For the past week or so, Barack Obama has been accused nearly non-stop of “shifting positions”, “moving to the center” (or to the right, depending on the source), and/or “flip-flopping”.
While there have indeed been a couple of shifts, there’s also a massive amount of disinformation coming out about Obama. He was not, for example, sweepingly against the death penalty. Furthermore, his position on NAFTA warped in Ohio; his recent statements are how I understood him all along. (Yup — he pandered in OH. Everybody did. It was ugly.)
Accusations of shifting and flip-flopping are part of the well-traveled political road, so most of this latest yammer is a big wide yawner. But this piece from ABC is a bit different:
ABC News’ Teddy Davis and Gregory Wallace Report: Barack Obama aligned himself with welfare reform on Monday, launching a television ad which touts the way the overhaul “slashed the rolls by 80 percent.” Obama leaves out, however, that he was against the 1996 federal legislation which precipitated the caseload reduction.
Really? He was against the legislation? ABC says so, therefore it must be true (my emphasis):
When implementation of welfare reform came before the Illinois state senate in 1997, Obama cited a lack of job training, insufficient oversight, and provisions blocking legal immigrants from receiving benefits as his reasons for opposing a federal welfare overhaul imposing work requirements and time limits.
Except that ABC is wrong. Obama didn’t oppose the implementation. Not only was he part of the bipartisan negotiating team that created the successful bill, he stood in the Illinois legislature and said this (my emphasis again):
I strongly urge that — although we’ve taken a good step on this bill, that we look at this carefully and continue to make a commitment to ensuring that all Illinois’ children and all Illinois families have an opportunity to succeed in this economy. Nevertheless, I think this is a good start, and I urge support of this bill.
He did not support the welfare “status quo” (i.e. he supported reform), but he did have concerns about details and ramifications — specifically about what types of training (there was a protection clause for union workers), adequate oversight (that’s a bad thing???), and the bill’s exclusion of immigrants here in the country legally.
It looks to me as if the MSM via ABC is willfully lying about Obama’s positions here.
Can we please retire the tired, and patently false meme about how the MSM is in the bag for Obama now?
Since Barack Obama took the Democratic Presidential Nomination, I have come to wonder: if Hillary had harnessed some of the powerful imagery of SATC, could she have done better among women like me who think she just wasn’t female enough to earn the title of “First Female President?”
…
In the SATC movie, Miranda remarks to Carrie as she looks for a Halloween costume - “These are the only two choices for women - witch or sexy kitten?” Currently, the ability for a female leader to rise above these stereotypes is difficult, if not impossible. If we are ever going to get past these stereotypes, we need a female leader who is brave enough to prove that being powerful and female isn’t a detrimental condition corrected by a short hair cut, a figure less suit and emotionless campaigning. I think Hillary in particular would have had more success if she had tried to embrace her gender instead of treating it like a handicap. Perhaps then, the females turned off by her decision to fit in all too nicely with the male political paradigm, might have decided she was someone worthy of their vote.
Before you start rolling your eyes, or wondering what Jill is saying she thinks, remember the following:
The next female who wants to be commander-in-chief could try to embrace her gender as a plus, rather than a minus. Simple things such as an upside down stiletto could easily take the place of the “V” in “Vote for Me” as a start. Instead of stuffy suits, add some fashion to the political stage and allow a popular female designer to dress the candidate for a day. Work with Mommy Bloggers, admirable female celebrities, female sports stars, and sorority girls to create the solid base of female support to carry the campaign. Most importantly, meet women in their element. Organize the female electorate such as Mobilize.org did with a voter registration drive at the Sex and the City Movie Premieres. Or host a Cocktail Caucus at CHANEL similar to what Polichicks Online has done.
I chose to be a Barack Obama supporter in part because I did not agree with Hillary’s misogynistic branding of her campaign. When Obama took the nomination it became clear that in targeting the 20 to 40 year-old demographic he found success - they wanted to have a beer with him and listen to his policy - something Hillary could not seem to achieve. However, when another female wagers for the White House - instead of seeking a candidate to drink a beer with, why not a one who might sip a Cosmopolitan? Bridging the gender gap in politics is not impossible; it just takes a little creativity.
See the sense? I do. And this isn’t an easy topic or a stupid or silly one either. I know there are women who will always bristle at the suggestion Nedeau makes because they’ll see it as selling out or not pursuing gender neutrality.
However, if our gender - whether man or women - offers us the potential to have advantages, as political candidates, and re-brand otherwise negative images connected to our gender which we reject, why not manipulate these images and definitions ourselves? That’s taking control, and I can’t argue against it (and have in fact argued for it before).
It’s never too late to try out strategies like the ones Nedeau suggested. Maybe the next step is to start a website that encourages women who are running for office or will be running for office to figure out their level of comfort with these suggestions and see how she fits them in, and whether they work, or fail.
If I run for something, I promise to be a guinea pig for this tactic. You?
As an example of turning images on their heads, here’s the White House Project’s baby doll fit t-shirt (which I wear constantly):
Is Democratic Senator Hillary Clinton now winding down her campaign with the shedding of staff as a key indicator? Or is is this merely a sign that the primary season is over and now she moves it to a new phase — kind of a political guerrilla warfare phase to pick off superdelegates or get ready in case some new rumored bombshell about front runner Senator Barack Obama surfaces?
There are conflicting reports right now: reports that suggest the campaign may be winding down and in its last viable moments and reports suggesting that Clinton is considering battling on no matter what anyone — including some wavering supporters — may wish.
Members of Hillary Clinton’s advance staff received calls and emails this evening from headquarters summoning them to New York City Tuesday night, and telling them their roles on the campaign are ending, two Clinton staffers tell my colleague Amie Parnes.
The advance staffers — most of them now in Puerto Rico, South Dakota, and Montana — are being given the options of going to New York for a final day Tuesday, or going home, the aides said. The move is a sign that the campaign is beginning to shed — at least — some of its staff. The advance staff is responsible for arranging the candidate’s events around the country.
And how did the Clinton campaign respond? This way:
Clinton’s senior aides didn’t respond to requests for comment on her Tuesday night plans.
That usually means a source is trying to find the best way to respond to a report so they can put unhelpful news in a better light, or find a response that would help sandbag the story….or that they hope the reporter will simply go away so the story won’t grow anymore.. If something is false, they usually very respond quickly.
But Clinton isn’t out (yet). She made it clear to reporters on her campaign plan that she intends to go after Obama superdelegates, noting that they could change their minds.
One tidbit of this assertion is the context — it comes amid a pro-Clinton website’s repeated assertions that there is a new video damaging to Obama involving his wife talking at their ex church. And since it was on a website that got lots of hits, the alleged tape became a discussion point on a cable network.
But, even if it proved correct — and reporters will rightfully want to trace the sourcing of this (who got the tape, who leaked it, who was pushing it, what political camps wanted it out there and why…and the timing of the release and why) — 1) it would have to be something hugely earth-shattering to derail Obama’s bandwagon and (2) if the tape could be interpreted in several ways, it may not have the impact Obama foes assumed it would (3) there are some voters who would be so revolted by yet more search-and-destroy 20th century style politics that those touting it would lose their votes come November.
Clinton’s dilemma is that although she won the Puerto Rico primary by a whopping margin yesterday, the impact of that win is minimal in terms of the news media — which is already minimizing the win’s impact on a campaign most feel is all but over.
Global op-ed and editorial reaction to major events in the United States usually takes a day or two - as is the case of Scott McClellan’s explosive look inside the Bush White House and it’s decision-making process.
“IT SEEMS that the outside world is less surprised than the White House about former Bush aide Scott McClellan’s coming clean, after suffering what appears to have been an uneasy conscience. … The former White House Spokesman’s book has greatly fueled suspicions shared by much of the world. … However strongly Bush & Co react, McClellan is likely to have the last laugh, not least because the increasing controversy will translate into more sales for his book. Since the international press is already out with hammer and tong for another go at the Bush lobby, he will come out the stronger.”
EDITORIAL
May 30, 2008
United Arab Emirates - Khaleej Times Original Article - English
IT SEEMS that the outside world is less surprised than the White House about former Bush aide Scott McClellan’s coming clean, after suffering what appears to have been an uneasy conscience. Though a good number of neocon-insiders have abandoned Bush’s ship of state over the long years of the war on terror, McClellan is unique. The former White House Spokesman’s book has greatly fueled suspicions shared by much of the world. From one who has been so close to the president since his days as the governor of Texas, charges that the Bush team deliberately formulated a false propaganda campaign to unleash an unjust war responsible for unprecedented misery is nothing short of damning.
Yet the White House has still has much to play with in its own defense. The simplest counter-argument is McClellan’s sudden change of heart - pointing to his often stubborn defense of Bush’s policies when he was drumming the official line. Even those who have given up the ill-fated neoconservative campaign have understandably sided with the White House, questioning McClellan’s past unflinching support and failure to come out into the open earlier.
READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, along with continuing foreign pres coverage of the controversy surrounding Scott McClelland and his new book.
“She may enjoy first class facilities; but her remarks show that she has third-class mentality … The first signal from the Chinese government, which is to stop screening all of Sharon Stone’s films, is a step in the right direction. Plans should also be made to boycott all products tied to Stone. By her own doing - this is what ‘karma’ is all about.”
People’s Republic of China - Xinhua - Original Article (English)
May 29, 2008
BEIJING: U.S. actress Sharon Stone has created a storm of criticism and condemnation in China, after suggesting that the devastating earthquake on May 12 that killed over 68,000 people was “bad karma” because of China’s Tibet policy.
Stone, 50, made the remarks at the Cannes Film Festival last week, leading to pledges by many cinemas on the Chinese mainland and Hong Kong not to show her films again, and reportedly motivating a cosmetics chain [Christian Dior] to remove advertisements with her image.
Among all the Chinese people, such disgusting remarks spark great rage. Also shocked is Sam Teng, a netizen of CCTV.com from Malaysia, who writes that Sharon Stone has a heart as cold as stone:
“I was utterly shocked and furious to hear Sharon Stone’s disgusting remarks that the earthquake in Sichuan is “karma.” At a moment when millions of people are displaced, 60,000 killed and another 20,000 missing, Chinese people around the world - including many foreign sympathizers - are greatly saddened. The survivors continue to struggle to find safer dwellings in the face of the expected rains and the risk of flooding. As such, I find Sharon Stone’s remark insensitive and inhumane. Where’s your sympathy?
READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, along with continuing foreign press coverage of how the world percieves our nation.
If a lot of members of the Kennedy family had earlier broken with Senator Hillary Clinton in her drive for the 2008 Democratic party nomination, then consider her comments about Robert F. Kennedy’s assassination, how it ties in with her desire to stay in the race and the way they were widely interpreted to now have created a bigger break — and sparked considerable anger.
Not only that, but some of them them think it’s the last hurrah of a “sloppy” campaign.
So says the New York Post in a story quoting unnamed Kennedy family sources. But as anyone who has worked as an editor or reporter on a newspaper knows, stories like these are NOT created by editors or reporters sitting around an inventing quotes. That happens rarely and when it does those journalists get the boot. So this is strong stuff:
Members of the Kennedy family are incensed over Hillary Rodham Clinton’s invoking the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy to explain why she’s staying in the race - and they think it could be the death knell of an increasingly desperate and sloppy campaign.
“That comment may be the last nail in her campaign’s coffin,” a Kennedy relative told The Post. “How can Hillary even use the experience argument when she repeatedly pushes the wrong buttons in her comments?”
An insider added, “I think people really felt that a line was crossed and that her campaign - and even her legitimacy as a politician - ended today.”
Said a second relative, “She no longer has only her husband to blame for the ill-chosen comments coming from her camp.”
That’s about as blunt as you can get. And the word “legitimacy” is particularly ironic: one of Clinton’s arguments she has been making, without using the word, is that rival Democrat Barack Obama’s nomination might not be legitimate if the Florida and Michigan delegations were not seated and its votes counted, a stance her campaign had earlier not taken but took once she needed those votes.
The Post piece notes that while high-profile Clinton supporter Robert F. Kennedy Jr. immediately defended Clinton’s remarks, ” others in the family’s inner circle are fuming”:
One cited “a perceived insensitivity” in her comment, made Friday before a South Dakota newspaper’s editorial board, especially with the 40th anniversary of RFK’s death two weeks away and Sen. Ted Kennedy battling a brain tumor.
“We were all sort of dumbfounded that she would say such a thing,” the insider said.
There was also anger outside the family. Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY), a Hillary supporter, told Bloomberg News that she said “the dumbest thing you could have possibly said.”
Note the Rangel was giving the press a re-run quote here. He called Clinton’s comment about her white voter support pretty much the same thing.
Is the charge of sexism in the treatment of Senator Hillary Clinton something to be seriously ponder, or a basically political rationalization and a talking point?
It is insulting, because it asserts that those who supported someone else this year were driven by low prejudice and mindless bias.
It is manipulative, because it asserts that if you want to be understood, both within the community and in the larger brotherhood of man, to be wholly without bias and prejudice, you must support Mrs. Clinton.
It is not true. Tough hill-country men voted for her, men so backward they’d give the lady a chair in the union hall. Tough Catholic men in the outer suburbs voted for her, men so backward they’d call a woman a lady. And all of them so naturally courteous that they’d realize, in offering the chair or addressing the lady, that they might have given offense, and awkwardly joke at themselves to take away the sting. These are great men. And Hillary got her share, more than her share, of their votes. She should be a guy and say thanks. Read the rest of this entry »
If it becomes a formal talking point, you have to wonder how this tidbit reported by Balloon Juice’s always blunt John Cole will play with many superdelegates, DNC party chair Howard Dean and the mainstream media that has been covering the Democratic party race:
Lisa Caputo, one of the Clinton hacks on MSNBC tonight, just claimed (fraudulently) that Hillary had the popular vote but was behind in the delegate math, and that this felt like “Al Gore in 2000 when it had to go to the Supreme Court.”
Caputo was one of Hillary Clinton’s best spokespeople at the White House and is considered close to her. Her Wikipedia bio notes:“She now serves as a campaign supporter for Hillary Clinton and speaks out to television stations on her behalf. She is frequently seen on CNN as a representative of the campaign.”
Several things about this:
(1) The Clinton camp can make the argument about the popular vote in a clinical, hard-nosed way, outlining their case and in time it could be an argument some superdelegates could consider.(See Pete Abel’s excellent post below).
(1) Hillary Clinton this week started making this argument about the popular vote repeatedly and strongly and it was noted by the New York Times. Just as George Bush’s supporters on talk radio, weblogs and in the media would immediately pick up his battle cry when he makes a new assertion, Clinton’s most partisan supporters immediately picked up the talking points, even before yesterday’s primaries. On the right, the National Review’s Byron York now agrees with her.
It’s one of Sen. Hillary Clinton’s last arguments — she’s ahead in the popular vote, she should be the nominee, even though she has won fewer delegates.
“Right now more people have voted for me than have voted for my opponent,” Clinton told Kentuckians recently. “More people have voted for me than for anybody ever running for president before.”
One problem with these claims — they don’t appear to be true.
The problem is not Clinton mendacity. The problem is that popular vote tallies are woefully wrong.
Read the entire post.
2. The suggestion that the Democratic party apparatus is behaving like the Supreme Court squelching Al Gore’s argument is actually a mirror argument of what some progressive blogs have been suggesting about Clinton’s campaign. Some blogs over the pasts few months have suggested that if the party gave the nomination via superdelegates to Clinton over Obama after voters went to the polls, donated money and Obama won more pledged delegates THAT would be like the 2000 Supreme Court decision. The cartoon above reflects that viewpoint.
3. Use of this argument suggests that even though some rhetoric has cooled, the Democrats are far from starting to mend fences, since arguing that the party is having like Justic Scalia et. al. given the way the Supreme Court decision is perceived by many Democrats is a nice way of saying the party’s actions are illegitimate.
4. If bloggers suggest it, it’s one thing. But this has come from the aide of a candidate — which puts it on a higher level. This would be– once again — highly polarizing and not help the Democrats’ chances of winning the White House in November (if that is what the party’s and its partisans truly have as their goal on election day).
Cartoon by Wright, The Detroit News
Campaigns like people go through life phases, and nothing can be more distressing to a candidate and his/her supporters as when journalists start reporting a political death rattle. That now seems to be the stage of the campaign of Senator Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Presidential nomination.
You can hear the characterizations in the reports of TV news journalists and read references to it in some news reports. MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell reported that Senator Clinton knows the race is over. But it now seems like that narrative in a campaign’s cycle has kicked in, given a report in the New York Times:
On the day Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton was endorsed by the governor of North Carolina, a supporter gave her a three-foot-long balloon replica of herself, complete with blond hair, black pantsuit and wide pink smile, which Mrs. Clinton promptly took on her plane and laughingly showed off to reporters.
On Thursday, little more than two weeks later, the doll lay on the sofa by her seat on the plane, shriveled and deflated.
With her candidacy running out of time — and perhaps air — the Clinton campaign has taken on a distinctly subdued mood.
Mrs. Clinton found herself largely ignored on Friday while a battle raged between Senator Barack Obama on one hand and Senator John McCain and President Bush on the other.
This has been a week of agony and ecstasy for the Clintons - and she could face the same kind of week again. Read the rest of this entry »
When California’s Supreme Court decision nixed a voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage the question immediately raised by some talk show radio hosts was: will this be back now as a big campaign 2008 wedge issue?
The likely answer: back…yes…….but not quite..because voters have a few teenie-weenie other things on their minds this year. The Associated Press has come to the same conclusion:
[NOTE: An earlier version of this story had this link attributed to the New York Times. That was an error, due to a reference from a Times story on the ruling that was cut in favor of using the more recent AP piece. We regret the error.]
Yesterday’s California Supreme Court decision striking down a voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage reintroduces a hot-button social issue into the presidential campaign.
Republicans used same-sex marriage to great political effect in 2004, putting proposed bans on the ballot in Ohio and other states to get conservatives to the polls. But now it will have to compete for attention with the economy, the Iraq war, and other issues.
Indeed, there were already rumblings yesterday reflected in some news reports and on some talk shows of some thinking of trying to put a new measure on the ballot and of a court challenge to the California ruling.
But the dynamics are different this year:
And impact of the gay marriage issue could be muted, not just because neither the Democratic front-runner, Barack Obama, nor the presumptive Republican nominee, John McCain, support gay marriage, but because McCain’s opposition to a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage - on federalist grounds - makes it more difficult for the right to get a lot of traction out of it.
Still, the issue is likely to come up in some races (or be raised by the so-called “independent” groups that make commercials to support or negatively define candidates). And you can already see how even this clear-cut California court ruling can be spun.
“California Court Strips Children of Right to Mother and Father,” declares the headline of Cybercast News Service’s hot-button-pushing article which declares “the court does not recognize that children have any right whatsoever to a mother and a father. In the decision, the California court sees children primarily through the eyes of same-sex couples who want to secure custody and control of children. The court makes emphatically clear that it deems this to be a right of same-sex couples that is equal to–and identical to–the right of married mothers and fathers to adopt or conceive and raise their own children.”
Spin is spin is spin…
So will it become another wedge issue used against the Democrats as hot buttons are pushed and voters cast their votes on this issue? Read the rest of this entry »
Now, look - I chastise my father whenever he calls me anything remotely close to sweetie, and he’s used a whole bunch of those terms (let me be brutally honest since my mother reads this blog but my father doesn’t: I hate it when my father uses alleged terms of endearment like “doll” “babe” or “baby” - but I don’t like it when anyone calls me those things either - never have).
And after watching the clip, I believe Barack Obama when he says it’s a bad habit, as here in the Detroit Free Press:
Sen. Barack Obama, who is edging toward the Democratic presidential nomination, offhandedly called a Detroit television reporter “sweetie” during a tour Wednesday of Chrysler’s Sterling Stamping Plant in Sterling Heights after she hurled a question at him: “Senator, what are you going to do to help American autoworkers?” The incident got picked up by the national news media, and the video, which shows Obama saying, “Hold on one second, sweetie, we’ll do a press avail,” to WXYZ-TV (Channel 7) reporter Peggy Agar, is playing on YouTube.com.
Several hours later, Obama left a message on Agar’s cell phone, apologizing.
“It’s a bad habit of mine,” he said in the voice mail, which is on the TV station’s Web site. “I mean no disrespect, so I am duly chastened on that front.”
Agar said in a televised report that she was more upset that Obama didn’t answer her question.
But you know what? That not answering the question, that’s exactly right. Enough readers have seen how I get when I don’t get my questions answer. And the “sweetie” spin is a very, very common way of trying to say, in what too many people find to be an acceptable tactic, “now calm down there - I’ll get to you when I’m ready - you little woman you” kind of thing.
It is a bad habit, and a lot of people do use it, men and women - I use it with my kids to put them off or cool their jets.
So you better believe Obama had an intention, even if unconscious, that when he is soothing with sweetie, the tough question can be finessed away. Calm down, now - I’ll get to you when I’m ready, don’t you worry now.
But he never did get to the question.
So why doesn’t this rise to the level of a macaca moment? Because a lot of politicians use similar techniques with the media, and private citizens use it too. It’s too common a bad habit to make it a macaca moment, which was really quite outrageous and mean-spirited.
However, the good senator would be very wise to work on undoing that bad habit because at its base? It was an avoidance tool that got turned at a female reporter. I understand it in context, but a lot of people, particularly men and women of voting age - may not.
See also The Moderate Voice’s Joe Windish’s post on the incident. T-Steel leaves a comment mentioning that the sweetie involved is a “good reporter” whom he sees all the time on the Detroit news (that’s very helpful commentary - thank you btw).
Later, the station said Obama had left an apology on the reporter’s phone, admitting he had a problem calling women “sweetie” and saying he intended no disrespect.
If there’s no disrespect intended, why wouldn’t he have used it during, say, one of his debates against Sen. Hillary Clinton? “Now, Sweetie, you’re not describing my health care plan accurately.” How would that go over?
CNN just showed Senator Hillary Clinton at a campaign appearance, gearing up for the upcoming West Virginia primary — and the subject comes up: with the number of pledged delegates, the popular vote and fund-raising against her, why won’t she quit her battle with Senator Barack Obama for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination?
The New York Daily News has an article detailing the reasons why. And a key reason, the paper says, is her camp’s feeling that Obama has little appeal to white collar voters:
While the case for Hillary Clinton to stay in the race is shakier than ever, one ugly reason for staying in could be found Tuesday amid the ruddy, sun-kissed Hoosiers who cheered her on to victory at the Indianapolis Speedway.
With Clinton posing alongside pioneering Indy speedster Sarah Fisher, there were almost no African-Americans to be seen. Many in the white, working-class crowd were simply not ready to back Barack Obama….
Such feelings leave Clinton and the Democratic Party in a tough spot. With the largest number of remaining delegates now being party insiders, they have to decide if Obama can overcome enough of that antipathy - essentially deciding if enough working-class whites will back away from the black candidate, whether because of the false Muslim rumors, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright flap or old-fashioned racism.
The paper reports that this need “gives her a reason to stay in the race.”
So how long is it likely to go? According to the Daily News, it’s likely Clinton will fight on all the way to the convention, unless there is a truly massive outcry for her to leave:
Two separate sources in the Clinton orbit insisted Tuesday night it’s now more likely Hillary will pursue her quest until the August convention in Denver - unless party leaders rise up en masse and publicly tell her it’s time to stop. The math, after all, remains solidly in Obama’s favor.
“I can think of no reason why it would not go to the convention now,” one top Hillary Democrat predicted. “Why should she get out?”
And then there’s a section that could be a red warning flag:
Some insiders still want to make sure no new bombshells will explode around the freshman Illinois senator.
Will there be new allegations surfacing? Perhaps in original, blind sourced reporting on the Drudge Report? If those surface, look for fingers to be pointed at the Clinton campaign, even if it’s not the source.
He could slip and stumble some more, her polls could continue to be strong, and once the party decides what to do with Florida and Michigan, his lead in the popular vote will be very narrow,” an insider said.
A top Democratic source with insight into Bill’s and Hillary’s states of mind says the Clintons are convinced that a Democratic presidency is all but certain no matter how messy the fight for the nomination.
In that scenario - which the Obama side and some Democratic elders worry is wishful thinking at best, delusional at worst - there’s no downside for Hillary doing whatever it takes for as long as it takes.
The problem is the meaning of “whatever it takes.” If it’s via a continued campaign aimed at driving up Obama’s negatives so they can convince Superdelegates Obama is unelectable, it’s likely to received a lot more poorly by party bigwigs than it would have been two weeks ago.
If Clinton plays out her campaign based on issues and makes a graceful exit, the Democrats have a chance at unity. If her campaign remains an aggressive negative campaign, complete with eleventh hour negative campaign ads, it could backfire with some superdelegates and will make the Democrats’ attempts to unify their fractured party even more difficult — not to mention negate any possibility of a “Dream Ticket” which more and more seems like an In Your Dreams Ticket.
FOOTNOTE: Just how bad was the political news last night. GO HERE and look at the photos that show how poorly Bill Clinton serves his wife when he stands by her side after a defeat.
Cartoon by John Darkow, Columbia Daily Tribune, Missouri
So now that the North Carolina and Indiana primaries are over — ending in split decision wins — who are the winners and losers in Tuesday’s primaries? Is it just Senator Barack Obama (who won North Carolina) or Senator Hillary Clinton (who narrowly won Indiana)?
Is it that clearcut? Here’s our take:
WINNERS:
Senator Barack Obama for winning a victory in North Carolina that went beyond the conventional media wisdom that was building — that he could lose there.
Senator Hillary Clinton for surviving by winning Indiana and keeping her candidacy alive, although some insist it is now on life support..and the batteries are almost dead.
Conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh for his reprehensible “Operation Chaos” campaign to convince voters to use their precious right to vote to sandbag another party that appears to have worked in Indiana. Data suggests it had an impact.
Senator Barack Obama for not being able to end Clinton’s candidacy with two solid wins (this could change if the final Indiana vote changes).
Senator Hillary Clinton for not just losing to Obama in North Carolina while aides talked about her gathering momentum, but for starting out Campaign 2008 with a good chunk of black voter support and ending the night with shockingly low black voter support (remember that at the beginning of the campaign Obama had a problem getting African Americans to vote for him and against a Clinton).
The Limbaugh “dittoheads” who felt the precious vote for which so many have died should be tossed away to sabotage another political party, as if democracy in a time of national crisis were some cutesy game (and we add in this category any Democrats who also played the same game crossing over in Republican primaries).
THE BIGGEST LOSERS:
The Superdelegates who will either have to act soon…or later…to put an end to the contest and face the possibility that, no matter what they decide, half of the committed Democrats won’t vote for the candidate they opposed (which some feel means they should be committed).
Political pandering: By most accounts of the talking heads and experts, Clinton’s embracing of the gas holiday tax and dismissive comment that she didn’t have to listen to economists didn’t do her much good and probably hurt her.
To read some excellent analytical live blogging on the night’s voting GO HERE.
What happens next? The media and weblogs are filled with tidbits about a night that could have been a “game changer,” but not what Clinton had in mind.
My own view is she should run her campaign against John McCain. She will win West Virginia and Kentucky by huge margins.
She might even challenge Obama in Oregon.
What she should not do, imo, is run against Barack Obama. If there is a path to the nomination for her, and I doubt there is, it won’t come from attacking Obama now.
CBS News has projected that Senator Hillary Clinton will win the Indiana Democratic Presidential primary — a result that means the evening of the North Carolina and Indiana primaries ended in a split decision for what increasingly appears to be a split political party:
Clinton pulled off an Indiana win in what was a virtual must-win Midwestern state. With 50 percent of the votes being reported in the state, she was leading Obama 55 percent to 45 percent.
Obama’s win mirrored earlier triumphs in Southern states with large black populations: Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana and South Carolina among them. With 14 percent of the votes in North Carolina being reported, Obama was leading Clinton 63 percent to 35 percent.
CBS News exit poll results show that most voters in both states made up their minds a while ago. Only 17 percent in Indiana and 14 percent in North Carolina decided in the last three days. Twenty-four percent in Indiana and 18 percent in North Carolina decided in the last week.
Late deciders backed Clinton in Indiana by a margin of 62 percent to 38 percent for Obama. In North Carolina, Obama won late deciders by a much smaller margin of 49 percent to 48 percent.
And the important issues?
As it has been throughout the Democratic primaries, the economy was the most important issue in both states with 65 percent of voters in Indiana describing it as such and 60 percent in North Carolina. In Indiana, 50 percent of voters said Clinton would be more likely to improve the economy and 46 percent said that Obama would. In North Carolina, 52 percent said that Obama would be more likely to improve the economy and 42 percent said that Clinton would.
Nearly half of voters in both states said the situation with Obama’s former pastor Reverend Wright was important in their vote, while half said that it was not. In Indiana, 48 percent said that it was important and 49 percent said that it was not, while in North Carolina, 48 percent said the Wright situation was important in their vote and 50 percent said that it was not.
What happens next?
The Obama camp will point to his big North Carolina win and the rocky patch he has endured the past few weeks and suggest it shows he can handle anything. That spin is already going out.
Expect to the Clinton side to discount North Carolina without flatly coming out and saying Obama won in a state with a large black vote. Expect to hear the words “demographics” and fill in the vague word yourself.
Also, expect the Clinton campaign to signal ASAP that it intends to play hardball since Clinton did not get a double win tonight.
Clinton delegate honcho [Harold Ickes] tells The Page that his camp believes 2,209 — not 2,025 — is the magic number of delegates needed to clinch the nomination because they’re counting Michigan and Florida.
“I know the Obama people like to use the smaller amount. We don’t even like the implication of it, much less the amount. It implies he doesn’t recognize Florida and Michigan. We don’t see how he can do that politically…So our target is 2,209 and we think Hillary is in a good position to get there.”
This is called changing the goal posts. AND:
Also repeats his calling card to supers: “We don’t know enough about Senator Obama yet. We don’t need an October Surprise. And (the chance of) an October Surprise with Hillary is remote.”
So it could boil down to whether Superdelegates will allow the up-until-now conventional wisdom on the delegate count to be changed and to tilt to a candidate because the other side suggests there could be an October surprise.
FOOTNOTE: The total picture will be far more clear once the votes are completely tallied.
As Frederick Kagan spins Neo-Con daydreams of “turning a corner,” McClatchy reporters on the ground are telling a different story:
“One of the most powerful men in Iraq isn’t an Iraqi government official, a militia leader, a senior cleric or a top U.S. military commander or diplomat. He’s an Iranian general, and at times he’s more influential than all of them.”
Gen. Qassem Suleimani, commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ Quds Force, as “Tehran’s point man on Iraq,” is manipulating election of pro-Iranian politicians, meeting often with Iraqi leaders and backing Shiite elements in Iraqi security forces in the torturing and killing of Sunni Muslims.
According to American and Iraqi officials, Suleimani is Iran’s Petraeus who has succeeded, among other things, in slipping into Baghdad’s Green Zone in 2006 to orchestrate the choice of a new Iraqi prime minister and building intelligence networks in Iran’s embassy while providing Shiite Muslim militias with generalship, cash and arms, including mortars and rockets fired at the US Embassy and advanced roadside bombs that have killed hundreds of Americans and Iraqis.
Although most polls show Hillary Clinton leading Barack Obama among likely Democratic voters in tomorrow’s Pennsylvania primary, I will once again stick out my neck and join the most accurate poll of the campaign season and predict an Obama victory.
This is because of two reasons: Clinton’s relentlessly negative campaigning has drowned out her message for many voters and the expected record voter turnout will skew heavily toward densely populated Philadelphia and suburbs where the Obama campaign got slews of new voters to register. The likely result is that any gains that Clinton makes in her Western Pennsylvania strongholds will be more than offset in the southeast.
It goes without saying that the Clinton campaign will spin any result to a farethewell, even a loss. Dick Polman’s hilarious but probably accurate take on how a defeat will be spun:
“We’re very pleased with where we are. We always knew that Pennsylvania would be a very tough environment for us. However, we strongly believe – as we have always believed – that the primary results in any state with 12 letters its name, conducted at a point in the calendar when many potential voters are likely to be distracted by baseball games and spring cleaning, should be deemed an inaccurate representation of the electorate’s mood, and therefore illegitimate.
“Florida, Michigan, and Pennsylvania are crucial to this party’s prospects in November, and therefore we urge Senate Obama to join us in calling for re-votes in all three states. We think this would be an excellent way for Senator Obama to demonstrate his love of America, which of course is unimpeachable, as far as we know. We are confident that Louis Farrakhan, Rev. Wright, and William Ayers will not influence his decision to support a Pennsylvania re-vote.
“But even if Senator Obama retains his negligible national lead after all the re-votes, and after the remaining nine primaries are conducted, we nevertheless believe there should be no rush to judgment, and that the people should be heard. We’d like to see the democratic process play out. Accordingly, Senator Clinton, in the interests of fairness, fully intends to reset the primary calendar and start over. Come June, we’ll see you all in Iowa. Iowa, the great state of corn. When Senator Clinton was a child, traveling through Iowa on car trips, she often ate corn . . . “
A final and perhaps unnecessary thought. If you’re registered to vote in Pennsylvania, do so early and often.
Critics in the media — quite a few of whom unabashedly favor Obama — have been out in force this week, pointing fingers and getting red-faced over ABC’s treatment of their favorite in the most debate. Yes, that shoe always pinches when it’s on the other foot, I’ve noticed.
At The Politico, John F. Harris and Jim VandeHei wrote:
The shower of indignation on Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos over the last few days is the clearest evidence yet that the Clintonites are fundamentally correct in their complaint that she has been flying throughout this campaign into a headwind of media favoritism for Obama….. (The Politico)
The article further acknowledges, “Many journalists are not merely observers but participants in the Obama phenomenon.” (The Politico) [Egalia: “Politico says Obama has a secret weapon….the media. Duh. Duh. Duh. That’s a secret if you’re deaf, dumb, and blind.”] But it’s not exactly a new trend; the media also — according to me — did its little part, all to get George W. Bush elected.
April 19th, 2008 by SWARAAJ CHAUHAN, International Columnist
One can understand when a staunch Republican declares that he/she “hates” a presidential candidate from another party. But it stumps me when even the so-called Democrat-supporters are quoted in the media saying they “hate” Hillary Clinton. I can understand Democrats “opposing”, “disagreeing”, “dis-approving”, “disliking”, etc., etc., their own party candidate, but why “hate”…
It has been pointed out that many in the mainstream media and blogs have not been able to conceal their “hatred” towards Hillary Clinton. As I always support the underdogs, I empathize with those unhappy with the present trend and are sulking, after being driven to a corner. (In day-to-day use, “hatred is a violent feeling that impels the subject to wish another person ill and to take pleasure in bad things that happen to that person.”More here…)
The trait that “you can either love a person, or hate a person”…and nothing in-between, is self-destructive. I can understand if a majority of the media and the blogs love/admire Barrack Obama. I do not even question Obama admirers’ complete faith in him and that he has full credentials to be the next leader to occupy the White House.
But the hysteria being built up in the media/blogs trying to virtually push Obama into the Democratic presidential nominee seat has not been taken kindly by many. This has been criticised as it tends to stifle any meaningful debate/discussion on the real/crucial issues that face the US and the world, especially in view of the legacy/burden of the Bush era. (I know some may say that all this was started by the Clinton camp…a classic case of whether the egg came first or the hen!!!)
“Hatred” is a negative emotion. Bush and Co., and possibly many Americans, “hated” the “evil” unknown/invisible hands behind 9/11. Instead of evolving a sensible/effective strategy (through quite deliberations/diplomacy/consensus) to thwart the forces behind terrorism/militancy, a mind-less hysteria was built up. “Rage” (another negative emotion) followed “Hate”. The result: A sledge-hammer approach…virtually bringing down a house trying to kill a rat!!!
And where are we now after all these wasted years? Hysteria is a major impediment to creating informed public opinion. It thrills but kills…And is as dangerous as terrorism itself. Just see…the Media/blogs have now forgotten Osama-bin-Laden/Afghanistan/Saddam Hussein/Iraq. Media can’t do anything about Bush (because he can still retaliate or trash them further.) Some have begun to ask: Has Hillary Clinton become a soft “hate” target?
April 18th, 2008 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
Iraq. The economy. Terrorism. Foreclosures. Taxes. Education. These among the issues facing the U.S. but a new firestorm has started sweeping the blogosphere via a You Tube embed: Did Democratic Senator Barack Obama give Democratic Presidential nomination rival Hillary Clinton the finger?
Did he try to signal it to the crowd? Wasn’t that a knowing look? And, it stands to follow, since he did this (an assumption some are already making — so each viewer is urged to watch the video) doesn’t it therefore mean he lacks class and should immediately apologize? And — not said yet — shouldn’t this disqualify him from the Presidency if he refuses to admit it? And, if he won’t come clean and admit it, shouldn’t he resign his Senate seat?
See the video below. To my mind, this is totally in the eye of the beholder. Republicans and Democrats who are vehemently anti-Obama are looking for things now to discredit him — just as Obama’s supporters and looking at things to discredit Clinton and McCain supporters are look
