Harold Ford: Obama has to Win Indiana [Updated]

On April 22nd, as Hillary Clinton's win was declared in Pennsylvania, an L.A. Times blog reported on a statement by Harold Ford Jr. to MSNBC:

Harold Ford Jr. -- not so long ago the rising black politician within Democratic ranks -- now heads an arm of the party that seeks to keep its focus on "middle" America and crafting centrist messages: the Democratic Leadership Council. Often vilified by liberal activists, the DLC sees itself as quintessentially practical.

From that perspective, and in the wake of Hillary Clinton's win in the Pennsylvania primary, Ford just set a political bar for the black politician that surpassed him in prominence.

"You have to win Indiana," Ford told Barack Obama (via an interview on MSNBC). And, Ford added, Obama has to "steamroll" Clinton in the other state with a primary two Tuesdays from now, North Carolina.

The Obama camp will not publicly embrace that equation. But for him to truly regain the momentum he captured during his February surge, most party pros will see Ford's formulation as spot-on.

Interestingly, the Obama campaignreleased a spreadsheet back in February (mistakenly, they said) predicting results for all primaries and caucuses.  Many Obama supporters on this and other blogs have since boasted about its accuracy.

Take a look at the spreadsheet...

Today the Clinton campaign sent out a memo to Interested Parties. It reads in part:

MEMO: Why Did the Obama Campaign Predict Victory in Indiana? Does That Prediction Still Stand?

Three months ago the Obama campaign produced a spreadsheet that, with one exception, has accurately predicted the winners in each of the upcoming primaries and caucuses.

Tellingly, that spreadsheet predicted an Obama victory in Indiana by 7 points, as well as an Obama victory in North Carolina.  

Does the Obama campaign still stand by that prediction?  If not, why not, and what has happened?

It is easy to see why the Obama campaign predicted victory in Indiana.  Senator Obama has won each of the primaries in the states that border Illinois Iowa, Wisconsin, and Missouri, and 25% of Hoosiers get their television from Illinois stations a huge advantage for Senator Obama. Indiana s primary is open, and Senator Obama has tended to do better in those contests.

The Obama campaign has also dramatically outspent Senator Clinton in Indiana by more than $2.4 million -- $5.6m - $3.2m and has even gone up on broadcast television in the very expensive Chicago media market.

Despite Senator Obama's advantages and his prediction of victory, we have worked hard in Indiana to do as well as we can and anticipate a close finish.

In North Carolina, Tuesdays other contest, Senator Obama enjoyed a lead of over 20 points in public polls throughout this year and outspent us there on TV by $1.3m -- $4.9 - $3.5.   Senator Clinton has been working hard to narrow that 20 point gap.

The Clinton campaign certainly raises some fair questions, especially in light of Obama's shrinking support among the working class, as reported today by the A.P.:

Barack Obama's problem winning votes from working-class whites is showing no sign of going away, and their impression of him is getting worse.

~snip~

The April poll -- conducted before the Pennsylvania contest -- also showed an overwhelming preference for Clinton over Obama among working-class whites. They favored her over him by 39 percentage points, compared to a 10-point Obama lead among white college graduates. Obama also did worse than Clinton among those less-educated voters when matched up against Republican candidate John McCain.

~snip~

"It's the stuff about his preacher ... and the thing he said about Pennsylvania towns, how they turn to religion," Keith Wolfe, 41, a supermarket food stocker from Parkville, Md., said..."I don't think he'd be a really good leader."

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton has consolidated her coalition of women, labor households, seniors, Catholics, Jews, blue collar voters, Hispanics, and others -- a winning coalition which has continued to grow stronger since February.  In terms of momentum, Hillary is looking like a champion.

Obama's momentum has been fading since February, and he's been falling short of his own expectations.  Obama's spreadsheet predicted a 5-point loss in Pennsylvania (Clinton won by nearly 10 points) and an 11-point win in Guam (currently he's winning by 6 points.)

Does Obama have revised projections for Indiana and North Carolina?

UPDATED: Obama won Guam by 7 VOTES, a statistical tie, and a re-count has been announced.

Cross posted at texasdarlin.wordpress.com

The author is unaffiliated with the Hillary Clinton campaign.

Tags: campaign, clinton, Democratic nomination, Election 08, expectations, Indiana, memo, North Carolina, obama, predictions, Primary, Spreadsheet (all tags)

Comments

279 Comments

Re: Obama Should Win Indiana

It seems that the Obama campaign needs to edit its spreadsheet.

by TexasDarlin 2008-05-03 12:21PM | 0 recs
thats funny coming from a supporter

of a candidate who said she will win on Super Tuesday

by kindthoughts 2008-05-03 12:22PM | 0 recs
Re: thats funny coming from a supporter

And it's actually pretty amazing how well they called states from so far out.

True, they said they would lose Maine and then got 59% there, but overall - great job, Obama campaign!

by politicsmatters 2008-05-03 12:28PM | 0 recs
Re: thats funny coming from a supporter

that's the point, they have been very good, so what's up with now?  Of course I'm hoping she'll win by a big margin in both states, but after all it is up to the voters, isn't it?  

by anna shane 2008-05-03 12:44PM | 0 recs
Well, things change

Had the voting environment remained as it was when the spreadsheet was written, I bet it would get the spread about right in Indiana; I suspect that Team Obama never imagined that they would get piled on by McCain, Clinton, Wright, and ABC all at the same time.

You gotta admit, even if it's not enough to take him down, it's going to have an impact.

by Dracomicron 2008-05-03 12:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Well, things change

I think they did.  Barack tried to distance from Wright before he entered the race, and I'm sure he's been worried that the man would try to one-up him, he's known the guy twenty years.  And McCain actually can't stand Barack, he'd rather lose to Hillary than win with Barack, those two don't get along at all.  I don't think he expected the media to bring up his dirty laundry, they've been kid gloves with him, but he ought to have.  He's not special, he's not the only dem that can get positive spins from the press forever. That's why he tried to close it down earlier, by trying to make Hillary bow out.  That was his only sure shot. But now it's a tie, and we'll have to see what the voters do.  This is democracy.  

by anna shane 2008-05-03 01:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Well, things change

So now we're back to the actual voters. Before with clintonites it was all up to the S.D.'s and now it's up to the voters. Your'right about that. The voters have chosen Obama. One more time. Obama leads in pledged delegates, states won and popular vote. Please explain how hillary has a chance. Her only chance was to win every remaing state by 64-40. She failed to get that margin in Pa. so now her odds are ever greater.

by venician 2008-05-03 01:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Well, things change

If you look at an American flag, you will see 50 stars, one for each state.

This fantasy that Obama fans have of only counting 48 states is an intoxicated reality.  

by BPK80 2008-05-03 01:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Well, things change

Yeah and Guam and PR and the Virgin Islands.  I mean, the political poetry is nice and all but in the end meaningless

by kasjogren 2008-05-03 02:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Well, things change

Counting Guam, PR, and Virgin Islands while excluding Michigan and Florida is just insult to injury.

The MI/FL issue is really poorly misunderstood by most Americans and it tends to just lurk in the background in the media.  Expect that to change in late May.  

The public debate will be:

"Count all the votes."

v.

"Suppress voters based on a technicality."

I'll leave it to you decide which sounds more compelling.

by BPK80 2008-05-03 02:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Well, things change

You're in for a rude awakening if you think the rules committee is going to change their ruling after the race.

by haystax calhoun 2008-05-03 02:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Well, things change

Rulings change when new facts arise.  No one expected this type of primary when the ruling was initially issued.

Moreover, there are at minimum three more steps to the process if the party wants to suppress MI/FL.  There's the RBC at the end of May, followed by the Credentials Committee, and then the Convention itself.  

by BPK80 2008-05-03 04:05PM | 0 recs
"Rulings change when new facts arise. "

That's a good one.  What's your new fact: that your candidate is losing and desperately needs a reverse of the committee's ruling?  You can't change what's already been done, unless of course you have a time machine, and a box of pills.   But who am I to say, you may indeed have such things in your possession.  The fact is, it doesn't matter what happens after the rules were voted on and applied.  Your dreaming if you think Hillary gets anything out of this that gives her an advantage.

by haystax calhoun 2008-05-03 07:21PM | 0 recs
"Rulings change when new facts arise. "

It's obvious you don't understand how the delegation penalty rules and procedures work so I can't take this any further with you.  

by BPK80 2008-05-03 08:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Well, things change

Counting Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands is alright because they didn't break the rules.

Florida and Michigan will be seated.  I've heard from people in those states, they want us to stop calling attention to them and their governments' failure.

by Dracomicron 2008-05-03 03:57PM | 0 recs
His laundry isn't "dirty."

I don't think he entirely expected the media to get so ridiculously petty.

He was, and remains, prepared for any policy debate.

Not sure where you're getting that it's a "tie."  It's not.

by Dracomicron 2008-05-03 01:46PM | 0 recs
Re: His laundry isn't "dirty."

no he's not, he says he's looking forward to debates, but doesn't mean it.  Why not, they've been petty about Hilary? Why not him? And he's been petty about Hilary too, come to think of it. He needs to grow up? You're saying he isn't good at seeing into the future?  

by anna shane 2008-05-03 02:15PM | 0 recs
Re: His laundry isn't "dirty."

I'm not sure what you're talking about with the debates.  He says that he's looking forward to debating McCain on many issues, but he's been pretty clear that the debates with Clinton are reaching the point where they're useless.

Nobody is good at seeing into the future.  Unless you have some sort of crystal ball you haven't told us about.  If so, I'm looking to get some lottery numbers...

by Dracomicron 2008-05-03 03:54PM | 0 recs
Re: His laundry isn't "dirty."

then why are the ratings so high and why do the voters want them.  Oregon wants to know what they think about regional issues, how about that?  Barack knows he looks like a coward for canceling the last debate he'd agreed to, but he thinks it's smarter to look like a coward than to again look unprepared and irritable.  Anyone can debate McCain, shoot I could debate McCain.  Hillary is the challenge.  

by anna shane 2008-05-03 04:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Well, things change

Are you implying that Obama is a victim of his own relationship with Rev. Wright?

I think it's unfortunate (to put it mildly) that Obama did nothing to pre-empt the inevitable mess that Wright has caused.  Obama is responsible for that, and it could cost the Dems the November election.

by TexasDarlin 2008-05-03 01:33PM | 0 recs
Don't lie

You don't think anything relating to Wright is "unfortuante."  He's a gift from divine pokemon spirits in the sky for you.

The "Wright mess" was NOT "inevitable."  It was largely forgotten until Wright popped up on his own volition.  Most sane people figured he'd lay low until after the election, which would be the sane and respectful thing to do.

Obama might have been the victim of his trust in a friend... but that's not a political matter, that's a personal matter.  Sane people don't hold Bill Clinton cheating on Hillary against her, after all.  It's a personal matter.

by Dracomicron 2008-05-03 01:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Don't lie

Sex is one thing.  Having a mentor who says the federal government created AIDS to kill black people is more problematic in a president.  After all, well-regarded presidents such as JFK were into big-time adultery.  

I agree that adultery is a private matter.  Calling Wright your mentor is not.

by Montague 2008-05-03 03:36PM | 0 recs
Alright then?

How many presidents had a "mentor" that accused the government of causing AIDS?

None?  How do you know it will affect his record, then?

There is no evidence that Obama has, or has ever had, the same views as Wright.  It's the same basic situation as your "adultry is a private matter."  Church and state are seperate.  Wright is not his mentor now, nor is he even his pastor nor even (by this point) his friend.  Any further lines you draw between them is beating a dead horse for political advantage.

by Dracomicron 2008-05-03 03:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Alright then?

It's not that Wright's accusations will affect Obama's record (although it does affect his judgement), but that it will be part of the reason Obama can't win the GE.

Church and state SHOULD be separate but they are not.  God is all over our money, our state flags, our Congressional record, and on and on.

Wright was declared by Obama himself to be his mentor for 20 years.  You can't just walk away from that.  Hillary can't walk away from being married to Bill for decades, either.  It's nice to say "former" pastor now, but that doesn't help.

Also, the way Obama savaged Wright was pretty nasty.  

by Montague 2008-05-03 04:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Don't lie

Obama himself said it was a political matter.

by LadyEagle 2008-05-03 04:06PM | 0 recs
How do you know that's all it is?

Loyalty to an old friend?  Sure, one might have a bigoted old uncle.  Does that mean the person gets a free pass if he decides to take his children for weekly sermons from the uncle?

by lombard 2008-05-04 09:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Well, things change

True.  Considering the pile-on, the fact that he's still standing at all is pretty remarkable.

by mikeinsf 2008-05-03 04:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Well, things change

This will have more impact. Indiana voters remember that Indiana lost ground economicly during Bill Clinton's term as president.  

Look at this 2002 report is from the Indiana Business Review at Indiana University: Dissecting Indiana's Decline

by Lefty Coaster 2008-05-04 09:55AM | 0 recs
I am guessing it is easier to predict when

you know how low you will stoop in order to win those caucuses.  See Pacific John's diary about the Texas caucus.  I am so proud of Hillary that she has only asked us to be honest and ethical.

by macmcd 2008-05-03 12:44PM | 0 recs
right...

those Nevada lawsuits were highly ethical

by kindthoughts 2008-05-03 12:51PM | 0 recs
Re: thats funny coming from a supporter

Points to a well-run campaign by the Obama team, overall.  HRC sounded like she ran a kickass campaign too...for 1992.

by clad 2008-05-03 02:55PM | 0 recs
Did she say that or did

they say she said that?  I don't think she did.  she may have believed it but that is not the same thingy.

by NewHampster 2008-05-03 12:31PM | 0 recs
I am pretty sure

it was like wolfson and penn but I'd have to find the quotes.

by kindthoughts 2008-05-03 12:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Did she say that or did

Yeah. She said that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WsPmZ1zD eA

by map 2008-05-03 01:07PM | 0 recs
Re: thats funny coming from a supporter

Like my beloved Obama supporters, link please where she said she will win on Super Tuesday?

by Sandeep 2008-05-03 12:41PM | 0 recs
super tuesday

by Bucky 2008-05-03 12:52PM | 0 recs
Re: super tuesday

Thanks. Love the smile from her good buddy George S., the one who went after Obama with those ridiculous questions and who is hosting Clinton's town meeting tomorrow.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-03 01:18PM | 0 recs
Re: super tuesday

You mean the same George S. who also invited Obama to participate in a town hall?  That one?

by Denny Crane 2008-05-03 02:29PM | 0 recs
Re: thats funny coming from a supporter

sorry - link please.  you know the one where she said she would win on super tuesday?

by canadian gal 2008-05-03 01:52PM | 0 recs
Re: thats funny coming from a supporter

Two so far, need any more?  I dont know why it would be hard for you to believe she said it though, it is obvious the reason she is losing is because she didn't plan for the long run.

by kasjogren 2008-05-03 02:14PM | 0 recs
Re: thats funny coming from a supporter

Hillary did win Super Tuesday.  Uhmmm do we need to go through the states again?

by jelyfish 2008-05-03 02:16PM | 0 recs
Re: thats funny coming from a supporter

Yes, please go through the states again.  Obama got more votes and more delegates (+20) than Hillary did on Super Tuesday.

by map 2008-05-03 03:11PM | 0 recs
Re: thats funny coming from a supporter

Umm, sure, explain that one to me please.

by brimur 2008-05-03 04:04PM | 0 recs
she said it will be over on feb 5th

by kindthoughts 2008-05-03 07:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Should Win Indiana

Don't act so stupid, you know that spread sheet is 3 months old.

In January Hillary was sure the campaign would end on Feb. 5th. Care to beat her up for that one?

by Lefty Coaster 2008-05-03 12:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Should Win Indiana

So you acknowledge that Obama is damaged goods now as compare to the euphoria in Feb?

by Sandeep 2008-05-03 12:43PM | 0 recs
Nobody gets out unscathed

Clinton's negatives are up by 10% since the primary season started.  Politics makes bastards of us all.

by Dracomicron 2008-05-03 12:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Should Win Indiana

No I don't, and the latest Oregon poll doesn't show it.

by Lefty Coaster 2008-05-03 01:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Should Win Indiana

obama is looking pretty in OR while Hillary seems to be "tanking" in Gallup's lastest.

from her "winning" 49 -45 to her "losing" 49-45. 8 point swing in just one week.

by alex100 2008-05-04 11:15AM | 0 recs
Response diary posted:

'It'll be over on Feb 5th' --Hillary Clinton (and McAuliffe)

by NeuvoLiberal, Sat May 03, 2008

by NeuvoLiberal 2008-05-03 02:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Should Win Indiana

Obama has outperformed his spreadsheet by a total of 120+ percentage points! I think he can spare a few.

by brimur 2008-05-03 04:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Should Win Indiana

Yes, Obama is a slow-motion train wreck.

by JFK464 2008-05-03 04:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Should Win Indiana

Yeah I know he really underestimated his support in a lot of states he won walking away. He made those 11 contests after Super Tuesday a lot closer on his spreadsheet than they turned out to be.

Oh yeah...he needs to win Indiana because...Hillary said so.

by wengler 2008-05-03 08:44PM | 0 recs
I thought this said Harrison Ford at first

and really, that would be more relevant.  Ford chairs the DLC.  Clinton's a prominent member of it.  

Does Dick Durbin get to tell Hillary that she has to win NC?

by bosdcla14 2008-05-03 09:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Should Win Indiana

Every statement I have seen from Ford is that he believes the winner of the NC primary will be the nominee.

by SFValues 2008-05-03 12:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Should Win Indiana

Did Ford ever win a nomination??

by hootie4170 2008-05-03 12:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Should Win Indiana

He was a Congressman for ten years, and then became a member of that Oh-so-lonely '06 Class of Democratic electoral losers. Which, of course, made him eminently qualified to lead the DLC. I assume someone nominated him for that position too :)

by kyle in philly 2008-05-03 03:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Should Win Indiana

And to replace Howard Dean at DNC according to Clinton team's Carville.

by The Animal 2008-05-03 09:31PM | 0 recs
Superdelegates will decide this...

Today...

5 Obama
1 Clinton

Far off from the 70% she must capture...Ruh-Roh.....

by hootie4170 2008-05-03 12:25PM | 0 recs
I keep having to remind

my fellow Obama supporters that Obama closing the SD gap should be a secret.

Cause you know the HRC SD avalanche is coming ;)

by kindthoughts 2008-05-03 12:26PM | 0 recs
I'm getting my snowsuit ready...

She's running out of states and SD's, unless she does what Colbert said and create new states.....

by hootie4170 2008-05-03 12:29PM | 0 recs
canada has a few

by kindthoughts 2008-05-03 12:32PM | 0 recs
Re: canada has a few

Yeah but would Canada vote for Hillary? Worldwide Obama's support is even higher than it is in this country.  We could let every country in the world vote after our primaries and it wouldn't do Hillary a lick of good, it would just extend Obama's lead further.

by matchles 2008-05-03 01:20PM | 0 recs
Re: canada has a few

canada loves hillary!.  and this whole worldwide thing is nonsense.  yes - people all over the world are watching this election closely and both have a favorite.  but to be frank - not a one person i know in canada, australia and in europe would vote for BO.  sorry ;(

by canadian gal 2008-05-03 01:58PM | 0 recs
Re: canada has a few

We'll see what happens when Obama starts campaigning there...

--oh wait nm.

by Why Not 2008-05-03 02:14PM | 0 recs
Re: canada has a few

I'm English and I would in a heart beat.

by telfish 2008-05-03 06:06PM | 0 recs
Re: canada has a few

Not true, I was in Vancouver two weeks ago, and there were a whole bunch of Canadian kids in the bar up at SFU with Obama shirts on.  Saw a few cars with Obama stickers on them too, also a couple of girls in store in a mall with Hillary shirts.  They both have supporters up here, not just Hillary.

by Kyrial 2008-05-03 06:46PM | 0 recs
Re: canada has a few

did ya read my comment?  the previous poster claimed the world 'loved' BO - i said that was nonsense.  and that i (being a canadian) do not, nor do the people I KNOW from canada, australia, etc - rather the people I KNOW...  see below.

by canadian gal 2008-05-03 07:05PM | 0 recs
Re: canada has a few
Well everyone I KNOW in Canada, China, Europe, Australia, Thailand and South Africa is for Obama, so I think we are at least even in the "opinions of friends" category. On the other hand, I've yet to see any pages like this for Hillary. Barack Obama's popularity soars - in Germany http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/01/06/e urope/berlin.php Chinese search engine makes Barack Obama "Person of the month" after high ranking in inquiries http://www.news.com/8301-13577_3-9913951 -36.html Actually, just go here http://www.theworldwantsobama.org/ There are plenty of reports of votes around the world, Obama leading all of them. If you have any instances of worldwide fervor for Hillary by all means link it. I just wasn't able to find any.
by matchles 2008-05-03 11:58PM | 0 recs
Re: canada has a few

Well that previous comment looked hideous, don't know what happened to the formatting.

Anyways, if you don't look at any of the other sites, I thought you'd at least appreciate this.

Seems like Canada isn't Hillary land after all...

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/st ory/CTVNews/20080409/cdns_obama_080409?s _name=&no_ads=

by matchles 2008-05-04 12:03AM | 0 recs
Re: canada has a few

you know the cdn press is like faux news - right?  anyway this is the dumbest topic i have ever discussed on here.

by canadian gal 2008-05-04 06:51AM | 0 recs
Re: canada has a few

They weren't the ones doing the poll, they only reported it.  It may be a dumb argument but you were the one to reply with hearsay evidence expecting it to be taken as objective.

by matchles 2008-05-04 12:49PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm getting my snowsuit ready...
It's on her spreadsheet:
-Arkansastan (post-obliteration Iran): she gets 100% of the delegates there, or else.
by haystax calhoun 2008-05-03 03:11PM | 0 recs
But if he ends up taking it

by the SDs what will cry?  If she has the popular vote but the party bosses steal it from her will you still cry foul as we heard back in Feb?

I think not because to Obama and Obamatons the end justifies the means.

by NewHampster 2008-05-03 12:33PM | 0 recs
who told she has the popular vote?

by kindthoughts 2008-05-03 12:41PM | 0 recs
Re: But if he ends up taking it

Please explain how winning by the rules is "stealing it from her".  

by interestedbystander 2008-05-03 12:43PM | 0 recs
Clintstones

Clintstones...Meet the Clintstones....

by hootie4170 2008-05-03 12:46PM | 0 recs
Re: But if he ends up taking it

The DEM primary is not based on popular, but a proportional representation using pledged delegates and party leaders.  She can win by 500k votes, it wont make a hill of beans if she cant overcome the pledged and super delegate lead.  See Carter, Pelosi, Gore and Reid's comments.  

by stryan 2008-05-03 05:10PM | 0 recs
Re: I keep having to remind

Haha!  Maybe she can change her campaign slogan (again!) to "the audacity of denial."

by username3 2008-05-03 12:55PM | 0 recs
Re: I keep having to remind

Maybe BO could change his campaign slogan to the audacity of Wright and Farrakah???

david

by giusd 2008-05-03 01:08PM | 0 recs
Re: I keep having to remind

I'll trade ya for a Scaife and a Lewinski.

by username3 2008-05-03 01:15PM | 0 recs
Re: I keep having to remind

And i will trade you a bitter and cling to god and guns.  And whinning about paying for private paino and dance lesions.

david

by giusd 2008-05-03 01:16PM | 0 recs
Re: I keep having to remind

Here, let me explain how "trade" works: you offer something of yours in exchange for something of mine.  So you're suggesting Wright, Farrakhan, bitterness, and God and gun clinginess for just Scaife and Lewinski?  As if!  You'd better at least throw in a blue dress, 4,000 dead soldiers, an Oregon vote ($40) and a nice bottle of Oregon wine ($40) to make a deal...

by username3 2008-05-03 01:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Should Win Indiana

This Catholic, long time union member is working hard to defeat the corporatist stratus quo candidate Hillary Clinton.

by Lefty Coaster 2008-05-03 12:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Should Win Indiana

THE WINNER OF INDIANA WILL BE THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF US

by darlene25 2008-05-03 12:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Should Win Indiana

THE WINNER OF NORTH CAROLINA AND OREGON WILL BE THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF US

by Lefty Coaster 2008-05-03 12:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Should Win Indiana

THE WINNER OF GUAM WILL BE THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF US

by kindthoughts 2008-05-03 12:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Should Win Indiana

THE PERSON WHO TYPES IN THE BIGGEST CAPS WILL CHOOSE THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE USA.

by interestedbystander 2008-05-03 12:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Should Win Indiana

So sayeth the Oracle.

by mikeinsf 2008-05-03 05:06PM | 0 recs
Should win?

Clinton should have finished this on 2/5 then.

by RLMcCauley 2008-05-03 12:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Should win?

Obama was supposed to wrap this up in Feb. He didn't and has been on a decline pretty much since then. WI was supposed to be the end of it and he didn't prepare for a post WI campaign. They both made mistakes as far as this has gone.

Obama has said that he will win IN. If you don't want that narrative then you shouldn't be stupid enough to make your spreadsheet public.

by Ga6thDem 2008-05-03 01:03PM | 0 recs
Wait, what?

What did you just say? Obama never said he would wrap this up in February. You are getting the candidates confused. He expected this to be a long fight. It was the Queen who thought otherwise.

by sweet potato pie 2008-05-03 01:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Wait, what?

Nope, Obama's campaign started calling himself the "presumptive nominee" in Feb.

by Ga6thDem 2008-05-03 01:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Wait, what?

um, ok. i don't think "presumptive" so much as "front-runner." and if you think about it, the delegate math has only gotten better for him since then. god, some of you people have blinders on...

by jbill 2008-05-03 02:17PM | 0 recs
Clinton was the heiress-apparent front-runner

Clinton was the heir apparent front-runner that has been in national Democratic party politics for over 16 years. Obama was the challenger and will remain a challenger until he clinches his pledged delegate victory by 5/20.

"WI was supposed to be the end of it"

Clinton refused to concede despite losing 12 in a row. Had Obama lost 12 in a row, the Clinton camp and pundits would've put pressure on him to withdraw. They didn't apply any real pressure on Clinton to drop out.

"and he didn't prepare for a post WI campaign."

He's been in a situation from around WI where he's been under attack simultaneously from the rightwing (because McCain essentially wrapped it up by then and Obama was in the front on our side, but had not put it away). Facing attacks from both sides (Clinton's esp. damaging "Kitchen and then some" attack strategy) since then plus the non-stop Wrightboating for the last several weeks and the need to keep things as positive as possible (so as not to harm the party beyond repair in Nov), Obama has had a difficult hand to deal with. He's been doing the best he can under the circumstances and will almost certainly clinch a pledged delegate victory and quite likely a popular vote victory as well by 6/3.

"Obama has said that he will win IN. If you don't want that narrative then you shouldn't be stupid enough to make your spreadsheet public."

Well:

'It'll be over on Feb 5th' --Hillary Clinton

by NeuvoLiberal 2008-05-03 01:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton was the heiress-apparent front-runner

Who cares about months ago. Why do Obama supporters always go back six months and what was going on then. Even two months ago was before Wright and Ayers burst onto the scene.

by Ga6thDem 2008-05-03 01:24PM | 0 recs
Months ago seemed fine for your comment

Feb 21 WAS 2 months ago.

Be your logical inconsistency be as it may, if HRC wants to go back 35 years to lay claim to the nomination, clearly all of what happened since the nomination began a year and half ago is certainly pertinent and provides the context as well.

"Even two months ago was before Wright and Ayers burst onto the scene."

It's precisely the peddling of such smears by his opponents that has delayed things a bit. It explains why Obama didn't close the gap of 19% that he began with in PA (in a 3/10 Susa poll) further than the 9.3% gap he did manage to get to.  Without the smears, he would have stood to clinch his pledged delegate victory by 5/6 instead of 5/20.

by NeuvoLiberal 2008-05-03 01:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton was the heiress-apparent front-runner

Why do Clinton people refuse to acknowledge that Obama is winning by every metric?

by kasjogren 2008-05-03 02:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton was the heiress-apparent front-runner

Do you remember which diary this is?  you know the one using the months old spreadsheet to make a point?

by haystax calhoun 2008-05-03 03:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Should win?

Nah. That's nonsense.

by RLMcCauley 2008-05-04 09:03AM | 0 recs
'It'll be over on Feb 5th' --Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton on This Week - 12/30/07

(@ 7m:10s)
link

And,


"This thing will be over on Feb. 5," campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe assured reporters the day after Clinton's third-place finish in the Iowa caucuses. California, New York, New Jersey and other big Feb. 5 states were "Clinton Country," the thinking went.
link

by NeuvoLiberal 2008-05-03 01:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Should Win Indiana

It is likely that Obama will gain five supers today, vs. one for Clinton. Obama has three already and will likely claim two add-ons from Guam.  

Provided that he hangs in on NC, every day that goes by without a major HRC super pick-up - either a trade-off as in recent days or a gain for Obama as today - means her path to the nomination gets  harder.  By end May, provided Obama wins in NC and in Oregon, it is likely that she will need at least 80% of the remaining supers (how many will there be left?) to leapfrog Obama and gain the nomination.  

For Obama the last two weeks have been ugly, but for Clinton the month of May (again assuming Obama takes NC) will be dominated by coverage of her dwindling odds.  Eventually the MSM will look past Rev. Wright and catch up to that story.  

by Kensingtonbill 2008-05-03 12:41PM | 0 recs
So you all think Obama is successfully

buying super delegates; however, I am pretty sure he is only renting them until they get his money.  Because in the general election they are all going to want to win and Hillary is the ONLY Democrat who can win over McCain and even the rented SDs know it.  They are laughing all the way to the bank.

by macmcd 2008-05-03 01:06PM | 0 recs
Get help

by Bee 2008-05-03 01:19PM | 0 recs
delusional

really, really delusional.

by jbill 2008-05-03 02:19PM | 0 recs
Get Lot's of help quickly

by telfish 2008-05-03 06:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Should Win Indiana

And she's really angered congressional superdelegates with her "you're with us or against us" statements on the gas tax.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-03 01:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Should Win Indiana

And he's really angered congressional superdelegates with is "you have to understand that it is cool that i had a anti-american, anti-white, anri-israel pastor" for 20 years.  And why BO church gave a career award to Louis Farrahkan.

I wonder how the SD feel about that.

david

by giusd 2008-05-03 01:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Should Win Indiana

Well, given that they have disproportionately flocked to Obama, I think that gives you the answer to that.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-03 01:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Should Win Indiana

You should read Ambinder. The superdelegates are saying that they're going to support him but they know he's unelectable.

by Ga6thDem 2008-05-03 01:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Should Win Indiana

link with quote please.

by haystax calhoun 2008-05-03 03:20PM | 0 recs
If that's what they 'know'

...then they don't 'know' shit.

by you like it 2008-05-03 11:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Should Win Indiana

Evidently not too bad, he is up in SD's since PA.

by stryan 2008-05-03 05:11PM | 0 recs
More recycled Obama superdelegates?

Or more elitists trying to shut down process early?

by catfish1 2008-05-03 01:09PM | 0 recs
Re: More recycled Obama superdelegates?

Hmmmm...Like HRC saying it will be over February 5th.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-03 01:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Should Win Indiana

Do you all not remember that Bill Clinton was way behind in SD until the very end of the campaign?  

Hillary will win the nomination because the people will put her there

Obama will never be president of the USA.  He's just not up for the job.

by aroundtheblock 2008-05-03 12:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Should Win Indiana

LOL.

Anything else?

by sweet potato pie 2008-05-03 12:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Should Win Indiana

Bill wasn't in anything like this position. Unlike HRC, he was ahead in pledged delegates.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-03 01:07PM | 0 recs
Hillary doesn't need blacks!!

That's what you are saying right? We don't matter who cares about black folks, who cares about young people, who cares about whites(only certain whites matter).

It's so good to know that I matter in the party of dixicrats!!

by sweet potato pie 2008-05-03 12:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary doesn't need blacks!!

TR'ed for the "Clinton supporters are racist" meme

by zcflint05 2008-05-03 12:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary doesn't need blacks!!

Nonsense. I was referring to the diarist. She's the one who excluded the democrats most reliable voting block.  

Also, the numbers back up the fact that some not all of HRC's supporters are racist.  Get a grip.

by sweet potato pie 2008-05-03 12:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary doesn't need blacks!!

Funny how it always come down to screaming racist for people like you.

david

by giusd 2008-05-03 01:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary doesn't need blacks!!

Then the TR can still stand, because the OP is not a racist either and that's still a person attack.

Also, considering your insinuation on Clinton supporters as racist, white Clinton supporters are not voting for her to the sound of 90-10 lock step, like some supporters of Senator Obama.

by zcflint05 2008-05-03 01:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary doesn't need blacks!!

When you vote for someone because of the other candidates race, there is overwhelming evidence that you are most likely racist. I'm not saying all of her supporters are racist but the numbers are showing that she has attracted many biased voters.

End of story.

by sweet potato pie 2008-05-03 01:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary doesn't need blacks!!

You should really stop the ratings abuse. Like I said--your statement was a personal attack on the diarist, which is inappropriate per MyDD rules. Your continued insinuation and personal attacks upon Clinton supporters are unwarranted and deeply personal. Continue and I will report you to moderation. Thank you.

by zcflint05 2008-05-03 01:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary doesn't need blacks!!

It is a fairly belligerent assumption that because AA's support Obama 90-10 that they are doing so based purely on his race.

Hillary Clinton also has some sizable blocks of 'identity voters'--does that make those groups mindless automatons?

Riddle me this: Obama didn't have anything approaching 90% of the AA vote early on in the primary (Hillary used to have a substantial bloc of these voters), why has it increased so much?

Did it just take a long time for AA's to learn that Obama is black, which then triggered their zombie-like lockstep voting for the black candidate?

by Brannon 2008-05-03 04:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary doesn't need blacks!!

"are not voting for her to the sound of 90-10 lock step, like some supporters of Senator Obama"

"Some" supporters? Now, which ones might you be talking about? Flight attendants?  Pie eaters?  Ballet dancers?  

by mikeinsf 2008-05-03 11:03PM | 0 recs
No, you matter

You just don't matter more than anyone else.

by lombard 2008-05-04 09:48AM | 0 recs
Supreme Court ID ruling

This upsets me a lot, and would regardless of which candidate I supported.  It's a bad law and will hurt Democrats in general more than GOPs.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/050 8/10057.html

Photo ID.

"The research is pretty clear that in Indiana this will disproportionately affect certain groups and African-Americans are certainly one of them," said Julia Vaughn, Indiana policy director for Common Cause. Common Cause and verifiedvoting.org issued a report on May 1 detailing which groups are least likely to have a government-issued photo identification card that meets the Indiana law's requirements.

As the report noted, a University of Washington study found that 28 percent of African-Americans in the state of Indiana do not have the proper ID to vote. African-Americans make up 9 percent of the voting population in Indiana."

by mady 2008-05-03 12:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Supreme Court ID ruling

I've heard they have the same law in NC. Do you know if that is correct?

by Ga6thDem 2008-05-03 01:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Supreme Court ID ruling

I don't know, but certainly this ruling makes it possible for any state that wishes to to require this.  

My 80-year-old mother moved up to the small Western Mass city I live in last summer.  She is a native New Yorker, never learned to drive, never had a driver's license.  The process of getting a photo ID to use for various applications was long and tedious, it involved waiting on the same DMV line drivers wait endlessly on to renew their licenses.  She ended up once going home and coming back the next day.  It took a lot out of her.  I would think for handicapped and older non-drivers, as well as people who live in parts of town where it is harder to get to the DMV, this would be a real obstacle to voting.  

by mady 2008-05-03 01:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Supreme Court ID ruling

Poblano -- a fervent Obama supporter and also one of the best amateur analysts online -- believes that this law will hurt Clinton slightly more than it will hurt Obama.  It tends to affect women more than men, and poor people more than those well off, and also affects seniors who may not drive or thus have an ID.  It affects some Obama groups as well (students, African-Americans), but overall, according to Obama-supporter Poblano, it should hurt Clinton the hardest.

Here's his post--this part about this law is buried deep down in a lengthy analysis of the Indiana vote:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/05/i ndiana-toss-up-but-tilts-clinton.html

by markjay 2008-05-03 01:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Supreme Court ID ruling

It was an awful decision.  The fact is, all of the groups it disenfranchises are the Democratic constituency.  Right now you can parse it to mean more one Democrat than the other, but in the GE it's the whole Democratic party that takes the brunt of this, particularly the poor running through any further demographic breakdown.

by mady 2008-05-03 02:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Has To Win Indiana

Haha. Oh I love how you changed your title. Shouldn't we be saying the same thing about Hillary who is behind in every possible metric?

by sweet potato pie 2008-05-03 12:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Has To Win Indiana

I just don't get why Harold Ford gets to decide what elections matter.  Is it because he's the head of the DLC, an organization co-founded by the Clintons?

by politicsmatters 2008-05-03 12:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Has To Win Indiana

What position did you hold in academics again.  By the way i guess you missed this.

I guess you missed this.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/86797 3,CST-NWS-sweet30.article

WASHINGTON -- The University of Chicago released a statement Thursday saying Sen. Barack Obama "served as a professor" in the law school -- but that is a title Obama, who taught courses there part-time, never held, a spokesman for the school confirmed on Friday.

"He did not hold the title of professor of law," said Marsha Ferziger Nagorsky, an assistant dean for communications and lecturer in law at the school.

Fairytale land to you is the real world to us, come join us.  Maybe if you did you research you would not have posted something soooo wrong.

I think anyone who can read will see that the University of Chicago Law school (my universtiy) "did not hold the title of professor of law".  WORD.

david

by giusd 2008-05-03 03:37PM | 0 recs
Nice talking points.

I guess you didn't ever read this press release.
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index. html

One of my best instructors in college was a judge from the local court.  A public servant.  He was not a tenure track professor but he was accorded just as much respect as any other professor I had.  

Because Obama was not tenure track does not mean he did not perform the duties of a professor.  In fact, as the article states, he was offered a tenure track position and turned it down.

by you like it 2008-05-03 11:19PM | 0 recs
Someone said the other day


   that Obama had to win Indiana b/c it borders IL his home state.

  If that's the case, then why was Hillary's win in Pennsylvania, or NJ so impressive? After all, they all border HER home state.

   So does CT, which Hillary lost. So I wonder why, if that's the case, why were her wins there so impressive?

by southernman 2008-05-03 12:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Someone said the other day

BTW, why isn't Indiana considered a state bordering Clinton's home state?  After all, she grew up there.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-03 01:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Someone said the other day

By there, I mean Illinois.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-03 01:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Someone said the other day

Why didnt BO win MASS.  I mean all his rich, elitist friends at harvard are there. Not to mention the Kenndey crowd who all supportered BO.  Why did he win there.

I guess Mr. Full Professor couldnt win there.

david

by giusd 2008-05-03 01:15PM | 0 recs
Elitist?

Hillary went to Wellesley which is in MASS.  Please explain to me how someone who was on food stamps is elitist?

Also, have you ever heard of scholarships?

by sweet potato pie 2008-05-03 01:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Elitist?

You are kidding right. BO??  BO is a rich kid who lived with his rich grandparents in the wealthest part of HI and went to the most expansive rich kid private school in HI.  How about get you facts straight.  There is a reason people see him as elitist it is because he is a child of privlage.  

david

by giusd 2008-05-03 01:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Elitist?

Obama went to that HI school on scholarship, as you probably know already. If not, I really don't know why, since folks have explained this to you numerous times.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-03 01:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Elitist?

And all you have to say is BO comes from a weatlh privalged family.  He is a rich kid.  

david

by giusd 2008-05-03 01:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Elitist?

You are out to lunch. Hillary's father was an EXECUTIVE. She has never ever been poor. What is wrong with you? His mother was a teenage mother on food stamps.  

Forget low info voters just damn ignorant voters.

by sweet potato pie 2008-05-03 01:55PM | 0 recs
Wrong

Obama went to the Punahou School on a scholarship.

You're talking out your ass.

by Bee 2008-05-03 01:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Wrong

Really.  BO did go to private school and his grand parents did live in the wealthest part of HI.  He is a rich kid and went to the private school with all the rich kids.  He is your typical elisist who looks down on everyone else.

david

by giusd 2008-05-03 01:27PM | 0 recs
You need adult supervision

You're getting a bit frantic in your desperation. Stop embarrassing yourself. Give some consideration to saying nothing when you know nothing.

by Bee 2008-05-03 01:31PM | 0 recs
Re: You need adult supervision

Funny how to BO supporters the truth is desperation.  You seem bitter and are clinging to guns.  

I really get tried of this BO on food stamps nonsense or BO is from a poor family.  Please he is from money and privalige.  Just admit it.  

david

by giusd 2008-05-03 01:37PM | 0 recs
Pay attention at the back


Obama's experience at Punahou, a bastion for the children of Hawaii's ruling class, was that of an outsider. Because his family's income was modest, Obama attended the school on a scholarship, and never fully assimilated into the wealthy and exclusive society of his classmates. Furthermore, Obama was ostracized because of his race -- the vast majority at the school was white.

...

In his first book "Dreams From My Father," Obama writes, "for my grandparents, my admission into Punahou Academy heralded the start of something grand, an elevation in the family status." Obama was admitted to the school, which he describes as "an incubator for island elites," because his grandfather's boss, an alumni, pulled strings. Because his family couldn't afford the steep tuition, he went on a scholarship.

With his admission to Punahou, Obama entered Hawaii's, and the country's, meritocracy, its educated elite -- a status reinforced when he attended Columbia College and Harvard Law School. But Obama's home life was far more modest than that of his classmates. He lived in a small, two-bedroom apartment with his grandmother, who worked at a local bank, and his grandfather, who sold life insurance.

Because Obama's family had significantly less money than those of his classmates, there was a sharp contrast between the affluence at his school and his simple home life. This dichotomy made it hard for Obama to fit in with his wealthier classmates, for Punahou's status extended beyond its walls. When Obama was there, Wright said, there were many legacies at the school and many students acted entitled. These same kids, for example, usually belonged to the island's most exclusive country clubs.

Obama also struggled to fit in because the school was predominantly white. When he entered, there was only one other African-American student, and Obama was often ridiculed by his classmates. At first, they used to taunt him, asking him what tribe his father was a member of, if they could touch his hair and if his father ate people. "The novelty of having me in class quickly wore off for the other kids," Obama later wrote, "although my sense that I didn't belong continued to grow."

"When Obama was in high school he was one of a handful of black students," said Wright, who was six grades above Obama at Punahou. "He had no connection to the elite culture, and I am sure he felt even more like an outsider because of that."

Others scoff at any suggestion that Obama had an elitist upbringing at Punahou. "Obama was far from being an elitist," said Chris McLaughlin, Obama's varsity basketball coach at Punahou. "He was very humble and his basketball was his best friend. That whole elitist charge has really been blown out of context. When he graduated from Harvard Law School, where he was the editor of the Law Review, he could have gone, in a heartbeat, to any big time firm and made $300,000 every year. Instead he goes into politics where the pay is bad and there is a strain on your family. How can anyone call that elitist?"

by Bee 2008-05-03 01:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Pay attention at the back

And while i am on it this is a flat out lie.  But to BO that doesnt matter.

"But Obama's home life was far more modest than that of his classmates. He lived in a small, two-bedroom apartment with his grandmother, who worked at a local bank, and his grandfather, who sold life insurance".

His grandmother was the vice president at the bank.  Funny how you missed that.  I guess you were clinng too the lack of correctness.

Grandmother, who worked at a local bank.  Grand mother was the bank vice president.''

OK lets move on to number two that is incorrect.

Grandfather, who sold life insurance.  Grandfather had a successful insurance company.  You make it sound like he was some worker.  BS.

And his grandparents lived in one of the most expansive parts of one of the most expansive ares of america. I guess you missed this.

More form this bs that you have posed. "Furthermore, Obama was ostracized because of his race -- the vast majority at the school was white".  In BO own book he says the opposite and fit in very well.

Try posting something that is correct instead of Bs.  

david

by giusd 2008-05-03 02:10PM | 0 recs
Uh .. Nurse!

by Bee 2008-05-03 02:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Uh .. Nurse!

I understand you have a severe case of HDS or clinton dirangement syndrome..  Be careful it can cause serious CNS damage.  Do you have headaches.  Trouble reading.  Feel bitter and cling to guns and god.

david

by giusd 2008-05-03 02:18PM | 0 recs
Sounds like you got a serious case of ODS

Give a glib statement.  Get a glib reply.

by you like it 2008-05-03 11:21PM | 0 recs
Re: You need adult supervision

You can't even spell privilege. I'm done with you and you are just ignorant.

No wonder America is falling behind China and India.

by sweet potato pie 2008-05-03 01:56PM | 0 recs
Re: You need adult supervision

And you still cant read.  BO comes from wealth.  His grand parents lived in the wealthest part of HI.  Perild.  And i tell you what when you have accomplished more that zero then you can pass judgement on me.  Try to get out of you mom's basement.  But it is interesting that you feel the need to insult america.  Much like BO you are ok with this.

david

by giusd 2008-05-03 02:00PM | 0 recs
Re: You need adult supervision

LOL.

Not going to respond because the last time I checked food stamps meant that you were poor. Oh and his mother died because she couldn't afford health care.

by sweet potato pie 2008-05-03 02:03PM | 0 recs
Re: You need adult supervision

Sure why would you want to respond to the nonsense you just wrote.  BO grandmother was a vice president at the bank.  Vice president.  His grandfathers ran a successful insurance company.

Last time i check that was not poor.  His mother 2nd husband was also successful. So please stop this BO was poor nonsense.  VICE PRESIDENT.

But BO was on food stamps.  Please. Give me a break.

david

by giusd 2008-05-03 02:16PM | 0 recs
Women earned much less money than men did

before the laws changed, and a VP in a branch isn't the vaunted position you're implying it is. This was Hawaii in the seventies, not New York. His grandfather didn't "run a successful insurance company", he was a salesman who hated making calls, didn't earn much money and ended up more like Willy Loman than the tycoon you imply he was.

Keep quaffing that kool-aid, kid.

by Bee 2008-05-03 02:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Women earned much less money than men did

Really.  Now i am to beleive that vice president is some low level job at a bank.  Talk about kool-aid.  This is totally bs.  Just admit you are wrong.  Funny how your argument goes into smearing HRC.  This is always a BO supporter last effort when they are flat wrong.

But BO was a poor kid from a poor family whose grandma was a vice president of a bank.  Vice President.  I am sure they were on food stamps.

david

by giusd 2008-05-03 02:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Women earned much less money than men did

Did I miss something - where is the HRC smear?

by interestedbystander 2008-05-04 05:57AM | 0 recs
Re: You need adult supervision

You seem very angry today.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-03 02:24PM | 0 recs
Re: You need adult supervision

Really.  Do you still support and investigation of the WVWV.  The group that BO dontated 11k too.

Just checking.  

david

by giusd 2008-05-03 02:45PM | 0 recs
Re: You need adult supervision

Source for the BO donation to WVWV?

by clad 2008-05-03 03:03PM | 0 recs
Re: You need adult supervision

Don't stop posting! You're doing a great job here.

by Mandoliniment 2008-05-03 02:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Wrong

you are quite possibly the dumbest person who comments here. and that's saying something

by jbill 2008-05-03 02:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Wrong

And you are self serving little jerkoff who needs to grow up.  Get out of your mom's basement.  i am sorry things have not worked out for you. Maybe if you worked harder you would not be so bitter about how things have worked out for you.

i am sure that you post these insults kos you are a cool kid.  Maybe you should go back.

david

by giusd 2008-05-03 02:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Wrong

Dude, don't get your Depends all in a bunch. Did you go off your meds today or what?

by venician 2008-05-03 03:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Wrong

Well there is only one of us who can Rx meds so until you finish medical school maybe you should not talk about things you know zero about.  Or maybe you could go to medical school.  But my guess is that would be hard for someone like you.  Admission is based on merit.

david

by giusd 2008-05-03 03:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Wrong

So now you're self medicating? Just as I suspected.

by venician 2008-05-03 04:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Wrong

Really, were you on meds when you wrote and posted this?

"So what's the big deal? What Wright says only offends ignorant white voters and hillary supporters. And Hillary already has the ignorant vote all wraped up, so what's the problem?.

What exactly are ignorant whte voters?

Just checking.

david

by giusd 2008-05-03 04:41PM | 0 recs
To quote a popular internet meme,

'That's a bannin'.'

Seriously, get some fucking help. Or at least off this blog, if you aren't escorted by saner moderation first.

by kyle in philly 2008-05-03 03:32PM | 0 recs
Re: To quote a popular internet meme,

Really.  I missed the part where you talk about the poster calling me stupid.  I will apologize when he does.  I am not the one calling some one stupid.  But i just guess you missed that.  Do you think he should be banned for calling me stupid.  Just asking.

david

by giusd 2008-05-03 03:49PM | 0 recs
I don't want you to apologize at all.

Just leave.

by kyle in philly 2008-05-03 07:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Wrong

i'm fine, dude. but appreciate your concern. and might i suggest a little anger therapy for you...

by jbill 2008-05-03 04:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Wrong

How about posting some links to back up these assertions.  It's curious you seem to know more about Obama's childhood than the candidate himself.

by interestedbystander 2008-05-04 05:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Wrong

you really are either stupid, drunk or have never grown up.

Have a decent fact based discussion or STFU.

You are an embarrassment

by telfish 2008-05-03 06:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Someone said the other day

He's not a full Professor. He's a professor.

Still don't get that distinction, do you?

by politicsmatters 2008-05-03 01:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Someone said the other day

Funny that is not what he said.  You stilldon't get that distinction, do you?  Funny but you seem to get the distinstion of calling HRC a liar.  Funny becuse here is a case of BO lying and you do nothing but cover for him as well as his other many lies.  Just admit Bo is a liar.  I mean you feel really comfortable calling HRC a liar.

And why i am at it why dont you go on about all your experience in acadmeics.  Talk about liar.  Push paper is not academics it is being a paper pusher.

david

by giusd 2008-05-03 01:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Someone said the other day

Push paper?  What the heck are you talking about?

I hate to repeat this, since this issue was put to rest a long time ago, but Professor (also called full Professor) is a rank, typically earned after one is an Associate Professor and before than an Assistant Professor.  In contrast, a professor is someone who teaches at a university or college.

Obama was a professor and that's what he called himself.  

by politicsmatters 2008-05-03 01:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Someone said the other day

Maybe in you fairtale land.  He calls himself to pad his CV.  Lets just agree that BO did not tell the truth.  Funny how you have a different standard for calling HRC a liar and not you guy.  It is called hypocrite.

david

by giusd 2008-05-03 01:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Someone said the other day

Really david, you should just stop, you're embarassing your self!

by venician 2008-05-03 01:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Someone said the other day

Wow that hurts.  I guess when you support BO facts dont matter and insults are all that is left. Please.  I have read your posts and you do nothing but smear HRC and make up any fact you want.  Barbare R and WVWV ring a bell.

david

by giusd 2008-05-03 01:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Someone said the other day

This is very sad to see.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-03 02:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Someone said the other day

What is sad is you have nothing better to do than smear HRC.  But i guess when there isnt much else for you that is all you got.  Sad that you are bitter and cling to smearing someone who we can all agree has done more than you.

Maybe if you got out you could turn things around.

david

by giusd 2008-05-03 02:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Someone said the other day

What did I say that was a smear?

by politicsmatters 2008-05-03 05:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Someone said the other day

Fairytale land to you is the real world to us, come join us.

"The University of Chicago said Friday Barack Obama accurately described himself as a onetime law professor at the school"  http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/200 8/03/28/university-of-chicago-obama-was- a-professor/

by clad 2008-05-03 03:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Someone said the other day

No on the next day, the next friday the University of Chicago said he was not a Professor. The Law school held a press conference to specifically say he was not a Profressor.  Do you research before you post bs.

I guess you missed this.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/86797 3,CST-NWS-sweet30.article

WASHINGTON -- The University of Chicago released a statement Thursday saying Sen. Barack Obama "served as a professor" in the law school -- but that is a title Obama, who taught courses there part-time, never held, a spokesman for the school confirmed on Friday.

"He did not hold the title of professor of law," said Marsha Ferziger Nagorsky, an assistant dean for communications and lecturer in law at the school.

Fairytale land to you is the real world to us, come join us.  Maybe if you did you research you would not have posted something soooo wrong.

Dude you look really bad.  I mean any first year graduate student catches this.  This is what happens when you are not careful.

I think anyone who can read will see that the University of Chicago Law school (my universtiy) "did not hold the title of professor of law".  WORD.

david

by giusd 2008-05-03 03:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Someone said the other day

Please link to where Obama said he held the tile of "Professor of Law" because your article confirms that he "served as a professor."

by brimur 2008-05-03 04:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Someone said the other day

Factcheck.org

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/wa s_barack_obama_really_a_constitutional_l aw.html

"Singer (March 27): Sen. Obama has often referred to himself as "a constitutional law professor" out on the campaign trail. He never held any such title. And I think anyone, if you ask anyone in academia the distinction between a professor who has tenure and an instructor that does not, you'll find that there is ... you'll get quite an emotional response".

And just to make my self clear.  I think the fact that he lectures at the Universtiy of Chicago is something he should be proud of.  My point is the double standard where i have to hear about how HRC is a liar.

david

by giusd 2008-05-03 04:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Someone said the other day

Hardly a double standard.  A senior lecturer is considered a professor...

Here, let's play a game.

senior lecture :: professor  
dodging sniper fire :: ????

by clad 2008-05-03 04:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Someone said the other day

Well we can agree to disagree since i know how important bosnia is to BO supporters.

And what a new kind of campaign he runs and doesnt go negative.  And the University said he was not a profressor.

david

by giusd 2008-05-03 04:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Someone said the other day

Forget agreeing to disagree, how about we agree you're mistaken.  The university said he was a professor, he just wasn't titled as a Professor.  It's general use versus formality.

If you are going to bring that same sort of requirement, how do other candidates hold up to such parsing?

by clad 2008-05-03 04:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Someone said the other day

Really, do you read this.

""He did not hold the title of professor of law," said Marsha Ferziger Nagorsky, an assistant dean for communications and lecturer in law at the school".  

No the Law school put out a bogus memo and the next day the dean had to correct the record for the law putting out an incorrect memo.

Let me be frank """"He did not hold the title of professor of law,"""".  The asst dean said this.  Her job is dean for communications and lecturer in law at the school.  Let me be clear.  He did not hold a title of professor of law.  Did i misread this.

He went around saying he was professor of law.  I am not mistaken.

david

by giusd 2008-05-03 05:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Someone said the other day

You didn't read what I asked obviously. You just proved my point. He said he was a professor, the article confirmed he was a professor. He did not claim to hold the title Professor of Law, and the article said that he did not have the title.

I'm sure you'll keep grasping though.

by brimur 2008-05-03 05:19PM | 0 recs
*giggle*

He didn't have the title Full Professor, which is how you started this, but he never claimed that.  He can call himself a professor, according to the school, in both articles, he just can't claim the title 'Professor of Law'...which he hasn't.  I don't think the article means what you think it means.

Go to the source, Luke..


From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index. html

So, how was Professor Obama, anyway?


Legal affairs reporters sought out Obama for years before he ran for U.S. Senate or president. CBS News quoted him as "Professor Barack Obama" in a 2000 story on whether African Americans deserve reparations for slavery.

So why didn't Obama play up the law professor -- technically "senior lecturer" -- part of his resume more in his run for U.S. Senate two years ago? Do political strategists consider it a frumpy credential that wouldn't register with voters?

"It's probably not the main qualification people are looking for," admitted Northwestern University law professor Dawn Clark Netsch, a former candidate for Illinois governor. "To suggest anybody is going to be on their feet shouting 'huzzahs' for that -- I don't think so."

"Given the fact that most people are trying to define him before he defines himself, a look at his resume will show he had a variety of experiences," said Democratic strategist Donna Brazile, who teaches law at Georgetown.

Erika Walsh, an '02 grad practicing family law in Chicago, called him "an extraordinary scholar on the law."

"I can't imagine there is somebody out there smarter than he is," she said. "Many of our professors are so brilliant they are eccentric. But Barack Obama has an ability to reach across differences and communicate with people effectively."


http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/ob ama/253391,CST-NWS-prof12.article

Why don't people like you spend your effort attacking Obama on the issues, or why aren't you consistent in castigating other candidates who have made clearly false claims?  I just don't get it, but I suppose it's a seductive way of reinforcing a weak position.

by clad 2008-05-03 04:44PM | 0 recs
Re: *giggle*

Why dont BO supporters focus on issue instead of going after HRC about bosnia.  But but.  Whatever.  BO lied period.  You can quote all you want.  He was never a professor of law.

david

by giusd 2008-05-03 06:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Someone said the other day


   my my david, such resentment.

  Hillary too has lost many states where she had significant endorsements as well...just look at IA with the Vilsacks.

  I was just questioning the logic. Hillary's win in PA was hailed as a turning point. but, if Obama should win IN since it's next door, then how is her winning PA (which is next door to NY) a turning point. By her own logic, she was supposed to win there.

by southernman 2008-05-04 10:51AM | 0 recs
Ford is simply wrong.

Hillary needs to win Indiana to stay in the race. Obama needs to win N.C. and would certainly prefer to win Indiana... but it's not necessary.

by Mystylplx 2008-05-03 01:02PM | 0 recs
Can you change title to Harold Ford says

this? This is a big deal.

by catfish1 2008-05-03 01:10PM | 0 recs
Of course not

This diarist doesn't care for context. Did you miss her diaries on Rev. Wright?

by sweet potato pie 2008-05-03 01:17PM | 0 recs
This is a good diary

Rev Wright is troubling in so many ways. I think Obama can not sense danger when it is near.

Out of touch liberals do not seem to grasp that this will matter in the general.

by catfish1 2008-05-03 01:28PM | 0 recs
Re: This is a good diary

Out of touch liberals

Oops ... like your candidate McCain you just exposed your true motives. I didn't think trolling was the preferred way to fish for catfish. That usually works better on sharks.

I think Obama can not sense danger when it is near.

Yes ... I wish Obama could sense danger as well as Hillary did as her inevitable victory coming unraveled in January, February and March.

Catfish - It's the out of touch conservatives like you who don't realize that they've reached the end of their string of convincing the working class to vote against its own self-interest.

by obsessed 2008-05-03 01:38PM | 0 recs
Proud, patriotic liberal here

And no that does not make me a DINO that I'm patriotic.

by catfish1 2008-05-03 01:54PM | 0 recs
OK

One down.

How many of the rest of the rabidly anti-Obama people here are also closeted McCain trolls? Can I get a show of hands?

by obsessed 2008-05-03 02:03PM | 0 recs
Re: This is a good diary

Uprated for troll-rate abuse.

by Montague 2008-05-03 03:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Can you change title to Harold Ford says

done

by TexasDarlin 2008-05-03 01:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Has To Win Indiana

Do the math. Obama will be under 200 delegates to go after May 6 win or lose. Drip drip drip.

by applecrispbetty 2008-05-03 01:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Has To Win Indiana

can I just tell you how tired that "drip" thing is getting.

by TexasDarlin 2008-05-03 01:36PM | 0 recs
2,024 delegates

The only thing Obama HAS to win are 2,024 delegates.   A task that he has been making steady progress on everyday. To do that he does not have to win Indiana although an Indiana win might get him there a lot faster.

by hankg 2008-05-03 01:20PM | 0 recs
Re: 2,024 delegates

but don't forget the 5/31 meeting of the rules committee...

by TexasDarlin 2008-05-03 01:35PM | 0 recs
Re: 2,024 delegates

Which members do you think will vote which way and why?

by politicsmatters 2008-05-03 02:28PM | 0 recs
Unfortunately, this week isn't going to end it

Most likely, Clinton is going to get a win in IN.

But even if she loses IN and NC, she will stay in because KY and WV are coming up.  There are so many Appalachian whites in those states that she will win big, which gives her one last chance to hope Obama is struck by another thunderbolt - rev. Wright? - and no doubt to pull some bogus policy or symbolic issue to paint herself as an ordinary Jane.

None of this will matter absent some unexpected thunderbolt, or maybe if whites west of the Mississippi sour on Obama - though none of the recent polling supports that possibility.

For Obama folks who have been listening a little too long or too hard to the woe-is-me talk about the white working class, be sure to check out the editorial page of today's NYT.  Net, Obama's approval rating among whites is up over the past month.

by TL 2008-05-03 01:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Unfortunately, this week isn't going to end it

Yeah, that's a good NYT piece. But examining evidence is not always what some people want to do.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-03 01:24PM | 0 recs
Obama just needs to win North Carolina

He doesn't have to win Indiana especially after Wright.

I think if there was no Wright last week, perhaps Obama did need to win Indiana but because of Wright, the media isn't expecting him too.

by puma 2008-05-03 01:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama just needs to win North Carolina

Absolutely. The expectations have been reset.

And by the way, why would anyone especially care what Harold Ford, Mr. DLC, thinks?

by politicsmatters 2008-05-03 01:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama just needs to win North Carolina

"...why would anyone especially care what Harold Ford, Mr. DLC, thinks?"

Amen. Who are the Clinton supporters going to cite next? Joe Lieberman?

by fugazi 2008-05-03 01:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama just needs to win North Carolina

Again, another Obama supporter acting as if "Wright" is something out of Obama's control that happened TO him.  Obama is fully and solely responsible for the Wright problem, which could be fatal to Dems this year.

He's no victim.

by TexasDarlin 2008-05-03 01:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama just needs to win North Carolina

You act as if McCain is some invincible candidate. He does not even have the support of the entire Repug party. And everday it seems he makes another blunder, and 81% of Americans think the country is on the wron track. So try as you may to damage Obama, he is our next President. Now maybe you can go back to that discusting hate filled blog of yours.

by venician 2008-05-03 01:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Has To Win Indiana

This diary is so dishonest.

Hillary has to win every remaining primary by over 75% to possibly catch up to Obama in pledged delegates.  

If you believe that superdelegates will hand the election to Hillary, after Obama has won more delegates, you are not living on planet Earth.

This race is over.  Even Hillary knows it, but somehow she's convinced people to continue hurting Obama's chances so that she can run in 2012 against McCain.

by bradical 2008-05-03 01:36PM | 0 recs
Exactly

The diary should say that Hillary needs to win >65% of the remaining delegates to catch up with Obama on the pledged delegate race.

Thus technically Obama doesn't have to win any more contests as long as he keeps it close.

by puma 2008-05-03 01:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Has To Win Indiana

Sooner or later, the putrid dishonesty in the "suppress MI/FL votes based on a technicality" mentality will be exposed in broad daylight for everyone to see how crooked it is.

America has 50 states.  In a democracy, everybody has a voice.  That means you count the votes in 50 states.  It doesn't mean you take your name off a ballot in a state you expect to lose and then cry that the election doesn't count.  

With all the states counted (as they will be), Hillary is going to be leading in pledged delegates, superdelegates, and the popular vote.  Guess what that means?  

by BPK80 2008-05-03 01:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Has To Win Indiana

it means you are high.

sorry, michigan will not be counted as is. florida most likely won't either, though even if it does it won't affect the  delegate math. fact is, after tuesday, obama will still have about a 140 delegate lead, and clinton will be running out of chances to make that up.

by jbill 2008-05-03 02:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Has To Win Indiana

Lose the insults.

Instead, get educated.  

Check out the delegation penalty rules.  They're not very favorable to Barack Obama.  

by BPK80 2008-05-03 04:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Has To Win Indiana

Do Democratic elections mean anything at all to you? You know, ones where all the viable candidates are on the ballot and allowed to campaign and the voters aren't told ahead of time that the votes won't matter?

If not, there's lots of countries that have fake elections all the time. Some of them just call them what they are, coronations. You may be happier in one of them.

by Brannon 2008-05-03 04:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Has To Win Indiana

I can't blame the voters of Michigan for Barack Obama's voluntary decision to remove his name from the ballot for the purpose of pandering to Iowa and more importantly, to preemptively delegitimize a contest he knew he would lose by serious margins.  

The lack of campaigning by one party is neutralized by the lack of campaigning by another.  

Any persuasiveness by you claim that voters were told their choices might be subject to a discretionary exclusion by the party is quite contradicted by the stark fact that so many of them actually voted.  

The delegate penalty rules do not support a reading that would mandatorily exclude all of the delegates from these states.  That's a huge problem for people who oppose counting the votes.  

by BPK80 2008-05-03 04:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Has To Win Indiana

"I can't blame the voters of Michigan for Barack Obama's voluntary decision to remove his name from the ballot for the purpose of pandering to Iowa and more importantly, to preemptively delegitimize a contest he knew he would lose by serious margins."

Everyone agreed the election wouldn't count--even Hillary. You don't seem to have a problem disenfranchizing the voters who never came out to vote (or instead voted in GOP primary) in Michigan because they were told by the DNC and every campaign that their votes wouldn't count. Any yes a lot of them voted, but a lot didn't and you have no way of knowing how many would have. And a lot voted for "Uncommitted"--but I guess those votes don't count, huh?

"The lack of campaigning by one party is neutralized by the lack of campaigning by another."

So if noone is allowed to campaign at all then that would be equivalent to everyone being allowed to campaign? That is just flatly absurd. If that was how we ran this country then we'd have President Britney Spears.

Obama's numbers have improved dramatically in all states which he campaigned in--why would Michigan be any different?

"The delegate penalty rules do not support a reading that would mandatorily exclude all of the delegates from these states."

It's not mandatory, but it is left to the discretion of the Rules committee--and they exercised that discretion. If you want to change the rules--do it between elections, not during one.

"That's a huge problem for people who oppose counting the votes. "

Actually right now the burden of proof is on those that want to hold banana republic elections in our country.

by Brannon 2008-05-03 06:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Has To Win Indiana

I bet you're not from small town Indiana. Did Obama tells you that the race is over just because he said so?

Obama know that he has to win Indiana to convince the remaining SD that he is electable... ... he's been lying to you.

by SHIBAM8P 2008-05-03 01:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Has To Win Indiana

Again, the delegate math:

Pledged delegates:
    Obama: 1,491
    Clinton: 1,332

Remaining pledged delegates:  408
Delegates at stake on Tuesday:  187

What does this mean?  Let's say Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama split the delegates 50/50.  Then in order to be within 100 pledged delegates of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton would have to win over 63% of the remaining delegates.  Now which states has Hillary Clinton won 63% or more of the pledged delegates?  Arkansas -- that's it.  Do you honestly think the supers would abandon the party's most loyal constituency if Hillary Clinton finished even 100 pledged delegates behind Barack Obama?

The delegate math is the delegate math is the delegate math, and that's the sole metric we use to determine our party's nominee.

by Brad G 2008-05-03 02:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Harold Ford: Obama has to Win Indiana

Ha! Harold Ford is a tool. All Obama needs to do is run out the clock. There is no way that Clinton can catch Obama now. She needed to pick up BIG numbers of delegates in Ohio, Texas, and PA to have the slightest chance. Didn't happen. Game over.  

by fugazi 2008-05-03 01:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Harold Ford: Obama has to Win Indiana

If polls keep sliding and Hillary keeps winning, superdelegates may reconsider their support for Obama. If the superdelegates prefer to support Obama regardless of what the polls show...say hello to President McCain. It's as simple as that.

by soyousay 2008-05-03 02:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Harold Ford: Obama has to Win Indiana

oh christ, there are some dense people here. the only way the supers override the pledged delegates is if there is clear and convincing evidence that obama gets swamped in november, by like 15 percent and 49 states. the polls don't show that. sorry.

by jbill 2008-05-03 02:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Harold Ford: Obama has to Win Indiana

Are you a super delegate? Please share the info you have?

BTW, Christ has nothing to do with this... IMO, the Rev. doesn't have connections.

by soyousay 2008-05-03 02:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Harold Ford: Obama has to Win Indiana

not relying on connections, though i have some. instead, relying on common sense, which appears to have jumped ship Hillary a long time ago. if polls show each performing roughly equally to each others, or even if polls show obama winning, but not by as much as clinton, or if polls show obama losing by a little and hrc winning by a little, it doesn't matter. supers are smart enough to recognize that six months is a long time, and it is more likely that obama will make up that difference than it is likely the party will recover from having the supers overrule the leader in pledged delegates and votes, and from essentially writing off the party's most reliable constituency.

so yeah, common sense. the only way they overrule is that there every bit of evidence confirms that barack is a dead man walking and hillary is a sure bet. neither of those is anywhere near accurate.

thus, if hrc doesn't win nc and oregon, she needs to pack it in.

by jbill 2008-05-04 07:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Has To Win Indiana

The only reason that Obama won the other smaller states was because of the Media bias.

We all know that Republican media pundits are against the Clintons; and they been putting Obama in the limelights... but now they begun to realize that they might have pushed to far; and after what Obama said about small town people, connection with radicals like bill Ayers; and his loony Pastor...
they finally realized what a joke Obama is...

Oh dear, big mistake...

by SHIBAM8P 2008-05-03 01:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Has To Win Indiana

Why would the impact of media bias vary by state size?

by politicsmatters 2008-05-03 02:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Harold Ford: Obama has to Win Indiana

I remember Harold Ford defending himself against a dirty GOP add saying "I like women and I like football."  At that point, he cemented himself as one of my least favorite Democrats.  Just what we need in Washington -- another unapologetic frat boy.

This is not too surprising since the DLC's basic premise is that to win Democrats need to act like Republicans -- hence the McCain-Clinton gas tax pander.  They advocate the same failed electoral strategy that worked really well in 2002 in the run-up to the Iraq war.  This is the same Harold Ford, who Carville claiming that Dean was a failure in 2006 and that would have been better if we had run strong against gay marriage and abortion, said should be the new head of the DNC.

Without a win in NC, Hillary cannot claim any momentum.  Even with it, she can't catch Obama save a super-delegate coup, which is not going to happen.

by Pragmatic Left 2008-05-03 02:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Harold Ford: Obama has to Win Indiana

This is one absurd statement:
"Obama's momentum has been fading since February"

Care to share the difference in the number of delegates, both pledged and super, that have been won since Feb?  

by haystax calhoun 2008-05-03 02:52PM | 0 recs
Does that mean Maine was a must win for Clinton?

by darryl darryl darryl 2008-05-03 03:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Harold Ford: Obama has to Win Indiana

Why does it matter what Harold Ford says?  Hes the man in charge of a Clinton operation for gods sakes.

by Bobby Obama 2008-05-03 03:11PM | 0 recs
DLC, yeeeech...

HRC, Ford, establishment types, bah.  I spit up a little bit when I think of how Carville wanted to replace Dean with Ford a couple years ago.

by clad 2008-05-03 03:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Harold Ford: Obama has to Win Indiana

amazing response by the obama supporters texas darling- looks like you kicked an anthill. i note the spreadsheet also claims obama would be within 5 points in PA. he wasn't ;-)

by campskunk 2008-05-03 03:18PM | 0 recs
You know,

The whole "comparing your opponents to insects" shtick really does do a lot for reasonable discourse. We all might take a lesson from this poster!

by kyle in philly 2008-05-03 03:39PM | 0 recs
Since she's the clearly the winner!

... how come SHE can't "close the deal"?  Oh, yeah, the vast left-and-right wing conspiracy.

by mikeinsf 2008-05-03 05:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Harold Ford: Obama has to Win Indiana

I like what Hillary said on Nightline. Her base of support is much broader and deeper than Obama's. And that is what is necessary to win a General Election.

by Pagan Power 2008-05-03 03:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Harold Ford: Obama has to Win Indiana

If her support was broad and deep she would be winning the primary.

If she can't beat a new comer black man with a weird name and a crazy pastor all over the Tevee 27/7 how the hell is she going to beat McNasty?

You Clinton people cant get it into your head that you have to win the semi final before you get to the final.

by telfish 2008-05-03 06:50PM | 0 recs
HRC's base of support?

What is the basis for the claim that HRC's support is broader and deeper than Obama's?

Who is HRC's base of support?

by Carl Nyberg 2008-05-03 08:15PM | 0 recs
Indiana Phone-Banking

If our phone-banking party is any indication, Hillary will win Indiana by about 54-46.  (Here we even give Obama all of the message machines and hangups.)

The bad news is that we reached a number of McCain Republicans who registered as Democrats so that they could vote.  They freely admitted that they want Obama to be the nominee because he will be so easy to steamroll.  As one guy put it, "We will send him back to Illinois with his tail between his legs. He's a weaking.  Hillary's is a tough old broad.  She would be much harder to beat."

by The Smoldering Crone 2008-05-03 03:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Harold Ford: Obama has to Win Indiana [Updated

Hillary HAS to win North Carolina, Oregon, Montana, and South Dakota!

Why can't she she connect with working=class westerners and AA's?

Why couldn't she close the deal?

by wrb 2008-05-03 03:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Harold Ford: Obama has to Win Indiana [Updated

Why exactly does Obama absolutely have to win Indian when, at the same time, it's absurd to suggest that Hillary Clinton needs to win North Carolina?

by CrazyDrumGuy 2008-05-03 04:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Harold Ford: Obama has to Win Indiana

Hey, if Harold Ford, who is carrying water for the Clinton campaign, says it, then it must be true.

by rfahey22 2008-05-03 04:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Harold Ford: Obama has to Win IN

Thanks for posting this, TD. I agree with Ford. Obama has been losing support for a while now and it isn't just PastorGate and BitterGate. Voters are seeing him for what he is and they're no longer liking what they see. He'd be as weak a candidate against McCain as Dukakis was in 1988 against daddy Bush.

by Nobama 2008-05-03 04:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Harold Ford: Obama has to Win IN

You do realize he actually improved upon his performance from Ohio to PA in most demo's right?

by Bobby Obama 2008-05-04 05:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Harold Ford: Obama has to Win Indiana [Updated

so the head of the DLC says Obama has to do something.

And the world should listen because?

When all is said and done, Harold Ford and Hillary Clinton will have another thing in common besides their devotion to the DLC: they'll both be losers.

by thereisnospoon 2008-05-03 04:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Harold Ford: Obama has to Win Indiana [Updated

Harold Ford officially endorsed Republican Chris Shays in CT.  Ford is no democrat.  He is a DLC turncoat (as they all are--like Lieberman).  As Hillary would say, "Harold Ford is dead to me."  Who cares what he thinks.  He has no love for the Democratic Party.  Like most DLC'ers, he wants it to be another arm of the Republican party.  No thanks.  Been there, done that... lost every time.  We eon't get fooled again!

by LordMike 2008-05-03 04:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Harold Ford: Obama has to Win Indiana [Updated

Well, I've seen Hillary's cheerleaders cite Newsmax and FOX, so why not the DLC head who, by the way, LOST the last election he was in.

by mikeinsf 2008-05-03 05:05PM | 0 recs
You can't be a poor winner...

... until you win. Sorry, kids, Hillary's still getting the silver in this race.

by mikeinsf 2008-05-03 05:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Harold Ford: Obama has to Win Indiana [Updated

Folks -- Election returns, however close, should never be described as a "statistical tie."

A "statistical tie" means that two samples drawn from populations are so close that they overlap in their margins of error.

If you're not drawing random samples, you have no margins of error, thus no statistical tie.

The best way to describe the Guam situation is that it was an extremely close election so they're having a recount.h
 

by politicsmatters 2008-05-03 05:15PM | 0 recs
It's sad, but this just shows how much damage

the Wright issue has caused Obama, who, you might want to remind yourself, is still the front runner for the Democratic nomination.

That people think that going so hard after Obama for the things his preacher said, when the same standard is not applied to McCain (who sought out the endorsement of Hagee long after he made reprehensible an even worse comments) means that this is clearly and can only be about race. It is because Wright is black (and because Obama is black) and these kinds of statements scare people more coming from a black preacher more than they would coming from a white preacher. If a white preacher had said the same things, people would have just said he was nutty. But if a black man says them . . . look out.

Every single person who says that Wright is a "racist" pastor is engaging in race-baiting. What is racist is the entire way this issue has been handled by the mainstream media, the Clinton campaign, and the people in the U.S. who buy into this nonsense and don't have a critical bone in their body when it comes to race.

Every HRC supporter who genuinely supports her should be ashamed at what has happened here. There is no way that Black people in this country will ever forgive Bill and Hillary for what they have done. God help us all if she wins the nomination. It will already be civil war in the party. There will be no reconciliation because there cannot be. The Democratic Party used black people to win elections for decades and now Hillary has thrown them under the bus. That people go on and on (on this and other sites) about how B.O. can't win white voters but they do not go into the same depth or detai about how Hillary cannot win Black voters, only proves how incredibly (and openly) racist this campaign has become.

I feel sorry for the Democratic Party. I feel sorry for you, Alegre, who, like most people in this country doesn't think she is a racist. I have news for you. We live in a racist society. Because of that, we are ALL racist. And it is up to us to take responsibility for that. To learn what "race" is (and means), to learn how it works, to learn what the language of race is so we don't repeat it (without being aware of what we are doing -- which is exactly what you and MyDD have been and are continuing to do: you are repeating the codes and language and subtlety of race-bating in this country).

I'm pretty much done with this site. I came here in the spirit of reconciliation. I no longer think that that is possible. I have no doubt that some day everyone who engaged in these kinds of tactics will feel deeply ashamed of what they have done, as well they should.

Goodbye.

by DrPolitics 2008-05-03 06:00PM | 0 recs
More on why HRC's gas holiday is wrong-headed

(from Mark Kleiman)

Of the arguments against the McCain-Clinton gas tax holiday, the simplest is in some ways the best: cutting the tax refiners pay doesn't mean cutting the price consumers pay. That's a stronger argument than "It's only $30."

From CBS News :

   "Does anyone here really trust the oil companies to give you the savings, when they could just pocket the money themselves? There's not an expert out there that believes that this is going to work. There's not an editorial out there that has said this is actually the answer to high gas prices. In fact my understanding is today, Senator Clinton had to send out a surrogate to speak on behalf of this plan, and all she could find was, get this, a lobbyist for Shell Oil to explain how this is going to be good for consumers. It's a 'shell game,' literally."

Has Hillary taken a holiday from her senses or are her motives less than pure?

MYDD: Think again about the person you're so passionately advocating.

by obsessed 2008-05-03 07:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Harold Ford: Obama has to Win Indiana [Updated

A few weeks ago Harold said Hillary had to win NC. Harold isn't someone you should go around citing.

by Kobi 2008-05-03 08:05PM | 0 recs
if Obama has the most delegates

going into the convention, why would the superdelegates support a candidate who competed, but received fewer delegates?

Is all this talk of "Obama has to accomplish (blank)" just a way of shifting the discussion from the criteria for determining who wins the nomination to some other criteria favored by the Clinton campaign?

by Carl Nyberg 2008-05-03 08:06PM | 0 recs
Re: if Obama has the most delegates

For the supers to overturn the elected delegates would be to put a gun to the party's head and pull the trigger. It would also place the elected  supers (as opposed to the appointed ones)in a tenuous position with their own Democratic constituents; and they prize their own political skins above all else.

That probably one reason why we keep keep seeing them go more to Obama than Clinton even in the face of his recent unfavorable publicity.

by Kobi 2008-05-03 09:36PM | 0 recs
Who cares what Ford or the DLC think? Not I

A HUGE factor in my decision not to support Clinton for the presidency was the Clinton creation of the DLC, and their flawed and LOSER philosophy on the strategy whose influence on the party lost us election after election.  I was for Edwards at first, the second he lost Iowa I flipped to Obama.  I do not want those nincompoops taking control of the party and running it into the ground again.  As if it weren't bad enough that they're a tiptoe left of Liebermann, they rely entirely on old style politics in which a small group of "elitists" have all the say and sell out the rest of us whenever they personally find it politically expedient.  I'll take Reverend Wright over the DLC any day.

As for the spreadsheet, the Obama campaign is not Nostradamus.  They predicted Hillary winning Maine, why aren't you upset about them getting that one wrong?

The fact of the matter is that the numbers don't lie.  She not only needs to win Indiana, she needs to sweep big time.

by Renie 2008-05-03 08:38PM | 0 recs
Harold Ford doesn't know what wins elections

Harold Ford is the last authority I would go to for advice on what needs to be done to win an election.  He lost his Senate bid in a year when voters were itching to vote for any Dem on the ballot.

by DreamsOfABlueNation 2008-05-03 09:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Harold Ford doesn't know what wins elections

We knocked off 6 incumbents, and he lost the only open seat to a guy Republicans didn't even like.

by Skaje 2008-05-04 03:30AM | 0 recs
Harold Ford Has To Win Tennessee...

...before I see him as an authority on how to win an election.

by GermanDeaniac 2008-05-04 12:42AM | 0 recs
Heh, some irony here

I've been reading a good number of comments from Clinton supporters, complaining that an Obama nomination is just more proof that the Democratic Party is "addicted to losing" and will "commit suicide" in November with his nomination.

And yet, here we have a very popular diary, fully embracing the analysis of proven election-loser Harold Ford.

Funny.

by Slim Tyranny 2008-05-04 03:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Harold Ford: Obama has to Win Indiana [Updated

Yeah, Harold, and did anyone ever tell you you have to win Tennessee to stay in the congress?  And you didn't!

What an expert; what a fake!

by realcountrymusic 2008-05-04 03:30AM | 0 recs
Every week its the same

But the math goes unaccepted.

This contest became lost February 20.  At that point, neither candidate was likely to have enough pledged delegates to win the nomination outright.

HRC started getting Super Delegates before Iowa as did Obama.  But HRC had a lot more.  HRC correctly calculated that if the primaries and caucuses continued contested that the math would make a pledged delegate win mathematically impossible so Super Delegates had to be part of her strategy

Here's the problem, HRC has been bleeding Supers since February.  Whats the plan?  Beg?

The dynamics of this race have changed from week to week and HRC's plan has been the same.  Rely on Superdelegates to tip the nomination to her.  Sell herself to the Superdelgates by focusing polls and demographics that show her ahead and telling them to forget every state she's lost

by kmwray 2008-05-04 04:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Harold Ford: Obama has to Win Indiana [Updated

yes, sen obama lost pennsylvania by 10 points, not by five. and this after the rev wright story and the bitter comment. after the media went hog wild ripping into obama nonstop for one month. he should have lost by 20 or even 30. he did well only losing by 10 pts.

by hueydixiepearl 2008-05-04 05:35AM | 0 recs
Harold Ford?

Why would anyone listen to Harold Ford, he's never even won state office?

If you want to talk about "baggage" just look at the Ford family in Memphis.  If you think Rev. Wright is an issue, imagine the fuel the his family history would bring.  

by nextgen 2008-05-04 06:23AM | 0 recs
Harold Ford: is Jealous of Obama

And in Hillary's camp.  

by bacalove 2008-05-04 08:15AM | 0 recs
And Obama will!!!

Go OBAMA!!

by hienmango 2008-05-04 08:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Harold Ford: Obama has to Win Indiana [Updated

This is funny, because I was watching Race To The White House where Harold Ford is a regular commentator a few weeks ago and I very clearly remember him saying the following: "The winner of the North Carolina primary WILL be the Democratic nominee."

Are you going to write a diary about that?

by animated 2008-05-04 10:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Harold Ford: Obama has to Win Indiana [Updated

Ford is playing silly games, once again.

by alex100 2008-05-04 11:20AM | 0 recs
Taylor Marsh Sighting...

OP, same Texasdarling, guest blogger at Taylor Marsh?

by nextgen 2008-05-04 12:53PM | 0 recs
Who gives a fuck what Harold Ford says?

Who the fuck is he other than an also-ran that lost a Senate race in 06 and a DLC hack?

A loser doesn't carry much weight in the advice he gives.

by jaywillie 2008-05-04 01:49PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads