, I think it's more disbelief then anything else.


!
by alex100 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:16:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The yardstick for spin (2.00 / 3)

I think what Obama supporters dislike is the cherry picking of a popular vote count that A) ignores the will of Michigan voters and B) ignores the many caucus participants that were never tallied.

If Clinton takes the lead in a fair popular vote count, so be it. But all Clinton has achieved so far is to temporarily take the lead in one popular vote metric - the metric that most favors her and ignores some serious errors in tabulation.

Once she gains the lead in some other popular vote counts, maybe then we can start considering the implications.


www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com
by LandStander on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:24:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The yardstick for spin (none / 0)

You're right. The will of the people must be heard! And they must be heard...through superdelegates! Those salt-of-the-earth, hard-working , real American party insider elites. Not, you know, the majority who support Obama. http://gallup.com http://realclearpolitics.com

Saying that the campaign that tuns on small donations and built itself against the party establishment candidate is probably not the most effective line of attack. You can do better.


Unable to rec or rate
Still supporting Obama
Still not putting up with "preening" posts
by jaiwithani on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:25:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: hello (none / 0)

You should look at the list of superdelegates.  

those salt-of-the-earth, hard-working , real American party insider elites
Obama can't win the nomination without them. So far he has garnered the support of many. Do you really want to really want to diss all of the superdelegates? Many are the people who stuck with liberal causes and the party when liberal was a dirty word. How can you ask them to make Obama the party nominee and belittle them at the same time?


What would Eleanor Roosevelt do?
by ricardo4 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:33:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: hello (none / 0)

I don't want them to make Obama the nominee. I want (some of) them to ratify the decision of the voters.

I'm not afraid of "dissing" them, not least of all because I'm a nobody who posts on a few liberal blogs.

I support the Pelosi Club - superdelegates who agree to cede their role in the process to the voters by agreeing to reinforce the pledged delegate count winner.

This is the difference in saying that Obama or Clinton "depend" on the superdelegates to win. Obama needs 1/3 of the remaining superdelegates to ratify the results of the election. Clinton needs 2/3 of the remaining superdelegates to overturn the results of the elections.

Given that the superdelegates have always voted overwhelmingly with the pledged delegate winner, and given that Obama needs far fewer supers than Clinton does, I think it's extremely disingenious to insinuate that Obama and Clinton depend on superdelegates in the same way.


Unable to rec or rate
Still supporting Obama
Still not putting up with "preening" posts
by jaiwithani on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:08:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: so by your logic (2.00 / 1)

Kerry and Kennedy should pull back their support of Obama and reflect the will of the voters of their state?


What would Eleanor Roosevelt do?
by ricardo4 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:12:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: so by your logic (none / 0)

No, because we're not nominating the president of Massachusetts. We're nominating the Democratic candidate for president of the united states. As such, they should reinforce the decision of democratic primary voters.

If Obama were running for an office in Massachusetts, then obviously their prerogative would be to endorse the will of voters in their state. But this isn't a local election.


Unable to rec or rate
Still supporting Obama
Still not putting up with "preening" posts
by jaiwithani on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:27:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The yardstick for spin (none / 0)

Hm. And what would the great unwashed masses give Obama out of MI and the caucus states when it comes to that pop vote argument?


John McCain on social security.
by heresjohnny on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:21:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The yardstick for spin (2.00 / 1)

It's pretty easy to win the popular vote when you include two straw polls, exclude 4 caucuses that didn't count individual preference and then run up the score in one of the straw polls by receiving 328,309 to 0.

I don't feel sore, I feel frustrated. Some Hillary supporters seem to think people really are stupid lemmings that can't figure out that these numbers are crap.


by wengler on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:12:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The yardstick for spin (none / 0)

There is no argument. It's just embarrassing to see a fellow Democrat being made fun of by every single news show today about the count. Look it up. Morning Joe, Hardball, Keith Obermann, CNN, and even Fox - HRC's best friend.

How can HRC say that MI and FL count when she signed a pledge to not have these states count? Are you ok with her breaking a pledge? Like a pledge of allegiance - you know?

Bosnia, MI - popular votes, Colombia, her campaign financing mess, and so many others issues. How can you stand it?


Obama 08!
by comingawakening on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:42:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How about you (none / 0)

how do you stand the hypocrisy: the candidate of change who has his surrogates play the race card against the Clintons and anyone who criticizes him (confirmed by Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC the memos Clinton referred to do exist), the candidate who is for hope but stays for 20 years at a church where sermons are filled with language that at a minimum is "bitter" and divisive that even Oprah left, the candidate whose lifestyle is best described by his wife

Michelle Obama is sitting with a group of six women around a table in the basement playroom of the Zanesville Day Nursery, here in economically troubled central Ohio. Her talk is of struggle -- her own struggle, the women's struggles, the struggles of women across the country. There are struggles over money, over kids, over jobs, over husbands and ex-husbands. And perhaps most of all, there is the struggle inside.

"It's a constant sense of guilt," Obama, dressed simply in a blue sweater with a triple strand of pearls, tells the women of her own dilemma as a working mother. "It's guilt, feeling guilty all the time."

So how does she keep it all together? "I'm fine, because I have a strong informal support network," Obama says. "I have a mother who lives five minutes from me. I don't know what I would do, even if we weren't running, I don't know what I would do as a professional without having that kind of support system. So that keeps me sane."

But not everyone has a close relative living nearby. And not everyone can afford to keep it all together, especially here in Muskingum County, where, according to the census, the median household income in 2004 was $37,192, below both the Ohio and national average. Out of that, there's the mortgage. And child care. Health care. Education. Lessons. "I know we're spending -- I added it up for the first time -- we spend between the two kids, on extracurriculars outside the classroom, we're spending about $10,000 a year on piano and dance and sports supplements and so on and so forth," Mrs. Obama tells the women. "And summer programs. That's the other huge cost. Barack is saying, `Whyyyyyy are we spending that?' And I'm saying, `Do you know what summer camp costs?'"

With all those concerns, one might wonder whether the women should be comforting Mrs. Obama, but she assures them that she's really O.K. "We don't complain because we've got resources because of our education. We've got family structure," she says. "So I tell people don't cry for me."

But there are still problems. As she has many times in the past, Mrs. Obama complains about the lasting burden of student loans dating from her days at Princeton and Harvard Law School. She talks about people who end up taking years and years, until middle age, to pay off their debts. "The salaries don't keep up with the cost of paying off the debt, so you're in your 40s, still paying off your debt at a time when you have to save for your kids," she says.

from here. (sorry to make you read York but the "liberal" media outlets only print the glowing news accounts on Ms. Obama for fear of the obomite backlash.)

so how do you stand it. Both candidates are flawed. Some of us would rather have the flawed candidate that we know instead of the flawed candidate we don't know.
 


What would Eleanor Roosevelt do?
by ricardo4 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:05:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How about you (none / 0)

So what's the issue? Look, professionals are not human now? Are you a f-ing communist or something. Everyone has problems. Trust me, they are not wealthy enough to have employees in their homes like the Clintons do in their five homes.

I think you are the hypocrite because you are holding MO to a level you are not holding the Clintons to. She was being honest and not holding back. Do you know what Michele went through when she was growing up?

You are worse than a Republican to turn against MO and BO because they finally started making some money and want the best for their little girls.

You are a hater and now I understand why you will not support Obama. You will do better supporting McCain because that is what you are already doing.


Obama 08!
by comingawakening on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:34:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The yardstick for spin (2.00 / 3)

sigh

things keep getting sillier and sillier around these parts.


!
by alex100 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:15:00 PM EST

Re: The yardstick for spin (2.00 / 1)

Sully is such an Obama shill that he should have ZERO credibility in any argument over electability.  I think Christopher Hitchens said it best:

"Andrew really wants to have Barack Obama's f**king child"


by BlueDoggyDogg on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:15:17 PM EST

Re: The yardstick for spin (2.00 / 1)

What's the point of your argument? And Jerome's a "shill" or, as I would say, biased supporter, of Hillary.  So are you it appears.  Saying ANYONE has an unbiased argument on electability is just plain silly.  The fact that both sides (see how I admit that) easily manipulate hard numbers, its ridiculous to even try to argue about how is being "honest" in the electability argument.


by quixote27 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:36:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The yardstick for spin (2.00 / 2)

Jerome is hardly a shill, he started out for John Edwards, then smartly shifted to the most plausible general election winner; Sen. Hillary Clinton.  Andrew Sullivan, on the other hand, is a frothing-at-the-mouth Clinton hater, has been since the 90's, and can hardly be considered an objective observer at this point.  Nor can Kos, since he has been a frothing-at-the-mouth DLC hater from the start as well.  

I think we can safely assume they'd both rather lose with Obama than win with Hillary (and right now they are likely to get their wish), whereas Jerome has sensibly made the case for a Hillary general election candidacy, and subsequent Democratic victory in November.


by BlueDoggyDogg on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:57:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The yardstick for spin (2.00 / 2)

According to one of Kos favorite litle boys now appearing on the wreck list, even if Obama loses, "we" win.  Talk about spin.  


by Tolstoy on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:39:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Regarding the DLC (2.00 / 1)

In fairness to Kos, there is plenty to dislike about the DLC, at least if you are a populist minded grass-roots type political wonk.  It is one of the reasons I am an Obama supporter and not a Clinton supporter.  In my oppinion, the DLC often seems more responsive to pressures within the beltway and less to actual citizens.  Also, they oppose the 50 state strategy.  HRC's affiliation with the DLC is enough to make her something less than my top pick for Democratic nominee.  I'm not some frothing at the mouth Hillary Hater... I think she is a talented and accomplished politician... just not my top pick.  I've researched Obama, his history and platform, and it lines up best with what I want in a president.  I am also impressed with his ability to grass-roots organize and fundraise, a good thing to have in a presidential candidate come November.  No cool-aid drinking involved.  I've not been hypnotized by Obama and his silver tongued oratory, nor am I driven by some sort of animosity toward Clinton.  I honestly think most of us are that way, and it is only a noisy few (on both sides) that are stirring up all the animosity among fellow Democrats.  We need to reverse that trend before it really does create division in the party and hand the election to McCain.


by protothad on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:59:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The yardstick for spin (2.00 / 1)

there can be no "sensibly made case for Hillary" at this point.

Both candidates outperform the other depending on the poll. Both candidates have a great shot at beating McCain in the fall. One candidate does it by winning in parts of the south while the other does it by winning most of the midwest and picking up a host of Western states. One candidate eats into polls while the other can't seem to hold onto big leads.

but let's be "sensible" shall we? how many down ticket races does Hillary help with? You'd be hard pressed to find 10.


!
by alex100 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:25:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The yardstick for spin (2.00 / 1)

While Andrew Sullivan is mostly a dope, insulting him by bringing up his sexuality says more about the speaker than it does about Sullivan.  Then again, it's Hitchens we're talking about.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:14:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The yardstick for spin (1.00 / 4)

Hillary admired?

"Mommy, can I lie about Bosnia too when I grow up?"
"Mommy, can I take over my husbands company after he retires when I grow up?"
"Mommy, can I be President of Michigan when I grow up like HRC is?"


Obama 08!
by comingawakening on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:46:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you have just confirmed it (2.00 / 1)

I have always suspected that many Hilary haters really are little boys with mommy issues. lmbo.


What would Eleanor Roosevelt do?
by ricardo4 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:07:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Rocky Start (none / 0)

5 for 5


by edmandspath on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:15:32 PM EST

Jerome (2.00 / 4)

I'm just wondering if you wrote this as an O'bot test?  I mean, I know they smell anti-Odrama posts but to challenge them with one disguised as anti-pollster is really not fair at all.

Nice post, thanks chief


I didn't believe in god before the primaries and I still don't.
by NewHampster on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:16:23 PM EST

Re: Jerome (2.00 / 3)

You realizing that calling us Obamabots is kind of silly, right? I mean, we're all Democrats. In a few months we're all going to be allies again.

It's almost always a better idea to attack the candidate rather than their supporters. If you try to convince us that Clinton is a better candidate than Obama, you may win some converts. If you insist on denouncing us all as soulless robots who hate reason and throw hot coffee on small-town Americans on the way to church, probably we will be less receptive to your arguments and end up working even harder for our candidate.

Name-calling may feel good, but it's ultimately detrimental to your cause.


Unable to rec or rate
Still supporting Obama
Still not putting up with "preening" posts
by jaiwithani on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:29:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I can't help it (2.00 / 2)

I'm a HillBot and proud of it


I didn't believe in god before the primaries and I still don't.
by NewHampster on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:31:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I can't help it (none / 0)

I thought a "-bot" was a mindless program that deposits spam in blog comments...are you proud to be one of those?  


by Alice in Florida on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:50:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I can't help it (2.00 / 8)

Be a Clinton supporter, not a HillBot. Question our candidate. Acknowledge that every candidate is human, and imperfect. Primary season is the time to be thoughtful and think about hew we want to approach the general election.

We'd all be better off if supporters on both sides were a little less dogmatic and a little more frank in these online discussions. It's obvious when we're spinning to each other. We're all familiar enough with politics to recognize when we're misleading or lying to each other to make out candidate look better or make the other candidate look worse.

It's silly, and pointless. Spinning is for networks, where much of the audience is not very well informed and both sides are furiously trying to control the narrative. Here, there's no reason why we can't be open and frank with each other, despite our differences.

Come general election season, being a bot is fine. But for now, when youre trying to convince fellow Democrats to see things your way, being a bot is not going to do much to help your candidate nor bolster your reputation outside a circle of fellow bots.


Unable to rec or rate
Still supporting Obama
Still not putting up with "preening" posts
by jaiwithani on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:53:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I can't help it (none / 0)

I'm sorry, "our candidate" should be "your candidate". I'm pretty obviously an Obama supporter.


Unable to rec or rate
Still supporting Obama
Still not putting up with "preening" posts
by jaiwithani on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:54:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

GIVE THIS MOJO NOW!! (none / 0)

Very well put


"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."
by vcalzone on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:58:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I can't help it (none / 0)

stating the obvious isn't necessary.


!
by alex100 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:54:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

allies again? (2.00 / 1)

I don't think so.

I may vote for the same candidates, donate to the same candidates, and even work for the same candidates... and I will gladly remember people who were willing to have reasonable dialog as my friends and allies. But there are plenty here, on both sides of the fight, that were nowhere near reasonable. They were petty, thoughtless, rude and they showed how little they actually care about the Democratic party. Those people will never be my allies again, hell- I will never respect them again.


Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America
by JDF on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:35:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: allies again? (2.00 / 2)

Forgiveness is a virtue.


Unable to rec or rate
Still supporting Obama
Still not putting up with "preening" posts
by jaiwithani on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:45:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: allies again? (none / 0)

some of us are more virtuous than others... that being said I will forgive but that doesn't mean I will forget, or assume they are something other than what I view them as.


Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America
by JDF on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:08:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jerome (none / 0)

I mean, we're all Democrats

Not what I've been hearing.

Read some posts here.  Apparently only certain kinds of Democrats are Democrats.  Just recently, I learned that Harold Ford Jr. was not a "real Democrat," from the wisdom of a sagacious Democrat.


by reggie44pride on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:58:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

What he said (2.00 / 2)

I wish everyone could grok this fundimental truth.  It may feel good to tear into someone who supports the other candidate, but it does nothing positive in the long run.  Trash talk and name calling will never convince anyone to change their mind... it can only indirectly harm the candidate you support.  If you really want to support your candidate, you need to be respectful and polite when making your point, even if you feel provoked.

It is basically the fundimental principle of customer service that was drilled into me when I was a bartender.  We had to be polite at all times, even when cutting a drunkard off or throwing them out of the bar.  It wasn't just about the oppinion of the one customer causing a problem... but all the other customers that might form an oppinion (about the bar and not just you) based on your behavior.

Just remember, when we start bashing our fellow Dems... it makes Karl Rove smile.


by protothad on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:21:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jerome (1.00 / 2)

Nice one Hilltard! Seriously, I got warned for using Hillhadi, but for some reason the term "obamabot" isn't an insult, huh go figure no dbl standard there!


by Socraticsilence on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:37:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The yardstick for spin (2.00 / 2)

Um, this is a surprise? It's both side's JOB to present things in as best a light as possible for their candidate. Both sides have presented pretty ridiculous things to point as to why they should be the candidate.

Exhibit A: Obama claiming he can carry ND or SD.

Exhibit B: Clinton claiming Michigan should count in her nomination fight.

:: infuriation ::


"If we can't live together... we're going to die alone."
by VAAlex on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:18:17 PM EST

Re: The yardstick for spin (2.00 / 0)

Exhibit A: Obama claiming he can carry ND or SD.

It's possible that he can. I wouldn't bet on it, but the Dakotas aren't Alabama; Prior to Daschle's loss, all six members of the Dakotas' congressional delegation were Democrats (it's currently 5/6). Lesson: They'll vote for a person they like regardless of the letter after his or her name.


by RP McMurphy on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:23:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The yardstick for spin (2.00 / 1)

If he's able to put these two states into play, then I think Sen. Obama will have a very good November, and ND/SD will just be the excessive icing on a sugary, bloated, Democratic victory cake.


"If we can't live together... we're going to die alone."
by VAAlex on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:26:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The yardstick for spin (2.00 / 1)

Both states have Democrats who won state-wide elections now and the war is unpopular there, as everywhere.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:35:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The yardstick for spin (none / 0)

I like his chances there, even if he doesn't win it will force the republicans to put money and  effort to keep it out of Obama's hands.  Keep them spinning around the country


by obamaforprez on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:37:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Exactly. It's the 50 state strategy (2.00 / 1)

The beauty of the 50 state strategy in the current political climate is it amplifies the Democrat's money advantage this time around.  By putting a few more of the red states in play (even if the chance of flipping them is only so-so), we force the Republicans to spread their even smaller money pile  even more thinly.  That means less Republican money in key battleground states, more down-ticket Democratic victories, and a stronger party in the long term.


by protothad on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:31:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The yardstick for spin (2.00 / 0)

Good point!
Its all about the spin....
We don't need a thinker. We need a doer: someone who'll act without considering the consequences. (H.J. Simpson)
by Newcomer on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:24:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The yardstick for spin (2.00 / 5)

Barack Obama: Cherry picking we can believe in


Hillary supporter for Barack Obama in 2008
by zcflint05 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:19:04 PM EST

Re: The yardstick for spin (2.00 / 3)

Hillary Clinton : Got any change?


by edmandspath on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:23:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This is silly season (2.00 / 1)

and everyone seems to be going mad, from saying that surrogates of the rival campaign need to be defeated (Se Rep Murhpy from PA as well as Gov Rendell and Mayor Nutter out of PA and Philly).  You are not immune based on the content of your posts, let me cite this as an example:
http://jerome-armstrong.mydd.com/story/2 008/3/26/212852/240

Where you throw a jab that isn't necessary and shows your spin is hard at work.

I agree that Sully is blinded by Clinton hatred though.  He utterly and truly despises them.


Student Guy=JoeMentum. No really Student Guy=JoeMentum, after all JoeMentum was an embarrassment so is Student Guy. This sig is FAIL!!
by Student Guy on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:21:25 PM EST

That's politics. (2.00 / 2)

What exactly is surprising about that?  Both of these camps are doing whatever they can to convince these supers that they have bragging rights, no matter what it is they have to throw together.  All spin is intellectually dishonest and neither camp is innocent.


This administration is not sinking. This administration is soaring! If anything, they are rearranging the deck chairs on the Hindenburg!
by venavena on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:21:43 PM EST

Re: The yardstick for spin (2.00 / 1)

I guess I agree with many of the other posters here. I looked to Todd, Jonathan, and Jerome, and thought hey- they support Clinton, but they make a real attempt for unbiased support; they stand up for Obama when they need to; heck, with Todd, for awhile I couldn't tell he supported either candidate. I guess I assumed he supported Obama, because a Clinton supporter had told me so. Maybe for not being aggressive enough.

Now, though... yikes. I mean, hell, they can support whoever they want, but good Lord.


Serious question- Is This Snark?
by ragekage on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:23:06 PM EST

Re: The yardstick for spin (2.00 / 1)

I assume you are referring to Jonathan of the front page?  Are you kidding?  The content of every post has been drop out Hillary, it's impossible Hillary, Hillary go home, why on earth are you still here Hillary, you get the message Hillary.

This is one of the rare mainstream blogs to show any support for Hillary.  And it's not because there aren't people to support her - it's because you guys got here first.  It won't be like that in 2012.  But now, it's very ungenerous of y'all to not share.

Also amazing to me is that Obama supporters do not realize that while they can bully Hillary supporters off blogs and work the refs so they feel peer pressure until they admit Hillary was their choice "by attrition", they have won the battle but lost the war.

You need us to win in November.  Just because you win a 99% majority on Daily Kos, I have news for you, in the real world - where the general election takes place - your "victory" drowning us out doesn't count for beans.  You don't have enough to win alone - or didn't PA or OH tell you anything?  


by Larissa on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:11:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The yardstick for spin (none / 0)

Uhh, I was never on Kos. MyDD was the first place I ever posted, and I only found out about Kos through the little writer's strike. I'd followed links there every once and awhile, sure, but I never thought much of it.

Heck, I've been saying the whole time that we all need to work together. That's a two-way street. If we don't all work together, we're screwed. Period.


Serious question- Is This Snark?
by ragekage on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:38:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The yardstick for spin (none / 0)

I appreciate your reply, thank you.

I didn't intend for you to think I was directing the comments at you, I was not.

It was a general statement about the atmosphere on the mainstream blogs.


by Larissa on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:51:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The yardstick for spin (none / 0)

I guess I'll have to take your word on it. Before finding MyDD, the only political blog I new about was Hillaryis44.org, which, I'm sure you can imagine my view of things at the time.


Serious question- Is This Snark?
by ragekage on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:52:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Pleeeeeze! Like Hillary's Campaign doesn't spin! (2.00 / 1)

I expect spin coming out of a campaign, that's their job.


It's time to restore balance and fairness to our economy,... It's time to stop giving tax cuts to corporations that ship jobs overseas... - Barack Obama
by Lefty Coaster on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:25:35 PM EST

Re: The yardstick for spin (2.00 / 2)

heh! yep, that's definitely in andrew sullivan territory. it would have almost been better to leave the citations off.


by campskunk on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:28:12 PM EST

Re: The yardstick for spin (2.00 / 0)

damn, you just got served!


--++++Stay Gold, Ponyboy!++++--
by amde on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:29:47 PM EST

President McCain, and maybe we deserve it. (none / 0)

John McCain, a war hero, is genially walking around New Orleans today, criticizing Bush's actions there and making friends.  

I'm reading descriptions of him on this site "demented old man" and the like.  It should be pointed out that the ones who are behaving dementedly are Democrats.  We have run ads against our candidate that are as bad as what the GOP is planning.  

I think if I was not a political obsessive (and this is losing its charm element for me at this point) I would never want to see or hear from either of our candidates again.  Candidate fatigue.  There is no longer anything inspirational in this campaign, but then the Clinton campaign has a low opinion of inspiration unless it is Bill in 92.  GOP-style ads have been fashioned by her campaign.  His campaign has shown a tin ear at times (Axelrod yesterday).  It's a bloody ingrown mess and the chances of anything good coming out of it are slimmer and slimmer.


by mady on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:30:28 PM EST

Re: President McCain, and maybe we deserve it. (2.00 / 2)

Do I remember a picture of McCain cutting a cake with Bush during the time bush should have been in NO doing something for those stranded at the stadium.  McCain didn't look upset with Bush then right in the middle of the crisis. I wonder what's happened.  Oh that's right he wants to be president.  Anything McCain says, there is a picture of him with Bush proving it he doesnt mean it.


by Scotch on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:37:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: President McCain, and maybe we deserve it. (2.00 / 2)

Yep.  Here it is.  You don't have to look far to find it.  It's all over the web.  It and proof that McCain is a hypocrite.

http://www.oliverwillis.com/index.php/20 08/04/24/john-mccains-lies-on-katrina-an d-new-orleans/


by Scotch on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:42:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: President McCain, and maybe we deserve it. (none / 0)

McCain may be a hypocrite but he is out there making friends while we are tearing each other to bits.


by mady on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:05:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The yardstick for spin (none / 0)

Jerome, I'm coming to your defense.

Someone asked me recently what I thought about this, that or the other in the campaign.  And while I pride myself on the ability to provide objective analysis, it dawned on me that this has gone on too long and that it was virtually impossible for me to provide any information without a huge slant that shows my view of who should be the nominee.  It is evidenced when my candidate's opponent says something fairly innocuous and I still find myself seething.

If you find yourself in this boat, you have exactly two options.

1) Declare it at the beginning of each post, saying I'm crazy biased and can't see straight, but...

or

2) Ketchup.  It has natural mellowing agents that help you accept loss...


by niksder on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:31:25 PM EST

Re: The yardstick for spin (none / 0)

Ketchup.  It has natural mellowing agents that help you accept loss...

So does booze.

Helps explain the posts around here better than ketchup too.


by reggie44pride on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:07:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The yardstick for spin (2.00 / 2)

its only slightly less hilarious than anyone making the argument that Clinton still has a strong chance to win the nomination with a straight face.  


by direwolfc on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:35:47 PM EST

Re: The yardstick for spin (1.75 / 4)

Spin?  Coming from someone who argues we should pick our nominee based on FL and MI (giving Obama 0 votes), disenfranchizing caucus and closed-primary states due to their lower turnout, and completely IGNORING caucus states that don't report their totals (WA, NV, IA, ME)?

At least this memo is coming from a campaign, it's their business to spin away.  Don't see what your excuse is, since you are not connected to any campaign.


by Skaje on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:37:20 PM EST

Puh-lease (2.00 / 5)

There is no way you could have co-authored Crashing the Gate.  I mean really.  

Obama's campaign spokesperson is cherry-picking.  They should.  That's their job.  They are not paid to be objective.  They are paid to win contests.

Meanwhile, you, a humble independent blogger, suggest that legal contests (caucuses) don't count and illegal contests (MI, FL) do.  

Please tell me you are paid by Hillary's campaign.


by zadura on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:39:58 PM EST

Unfortunately you are RIGHT (2.00 / 1)

This is SAD.


by hania on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:50:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The yardstick for spin (2.00 / 3)

I don't know that I've ever seen anything a campaign poll memo that so obviously cherry-picks polls over the last 4 months to make their case.

Who doesn't expect cherry picking and spin from any political campaign? It's in their very definition to present everything to best advantage.

But what many who frequent this site wonder is, do you cherry pick and spin because you are part of Hillary's campaign  -- or just not concerned with presenting the whole truth and nothing but the truth when it comes to promoting her on your own dime?

Whichever it is, you've squandered any hope of convincing anyone through impartiality. These days you just sing the same old song for those already in Hillary's choir.

(Purge away.)


Hillary: "Her dishonesty is actually honest." -- yellowdem1129
by Kobi on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:46:17 PM EST

hilarious (2.00 / 2)

Look, I would agree that ANYONE making an argument based on polls today is being intellectually dishonest. So why is it being done on the front page of MyDD and being passed off as objective analysis?

This place is becoming a farce.  


by highgrade on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:48:08 PM EST

California (2.00 / 1)

Was he really beating McCain by 27 points in California in February (per SUSA)?  That's down to 7.  Yikes.


by DaveOinSF on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:52:02 PM EST

But look at the ground (2.00 / 1)

he made up.

Oops!


by Coldblue on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:07:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

People-Powered Democratic Politics ??? (none / 0)

Is Jerome Armstrong on Clinton's payroll?


by hania on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:53:40 PM EST

Re: People-Powered Democratic Politics ??? (2.00 / 1)

No. He gets paid by the ads on this site. So everytime you hit a page or make a comment he makes a little more money. I'm sure he appreciates your contribution.

Oh no!!! Maybe he makes contributions to Hillary's campaign with your help hania.


by Justwords on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:23:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: People-Powered Democratic Politics ??? (2.00 / 2)

From this Feb. 29 Washington Post article, it seems clear that the Clinton campaign sees Jerome as an avenue for their message, and does pay for advertising.  A campaign's payment of advertising dollars to a blogger (which, unlike a newspaper, doesn't have a clear distinction between its editorial group and its business operation) raises questions about whether a blogger is a sort of journalist or rather just an extension of a campaign.

From Washington Post, 2/29/08:

"Jerome Armstrong, founder of the blog MyDD and one of the few liberal bloggers who are supporting Clinton, said [Clinton campaign fundraiser Peter] Daou contacted him early this month about the campaign's desire to seed an online fundraising surge. Daou, who regularly reaches out to bloggers, has advertised on Armstrong's blog."

"'Most people who are Hillary supporters didn't know she needed money. The thinking out there was that she had the money,' said Armstrong, who served as an online strategist in Howard Dean's campaign in 2004. 'Once her supporters saw the signs that Hillary needed money, it activated them. . . . In any sort of online fundraising, you need an emotional pull with the person that you've given money to.'"


by Onward Virginia Democrats on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:36:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The yardstick for spin (2.00 / 1)

What's the big deal? I was expecting something outrageous from the intro, but this looks like a typical campaign memo. Spins like a top, sure, but don't they all?


by Alice in Florida on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:55:57 PM EST

Intellectual dishonesty (2.00 / 1)

So when being criticized for being intellectually dishonest, the response is Look!  They're doing it too!

Super delegates aren't fools, and know campaign spin when they see it.  But you know what?  We aren't fools either.  Nobody is going to be convinced by stuff like this.

If any of us can't make honest appeals for our candidate, they why are we supporting him/her?  We ought to have the self-respect to fight for our candidates in ways that make us proud.  We should also have the respect for our well-informed peers here on the blogs to not subject each other to such pointless spin that insults our intelligence.


by CA Pol Junkie on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:58:31 PM EST

Jerome, has this race affected you and Kos' (none / 0)

friendship? just wondering, I know me and friends who disagree on politics prefer to not 'get into it' we usually end up hatin each other after a good argument... i would be interested to know...


DEMOCRATIC 08!
by rigsoHC on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:10:02 PM EST

Re: The yardstick for spin (none / 0)

Check this.  I just came across this memo from the Clinton campaign: http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/4/24/1739 /59499

Hilarious stuff.


by RussTC3 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:14:55 PM EST

Re: The yardstick for spin (2.00 / 1)

Wow - eerily similar to this:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/4 /23/2417/55984/47/501352


by alamedadem on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:17:01 PM EST

Ohio not in the memo (none / 0)

Is Obama giving uo on both Ohio and Florida?
Semms crazy to me.  Since the "new" map this year is going to look a lot like the old one, he has to strongly contest Ohio.

I just don't see a victory for him without Ohio.


by mikelow1885 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:24:45 PM EST

Re: Ohio not in the memo (none / 0)

Well, I do. Colorado, NM and VA will do very nicely, thank you.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:36:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ohio not in the memo (none / 0)

This is uncommonly bizarre... the idea that the reliability of Clinton comfortable win in Ohio is somehow equivalent to Obama going the distance in New Mexico (definite possibility) AND Colorado (Hmmm...) AND Virginia (not likely).  That chain is as strong as its weakest link, Virginia.  


Young lifelong Democrat. One of over 3,000,000 voters who kicked McCain and Palin out of Pennsylvania, permanently.
by BPK80 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:19:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The yardstick for spin (none / 0)

(Please tell me you are paid by Hillary's campaign.)

how can she? hill is living pay check to pay check. Make that primary to primary. She will be broke in a week or two.


by goalie40 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:40:33 PM EST

I think it's pretty well established by now (2.00 / 0)

that it's impossible to get laughed out of the blogosphere for excessive spin.


by TL on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:40:55 PM EST

Re: The yardstick for spin (none / 0)

OK-the rehab of JA: the prior post was your best (EC calculations) and now you are learning with skeptical analyis, you are almost there.


by RAULC on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:44:00 PM EST

Re: The yardstick for spin (none / 0)

Ohio and Florida are NO where on their Radar screens. WOW!


by nzubechukwu on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:47:34 PM EST

Re: The yardstick for spin (none / 0)

Conveniently omits Massachusetts whose high working class population, comparatively high Asian population (for the East Coast), very low AA population, dissatisfaction with current Obama-esque governor, and tacit racism spells "battleground" for Obama.  

Obviously the omissions of Ohio and Florida are most glaring.  Missouri conspicuously absent as well.  No thought given to Clinton's stake in Arkansas.  New Hampshire and West Virginia not listed.  

Hysterically lists North Carolina as a "traditional battleground."  Makes the audacious claim that an Obama nomination will put Texas, North Dakota, and Montana into play.  

Then the cherrypicking of polls...

And even as much as the memo is dishonest, it's also flat-out stupid because any case made for Obama's electability should at least mention the fact that he polls a little better in Oregon and Washington state.

Who sent this memo again?


Young lifelong Democrat. One of over 3,000,000 voters who kicked McCain and Palin out of Pennsylvania, permanently.
by BPK80 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:25:46 AM EST

Re: The yardstick for spin (none / 0)

Scary , isn't it?

Dems could actually lose blue Massachusetts if Obama is the nominee?

Governor Deval Patrick has a 4 in 10 approval rating. Didn't he run on the same "change" theme as Obama?

Why wasn't this in the memo?

Unbelievable. Even McGovern, in the famous sweeping 1972 disaster for the dems, got Massachusetts.


by ncvoter34 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:41:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The yardstick for spin (2.00 / 2)

Jerome - you are in serious jeopardy of losing any credibility you have left.  First in another post, you post a SD graph which is smoothed out to give the impression that HRC is getting new SD.

HRC has added 3 or 4 SD since Super Tuesday

Obama has added 69 or 71 SD since Super Tuesday

Come on, support HRC but calling someone else a rookie is a joke with the crap you write.

Just keeping it real man.


Obama 08!
by comingawakening on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:29:17 AM EST

From Sully... (none / 0)

In general with the Clintons, however, it is safe to assume that what they say is a lie until proven otherwise.

I would say that none of the Obama supporters go this far.


Student Guy=JoeMentum. No really Student Guy=JoeMentum, after all JoeMentum was an embarrassment so is Student Guy. This sig is FAIL!!
by Student Guy on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:42:15 AM EST

Re: The yardstick for spin (none / 0)

Cafferty says it best...

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politic s/2008/04/24/cafferty.file.4.24.cnn

This is embarrassing to her.


Obama 08!
by comingawakening on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:57:07 AM EST

Re: The yardstick for spin (2.00 / 1)

Yeah, winning Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania is a huge embarrassment. How can she show her face? Perhaps she should wear a burka now to cover her shameful self.


by cc on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:07:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The yardstick for spin (none / 0)

Did you watch the video? The embarrassment comes from her ability to keep a straight face while saying that she's in the lead of the popular vote.

Every single show I watched last night and through the day made fun of her "math."

Not very Presidential - she sounds like Bush - the surge is working!

I don't want another 4-8 years of Bush...


Obama 08!
by comingawakening on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:26:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The yardstick for spin (none / 0)

Obama won more delegates in Texas than Clinton. The convention settled that issue a few weeks ago.

Hillary is not "winning" , she's lost almost all of the states except for a small handful, and the big states she's won, have been by very small margins. Obama's strength now rests in the fact that he will have more delegates than she, going into convention.

Reid et. al. will start pressuring Clinton to drop out once North Carolina is in, and Indiana
looks like it may break for Obama. That will be the end of the line for Clinton.

Until then. Hey. Good run. Good candidate. Mazeltov!!


by Trey Rentz on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:35:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The yardstick for spin (none / 0)

LOL! Listen to the howling!


by cc on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:06:45 AM EST

Re: The yardstick for spin (none / 0)

I find the spin by both campaigns as a bit absurd at this point.   I will say, the burden of proof lies at Mrs Clinton's feet.   Obama leads by all measurable standards - even including the popular vote, whatever that may be.  SHE must prove SHE can win in his states - NC, OR, MT ... even IN.  I find it ridiculous to think HE must prove HE needs to win.  Bullshit - he is WINNING, and has won swing states vital to any DEM path to nomination.  Granted, a winning ticket must win PA, BUT he has won IA, WI, MN, MO, WA - swing states needed to secure 270 electoral votes.   He will win ALL the big states she was won, minus OH ... and that state will be a tossup in a general.  He can win CO, NV, IA in NOV, enough to offset an OH loss.  
What disturbs most progressives is the fact a so-called PROGRESSIVE site, like MYDD, continues to push falsehood and innuendo supporting a failed candidacy like Mrs Clinton's to the point where the end game is in doubt.  
This race is over, by all objective metrics.   Lets keep our eye on the NOV ball - Obama is our nominee, for better or worse.   The sooner we get behind his candidacy, the better we ALL will be.
'The only people for me are the mad ones, desirous of everything at the same time, the ones who never yawn or say a commonplace thing ...'
by stryan on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:09:50 AM EST

Re: The yardstick for spin (none / 0)

I agree that both sides are spinning wildly right now.
And unfortunately, our candidate will be chosen by the superdelegates (even if re-dos in MI and FL take place, given proportional delegate appropriation).
I'm all for letting the primaries play out and see where the race ends.
by GrahamCracker on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:07:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The yardstick for spin (none / 0)

Wait, you actually posted earlier that Clinton is winning the popular vote- which is ABSURD SPIN that even some people in her campaign are staying away from. Have you become so biased that you can't see your own bullsit?

Then you get mad when Obama's camp cites actual poll numbers?  

How about this- just go to MoreElectable.com

that should answer your question


by bradical on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 03:48:29 AM EST

Re: The yardstick for spin (none / 0)

Jerome-
The Obama campaign is trying to make a case for themselves.  
They are NOT journalists.  You, for better or for worse, are.  Folks come to this site not only hoping for discussion but information.  Folks don't go to the Obama camp for poll numbers.  

I think the problem is that you've decided to become an advocate for Clinton at any cost ( I think the same critique can be leveled at Markos regarding Obama).  This is troubling because you've never really explained why you find her compelling.  In fact, in a recent post you admitted that your support is based on attrition (almost like the lesser of two evils) and that you didn't like Obama's "untestedness." I'm not sure if those less-than-passionate rationales justify so much acrimony and logical gymnastics on your part.  I could understand if you really believed in the Clinton campaign, but I've never gotten that sense.  In fact, it feels like more of a competitive battle with Markos.  It seems that if you want the blogosphere to be the next location for news and journalism, such petty ranting should be transcended.  

Hmmm


by chrispy on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:45:47 AM EST

Re: The yardstick for spin (none / 0)

That may be, but it doesn't excuse the deliberate alteration of statistics.

What if these statistics were geographical temperature readings, making a case for environmental action.

I am a very strong obama supporter as you know - and I still say you have to agree with Armstrong on this one. The Obama camp could have done a better job with the statistics.
But they didn't and so its spin, not fact.

Remember, now is the time to start the watchdogs on their way. Obama shouldn't have sent out cherrypicked poll results.


by Trey Rentz on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:33:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The yardstick for spin (none / 0)

Alteration?

But I accept your point.


by chrispy on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:15:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Now there's some irony... (2.00 / 2)

I couldn't imagine a known political blogger creating this list, and not being laughed and mocked out of the blogosphere.

You mean, like a "known political blogger" taking a popular vote count from the Clinton campaign's laughable "FactHub" and presenting it as accurate without doing any checking?

Pathetic.


by Bob Johnson on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:56:54 AM EST

Keep tilting the windmill Jerome (2.00 / 0)

It's over Quixote but have fun with the windmill.

MP


by markpsf on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:15:05 AM EST

Re: The yardstick for spin (2.00 / 0)

Intellectual dishonesty is always wrong, be it a memo by the Obama campaign or a diary by Jerome Armstrong.

But my yardstick for spin is the idea that Senator Clinton can now win the nomination without Senator Obama falling under a bus (or similar).


by My Ob on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:23:08 AM EST

Re: The yardstick for spin (2.00 / 0)

It's going to be interesting watching what Jerome says in a couple months when Obama is the nominee.

His credibility is circling the drain after his post about Clinton leading the popular vote.


by PSUdan on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:32:00 AM EST

Re: The yardstick for spin (none / 0)

I Think Jerome is ok, he's sort of excited about Clinton. Lets face it she's a strong candidate. Its easy to get excited about someone that can really fix the healthcare situation, in America. Its a big deal and you know if she took office she'd fix it.

But that said, when Obama is the nominee Jerome will take all of this invective, bottle it and send it over to McCain. Jerome won't admit it, but he's pretty happy with the field right now.

Do you think he wants Hillary to win?

* blink blink *


by Trey Rentz on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:29:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The yardstick for spin (none / 0)

A week from Tuesday we will see eh?

Tap yer toes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWqghZHAB 8w


"If you want to end war and stuff, you gotta sing loud"...Arlo Guthrie
by nogo war on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:21:27 PM EST

This Obama supporter agrees with you (none / 0)

One could make a similar but actually compelling case using pollster.com averages instead of the most blatent cherry-picking possible.  So I don't know why they did this.  A rare tactical error.


Want a progressive global warming novel, not a right wing rant? Go to www.edwardgtalbot.com for a free audio thriller.
by edparrot on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:35:09 PM EST

Re: The yardstick for spin (none / 0)

Considering most of the pro-Hillary arguments seem to be centered around electability... Can someone make a strong case for Hillary's viability nationally? She is currently carrying a negative opinion rating of higher than 50% nationally. How can she have any shot at winning an election with such high negatives?
"We have said since Iowa that this is a race for delegates."
-Howard Wolfson
by belicheat on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:54:55 PM EST

Re: The yardstick for spin (none / 0)

A small taste of what Obama would/will be up against McCain was the appearance of two anti Obama ads in NC this week.

One showed pictures of the leading democratic candidates for governor, who have endorsed Obama.

Then excerpts of Rev. Wright were flashed on the screen, saying Obama is too "extreme" for NC.
See here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9vmJYcsc BI

The other ad, since taken down, is even more severe. It names and shows pictures of young people who were slaughtered in gang violence in Chicago. It accuses Obama of doing nothing to alleviate this scourge during 8 years in the Illinois senate. I wish I had saved it so you could see.

Ads like this (but not as strong, because there was not as much material) were done against Michael Dukakis, who was sounded defeated by Bush I.

Obama is such a blank slate to most people, he will be easy to define in this negative way.

Hillary's background has been thoroughly exposed (and trashed, admittedly) by the GOP. She has nowhere to go but up. I know that I admire her now more than I ever have. This is not just about her.

Video from NOW site depicting misogyny directed at Clinton. She never complains.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcdnlNZg2 iM
Warning: Painful to watch.


by ncvoter34 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:28:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Yep. its pretty spin-worthy (none / 0)

But hey, Jerome. At least Obama's not sending out a memo that tries to encourage pledged delegates to vote against their own constituency.

No, seriously though. You are totally correct. The selection of polling results by the person who wrote that memo was just odd.

Yeah, you're right.
So any action on the supdelegate front, besides that one Clinton defection to Obama this week?


by Trey Rentz on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:27:39 PM EST

Re: The yardstick for spin (none / 0)

MoreElectable.com  nuff said.


by bradical on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:05:13 PM EST

Re: The yardstick for spin (none / 0)

I couldn't imagine a known political blogger creating this list, and not being laughed and mocked out of the blogosphere. On the other hand, maybe Andrew Sullivan will use it to make the case for Obama.

Yeah... we've been seeing a lot of that lately. :X


by wiretapp on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 03:35:43 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.

Login
Username:

Password: