• http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/05/i ncoming.html

    The short version:  While Clinton's been delivering lots of attacks, similar attacks on her dropped off dramatically after January.  On the one hand, this is good for her because it lets her poll numbers recover, as they have to an extent recently.  On the other hand, the reason that she's not getting much in the way of attacks compared to the other candidates is because she's no longer considered a serious threat.

  • That's what the diarist isn't telling us.

    Obama learned his lesson eight years ago. He voted against a permanent repeal of the state gas tax when the Republicans tried to ram it through.  Hillary, however -- and she's originally from Chicago, ironically enough -- has not.  (Oh, but she's counting on a new windfall profits tax to replace the lost revenues!  Except she has to get it past Congress first.  Good luck with that.)

  • They did so right up until she lost Iowa to Obama.

    To quote Jake Tapper:

    Clinton herself said, in October 2007, "It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything." She said she was keeping her name on the ballot (unlike her competitors) just so when it came time for the general election she could argue she had not ignored the state.

    Which is interesting, because up until she decided to keep her name on the ballot, the standard and expected move for major candidates in a race with a rule-breaking primary state was to pull their names off the ballot of that state.  Gore and Bradley did so in 2000 when Michigan held a January primary; that time, the Michigan Democrats backed down and quickly held a March caucus so their delegates could be seated at the convention.  Carl Levin tried to bully Terry McAuliffe into allowing Michigan to break the rules in 2004, but McAuliffe made him back down.  (Ironically, of course, McAuliffe now favors rewarding Michigan for breaking the rules, since he works for Hillary.)

  • comment on a post BHO Supporters please STOP, and take a step back over 5 years ago

    But twelve states, including North Carolina?  

    TWELVE?

    To refresh everyone's memory:

    What's more, Facing South has learned that the firestorm Women's Voices has ignited in North Carolina isn't the group's first brush with controversy. Women's Voices' questionable tactics have spawned thousands of voter complaints in at least 11 states and brought harsh condemnation from some election officials for their secrecy, misleading nature and likely violations of election law.

    There's more:

    In correspondence with North Carolina election officials, Women's Voices founder and President Page Gardner merely said that the disruptive timing was an "unfortunate coincidence" -- a strange alibi for a group with their level of resources and sophistication.

    There are other questions about Women's Voices' outreach efforts. Although the group purports to be targeting "unmarried women," their calls and mailings don't fit the profile. Kevin Farmer in Durham, who first recorded the call, is a white male. Many of the recipients are African-American; Rev. Nelson Johnson, who is a married, male and African-American, reported that his house was called four times by the mysterious "Lamont Williams."

    And as Farmer asks, "Why are they using a guy for the calls if the target audience is single women?"

    Some have also questioned the ties between Women's Voices operatives and Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton. Gardner, for example, contributed $2,500 to Clinton's HILLPAC on May 4, 2006, and in March 2005 she donated a total of $4,200 to Clinton, according to The Center for Responsive Politics' OpenSecrets.org. She has not contributed to the Obama campaign, according to the database.

    Women's Voices Executive Director Joe Goode worked for Bill Clinton's election campaign in 1992 as a pollster; the group's website says he was intimately involved in "development and implementation of all polling and focus groups done for the presidential primary and general election campaigns" for Clinton.

    Women's Voices board member John Podesta, former Chief of Staff for President Bill Clinton, donated $2,300 to Hillary Clinton on April 19, 2007, according to OpenSecrets.org. Podesta also donated $1,000 to Barack Obama in July 2004, but that was well before Obama announced his candidacy for president.

    "The reports from other states are very disturbing, especially the pattern of mass confusion among targeted voters on the eve of a state's primary," Democracy North Carolina's Bob Hall tells Facing South. "These are highly skilled political operatives -- something doesn't add up. Maybe it's all well-intended and explainable. At this moment, our first priority is to stop the robo-calls and prevent the chaos and potential disenfranchisement caused by this group sending 276,000 packets of registration forms into North Carolina a few days before a heated primary election. We need their immediate cooperation."

    While Hall says his group has "begged" the group to stop the mailings, Women's Voices has refused to do so -- even though the mail-in voter registration deadline for the primaries passed April 11.

    State election officials say they are bracing for the deluge of confused phone calls and complaints that are sure to follow.

  • on a comment on The Obama Campaign Is Listening over 6 years ago

    And St. Louis Democrats still backed him big-time in the primaries.

  • on a comment on The Obama Campaign Is Listening over 6 years ago

    According to the AP, she's still 'gulaging' her fifty-odd purgees:

    Earlier this week, Obama's and Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign took advantage of party rules to purge scores of potential delegates in a bid to ensure that only their loyalists travel to the August convention in Denver where the party will anoint a presidential nominee.

    Most of the cuts, about 900 names, were dropped by Obama, leading supporters to complain that they had been unfairly excluded. Clinton's campaign dropped about 50 names from its list of prospective delegates.

    While the AP piece had earlier referenced Obama's allowing in his cut delegates, there's no word on whether Hillary's letting her 'gulaged' (to use the term a Hillary fan used to describe the cut Obama delegates' plight) 50-odd folks back in.

  • on a comment on The Obama Campaign Is Listening over 6 years ago

    And unlike Obama, she's still gulaging:

    Earlier this week, Obama's and Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign took advantage of party rules to purge scores of potential delegates in a bid to ensure that only their loyalists travel to the August convention in Denver where the party will anoint a presidential nominee.

    Most of the cuts, about 900 names, were dropped by Obama, leading supporters to complain that they had been unfairly excluded. Clinton's campaign dropped about 50 names from its list of prospective delegates.

    No word on whether Hillary's letting her gulaged 50-odd folks back in.

  • on a comment on The Obama Campaign Is Listening over 6 years ago

    Except she only had to cut fifty or so, as her campaign apparently isn't as swamped by people wanting to be delegates:

    Earlier this week, Obama's and Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign took advantage of party rules to purge scores of potential delegates in a bid to ensure that only their loyalists travel to the August convention in Denver where the party will anoint a presidential nominee.

    Most of the cuts, about 900 names, were dropped by Obama, leading supporters to complain that they had been unfairly excluded. Clinton's campaign dropped about 50 names from its list of prospective delegates.

  • Just as you'll never see anything from her on Penn's anti-union stance.

  • Gallup once again shows that more Obama people will vote for Hillary than the other way around.

    Amazing how the Republicans were able to unite behind John McCain, even though most conservatives hate him.  Yet here we have Hillary favorably comparing McCain to Obama -- McCain, who wants us in Iraq for a hundred years and who would be Bush the Sequel.  

    When Rudy and Mitt and Huck were at their most desperate, they never dared put a Democrat over McCain.  Ever.  They knew it would hurt the GOP in November.

  • Come on, where's the vaunted grownup Hillary fans that are supposed to be here.  

  • on a comment on What Will It Take for Unity? over 6 years ago

    Her people don't have to start petitions -- they have the mainstream media, which loves to push the "Democrats in disarray and Republicans are united" line even when it's not true, to push their disses of Obama:

    "One Clinton aide yesterday derided Mr Obama's victories in 'boutique' caucus states rather than the hardscrabble terrain of the rustbelt, saying: `Obama has won the small caucus states with the latte-sipping crowd. They don't need a president, they need a feeling.'"

    As was commented at the time by the Great Evil Orange Satan (I know, I know, he could tell you that breathing oxygen was good and you'd hold your breath in spite):

    Really, why don't Clinton and McCain get a room already? They're all using the same arguments.

    Even if those arguments are so darn stupid.

    The rust belt is (from west to east) the states bordering the great lakes: Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York. Of those states that have had a real contest, Obama won two (WI and IL), Clinton won two (OH, NY), IN and PA is pending, and MI is still trying to figure out how to have a real contest.  Not exactly dominant.

    And what the heck is up with the "latte-sipping" crap?

    Here's the map, Obama states in Blue, Clinton states in Red (because she and her campaign have fallen in love with right-wing McCain frames). (And yes, I'm giving Clinton Texas and Nevada for winning the popular vote in those states, even though she ultimately lost them in delegates):

    [pic of the map is here]

    I see latte- drinking states on Clinton's camp -- California and New York! What an idiotic way to insult a bunch of states. And "boutique" states? Cute.

  • ...that they call him "Barack Hussein Obama", play the Wright video over and over while all but ignoring John McCain's pastor buddies John Hagee and Rod Parsley.  

    Unfortunately, many MyDD people are apparently in the tank for McCain as well, as they would rather see him win than vote for Obama in November.  

    Meanwhile, more of Obama's supporters would stick with the party rather than let McCain win.

  • on a comment on What Will It Take for Unity? over 6 years ago

    That's what it would take to get a viable third party that didn't exist just to throw elections.

    Oh, and you have to really put your back into it 24/7, including lots of door-knocking and organizing, which can't all be done at a computer.

    A more realistic goal would be to back public financing of elections.  Take out the money factor -- or at least reduce its importance -- and a good chunk of our current problems evaporate.  Go to www.PublicCampaign.org and check it out.

  • on a comment on What Will It Take for Unity? over 6 years ago

    I originally backed Edwards, and though it really hurt to see him go down (especially since poll after poll showed that he was the only Dem who consistently beat all Republican candidates in head-to-head matchups), I eventually sucked it up and chose the remaining person who the polls and the favorability ratings showed had the best chance.

Diaries

Advertise Blogads