MyDD :: Ad closings

by ChrisKaty on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:25:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sure, it's a moral victory for her. She's stayed out of the spotlight recently and it's been an awful few weeks for Obama with Wright trying to torpedo his campaign. She's done well to close the gap.

But the difference between PA and NC is that that Obama needed was to keep PA close, so she didn't run up a huge PV margin on him. He never needed to win it -- he already had the lead, so he just had to defend it, and he did.

Clinton, on the other hand, is trailing in all metrics, so she needs more than moral victories. She needs upsets. Losing a state by 10 (or even 5) that she was expected to lose by ~15 isn't going to do the job. She needs to win NC, or the Obama will have taken another big step towards the inevitability of him winning the nomination.

Re: Ad closings (2.00 / 2)

Your analysis rests entirely on the thorny assumption that Florida and Michigan's votes will be unapologetically suppressed by the party. Given the actual rules and procedures governing their status, that's highly unlikely.

2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.

by BPK80 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:51:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by chrispy on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:01:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"Unapologetically suppressed?"

I don't think that characterization does justice to that issue. The problem was neither created nor exacerbated by Obama, but was just a conflux of unfortunate events.

Also, Jerome why throw in the "clobber" line regarding the gas tax. Perhaps you see traction on the ground that is not visible in polls. Personally, I've noticed a lot of chagrin among Hillary supporters. It may win the battle and even the election, but if that's what we get with Hillary, then I just don't see a paradigm shift.

Can't was ask for more of our politicians? Obama is the only one with the potential to shift business as usual. Maybe he'll fail, but I'm ready to work for something more.

Unapologetically suppressed? (none / 0)

Hah.

I think both MI and FL will get half their delegations per the minimum sanctions laid out in the DNC delegate selection rules; that's more than fair and won't change the foreseeable outcome of the nomination process.

by bookish on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:09:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Unapologetically suppressed? (none / 0)

Those are not the "minimum" sanctions. The 50% reduction is a suggested optional penalty.

I think after a string of high profile victories, the Hillary-leaning RBC is going to upend this issue.

Five states broke the rules. Three are fully counted. Two were arbitrarily excluded.

Florida and Michigan lost the primary influence and advertising money they hoped to garner. The states' interests have been penalized enough. There's no reason to shift blame to the voters in those states.

2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.

by BPK80 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:34:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well, no, not actually. Try again. (2.00 / 1)

From the Democratic National Committee
DELEGATE SELECTION RULES
FOR THE 2008
DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION:

C. 1. a. Violation of timing: In the event the Delegate Selection Plan of a state party provides or permits a meeting, caucus, convention or primary which constitutes the first determining stage in the presidential nominating process to be held prior to or after the dates for the state as provided in Rule 11 of these rules, or in the event a state holds such a meeting, caucus, convention or primary prior to or after such dates, the number of pledged delegates elected in each category allocated to the state pursuant to the Call for the National Convention shall be reduced by fifty (50%) percent, and the number of alternates shall also be reduced by fifty (50%) percent. In addition, none of the members of the Democratic National Committee and no other unpledged delegate allocated pursuant to Rule 8.A. from that state shall be permitted to vote as members of the state's delegation. In determining the actual number of delegates or alternates by which the state's delegation is to be reduced, any fraction below .5 shall be rounded down to the nearest whole number, and any fraction of .5 or greater shall be rounded up to the next nearest whole number.
b. A presidential candidate who campaigns in a state where the state party is in violation of the timing provisions of these rules, or where a primary or caucus is set by a state's government on a date that violates the timing provisions of these rules, may not receive pledged delegates or delegate votes from that state. Candidates may, however, campaign in such a state after the primary or caucus that violates these rules. "Campaigning" for purposes of this section includes, but is not limited to, purchasing print, internet, or electronic advertising that reaches a significant percentage of the voters in the aforementioned state; hiring campaign workers; opening an office; making public appearances; holding news conferences; coordinating volunteer activities; sending mail, other than fundraising requests that are also sent to potential donors in other states; using paid or volunteer phoners or automated calls to contact voters; sending emails or establishing a website specific to that state; holding events to which Democratic voters are invited; attending events sponsored by state or local Democratic organizations; or paying for campaign materials to be used in such a state. The Rules and Bylaws Committee will determine whether candidate activities are covered by this section.
...

5. Nothing in the preceding subsections of this rule shall be construed to prevent the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee from imposing additional sanctions, including, without limitation, those specified in subsection (6) of this section C., against a state party and against the delegation from the state which is subject to the provisions of any of subsections (1) through (3) of this section C., including, without limitation, establishing a committee to propose and implement a process which will result in the selection of a delegation from the affected state which shall (i) be broadly representative, (ii) reflect the state's division of presidential preference and uncommitted status and (iii) involve as broad participation as is practicable under the circumstances.

by bookish on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:09:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sorry I was sidetracked after my last post... (none / 0)

but what part of "shall be" isn't imperative? The other states were allowed by the DNC to move up their primaries due to the violations by MI and FL, so they were only acting at great unforeseen expense to reset the previously accepted schedule. If MI and FL had addressed their concern prior to the eve of the nomination process, worked with the central committee and arranged a compromise in advance rather than forcing chaos onto the season, we wouldn't have this predicament. Instead, they used the eminence of the process to ram through a change that they were warned would result in traumatic penalties.

So sad, too bad. They fucked themselves.

by bookish on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:08:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What a strange comment..... (none / 0)

"she's stayed out of the spotlight recently"???? Are you in a cave? The only time she's not making appearances is when she's in the air flying back and forth from N.C. to IN. Multiple events every day in both states, big events like both JJ dinners this weekend, big interview with O'Reilly, an hour town hall on ABC, speaking from the back of a pickup, doing radio while traveling in a motorcade, squeezing in fundraisers, shaking a gazillion hands and charming everybody she meets. The woman is incredible. And the amazing thing is that she never seems tired. I know people half her age who can't keep up with her.

by Tolstoy on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:06:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by Falsehood on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:27:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I thought I had just responded to this: here's my copy-pasted response to your copy-pasted comment!

Of course she will claim some victory from closing the gap, just as Obama did. I don't think the media treated it as a win though - they would have had be come within 5.

Also, as an Obama supporter, I don't hate Hillary, though I deplore some of her tactics (and haven't always loved Obama's) Also, I believe exit polls have shown that her voters are less like to vote for him then the other way around.

I also resent your implications that youth makes me more likely to hate. I don't think Hillaryis44 is run by a bunch of 20 year olds.

by phoenixdreamz on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:33:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I didn't read any hate implication into what he said. Relax and cheer up :)

I think you might reread... (none / 0)

This is just plain saying that Sen. Obama's supporters are more hateful : On some level you have to give the lady her dues...Obama camp successfully has painted her to be viscerally hated by their supporters.
This implies that it is due to the younger age and lower level of maturity of Sen. Obama's supporters : While we Hillary voters (by the margins) don't hate Obama. Well maybe that's because we are an older/ mature voting group.
There is plenty of hate and immaturity implication in that comment. That said, your comment is dripping with condescension.

by tonedevil on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:09:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Respectfully tonedevil (2.00 / 1)

I wasn't being condesending, and I honestly don't think the author of the comment being discussed here really intended to imply what you seem to think.

by phoenixdreamz on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:18:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What is the alternate... (none / 0)

interpretation I'm missing here?
I completely accept that you were not being condescending, relax and cheer up, could be interpreted as such though. And, in fact that is how I had interpreted it.

by tonedevil on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:27:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's my 1st day here (2.00 / 2)

and I joined hoping to find something other than the profusion of negative energy that chased me away from another site, so perhaps a better word for me would be naive.

by phoenixdreamz on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:35:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Recomended... (2.00 / 2)

so I don't seem like such an asshole. This best explains why I joined this site:

I often times go over the top in trying to stop people from being "wrong on the internet". Hope I haven't offended you.

by tonedevil on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:33:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Recomended... (2.00 / 1)

No problem. Thanks for responding.

by phoenixdreamz on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:01:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Recomended... (2.00 / 1)

xkcd is the main reason I get up in the morning.

by matchles on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:12:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

What is impressive... (none / 0)

Is that Obama has held his own.

After all he's been running against the entire GOP, half the Dem establishment, and the vile 24/7's.

Hillary still can't win the nomination without taking this Party to the brink via a brokered convention. Then after that, the "Fall-out" could be such that President McCain wins nonetheless.

Again, moral victory??

Clinton Democrats care about the same things I do, most importantly beating John McCain.

by TrueBlueCT on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:39:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What is impressive... (2.00 / 3)

OH jeez. Obama has he entire mainstream media, dialy Kos and Matt Drudge in the tank for him.

I thought his add was sleazy fear mongering.

by dMarx on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:50:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Democrat vs. Democrat violence.. (none / 0)

isn't something I want to engage in at this point.

Your side is going to have to decide if you want to drag this out till Convention.

Clinton Democrats care about the same things I do, most importantly beating John McCain.

by TrueBlueCT on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:55:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Democrat vs. Democrat violence.. (none / 0)

"violence"? Are you one of those Kos types vowing to reprise '68 if Obama doesn't get the nomination? Which, by the way, was a really amusing threat coming from that crowd. What are they gonna do, type harder, stomp on their laptops, blow the foam off their lattes?

by Tolstoy on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:18:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hey, what's up... (none / 0)

Frankly, I don't get it.

The real fight is with the Republicans.

The only question left is whether or not Team Clinton is going to drag this out till the late-August primary...

Clinton Democrats care about the same things I do, most importantly beating John McCain.

by TrueBlueCT on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:29:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What is impressive... (none / 0)

It must be hard to be up against the vast left-and-right-wing conspiracy.

by mikeinsf on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:57:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

But one thing we have learned ... (2.00 / 2)

the past year and a half is that Daily Kos does not matter that much. Neither does MyDD.

In primaries, it's the voters who matter. The so-called netroots/"progressive blogosphere just is not that influential. It can raise some money. It might be someday, but I think the death of discourse illustrates the problem with one dominant blog. I suspect that blogs will atomize over time.

And if Obama fails to win the nomination, what will Daily Kos do? The front pagers, soem of whom viciously attacked Clinton, and markos, who excommunciated Clinton, seem to haveboxed themselves in.

Jerome has not. He can support either one, even though he has a preference.

If Daily Kos mattered, John Edwards would still be in the race. Edwards won Daily Kos all last year. He still won 42-41% right before South Carolina. At Xmas, of about 20,000 votes in the straw poll, Edwards won 46% to Obama's 24%.

And it made no real difference in primaries in January or caucuses.

It is my belief that after Edwards dropped out, lot of different people on Daily Kos joined up. Markos endorsed Obama in January, and with Edwards out, many former Edwards supporters went to Obama. But it seems that a whole new group of Obama supports swarmed Daily Kos in February, turning it into an echo chamber, a process clearly supported by front pagers, and, apparently Markos.

Discourse died and ditto heads for Obama/Markos/Daily Kos (where does one end and the other start?) took over.

Obama's high point was in late February. He has not been doing so well since March, notwithstnding 24/7 Obama support and Clinton attacks on Daily Kos. Wjhat impact did Daily Kos really have? They reinforce the faithful.

Perhaps it is a paper tiger? Raise money, but it's reach is overrated by counting page views by many who repeatedly visit it. Hmmm.

The netroots just is not as important as it thinks it is.

by TomP on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:06:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

invite (2.00 / 3)

Just a side comment, the netroots made itself not important by blowing it's credibility. All the blogs really have are the words they type. Whacked out posts and insults have taken their toll.

Tom, I know you are a labor blogger so I want to point you to The Economic Populist. A lot of the deep research, policy, economic analysis, issue specific bloggers get "rolled off" or no readers because of what you are describing above so this is a purely trade, economics, labor site where things start of the front page (but can be voted off).

by Robert Oak on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:15:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Good point. (2.00 / 1)

I will check that out.

Thanks.

by TomP on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:59:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I read the body count out of the paper; now it's written all over my face.

If Hillary supporters (by the margins) don't hate Obama than why did more Hillary supporters than Obama supporters in exit polling say they would not vote for the other candidate in November?

Your theory does not hold up to the stats my friend.

by JDF on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:57:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.

Because Obama is winning. If it starts looking like he will lose, those numbers will begin to change.

by vcalzone on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:11:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I read the body count out of the paper; now it's written all over my face.

I disagree. I think there are many Hillary supporters who, at first, are going to feel cheated by not getting the candidate they have been banking on since we lost in 2004. I think there are many people who love the Clintons who were very comfortable with the assumption that Hillary would be the nominee, and when it turned out that it wouldn't be a coronation they got a little upset... when it turned out that they were probably losing they got very upset.

I think this will turn around, regardless of who the nominee is by the end of summer and it will be clear just how strong both of our candidates are.

by JDF on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:35:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.

No, it probably WILL turn around, but we will see a huge backlash from Obama voters if Hillary starts taking the nomination from superdelegates. Right now, everyone is all, "we would TOTALLY vote for Hillary", but if she actually pulls off her plan to win the election despite a lower popular vote count (excluding Michigan) and lower pledged delegate count, Obama supporters will have a far lower opinion of her.

Just look at what happened to Obama when Clinton was ahead or still looked like she would win. Back then, every Clinton supporter was like, "I think Obama would be a GREAT vice-president" and "I think he's run a great campaign". Now it's all, "Obama isn't fit to be in office" and "His campaign has been nothing but slime".

by vcalzone on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:01:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Because we don't go (none / 0)

for empty suits?

"Barack did the Constitution just like he did Hillary. He was riding dirty."

by LatinoVoter on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:35:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Most Obama supporters don't hate Clinton (none / 0)

It is only a noisy few that give that impression. I think you'll find that even over at the DKos echo chamber, its really just a few users creating the worst of the noise, and most Obama supporters can be rather reasonable and polite. Its just that the most disagreeable are often the most verbose.

Peace

by protothad on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:30:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by freedom78 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:06:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

While we Hillary voters (by the margins) don't hate Obama. Well maybe that's because we are an older/ mature voting group.

Why sneak in that insult? It sounds an awful lot like the McCain voter who told me I was "too young to know better" when I was canvassing for Obama. Maybe you didn't mean it to be an insult, and I'm not offended, but how many times must we Obama supporters be dismissed as too young and naive?

Anyway, in response to your point, if she makes it close in NC then it was a good showing for her. Just as it was for Obama to bring Pennsylvania to 9 after being behind by 20. Let's face it...we have two strong candidates and are finding it tough to choose! [Insert obvious call for unity ticket here]

Donate to Obama, Today!

Jerome.. (2.00 / 3)

My take is if you told me the sky was blue I would ask for a second opinion.

by demvictory on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:06:19 PM EST

Re: Jerome.. (2.00 / 2)

Obama didn't part the seas, and he's not Moses.

But his team beat the heavily favored Clintons, and that says something.

Clinton Democrats care about the same things I do, most importantly beating John McCain.

by TrueBlueCT on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:40:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"Heavily favored Clintons"? (none / 0)

Favored by whom?

Barack spent a year saying she couldn't win because he was too divisive and started with half the country against her.

Which is it?

Pick a talking point and stick to it.

"Barack did the Constitution just like he did Hillary. He was riding dirty."

by LatinoVoter on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:38:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jerome.. (none / 0)

That was funny, even if you were trying to call me a tie-dyed hippie dreamer. I know Barack is a politician, a damn good one. I just happen to like him better.

by demvictory on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:01:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jerome.. (none / 0)

demvictory has been TR'ing multitudinous posts by many people, with no justification. Kind of annoying, like a gnat that won't go away.

by Montague on Tue May 06, 2008 at 04:34:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

1st impression (2.00 / 3)

It's kind of the same issue I've had with the Obama campaign for a long time, he describes the problems and doesn't offer real solutions.

I might be biased but just looking at the ads of just these two I think the Obama ad is the loser and comes across as way more negative than Clinton's.

We'll see.

by Robert Oak on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:08:08 PM EST

2nd take (2.00 / 1)

yeah, I don't think the Obama ad is going to swing any undecided, just reinforce those Hillary haters.

by Robert Oak on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:10:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 1st impression (2.00 / 4)

Obama's is a negative ad that criticizes negative ads. An ad that criticizes itself.

Someone get a marketing brainiac and fly him to Obama's headquarters, QUICK!

2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.

by BPK80 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:12:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 1st impression (2.00 / 3)

LOL! I thought I was living in alternative universe with people claiming he's the one running a clean campaign. I see more hatred coming from that side of the fence than from anywhere.

by Robert Oak on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:18:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 1st impression (2.00 / 2)

Agreed.

His tactics eerily mimic what goes on an abusive relationships with malignant narcissist. The narcissist discredits his partner and suffocates all of her legitimate accusations by making them first.

2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.

by BPK80 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:26:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I CAN HAZ BAHROCK DONASCHON?

Well after seeing that word used in 3 different places on this site I am guessing the new Clinton camp group think meme is that he is narcissitic?

I should have made a game where I write down a typical GOP attack on a democrat and behind them hidden different types of scotch or beer or something behind them. Then after every time the Clinton meme shifted I could reveal what prize I get to buy myself and I could have TOTALLY restocked my liquor cabinet by now...

But instead I drank it watching the Rangers go from rotten to historically bad this April.

by kasjogren on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:31:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

oooo (2.00 / 1)

the hidden socially indoctrinated misogyny and sexism in that statement is loaded. Be validated, I sure see it.

by Robert Oak on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:32:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I read the body count out of the paper; now it's written all over my face.

say what you will about him, but is nothing less than disgusting to compare him to an abuser in relationships...

by JDF on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:01:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 1st impression (1.00 / 1)

Obviously you're not familiar enough with classic narcissistic abusers who put on a spectacular display of charisma in public. No one would ever suspect what goes on in private.

You make a mockery of very legitimate empirical observations of his character that are in fact aligned with the prototypical narcissistic abuser.

Get educated.

2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.

by BPK80 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:37:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's just the beat of time, the beat that must go on
If you've been trying for years, we already heard your song

I shudder to think what your analysis of HRC would be. With all that bomb bomb bomb ,bomb bomb Iran talk, waddya think she's compensating for?

by Fluffy Puff Marshmallow on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:59:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"In the primary you should vote with your heart, but in the general, you should vote with your head" Bill Clinton

Are you talking about Bill Clinton?

by venician on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:59:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by jexter on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:43:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Narcissistic abusers are publicly charismatic.
People who are publicly charismatic are narcissistic abusers.

Wow.

I mean...

No, just wow.

I read the body count out of the paper; now it's written all over my face.

First of all I would bet I am as or more educated than you.

Second, it doesn't matter how legitimate the observation is to say it makes light of people who are actually suffering abuse and is an incredibly trollish way of insulting the candidate you have chosen not to support.

by JDF on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:36:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Very simple (2.00 / 2)

Obama's ad bashes Clinton. No policy. No details about hope. No reason to trust him (which is his number one problem these days) which is his closing line.

Clinton's ad bashes Obama AND talks about a policy that, psychologically, is important to a lot of voters (I heard today that 40% of voters would like a gas tax holiday...so, no, Obama supporters, your intellectual arguments have not ended this discussion)

She wins!

by CoyoteCreek on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:51:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Very simple (2.00 / 1)

So if 40% want it, what about the other 60%?

We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.

by politicsmatters on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:57:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

John McCain vows to overturn Roe

Some people have a problem with the math.

by soccerandpolitics on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:05:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

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

That was also 40% of ALL VOTERS, including Republicans, Independents, and Democrats. Nice job, Hillary!

by map on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:16:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You're not listening... (none / 0)

40% of people WANT the paltry sum that you all have made it out to be. Yup, my brother would like to have an extra tank of gas this summer as he has had to stop driving to our family house on the week-ends because he can't afford it. That 40% represents people who want the cash in hand.

The 60% are not vested the same way...they want to argue, complain, bitch about all sorts of issues related to the proposal...BUT THAT'S NOT THE SAME THING AS WANTING IT. NEEDING IT. HOPING FOR IT.

And if you don't understand the difference, then Obama is truly doomed.

by CoyoteCreek on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:49:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're not listening... (none / 0)

Does anyone supporting the gas tax holiday understand what it truly means? It means nothing! No savings! Probably not even $20!

The oil companies getting charged an additional .15 cents means gas stations getting charged an additional .15 cents which means consumers getting charged an additional .15 cents! It's just a big shell game.

All your 40% number means is that 40% of America is not well versed enough in economics to understand it won't actually save them any money.

"We have said since Iowa that this is a race for delegates."
-Howard Wolfson

by belicheat on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:08:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're not listening... (none / 0)

Please don't let reality get in the way of this policy debate.

Since both Clinton and McCain's proposals are DOA, the savings will be exactly $0. Apparently, that's the way to stand up for working people, promise them something you know you can't deliver.

It's just the beat of time, the beat that must go on
If you've been trying for years, we already heard your song

by Fluffy Puff Marshmallow on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:05:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So sorry that you think so little of (none / 0)

40% of Americans who are not as well versed in economics to understand what you all understand so well.

Where would those poor souls be without you?

by CoyoteCreek on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:28:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So sorry that you think so little of (none / 0)

Sorry, I've been a bit sleep deprived lately. What I'm trying to say is, it's sad that people should have to have taken economics class in order to find out politicians are blowing smoke up their ass.

"We have said since Iowa that this is a race for delegates."
-Howard Wolfson

by belicheat on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:39:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That's not what you said...and the first (none / 0)

thoughts are usually the truthful thoughts...just like with politicians.

by CoyoteCreek on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:54:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's not what you said...and the first (none / 0)

You're dodging around the issue here, just like your candidate. The gas tax is a stupid idea, and Hillary Clinton is peddling it to folks like it will save them money, which it won't.

"We have said since Iowa that this is a race for delegates."
-Howard Wolfson

by belicheat on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:30:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're not listening... (none / 0)

You went from "would like a gas tax holiday" to "WANTING IT. NEEDING IT. HOPING FOR IT." How do you make that leap? Also, the poll was open to Republicans. Of course they are going to want to eliminate a tax.

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

by map on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:08:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Truly - never mind. You're not (none / 0)

really interested in how normal people feel or else you would get, at least, a glimmer of what they want, feel, need and hope for.

If this group is an example of Obama Supporters then this country is in big trouble. Big trouble.

by CoyoteCreek on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:30:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Truly - never mind. You're not (none / 0)

"Normal people"

Amazing.

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

by map on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:06:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.

The other 60% are outside of her target demographic.

by BPK80 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:38:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Coyote up a creek without a paddle... (none / 0)

Should candidates in glass-delegate houses throw stones?

by demvictory on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:04:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

John McCain: Bush right to veto kids health insurance expansion

And the gas tax holiday gets you what exactly? Borrowing more from the Chinese?

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:06:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

$40 worth of greenbacks in the hands (none / 0)

of people who WANT IT. NEED IT. ARE HOPING FOR IT.

by CoyoteCreek on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:50:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: $40 worth of greenbacks in the hands (none / 0)

Hoping for something that will never come? Haven't we seen enough of the Rethuglicans hoping for magical ponies in Iraq and how foolish they look?

John McCain: Bush right to veto kids health insurance expansion

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:29:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by Frood on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:15:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

>> Clinton's ad bashes Obama AND talks about a
>> policy that, psychologically, is important to a
>> lot of voters (I heard today that 40% of voters
>> would like a gas tax holiday...so, no, Obama
>> supporters, your intellectual arguments have not
>> ended this discussion)

The same poll said 51% think it's a bad idea. You've raised the art of cherry-picking to a new high.

by libdemusa on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:08:25 PM EST

My Take is...

It will be a Very Big Upset tomorrow night.

It will be the turning point in the 2008 primary.

Clinton will take both IN & NC

by Lettuce on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:09:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'll take that bet. Gladly.

Fight the Smears!

by wengler on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:27:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'll take that bet too. Wishful thinking can only get you so far.

John McCain's pick-up line is, 'Did you know that 150 is the new 130?'"

you know something I don't know ?

is it the OMG 4 am ad ???!!!!!!!

by wellinformed on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:32:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"We have said since Iowa that this is a race for delegates."
-Howard Wolfson

Will it be like the turning point after Texas and Ohio? Or will it be like the turning point after Pennsylvania? Nothing will be decided by Indiana or North Carolina. We will just be back on these same forums, having the same stupid arguments. Clinton's only shot is coup by superdelegate. You know this, we know this. When anyone wants to discuss the ramifications that will have for the party, let me know.

by belicheat on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:10:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ad closings (2.00 / 4)

Telling people the truth is a losing issue? Lying to them is a winning issue?

What a crazy place this site has become.

by Lawyerish on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:09:22 PM EST

by Jerome Armstrong on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:25:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Look into the 1984 election and see what Mondale got for that... or Tsongas in '92.

I would like to think I can separate what works politically from the liberal dream list of policy enactments.

Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...

and I'm a little weary of what works just politically... especially given how transparent this issue is... my husband does not care a whit for politics and does not follow candidates until November when he votes Dem straight ticket... He saw the gas-tax proposal as a sellout, what you and I would call a pander in other words...

by JenKinFLA on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:30:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ad closings (2.00 / 0)

Even politically, Hillary's strategy is stupid.

You can't out-Republican the Republicans. How many times do we have to have that demonstrated to us before it sinks in?

by Angry White Democrat on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:41:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Liberal dream list...Jerome, (none / 0)

Dream list? I thought you used to do astrology. That would explain how you keep pulling these HRC explanations...from the sky!

by demvictory on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:06:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by Frood on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:20:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

>> I would like to think I can separate what works
>> politically from the liberal dream list of policy
>> enactments.

Except that you're not talking about a "liberal dream list" policy here. Your candidate is mimicking the Republican nominee's position by proposing a policy that would be worse than what we have now for her own political gain.

And given that the tax holiday polls as a bad idea by 51-40, she's not even actually gaining anything by it.

Why, in a year where the appeal of the Republican party is at a historical low, is one of our presidential candidates rushing to embrace their poor policy proposals?

"We have said since Iowa that this is a race for delegates."
-Howard Wolfson

"I would like to think I can separate what works politically from the liberal dream list of policy enactments."

I think you've boiled down the Clinton campaign to its core essence. What works politically.

by belicheat on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:51:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ad closings (1.00 / 2)

When you are a huge wimp like Obama it is.

In Obama's dictionary the definition of "distraction" is any issue where Obama does not enjoy a pleasant non-controversial poll tested lead.

by dMarx on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:27:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...

Out of curiosity, did he borrow that dictionary from Bill Clinton...? I only ask given that was a Right-wing criticism of Bill when he was President...

by JenKinFLA on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:31:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by dMarx on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:36:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

He probably did. I think the DNC hands out it out to all Presidential candidates. You have to hand it to Hillary, she is a bare knuckler.

Only wimps... (1.50 / 2)

Call sitting U.S. Senators with more class and grace than themselves wimps.

I got you wimp right here buddy!

by demvictory on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:10:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by Jerome Armstrong on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:29:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Economists, elitists... don't you get how that is the political equation here? Its a very powerful club.

by dMarx on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:33:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Besides the fact that she is correct on this one. Obama is being slightly disingenuous in using the same economists to condemn Hillary's gas tax cut who will in no way support his capital gains increase. I doubt Obama will ever get caught on this one.

I CAN HAZ BAHROCK DONASCHON?

We get it, we just feel sorry that she has sank to that level. She isn't doing her legacy any favors by saying something as silly as economists don't matter cause they are elitists. Who would be helping with her budget in a Clinton II white house, the garbageman?

by kasjogren on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:33:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by dMarx on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:38:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

She is correct. Economists don't care. They have some cushy tenure position and their economic proscriptions are good for the general overall health of the economy but do nothing for the lives of real people caught in the churning of the economy.

by semiquaver on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:48:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh man... I almost used the word 'trickle-down'. That was a close one.

But in all honesty, a healthy robust economy, the goal of economists, isn't a bad thing and it's crazy for you to imply it is.

if the economists have to choose between a plan that that does not lower prices, harms national infrastructure and pads the bottom lines of the oil companies, and a plan that takes no action, then its unfortunate that your candidate is supporting the plan that will hurt America. Do you think they're all lying because they want their oil stocks to rise?

News flash: It's a bad thing to sacrifice middle and lower class Americans for the sake of giving yourself a bump in the polls.

[ Donate to Barack Obama ]

by Lawyerish on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:00:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's just crazy, because you're smart enough to know that the gas tax repeal isn't going to change the price of gas. So is Hillary. But many people aren't, because the economics of inelastic markets aren't exactly straightforward.

So, she's basically lying about the effects of her proposed legistlation, which would never pass anyways; and you know that she's lying, and she knows that she's lying; and you don't care, because people will be fooled into believing that she 'understands their problems.'

It's the absolute and total pinnacle of cynicism and willingness to do ANYTHING to win. I find it to be a disgusting attitude. One typically championed by Republicans.

Re: Ad closings (2.00 / 2)

Where is that quote from Barack Obama earlier last week when he said he regrets having gone negative because that's not "what our campaign is about" and he promises to stay positive.

His ad so weak.

A negative ad that criticizes negative ads! What the heck?

Hillary's ad is teeming with enthusiasm. I realize that the candidates aren't 100% responsible for how their PR teams help present them (marketing guys, ad advisors etc. get credit) but why is Hillary's team hitting homeruns all the time with these ads while Obama's can't seem to get it together? He can afford a good ad/marketing team, I'm sure.

Is his whole team out of touch? Not a single one among them has any idea how to make an effective ad?

Pitiful.

2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.

by BPK80 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:10:42 PM EST

Senator Obama will be formally nominated on August 28, 2008 - the 45th Anniversary of Dr. King's "I Have A Dream Speech."

Actually it's a very effective message to say the other side is negative, as counter-intuitive as it might seem. Obama's not the first one to use it to great effect.

by brimur on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:13:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.

The whole tone of Barack's ad is dismal and listless, much like John Kerry in the final days of the 2004 campaign.

The "big mean negative ads" only seem to bother so-called latte liberals. Hypersensitive utopians who think $30 is "pennies" because it can't even buy half an appetizer at their favorite posh hot spots.

"Oh how can those mean mean politicians be so mean mean mean to each other. They should be nice."

by BPK80 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:30:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

How I long to hear someone in real life... (none / 0)

mention latte liberals so that I can stuff a steaming hot latte, with cinnamon, up their ass. I recall similar insults in the 90's when I was defending Bill Clinton.

by tonedevil on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:19:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How I long to hear someone in real life... (none / 0)

You do? I don't remember Bubba defenders being called latte anything, usually people muttered about us "trashing the place."

by souvarine on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:50:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think liberal... (none / 0)

was being used in the 90's as a pejorative. At least I heard it being used as such. Also tree-hugging, Birkenstock wearing, and the one that gets to me the most Politically Correct. Don't really remember when latte drinking became suspect and of course you couldn't be Prius driving, at least here in the USA, till after 2001.

by tonedevil on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:13:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by dMarx on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:29:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What about his entire Philadelphia speech? I guess you can throw all of that posturing about segregated Sunday mornings under the bus with Jeremiah Wright.

2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.

Indeed. Something went horribly awry with his campaign during the Pennsylvana epoch. Now even the race-speech has been discredited by Barack Obama. It's like he's just throwing things that he thinks working class people will like all around and hoping something sticks.

It won't though because as his detractors claim, ads like these show he is truly clueless and out of touch.

by BPK80 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:32:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ad closings (2.00 / 8)

Welcome to Clintontown, where Hillary's gas tax plan, bashed by all those elitist economists and supported by her, John McCain and Jerome Armstrong exclusively, is a sucessful clobbering tool.

And Obama is the negative nelly.

Fight the Smears!

by Lettuce on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:11:04 PM EST

Bravo!! (2.00 / 1)

Very, very good!

Kudos.

I'm stealing it.

The other nite, I told someone, "Forget it, Jake, it's Chinatown." But "Clintontown" nails it on the head!!

"McSame: He's Constipated and Ready to GO!

by Al Rodgers on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:23:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bravo!! (none / 0)

You know, I saw that in another thread and thought: "What a good sig!"

Thanks!

Fight the Smears!

by Lettuce on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:45:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ad closings (2.00 / 6)

"I'll have my take on the polls of the race posted later tonight, what's yours"

These are the polls that make me think that the voters as a whole are smarter than people in bunkers on the blogosphere

CBS polls
"Why do some candidates want to lift the gas tax?"
To help average Americans - 21%
To help themselves politically - 70%

"Lifting the gas tax for the summer"
Bad idea - 49%
Good idea - 45%

by My Ob on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:12:13 PM EST

by Jerome Armstrong on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:28:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yea, but those voters are probably not in NC and IN either. Obama got played by Clinton badly with this issue. He swung at McCain and she took the issue right back at him by linking it to the Oil profiteers. Obama should have, probably wished he would have, pivoted to say, yea thats fine. Instead, he stuck with the loser stance, and boxed himself into having nothing.

by My Ob on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:34:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Perhaps Obama took his stand to win superdelegate votes - which could decide the nomination more than winning an extra few hundred thousand votes in NC and IN.

by markjay on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:10:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Perhaps -- but I think Clinton's and Obama's best chance of continuing to persuadde superdelegates is by being successful in the rest of the primaries.

Re: Ad closings (none / 0)

True, true. Isn't that why Joe Andrews finally switched; the gas tax idea?
That's gotta burn.

by danfromny on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:40:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by ThinkerT on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:35:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"Yea, but those voters are probably not in NC and IN either."

Reasoning? Or do NC and IN not get CBS and I'm just not aware of it, so CBS doesn't poll them?

Or, maybe the pollsters at CBS said, "Hey, let's not represent NC or IN in this poll! After all, who'd care what they think at this point in time."

Specious reasoning, Jerome. Back up "clobbered" and "Obama got played by Clinton badly" with some solid info or your comments have no credibility on this and you just sound like a partisan hack.