Hillary Clinton, Obama, Rezko, Electability

Update: The Washington Blade endorses Hillary. The Blade ignores Obama’s gay bashing tour to focus on experience:

SO, THEN, WHY Hillary? Her chief rival, Obama, has disappointed in the debates, appearing to lack confidence and talking mostly in generalities. George W. Bush has certainly lowered the bar when it comes to expecting experience in our presidential candidates, but Obama was an Illinois state senator just three years ago. [snip]

But the world is a complicated mess: warring religious factions in the Middle East, rising anti-American sentiment around the globe, the dollar in a free-fall. Electing a president with virtually zero experience on the world stage would be a mistake.

By contrast, Clinton has demonstrated a mastery of detail during the campaign. Whatever you think of her, there’s no denying her intellect and willingness to work hard. She knows the issues, the history and players and has repeatedly pledged to work to restore the country’s reputation around the world. That’s a much-needed common sense perspective on where to start in 2009. And with an eight-year record of extensive globetrotting as first lady, she’s well positioned to serve as the diplomat the country needs.

For those who doubt her ability to win over moderate and conservative voters, look at what she accomplished in upstate New York, where she carried “red” counties in a landslide Senate re-election victory. I’ve interviewed elected officials, including conservative Republicans, from those areas and they agree that Clinton is a hard-working and accessible leader with a focus on constituent service. In addition, she worked from day one in the Senate to cultivate relationships with even her most conservative Republican colleagues. [snip]

But in the end, Hillary Rodham Clinton stands the best chance of sending the Republicans into eight years of a well-deserved political wilderness. She’s smart, tenacious, hard working and willing to cede the spotlight in the interest of bipartisan cooperation. She has marched in our Pride parades, promised unprecedented access to her administration and backed nearly all of our issues.

Clinton has earned the support of gay voters in 2008.

——————————
Our challenge stands to Big Media/Big Blogs on Obama and his Rezko entanglements.

We are still waiting for Obama’s ‘factcheck’ website to offer up a rebuttal or even answer the $925,000 question.

While we wait, we are chuckling. We recall when Chris Dodd, not even scrapping 1% support in the polls made the claim he was most electable. Today, Obama is making somewhat the same claim.

Marc Ambinder writes the joke and the punch line:

Obama’s aides have been making this argument privately for eight months, but it’s the first time I’ve ever heard Obama say it himself. The wrote [sic] Clinton campaign response — and having asked Mark Penn this question many times, I can recite it my heart is that “by the time of the convention, both the Republican and Democratic nominees will be equally as polarizing.” History bears that out, but the premise of Obama’s campaign is that he would be different. As he told an audience of independent voters in Exeter, New Hampshire today, “there will not be a litmus test in my administration.” He meant that his approach to problem solving would be collaborative and he would select experts and policy-makers without regard to policy. In Congress, though, Clinton has plenty of bipartisan credentials on her own.

Obama is selling the snake oil that he will be different. “History bears that out” writes Ambinder regarding how by convention time any candidate will be viewed as polarizing. But Obama, thinks he is the exception to history.

Politico does not buy into the Obama delusion.

Marc Ambinder, noting Obama’s shot at Hillary’s “47 percent disapproval ratings,” today rehearses Mark Penn’s theory of this: “By the time of the convention, both the Republican and Democratic nominees will be equally as polarizing.”

In other words, nine months of total, inevitable bloodbath.

This is fairly persuasive. Even if, say, Huckabee and Edwards run campaigns of pure optimism and hope, there are vastly wealthy outside groups — Freedom’s Watch, the Fund for America — ready to pour millions into defining, and smearing, the opposing candidate early. The RNC is already firing on all cylinders.

And the partisan media — larger and more confident even than in 2004, with MSNBC now more polarized and a larger online audience for everything from WorldNetDaily to HuffPo– will be spending nine months convincing itself of why the other party’s nominee is not just wrong, but wrong for America, dangerous, and probably a criminal.

That doesn’t mean ever candidate is affected by it equally, of course, or that attacks on Hillary don’t arguably have a bit of a head-start.

But I’m not sure I’ve heard Obama’s camp argue that the general election climate will be one of sweetness and light. Not to be pessimistic, but what’s the alternative scenario to the partisan bloodbath?

Sweetness and light, optimism and hope – as President Harry Truman said, “If you want a friend in Washington, get a dog.”

But of course, Obama thinks he will be the exception and the Republicans and all the Republican interest groups will decide to play nice, just because they are running against Obama.

Hillary is not drinking the Kool-aid and knows the “RNC is already firing on all cylinders”.


As we pointed out in Our Challenge To Big Media and Big Blogs, the Republicans are licking their chops to get to Obama on the issue of Rezko.

Rezko aside what is left of the Obama argument? Obama trails Hillary in all national polls. Hillary is ahead of Obama, usually by 20 points. But maybe Obama wants to argue the electability issue on a state by state issue.

We know Hillary is ahead in red states like Arkansas. Will Obama bring out more voters than Hillary? Hillary will bring out millions of women voters. And the strong argument is made today concerning Hillary strength with Latinos. Latinos love Hillary.

Since these states became the major test of presidential aspirations, no Democrat or Republican has ever gotten the nomination after losing all three. But even if she fails to win any of those three critical early states, Hillary Clinton still has a chance. That’s because of her strength among Hispanic voters.

Hispanics will play a negligible role in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, but they will be a major factor in the Nevada caucus on January 19 and in the primaries in New Mexico, Arizona, California, Colorado, New Jersey, and New York on February 5. Those states together account for 1025 delegates; only 141 are at stake in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. And if the contest is at that point between Clinton and Senator Barack Obama, then Clinton’s edge over Obama among Hispanics, as seen in opinion polls, could prove decisive.

In a poll from the Pew Hispanic Center released earlier this month, Clinton led among Latino Democrats with 59 percent, compared to 15 percent for Obama and four percent for John Edwards. In polls taken last week in California, Florida, Illinois, New York, and Texas by ImpreMedia, the largest Hispanic news company in the United States, Clinton led Obama by an astounding average of 55 to six percent among Hispanic Democrats. Edwards got only 1.8 percent. Of course, even with this kind of support from Hispanics, Clinton could still lose those primaries, but it certainly gives her an edge.

In a general election Hillary will have the upper hand against Republicans with the crucial Latino vote. Hillary will defeat all Republicans among Latinos. The same cannot be said about Obama in the case that McCain is the Republican nominee. McCain did not, for a while anyway, join in the anti-immigrant Republican mania. Latinos might have some sympathy towards McCain – but not if Hillary is the nominee.

Finally, one other possibility is worth considering. Suppose Obama does win the nomination. Would he be hampered by Latino-black hostility in gaining the Latino vote in November 2008? Probably not, because of the Republican party’s embrace of a nativist agenda that stigmatizes Latinos. But as Rudolph Giuliani or Michael Bloomberg have shown in New York mayoral contests, if in the future Republicans were to abandon their nativism and nominate centrist candidates who could court the Latino vote, they might find themselves the beneficiaries of this division.

Hillary will also keep in the Democratic column the crucial state of New York. In the likely event that Bloomberg enters the race Hillary will win New York. Obama will have a tough time against Bloomberg.

As to Bloomberg, we predicted in May 2007 that Bloomberg would enter the presidential race next spring, around May 2008. The evidence for Bloomberg running for president is mounting. Again, Hillary will beat Bloomberg for the CRUCIAL New York vote. Obama will lose New York to Bloomberg and to Giuliani (whom we have always said will not get the Republican nomination, but who knows what happens with those kooky Republicans if Giuliani actually does well in the February 5 voting states).

* * *

As to enthusiasm with organized labor, Hillary has the enthusiasm, Obama does not.

Among Democratic presidential contenders, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) has garnered the most support of labor union members, with another union endorsement this week pushing her total up to about 6 million members.

After winning the backing of the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, Clinton can now claim that she has significantly more labor support than her chief rivals, Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) and former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.).

Clinton has endorsements from 13 national unions with about 6 million members, compared to Edwards, who has endorsements from four national unions with a total of more than 3 million members.

* * *
Today, the Keene Sentinel spoke up for Hillary in their endorsement:

Most people who plan to vote in the first-in-the-nation Democratic primary in a little more than two weeks probably agree on one thing: The first and most important task facing the next president will be to reinstate the historic American principles that have been ignored or trampled upon by the current administration.

The new president will have to begin shoring up international respect for our country, by crafting a responsible withdrawal strategy from Iraq. The new president will have to put the federal government to work in the effort to curb global warming. The new president will have to wage a rational diplomatic and military campaign against international terrorism, while reversing and repudiating the human rights violations that have been a hallmark of the Bush years. And the new president will need to bring respected and accomplished individuals into government, to assure old friends that the United States is ready to rejoin the world community.

At home, the new president will have to address the fact that comprehensive health insurance is now beyond the reach of an increasing number of Americans. The new president will have to redouble the country’s commitment to veterans and their families, especially in light of the wave of wounded men and women returning home from Iraq. The new president will have to pursue an effective yet humane strategy to curb illegal immigration. The new president will need to restore an ideological balance on the Supreme Court, reflecting the wide range of beliefs in American society. The new president will have to ease the country toward energy independence, without killing off the economic engine that is the envy of the world. And the new president will need to reshape key regulatory agencies, such as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, that have become dangerous appendages of the industries they are supposed to govern.

That is only a partial list of the tasks ahead for the next president. There are also crises involving fair trade, product safety, public education, the Middle East, the Real ID program, the consequences of sub-prime mortgage lending and the troubling expansion of nuclear weapons technology. What’s more, unknown challenges may lie just over the horizon. Addressing all these issues will take a strong and determined person.

Democratic and independent voters have a rich field to choose from on January 8, people with creative thoughts about how to deal with the challenges. John Edwards and Barack Obama have spoken eloquently on most of the issues, as have Christopher Dodd, Joseph Biden and Bill Richardson. All have their passionate supporters, and for good reason. But this newspaper has come to the conclusion that the candidate with the best ideas, as well as the imagination, know-how and bearing to carry them out, is Hillary Clinton.

She has the best health-insurance proposal of all the candidates, and there are several good proposals to choose from. She has significant international experience, considerably more than some of her rivals. Face-to-face, she is as personable, passionate and persuasive as any American political figure in recent memory, qualities that should come in handy in both domestic and international forums.

Yes, we know. The doubts about Hillary Clinton’s candidacy are widely discussed, often in terms of whether other voters would accept a woman, or accept this woman, as president. We are aware of the reservations some people have about aspects of the Bill Clinton years. But we find those arguments wanting, or at the very least misplaced. Many of today’s Hillary doubters, regardless of party, would surely be impressed during the coming national campaign, just as many New Hampshire voters have been won over during the arduous primary campaign now coming to an end. Choosing a candidate on the Democratic ballot is a tough call this year. In the end, we are confident in our recommendation of Hillary Clinton.

Hillary is the one who can defeat the Republican and bring the United States into the community of nations as a respected leader once again.

Share

129 thoughts on “Hillary Clinton, Obama, Rezko, Electability

  1. back from an afternoon working the HRC rally in NH. for the fashion conscious, we had HRC in a dark royal blue worsted wool jacket, blouse and black slacks. poised, elegant and flawless, as usual. her mom and chelsea were also present.

    i had a chance to speak with senator clinton after the speech(s) and ended our chat with the assurance “don’t worry about new hampshire”.

    regardless of how many times i have had the privilege of seeing senator clinton, it never gets old. she is quite a lady, indeed. wish you guys were with me.

  2. Almost 40% of the American public knows nothing about Mr. Obama. I think any head to head poll showing he would win against the republicans is a joke. The media should be ashamed talking about these polls.

  3. Alcina… You are very lucky to have met and talked to Mrs. Clinton. I have great admiration for that lady. I saw on TV that Chelsea and Mrs. Rodham were accompanying her. I would like to hear more about what she had to say.

  4. Yes, Clintondem99, I’ve had recent interaction with the general public and they have no idea who that “black” man is or what he stands for. How could they, he’s never done anything that would give him worldwide recognition, yet he contends he should be president of the Free World!

    Mrs. S.

  5. It’s mind boggling when you “see” something so clearly and yet others don’t see it your way. I see it as obvious as the sky is blue, the grass is green that Hillary is the ONLY candidate who I will feel secure in knowing is running this country in 2009!!

    Alcina, I agree with you about seeing Hillary never gets old. I live in New York and have seen/met her at several fundraisers and got to work her event last Saturday in New Hampshire when I went up there campaigning for the weekend. The more I see her, the more I hear here speak, the more I “feel” her heart, and the more I truly love her!!

    I have just signed up for the last bus trip to New Hampshire before the primary, the weekend of January 4-6th. Hope I’m lucky enough to meet up with Bill and Hillary (and hopefully Chelsea) again!!!

  6. AlwaysforHillary

    i (also) will be working 24/7 january 4 through 8 for the final push. ( sounds so obgyn ) if you end up in the capital district, i’ll buy the celebratory beer. 🙂

  7. mj, I thought Mrs. Smith was referring to the public’s perception of him as she’s heard it (hence the quote marks). At least, that’s how I took it.

    Also, thanks for the report, alcina. I always love reading them!

  8. I wonder if the Kossacks know Obama said he’ll appoint Repubs in his administration. If Hillary said that, they’d excoriate her for being a traitor to her party. I don’t mind a Repub or two myself (Bill appointed William Cohen as his defense secretary), but I want a real progressive in there. I know Hillary is; I have my doubts about Obama.

  9. mj, I think maybe Mrs Smith meant is that all a lot of the public knows about him is that he’s the first AA to run and have a decent chance. Some of them probably also vaguely know that he’s that guy Oprah endorsed. But they know very little beyond the surface – his race, and that he’s kind of a media star for some reason.

    alcina, I’m envious that you got to meet her! The closest I’ve come is the house party phone call. So NH is looking good, huh?

  10. hillaryfortexas, it is ironic. obama claims to want to work across the aisle with the repukes(gop) when he and his supporters call hillary bush/cheney lite. he is this so called liberal lefty but the gop is supposed to work with him in harmoney? i don’t get it. CONTRIDICTION IN TERMS IN THE EXTREME.

  11. oops, should have written “some supporters are going to Clinton and Obama as a result….” More than one Edwards to Clinton switcher mentioned in article.

  12. Well, I hope more are going to Hil than Obama. Honestly, I don’t see why Edwards supporters would be inclined to Obama. They are very different.

  13. ra1029, that salon article is sooo right. these obama lovers think just becuase conservatives are pumping up obama they think they will love him in november. they are USING obama to bring down clinton becuase they fear they can’t defeat her in nov. i listen to fred barnes on speacial report every night and he will not give hillary an inch, by talking up obama. they will turn and eat him for lunch plus the bones to boot.

  14. I cannot tell you how much I love this site! I agree 110% with each and every comment and agree that the Senator is such an inspirational speaker when seen in person. I wish I could be campaigning in NH, but I hope contributing and trying to allow others to see why she is the ONLY candidate is doing my part. As a complete aside, does anyone else hate Chris Matthews as much as I do?!? I cannot stand the negativity he throws at the Senator’s campaign.

  15. Ok, the Christmas ad is now her 2nd most watched video ever. Second only to her video asking for help with her theme song. 189,270 views.

  16. Looks like that Hillary pulled off a coup… From the Washington Post’s The Fix: Clinton Lands Seasoned Operative for S.C. Effort
    Link: blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/

  17. I actually believe that immediately after the close of the polls in NH, Hillary Clinton should say FU to Howard Dean, the DNC, and the “four-state pledge” and fly immediately to Florida and Michigan to ramp up her campaign in those two key electoral college states.

    At the end of the day, SC will vote Republican. The Democrats should be focusing on potential winning states in November 2008.

    But, that’s just me.

  18. hillfans, im going to try to see the movie”charlie wilson’s war” the movie is based on a true story of former congressman charlie wilson(d-texas, 1973-1997) on his covert operations he helpled enginneered against the soviets in the 1980’s. i did not know about that other than he was a single playboy for the ladies and somtimes outragous. anyway this is a good political film to see for me. to tell the truth after all these years im surprized they never made a biopic of bill clinton or hillary. i guess after they pass?

  19. terrondt, that sounds really intresting. I look forward to hearing about it. The Bill and Hil story ins’t nearly complete, so no biopic yet.

  20. From the OUCH, THAT’LL LEAVE A MARK department, comes this little vignette from the NYTimes covering Saint Obama’s town hall in Washington, Iowa tonight:

    Stan Potratz, a 60-year-old small businessman who lives outside of Washington, was among those asking the questions here. He said he had narrowed his choices to Mr. Obama, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Biden.

    “You talk better than the other people,” Mr. Potratz said.

    “I appreciate that,” Mr. Obama replied.

    “Although they’re not far behind you,” Mr. Potratz shot back.

    While he said he liked what Mr. Obama had to say, he said he wasn’t sure that he could accomplish all he proposed.

    Speaking to reporters after the campaign event, Mr. Potratz said: “There is an air of eloquent naivete about him.”

    BTW, The Chosen One ™ also said tonight that he was trying to appeal to “Obama Republicans”.

  21. LawSchoolDem,

    you are going to have a rough time on this site. The competition for who loathes Chris Matthews the most is a hard competition to win. Maybe since terrondt is going to the movies you have a shot to maybe make it to the finals. Although once terrondt returns from “charlie wilson’s war” he’ll be back to claim his spot in the loathing chris matthews competition. 🙂

  22. hillfans, i was shopping with the wife earlier this eve when i was in the check out counter and read a tabloid paper. they highlighted the pics of oprah, barack and michelle obama. they should pic by pic of oprah really eyeing barack while michelle was giving bored and pissed off like looks. i know, tabloids can get things wrong but the body lanugage of michellle was screaming uncomfortablly. i really past a lot of time in that line. my laughs for the day.

  23. hwc, we’re with you at least in spirit. There should also be a call to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations and force the candidates BEFORE THE VOTING to take a stand on the issue. Michigan and Florida must be represented at the convention.

  24. According to the NYTimes blog tonight, yes The Chosen One(tm) used those words:

    “Just like Ronald Regan was able to get some Reagan Democrats,” he said, “I want to get some Obama Republicans.”

    Maybe that’s why he launched an attack on three of the largest unions and the largest pro-choice women’s political group today.

    The McClurkin Gay Bashing Tour(tm) is starting to make a lot more sense now, isn’t it?

  25. by feb 5th, im going to breath a lot easier. don’t get me wrong, the general is not going to be a cakewalk. but the harder threat is the 1st primaries in jan. she get’s by that hillary is going to mop the floor with obama in feb. please lord i do not want to fill in a oval to be scanned with obama’s name next to it in nov.

  26. No. I’m not from Florida or Michigan. I’m just mad as hell that Howard Dean and the DNC have eff’d this up so badly.

    BTW, I love the idea of forcing Obama and Edwards to commit to seating the Florida and Michigan delegations before the voting in those two states.

  27. hillfans, no ras polling until next thursday. lol, i guess people can take a break from politics for the holidays. not me. i will take a long break maybe after feb 5th. offcourse after nov 4th, 2008 after hillary’s victory. my wife is non chaulant about it. she is marking dem in nov. no matter who it is. shrugg. i let her think for herself when it comes to politics. at least i got her to change her voter registration from independent to dem.lol.

  28. sorry hwc, i called u hrc. yeah dean and the rest of the national dnc leadership is out to lunch. man, im glad hillary will not have to depend on the dnc to carry her water next year. i remember in 2000 gore was broke all spring until the damn convention. bush was destroying him with his millions raised.

  29. mj, HILLARY. but if hillary does not make it wich i believe she will, she is happy to vote obama. her second choice. i tried to tell her what obama is all about but i let it be quickly, i have to live with her for the next 30 years or so ya know.lol.

  30. LawSchoolDem, if you see us talking about Stewie, that is Chris Matthews – the angry little mommy-hating baby from Family Guy. We despise him here.

  31. the wife is not politically rabid as i am. i wear politics on my sleeve or shirts or coats every year since 1988. my wife’s 1st vote was for kerry in 2004 mostly becuase of the war. the biggest passion for her is she hates bush badly. but believe me if i have met her 10 years ago she would have been voting then.

  32. Yes, the Michigan economy is being ravaged! It is grossly unfair for what the DNC is doing. You know, this echoes the way tax dollar are being collected disproportionately. States like NY, MI, and others that are suffing economically are not receiving their fair share of federal funds. I have had a person or two, knowing that I am a Hillfan, say something about Hillary Clinton’s use of earmarks. What I always say is good. She should be applauded for that. NY does not get its fair share and neither does Michigan:

    http://www.heartheissues.com/federalfunding.html

    Hey admin: Why don’t you do a post called “middle class tax cuts”? I never understood why the Clinton camp doesn’t stress that more. It seems like a winning issue.

  33. hell, she now has hillary for pres stickers on her back window. she hates them on her bumper sticker. i have “dems in 2008”, “hillary for pres” on my back window,a bigger hillary for pres sticker, and john larson for congress on my bumper. im thinking of buying another bumper sticker on the front bumper. i want everybody to know i support hillary and not ashamed of it. my only fear is my car might get vandalized. i do get into a “friendly” debates with a local walgreens cashier who don’t care so much for the clintons.

  34. one of my fears is gore backing obama next week. is he?
    politicalwire.com/archives/2007/12/21/quote_of_the_day.html

  35. I hope Gore doesn’t back anyone before the Jan. 3. I think Hillary have a pretty good week. Hawk, can you give any news on the ground?

  36. If Gore does that, he goes into the list of people I don’t respect. There is no reason for him to knife Hillary at this point.

  37. I don’t get it. Obama’s message seems a bit out of whack. He’s going to draw Obama Republicans by being endorsed by Al Gore?

  38. I don’t think Gore will endorse anyone until there is a clear frontrunner and the rest are toast. I just can’t see him risking his access and welcome in the next Dem Whitehouse by doing that. He has made a point of being very non-political with his cause, and I think he’ll continue in that vein.

  39. I thought her environmental plan was more aggressive anyhow. Wouldn’t that undermine his message if he did endorse?

  40. I think Obama is courting Gore, so he probably does talk to him. I think they all do. i just don’t think Al is biting. Obama “name-dropping” like that may mean BO is panicking and looking for a bump.

  41. I actual don’t think Gore will endorse anyone in the primaries, but will endorse the nominee. He has moved his focus away from politics towards environmental activism, which I applaud him for doing. Also, all of the candidates mention Gore – especially when talking about environmental issues. So, I think BO is just desperately name dropping in this case.

    Although I do agree with mj that I too would lose respect for the man if he were to knife Hillary in the back.

    I wonder if Tipper would endorse anyone?

  42. heck hilfans, i don’t even see those draft gore diaries on the nutkooks anymore. i guess they FINNALLY got the hint. he is not running! remember when all year long “he getting in the spring”. oh, he is getting in the summer”. oh no, he is getting running in the fall”. “no wait, he sniffed a certain way. now he is getting in after he wins the noble peace prize”. and on and on. now what, if he gives obama the eye he is endorsing him. what fools. i was a strong a gore backer before these same nutkook lefties trashed his run in 2000. now, they claim over and over again on the nutkooks”oh i voted for gore in 2000″. yeah right, i saw jesus himself born nearly 2007 years ago. they are really full of it.

  43. terrondt,

    I think after all the surveys/polls that continually showed Hillary beating Gore and the former VP’s lack of interest in running…those ardent and staunch supporters – who have ‘always’ supported him – lost their hope.

    IMO, the main reason for those draft Gore sites were to make him a counter weight to Hillary. Now, most of these ‘Gore supporters’ are -probably – in the Obama/Edwards camp.

  44. terrondt, that is one thing that really pisses me off. The media TRASHED gore in 2000, and these exact same so called “progressives” egged and cheered and joined right in. Gore was cold, was stiff, was the establishment candidate in bed with corporations, he was too hooked up with Washington, he was crap. The bloggers TORE GORE TO SHREDS, same as they try to do to Hillary now.

    But to hear them talk, they have all loved Al Gore forever. What a load of pure crap.

  45. the media, and i remember like it was yesturday, matter of fact it was yesturday. mathews attacking hillary. just replace hillary of 2008 to gore of 2000. he was attacking gore all thru the primaries that year. it seems if you are somehow connected to bill clinton, your crap in tweety’s eyes. now we learn a few days ago he voted for w in 2000. gore was attack with venom, but make no mistake this year is far worse.

  46. torrendt you are cracking me up.. awesome.. tweety et. al. are crap. they are bunch of losers just like rethugs. remember that timmy boy went after hillary during debate for NY senate asking her about Monica lewinsky. and he has gall to stand and comment on her. that slimeball along with chrissy will be removed from NBC/MSNBC soon! I am waiting fopr the day and tide will turn!

  47. my understanding tweety’s brother ran on the gop ticket with lynn swan for gov. in penn and he gor mauled 60/40. and i don’t give damn if he work for jimmy carter in the 1970’s or dem speaker tip o’niell. look at reagan. he was a new deal dem then became a conservative rupuk so i do not cut him ANY slack. and as for russert, he was a gov mario cuomo advisor. goes to show where u came from don’t mean sqwat.

  48. past loyalties don’t mean anything to these turncoats. look at george stephenoplus, he would be NOTHING without the clintons. then he writes a book while clinton was still in offic and he trashes him. look at these losers who were winners when bill gave them jobs and made names of themselves becuase of bill and what they f**king do. endorse a iodiot that have not did a damn thing since he arrived in the senate. missing damn votes in the state senate to protect others?!! WTF IS THAT!! and they call hillary cold and calculating. what that is all about?

  49. I think Gore is going to endorse Hillary. But that is a massive endorsement that will shake this race to the core when it happens. She’s going to save that for maximum impact.

    Kaboom!

  50. i really thing goer will stay out of it. he got burned when he endorsed president dean(snicker). i remembered that deal. i was supporting kerry at the time and i really thought it woulf help dean. by that time the media really was going crazy on that one.

  51. at the end of the day, opponents of hill have to beat her with something, but Obama and Edwards have nothing. and people see through it. these so called pundits are piece of crap. I remember hwc saying something about emily list organising women to caucus. Hillary clintons get out and vote is one of the best machine. I trust her, and I hope she gets ahead of the curve and get her supporters out better than others. IMO thats all that matters.

  52. gladiatorstail, i wish i can take downtime from the politics of the 1st primaries like kostner. i respect his reason. it is hairpulling and stressful as hell following this day to day. but i cannot help it. i swear the stress will go dow for me once hillary put this baby on ice feb 5th. maybe jan 3rd if hillary wins there becuase if she does it will be over. forget feb 5th. but my best guess it will be feb 5th. the waiting is killing me and im sure others here. can’t wait.

  53. yeah terrondt, ditto here. I skipped my lunch today and supported Hillary. I am doing it once a week regularly. I want her to win, because it is good for the country. Obama’s experiennce is worse than bush’s experience. everytime i see bush, I seem to puke on myself. how did he become a president. I feel the same way about Obama. he will not stand tall for any fight. he well cow down and mold himself as a republican. I dont even think he will win GE if he is the nominee.

  54. i heard the hillary’s organization in nh is top notch. as for iowa, it is going to take evrerything for hillary to win there. i think they are spending the bank in iowa. they are going all out there.

  55. There is a very interesting article on media matters–Two Birds, One Stone, suggesting Matthews and Tucker are attempting to destroy both Hillary and Senator “present” by repeating the drug/middle name stuff over and over and over and blaming Hillary over and over and over. It indicates that they were actually the firsts to raise these issues and suggests Matthews really wants McCain to win. Interesting theory. I know I have been surprised at how many times I hear “cocaine” and Hussein” on that show.

  56. i keep thinking what my have been had gore won in 2000. i feel no iraq war, maybe no 9/11 but not to sure about that. the good news is we now have hillary going next year. im not sure she whould have ran if gore won in 2000. im assuming gore wuold have won reelection in 2004. i believe leiberman would have pulled a george bush sr and went left like bush went right during the reagan years.

  57. sittin bull, THEY are the ones doing obama a disservice by keeping it going. hillary is still nearly 20 points ahead nationally and ahead in nh. flate out tie in iowa. we can do this. i made arrangements to be into work by midnight eastern time so i can watch all the votes and outcomes in iowa and nh. i can’t blow a whole shift unfortunatley.

  58. lord, i really hope hillary opens a office in hartford,ct before feb 5th. i can only help out locally. but then again she is 25 points ahead in ct.

  59. yeah, I wish I could go to Iowa to help the campaign. but I am not even taking a leave on christmas eve. have lots of work to do and closing days of the year dont help. but I think at the end of the day, we will prevail. Hill will show em who is the boss :)..

  60. on cuacus night i hope the iowans here will give us a report on what when on during the cuacusing. it is still confusing way of voting. i like our primaries. i was happy when our secretary of state move ours from march to feb 5th. i like being part of the early process.

  61. OMG, I buy the Stewie theory. Note: we changed it to Stewie over Tweety (to reflect the diabolical Stewie Griffin). It wasn’t me and I argued for Eric Cartman.

    Anyways, yeah. Mathews had a commercial with the word cocaine in it for BHO. Also, check out the JRE speech in NH on CSPAN if they air it again. He was interviewing Edwards and shows up for his rally and stay around after. It looks like he is just hanging out.

  62. Speaking of Emily’s List. I read earlier that AFSCME and Emily’s List spent $300,000 in one day yesterday in support of Hillary. Emily’s List is budgeting nearly $500,000 in Iowa. Combined with AFSCME and AFT, they have spent over $2 million — mostly on targeted get-out-the-vote.

  63. Here’s my other two cents. I wish Hillary would have her supporters run around IA in shirts that say middle class tax cuts. There was an Obama supporter on Mathews today and he was saying that Obama has never had to change his message of change. Now, all of us keep up with the issues. But, most supporters do not. That is why his change crap has worked to form a constituency for him. We are all sold on her great ideas for education, Iraq, the environment, etc. But, she should sell the other kind of voters on middle class tax cuts. Most people don’t like to think.

  64. Any of y’all ever try to convert a Hillary hater? Try that. Say, well I can understand you don’t like Hillary because of the way she has been portrayed by the media. But, you know one of the big reasons I support her is her belief in middle class tax cuts. It works amazingly well.

    Most people cannot process a ton of information without feeling overwhelmed. It is daunting. It gives people a headache. Try picking out an anti-aging wrikle cream for the first time. That will prove my point.

    Weeks ago I was arguing that the CLintons should try to produce anxiety in the electorate because people make safer choice when experiencing anxiety. That doesn’t seem to be resonating with the electorate. I think she needs a less cerebral approach as a last ditch effort. I say push the tax cut thing. It is doubly effective because she is a Clinton. So, voters give her economic credibility.

  65. i dont see gore endorsing. he wants to be archbishop of canterbury-not king maker. im seeing more critical stuff on obama-esp on blogs etc… im getting the feeling hillary’s ground game is being overlooked by the msm and naderites.

  66. good morning my little chickadees

    am glad to be free to be back

    tried to read hear to keep up, but couldn’t do it all

    young man here for 3 days…family. think i told you he was coming.

    anyway, sort of had to stay off this site and TM for a bit, but I learned a lot from the young BO supporter whipersnapper. i will tell all, or at least most…don’t want him to get into trouble.

    suffice to say we are NOT imagining things. it’s not a well- organized plot, they don’t use campaign computers or acsess or money, but these young men really do love messing with the online news reports, the online polls, the blog numbers etc.

    have to get some sleep…am exhausted.

    so many times I’d read something and want to comment, just didn’t have the freedom at the moment and then could’t remember what i wanted to say 3 hours later.

    we had our last county/precinct meeting last night…it was our 2nd, 3rd, and 4th rolled into one because of the weather cancellations (like our annual nighttime Santa parade and hometown business open house event.

    we’re going to get disaster relif in abt a month…that will help. temps are up a bit and melting is happening, but half the folks who wanted to come last night just couldn’t get, or didn’t want to try in the dark, into town. Hillary even called us to say thank you and encourage us as much as she could. Don;t know where she was calling from. Her voice was almost gone. She should sleep over Christmas. My understanding is she will campaign thru Sunday, then go home for just 40 or so hours.

    i’m dead on my feet. got to rack for a while. tried to find from hawk how his exams went. didn’t see anything. does anyone know?

    nighty nite

  67. Interesting article texan. I think talking about the 90s is fine so long as he emphasizes the “team.” Did you catch the 9/11 push after Christmas? That’s brilliant if they execute it properly. They just seem to have problems with the language that they choose or that which the MSM picks up. For example, “new beginnings” is so much better than “back to the future.” It worries me that they won’t execute it properly or that the MSM will seek to screw them over. Essentially, that is what I was arguing above. Brief message that reminds voters that they should have anxiety over the problems facing our country. Experience always wins the experience/ change dichotomy when people feel (rightly so here) anxiety over the problems that they face. Taxes are the same thing, but people often feel more involved with that issue.

    There were some clips of the Charlie Rose interview on TV tonight. You know, I think Bill Clinton was trying to say that Hillary’s campaign was willing to take a gamble on the experience versus change message. Then, CR misunderstood and went down the Obama risk avenue. Re-watch it! I bet you get that impression too.

  68. admin is right, i do think bloomberg is running. i have no problems with him running. this would make hillary’s win larger in the electoral college. in a 2 way race she can win many other states like her hubby bill in 1992.

  69. Gore endorsed Dean early on, saying let’s not fight among ourselves but get together behind someone electable. Nobody listened, and then Dean did badly and dropped out. So probably Gore is not going to try that again.

    If he waits to make sure who the viable front-runner is going to be, then he can give a boost at some time when she needs headlines. 🙂

  70. This list of comments is rich in great news and links to terrific stories. I’m really enjoying it this morning. Thanks, everyone!! You are making my Christmas season much merrier.

    On tax cuts for the middle class, I think that’s a non-starter. The mess Bush has made of the economy requires all the money the government can get. I believe Hillary’s emphasis is on removing the tax cuts on the rich. Hopefully she doesn’t have to wait until that expires. I’m sure she will get that mess straightened out. If so, there are lots of other ways to help the middle class.

    How great it is to learn more of the good things working on behalf of the campaign in Iowa! It could be a much larger victory for Hillary than I dreamed possible. And I dream big dreams!

  71. Why Clinton will prevail
    John Sasso
    Email|Print| Text size – + By John Sasso
    December 22, 2007
    SOME RAINDROPS have started to fall on Senator Hillary Clinton’s parade to the Democratic presidential nomination. In the early primary races of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, rival Barack Obama has pulled even or ahead and the longstanding Clinton badge of elective inevitability has come under question.

    more stories like this
    New poll: Obama, Clinton even in N.H.
    Obama: Bill Clinton advisers prefer me
    Clinton campaigns with mother, daughter and registered Republican
    Pols beware: Late-nite jokes coming back
    Poll: McCain gains in NH
    Despite the Barack Obama zeal, I believe Clinton will prevail. And if she is the nominee, I believe she is the most electable and least vulnerable Democratic candidate to face the Republicans.

    I was more uncertain a year ago when she announced her candidacy. Then she had recognizable strengths but at the same time possessed familiar handicaps both political and personal. She was routinely portrayed as contrived, a woman whose high intelligence had an impersonal edge and whose real identity was difficult to locate.

    That was then. Today Clinton has forged herself into a formidable political leader. She has undergone a remarkable journey. In the face of unending autopsies on her personal and political past, unrelieved targeting at both Democratic and Republican debates, the punishing demands imposed on a woman candidate, she is still standing unflinchingly in place.

    This is the mark of thoroughbred candidates. They take the fire. They survive the wounds. And while voters relish the spectacle of office-seekers squirming under adversity, something else happens at the same moment. If candidates demonstrate they can bear that kind of public barrage with conviction and ready composure — and Clinton has done that — they cross a crucial threshold in the public mind. They are viewed as able to compete and win a national election and able thereafter to govern in perilous times.

    Why the most electable Democrat? Because after a year of being tightly measured, Clinton has won a public acceptance that she has the intellect and inner confidence to do the job. She has reached beyond her political inheritance and shaped a political presence all her own. Hillary belittlers still abound, to be sure. She is still caricatured as calculating. But the senator has taken on some different markings. Gone is the defensive bite, on hand is a new openness to concede mistakes, often with glints of humor.

    If she does capture the nomination, she will see her standing soar overnight. Nomination is a transforming passage. What was viewed by some as calculation becomes smartness, impersonalness becomes thoughtful deliberation.

    Once nominated her campaign will undergo another transformation. Her candidacy will take on an historic aura as it confronts an historic question — can a woman, this woman, be elected president? Americans will be caught up in crossing one of the country’s great divides. Voters of both parties, not just proud women, will be favorably disposed to make that crossing. Americans like the good feeling of removing barriers.

    This gender phenomenon showed up in the Geraldine Ferraro campaign, which I managed. At every stop, huge crowds turned out, eager to be part of history in the making. By campaign’s end, two things seemed clearer to me: there is inherent goodwill for a woman seeking power but a far sterner demand she be up to the challenge. That higher bar asked too much of Ferraro. Clinton has already cleared the bar.

    Why the least vulnerable Democrat? The day the Democratic nominee becomes obvious the Republican attack machine will spring to action. Always, the opponent is a target to be eviscerated. If Obama is the Democratic nominee, a man less intimately understood and less defined, Republicans will rush to manufacture their own brutal definition. Can Obama withstand that kind of barrage? Does he have the personal makeup to be as relentless as his opponents? Do past political positions leave him vulnerable? Because the risks are sky-high, these questions need to be reasonably raised and answered beforehand.

    Clinton is well past negative redefinition. Unlike John Kerry’s 2004 campaign in which veterans opposed to Kerry’s candidacy challenged his war record, it will be difficult to ram a Swift Boat into her candidacy. If there is a convict in her political past, as with Willie Horton during the Dukakis 1988 campaign, he will already have been exhumed. Besides, the Clintons are veteran enough to mount a withering counterfire of their own.

    The most vulnerable Democrat, Clinton is not. The most electable, she is. America’s political landscape, this time around, looks fertile for the right Democratic candidate. But one day, surely, the country will elect a woman president. I sense that moment – and that woman – has arrived.

    John Sasso was John Kerry’s general election manager at the Democratic National Committee in 2004 and manager of Michael Dukakis’s presidential campaign in 1988.

  72. The Real Hillary I Know — and the Unreal Obama
    Posted December 21, 2007 | 01:05 PM (EST)

    ——————————————————————————–

    Read More: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton Richard Holbrooke, Iraq, Joe Wilson Hillary, Joe Wilson Obama, Obama Europe, Obama Foreign Policy, Obama Hillary, Obama Hillary Iowa, Obama International Experience, Obama Iran, Obama Iraq, Richard Holbrooke, Wesley Clark, Wesley Clark Hillary, William Kristol, Breaking Politics News

    Yesterday the London Times reported central questions about Senator Obama’s shocking dearth of international experience: “Fresh doubts over Barack Obama’s foreign policy credentials were expressed on both sides of the Atlantic last night, after it emerged that he had made only one brief official visit to London – and none elsewhere in Western Europe or Latin America.” It also reported: “Mr. Obama had failed to convene a single policy meeting of the Senate European subcommittee, of which he is chairman.”

    Email
    Print
    Comment
    These basic facts, coming from a major foreign newspaper, are a sobering counterpoint to a gushing Boston Globe editorial that endorsed Obama for having “an intuitive sense of the wider world with all its perils and opportunities.” Intuition may be a laudable quality among psychics and palm readers, but for a professional American diplomat like myself, who have spent a career toiling in the vineyards of national security, it has no relevance to serious discussion of foreign policy. In fact, Obama’s supposed “intuitive sense” is no different from George W. Bush’s “instincts” and “gut feeling” describing his own foreign policy decision-making. We have been down this road before.

    During my tenure as Senior Director for African Affairs in the Clinton Administration, I had the responsibility for helping to plan and execute President Clinton’s historic trip to that continent. It was a trip that forever changed the way American administrations think about Africa. I spent eleven days with President Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton traveling to six countries and meeting with leaders from many more. She was a full participant in all of our activities and a key adviser–and for good reason. Hillary had previously traveled to Africa, leading a prominent U.S. delegation to several countries. On her return she was instrumental in persuading the president that he should invest that most precious of presidential assets–time–in his own trip. People who are now senior advisers to Senator Obama were involved in both of those trips. So it is mystifying to me that they have allowed themselves to “forget” the key role Hillary played in such a major shift in approach to that part of the world and have participated in a negative campaign tactic on the part of the Obama campaign to demean her significant contributions to foreign policy of which they are well aware.

    Barack Obama attended elementary school in Indonesia before the age of 10, his chief period of time abroad. I, too, spent years overseas in my formative school years. While the experience certainly whetted my appetite for international relations, it did not provide me either with “intuition” or expertise in the conduct of my nation’s foreign policy. My understanding of international affairs came from twenty-three years of professional diplomacy, much of it spent overseas dealing at senior levels on crises such as serving as the acting U.S. ambassador to Iraq stationed in Baghdad during the first Gulf War.

    In the Spring, 2003, I happened to debate William Kristol, one of the architects of the neoconservative agenda and an enthusiastic supporter for Bush’s invasion of Iraq and subsequent policy. He blurted out his judgment that “on the ground experience was highly overrated.” That arrogant assertion of ideology and preconceived ideas over practical experience has precisely led to the quagmire we find ourselves in today in Iraq and the Middle East.

    Now, Senator Obama echoes and reflects the same attitude of contempt for “on the ground experience.” Acting on his superior “intuition” he has proposed unilateral bombing of Pakistan and unstructured summits without preconditions with adversaries such as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Kim Jong Il. As we have learned, the march of folly is paved with good but naïve intentions.

    A number of us, like then Illinois state senator Obama, opposed the second Gulf War. My own opposition from the beginning has been well documented. I fought the fight in the arena itself, Washington DC, against a ruthless administration and its supporters while the senator’s opposition came from a far distance and carried no risk, given that he represented in Springfield, Illinois the district encompassing the University of Chicago. As an obscure but safe provincial political figure, he never was granted access to the distorted intelligence that was used to drive the Congress and the media. When I looked to the left or to the right for support, I never saw the state senator. In fact, I never heard of Barack Obama until he announced his intention to run for the Senate in the 2006 election.

    After he came to Washington, Obama’s views were thoroughly conventional and even timid. In 2004, he said about the 2002 congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force: “I’m not privy to Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don’t know.” On Iraq-related votes in the Senate, Obama’s record identically matches Senator Clinton’s–with the exception that Senator Clinton voted against the confirmation of General George Casey as Army chief of staff. Obama’s vote was typically passive.

    In the run up to the war and thereafter, I was in frequent discussions with senior Democrats in Washington, including Senator Clinton, and I was keenly aware of her demand for the full exercise of international diplomacy and allowing the weapons inspectors to complete their mission. Many of the most prominent early opponents of the war, including former General Wes Clark and former ambassador to the United National Richard Holbrooke support Senator Clinton for President, as do I. We do so because we know that she has the experience and the judgment that comes from having been in the arena for her entire adult life–and from close personal participation with her in the conduct of U.S. foreign policy. And we have trust in her to end the war in Iraq in the most responsible way, consistent with our national security interests.

    We know that she has won and lost but always fought for her beliefs, which are widely shared within the Democratic Party. The battles she had been in have been fierce–and the battles in the future will be no less intense–and she has proven her steadfastness and is still standing. She does not have a cowardly record of voting “present” when confronted with difficult issues. She does not claim “intuition” as the basis of the most dangerous and serious decision-making. What she has is deep and vital experience, more important than ever in restoring our country’s place in the world.

    Email Print Comment

  73. Good morning, Hillfans. I wanted to rush to the computer to post my comments about Stewie’s show last night but the spouse is getting a bit tired of my constant rants (let alone yelling at the tv set), so waited for my moment.

    My son, bless his heart, is smarter than his college-edumacated mother sometimes. He has maintained that MSNBC is fully in Hillary’s camp. Last night’s show pretty much cinched that in my mind.

    His first premise is this: MSNBC is owned by a major defense contractor who MUST court the future president, no ifs, ands or buts.

    Second, last night’s show was pure bash-Hillary’s-opponents night. It started out with a Romney spokesman getting lambasted on Romney lie after lie after lie and having to concede that his candidate hadn’t been very truthful. The theme was picked up on the NBC evening news by Nora O’Donnell (and advertised during Stewie’s show).

    Next up was a rep for HRC, BHO and JRE. If Stewie said “cocaine” once he said it more than a dozen times, with a gleeful little look in his eye. He gave BHO’s guy full-force cocaine-bashing, asking him question after question in which he inserted “cocaine” in every one, it seemed. I can’t wait for the transcript on Monday afternoon to count how many times he said it. My son said we could have made it a drinking game and all of us would have been drunk within the first five minutes of the segment.

    Last up was a panel of three which included my fave Craig Crawford, who, BTW, is a huge Hillary supporter. Craig never lets Stewie get the upper hand and didn’t last night at all.

    Although Hillary’s name, and that of Bill Shaheen’s came up, the focus was Obama, drugs, Obama, cocaine, Obama, cocaine ….

    This is NOT how someone acts if they’re trying to bury Hillary. This is exactly how someone acts if they want to make sure that the verbal image of Obama and cocaine are endlessly linked.

    Every time Media Matters and others like Bob Somerby lambast Stewie for his behavior, it perpetuates the Obama + cocaine message. As it enrages Obama supporters, it perpetuates the Obama + cocaine message.

    Therefore, let’s all give Stewie cudos for doing what no other Big Media or Big Blog type could have done for us and Hillary.

    BTW, hi Chris. You get first name status from me right now.

  74. opensecrets.org/pres08/search.asp?txtCID=ALL&name=(all)&employ=cigna&state=(all)&zip=(any+zip)&submit=OK&amt=a&sort=A

    Notice Obama is the recipient of donations from Cigna, the insurance company that is the recipient of a lot of bad press these days for their decision not to cover a liver transplant of a young girl who died.

  75. B. Merryfield, since the number of Clinton advisers supporting Obama is a topic of interest to you, I wanted to pass on this bit from a story on CNN.

    “Why is the national security adviser of Bill Clinton, the Secretary of the Navy of Bill Clinton, the Assistant Secretary of State for Bill Clinton—why are they all supporting me?” Obama asked rhetorically.”

    OTOH, it appears to me CNN has softened their attacks on Hillary. I hope that’s true. Of course, I wonder if Wolf Blitzer being away has anything to do with that.

    Maybe they have gotten over their over-reaction to being called the Clinton News Network. Apparently they felt they had to go on the attack and help B. Hussein Obama to show they were impartial. Maybe now that the polls appear to have evened out a bit, they feel free to try to be fair again. Whatever the reason, I hope they really have eased up a bit on her.

    I loved it a couple of days ago when David Gergen was in a panel on CNN with a couple of others including Ms. Donahue from the N.H. Inst. of Politics. She began accusing the Clinton campaign of playing the “race card” by talking about Obama and cocaine. David Gergen forcefully disagreed with her. She had insisted that the mention of drugs automatically causes people to think of African Americans. I assume she thinks AA’s are the only people involved in drugs. Sounds kind of racist to me.

  76. Who started the claim that Gore hates Hillary? If so, why? They were very friendly during the Clinton Admin. Does it stem from Gore’s campaign?

  77. I can answer this!

    “Why is the national security adviser of Bill Clinton, the Secretary of the Navy of Bill Clinton, the Assistant Secretary of State for Bill Clinton—why are they all supporting me?” Obama asked rhetorically.”

    Because Hillary already had Madeline Albright, Richard Holbrooke, and Wes Clark. There was no need. If you already have the top tier, why on earth would you hire those lower down the totem pole? You can’t take everyone on board, so she took the best. The rest are of course going to seek an inroad and a shot at influence elsewhere.

  78. 2 suggestions for Clinton supporters, esp. for those in IA or NV.

    1. wear your Hillary button when out shopping, walking, etc. and when somebody mentions it, try “are you going to the caucus?” the way you say “are you going to the rock concert?” You will find that more often than not, people don’t get the ‘caucus’ thing and if they do, they will basically say they don’t know how. BTW, many people don’t vote for the exact same reason. When they say “I don’t vote — it makes no difference” and other inanities, they are often saying “I’m afraid to look stupid”.

    2. For those of you with Obama supporters in the family or the neighbourhood, here’s an interesting line to throw in. In NV, the political ads have started with many from Obama and some from Clinton. Obama’s start with this line: “I haven’t spent much time learning the ways of Washington but the ways of Washington must change.”

    If you want to change the whole “ways of Washington”, shouldn’t you spend some time learning about it? Substitute anything for “the ways of Washington and see if it makes sense. “I haven’t spent much time learning about healthcare, but healthcare must change.” (never say how or to what) “I haven’t spent much time learning foreign policy, but ….” “I haven’t spent much time learning Senate procedures, but……….”

    I just say: “I just saw Obama’s ad and I don’t understand why he thinks it a plus that he hasn’t spent much time learning something that he says he cares about.” Is it possible to change/reform something of which you are ignorant? Is he the
    best to try this?

    Those who haven’t drunk the Kool-Aid immediately see a parallel to our knowledgeable president.

  79. That is a great approach, freckles. 🙂 You could substitute a lot of things, and i still makes no sense. “Change” is not a gameplan, it’s a slogan. I plan to go out shopping today, and will have my Hillary button on as always! I wish I was in IA or NH or NV.

  80. HillaryforTexas Says:
    December 22nd, 2007 at 10:18 am
    I don’t think Gore hates her at all. I have yet to ever see proof of this rumor.

    as rumor would have it, Gore didn’t like that she ran for the senate seat from NY on the same year that he ran for president. kind of stole the spotlight from him.

  81. gore tried to distance himself from the clintons instead of embracing the good that bill’s administration has done for the country…i can go on an on…
    but…oh, well…

  82. here’s part of it. just a heads up if you need to sign in to read a paper you can try the site bugmenot.com, put in the address and they’ll give a list of password/username to try. (doesn’t work for any pay sites just the ones that annoyingly make you sign in to read anything)

    Clinton gets lots of help from her friends
    Jim Cole / Associated Press
    ALL THE RIGHT CONNECTIONS: Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has much more outside backing than her rivals — including from the nation’s biggest PAC.

    More than any other Democratic candidate, she’s drawing support from outside organizations — money, direct mailings, even Google ads targeted to female voters in Iowa.

    CEDAR RAPIDS, IOWA — They are the basic chores that can make or break a political candidate: identifying likely supporters, getting them excited and making sure they turn out when it’s time to vote.

    And as the Democratic presidential campaigns focus on the Jan. 3 Iowa caucuses, Hillary Rodham Clinton has a major advantage: Three organizations outside her campaign are lending a big helping hand with those difficult and expensive tasks, pouring more than $2 million and an army of fresh troops into the last-minute push. The outside effort, much larger than any being mounted on behalf of a rival campaign, is led in large part by EMILY’s List, the nation’s largest political action committee and a significant force in Democratic politics. Allied with it are the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees and the American Federation of Teachers.

    The unions are supporting pro-Clinton radio and television advertising and direct mail contacts with targeted voting groups. Separately, AFSCME has dispatched more than 200 paid workers to Iowa. The fly-in gives Clinton about twice as many such workers in the state as rival Barack Obama, officials of his campaign say.

    EMILY’s List also is trying a new technique developed with the help of Google to reach female voters there, especially those who are unsure how to navigate the state’s complex caucus system. Whenever someone in Iowa searches online for “recipe,” “stocking stuffer” or “yoga,” for instance, a banner will pop up inviting the searcher to visit a website supporting Clinton.

    How much effect the last-minute infusion of money and other resources will have is unclear, but the effort has stirred concern in the Obama campaign. “When you are in a tight race like this, any- and everything matters,” said Obama’s field director, Steve Hildebrand.

    The effort by EMILY’s List and the two unions reflects the increasing importance of so-called independent expenditures, in which groups officially independent of a particular campaign pay for advertising, consulting fees and other expenses that might otherwise be covered by the candidate. Such spending is on the rise in both Republican and Democratic campaigns.

    And such groups can accept more in donations than a candidate can. Individuals may give no more than $2,300 to a candidate per election, but they can give $5,000 to independent political action committees like EMILY’s List. So long as the outside groups avoid “coordinating” their efforts with the favored campaign, federal rules permit the groups to advocate for the candidate by name.

    Just how close the ties can be between an independent group and a campaign is illustrated by EMILY’s List. The group previously steered clear of presidential politics and concentrated on electing women at the state and congressional levels who support abortion rights. But it backed Clinton as soon as she announced her candidacy.

  83. Here is Media Matters blasting and exposing Matthews and Tucker:

    Two birds, one stone

    For much of the past week, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews and Tucker Carlson have been in high dudgeon over former Sen. Bob Kerrey’s recent reference to Barack Obama’s middle name.

    Kerrey said during an event announcing his endorsement of Hillary Clinton that “I like the fact that his name is Barack Hussein Obama, and that his father was a Muslim and that his paternal grandmother is a Muslim. There’s a billion people on the planet that are Muslims and I think that experience is a big deal.” Kerrey added that Obama has “a whale of a lot more intellectual talent than I’ve got as well.”

    Kerrey’s comments were interpreted by many — with Matthews and Carlson leading the charge — as a subtle and sneaky way of planting doubt about Obama among voters. (Maybe it was, or maybe it was completely innocent. Either way, I’m not sure it matters: Like Jeff Greenfield’s “joke” about Obama dressing like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Kerrey’s comments were ill-considered no matter what his intent. Indeed, Kerrey subsequently apologized to Obama.)

    The day after Kerrey’s comments, Chris Matthews asked, “What the hell is Bob Kerrey doing?” Then, after reading Kerrey’s comments, he suggested that Kerrey might have been “simply poisoning the well” against Obama. Matthews referenced Kerrey’s remarks again later in the show.

    The next day, Carlson referred to Kerrey’s “apparent attack on Obama,” which he described as “unbelievably sleazy” and “divisive and nasty and frankly kind of repulsive.” The day after that, Carlson said that if it were not for the fact that Kerrey is “liked by reporters … [h]e would have been drummed out of America” for what he said about Obama.

    It’s fascinating to see Chris Matthews and Tucker Carlson so angry about Kerrey’s comments, because as far as I can tell, Chris Matthews was the very first person to introduce Barack Obama’s middle name into the national political discussion — and Tucker Carlson was right behind him.

    Almost exactly a year ago, as Barack Obama’s middle name was being thrown around regularly in the media — by NBC’s Mike Viqueira and by Fox News’ Carl Cameron, among many others. The popular theory was that the use of the name originated with Republican strategist Ed Rogers. Matthews himself attributed it to Rogers during a December 13, 2006, interview with Rogers, saying that Rogers had “made some news” by using the name and pressing Rogers about it: “Why did you invoke the middle name of Barack Obama out of nowhere? What are you up to, sir? … Well, Hussein is his middle name. Do you believe that invoking that name, that it will hurt him?”

    But, as I explained at the time, Matthews was blaming Rogers for something Matthews himself had started:

    The first mention of the name as a political matter that we can find in the Nexis database comes from MSNBC’s Chris Matthews. On the November 7 [2006] edition of Hardball — three full weeks before Rogers’ comment — Matthews said: “You know, it’s interesting that Barack Obama’s middle name is Hussein. That will be interesting down the road, won’t it?” Media Matters noted Matthews’ comments the next day.

    Did Matthews come up with that on his own, or did he hear it on one of the right-wing radio shows he favors? Or did he read it on a far-right website, or have it whispered in his ear by a Republican operative? We don’t know. But we do know that attributing the suggestion that Obama’s middle name may have negative political consequences to Rogers lets Matthews off the hook for his role in popularizing the notion. Maybe that’s why Matthews himself does it.

    A few weeks after Matthews’ reference to Obama’s middle name — and a day before Rogers first used it — Tucker Carlson used his MSNBC television program to call guest Bill Press “a true member of the Barack Hussein Obama fan club.”

    Notice anything about the way Matthews and Carlson used Obama’s middle name? It was completely gratuitous. Bob Kerrey (ostensibly, at least) used Obama’s middle name in suggesting that his background might be an asset; Matthews and Carlson were doing nothing of the kind. They were just throwing it out there.

    And now, they are livid — absolutely livid — when Bob Kerrey uses it.

    But that isn’t all they’re angry about. Matthews and Carlson (along with countless other journalists) keep yelling about Clinton strategist Mark Penn using the word “cocaine” on Hardball last week. They claim that Penn was trying to subtly bring up Obama’s long-ago drug use. Well, again: Maybe he was, but the facts are that during the interview in question, Matthews himself repeatedly brought it up; the entire segment was about the topic before Penn even spoke; and Penn’s first response to the first question Matthews asked him (“It was never a part of this campaign. It was unacceptable.”) seemed to be an obvious attempt to end a discussion that was not playing out in his candidate’s favor.

    But to hear Matthews and Carlson and others tell it, Penn initiated the conversation and was doing everything he could to prolong it. That simply isn’t what happened.

    Still: Tucker Carlson is angry.

    On the December 17, he claimed the Clinton campaign was portraying Obama as “a crack dealer,” which he called “the politics of personal destruction.” (I could find no reference anywhere to anyone with any connection to Clinton ever using the words “crack” and “Obama” in the same sentence.) On December 14, Carlson said it was “sleazy” of Penn to use the word “cocaine” in talking about Obama, adding that he was “outraged about it.” Carlson used the word “cocaine” seven times during that broadcast, even as he said it was “sleazy” for Penn to use the word “in the same sentence” as Obama. On December 12, Carlson said “Billy Shaheen, the husband of the governor of New Hampshire, Jeanne Shaheen, who is running for Senate in this next season, just told reporters that he’s very concerned that if Barack Obama gets the nomination, his admitted drug use, his use of cocaine and marijuana, will be fodder for the Republican dirty tricks machine. Basically going after Obama for admitting he got high when he was a kid.”

    Shaheen’s comments came in an interview with The Washington Post — but the Post didn’t actually quote him using the word “cocaine.” And Penn hadn’t yet used the word, either. Once he did, Carlson, Matthews, and others assigned great significance to the use of that specific word. But it seems that Tucker Carlson himself used it before a Clinton official did, on the December 12 edition of his television show.

    In fact, Carlson used it a year ago. On the December 11, 2006, edition of Tucker, he said to guest A.B. Stoddard: “Well, we know that he has done cocaine, because he said so, A.B., in his book. We know he smokes cigarettes. We know his middle name is Hussein. What else is there to know about Barack Obama that is going to be shocking?” And again on January 3: “Speaking of what the American public wants, I’m sure you all have read Barack Obama’s first book, in which he admits smoking a lot of pot, doing a fair amount of cocaine, is that, you know — someone who has the finger on the pulse of America, is this a problem going into the presidential election? Have we reached a point where voters no longer care, or do they care?”

    What’s happening here isn’t really very subtle at all. Tucker Carlson and Chris Matthews have, going back more than a year, gone out of their way to bring up Obama’s middle name and his long-ago drug use. After they (and their colleagues) played a key role in bringing these matters into the national dialogue, they brutally attacked Clinton when people connected with her campaign made reference to the very things Carlson and Matthews have been talking about all along.

    For Carlson (a staunch conservative who regularly bashes Democrats) and Matthews (who says John McCain “deserves” to be president), it’s a pretty neat trick: They spend a year doing something that they themselves describe as a sleazy effort to plant doubts about Obama — then they pretend it all came from Clinton and trash her for being vicious. And, in doing so, they use the very words they say are inappropriate to use in describing Obama dozens of times.

    Matthews himself offered a perfect description of what he and Carlson are doing on last night’s Hardball — though, of course, he thought he was describing Clinton:

    MATTHEWS: Let me go to the question of tactics here. She is using things like having AFSCME, the union, the state and county employees, put out a letter that looked like it came from John Edwards, apparently, attacking Obama, so that she gets the knife into Obama without her fingerprints on it.

    That’s exactly what has been happening on Hardball and Tucker for the past year. Matthews and Carlson have been making both Clinton and Obama look bad, while largely avoiding responsibility for their own actions.

    Matthews and Carlson first invoked Obama’s middle name — and now they yell nightly about a Clinton supporter doing it.

    Carlson brought up Obama’s long-ago drug use more than a year ago; Matthews did everything he could to force Mark Penn to discuss it last week — and now they yell nightly about how “sleazy” it is for people connected to Clinton to discuss the topic.

    And it isn’t merely that Matthews and Carlson are blasting Clinton for things they did first; they’re blasting Clinton for things they continue to do every night. Mark Penn used the word “cocaine” twice, a week ago — in response to Matthews’ prodding. Tucker Carlson has used it on his show nine times since then; Matthews has used it 12 times on Hardball. And the two have used the name “Hussein” in connection with Obama 11 times this week.

    Tonight, Matthews and Carlson will most likely again yell about how vicious and sleazy the Clinton campaign is for bringing up Obama’s middle name, or his past drug use. They’ll tell us that the only possible reason to make mention of either thing is to undermine him. And in doing so, they may well mention these things far more often in two hours than the Clinton campaign has in a year.

    It’s a hell of a scam Matthews and Carlson have going — undermining both candidates, while getting their campaigns and their supporters angry at one another

  84. B MERRYFIELD:

    Well I am glad that Tweety (who you call Stewie and I call “Cartman from South Park” took a night off from bashing Hillary. But the things he has said about her over the course of this campaign are unforgiveable. Ditto to the things he has said about her supporters “Castratas”. I consider him a sexist slimey hack, and it will take more than one night of reparitions for me to forgive him.

    I will rejoice when Hillary is President, and he and his cronies are completely blocked out of the Whitehouse and the Clintons’ lives.

  85. Hil4Tex, thanks for your reply about the Clinton advisers. That was good. I still hope B. Merry will see it though for another reason.

    Another Reader, there was another version of that good article about the groups helping Hillary in Iowa which added that they are putting a lot of effort toward women voters. They hope to attract 5,000 to 10,000 women who vote regularly but have never caucused before. Since only 124,000 people attended four years ago, that could have a huge impact. The more I learn about what the campaign is doing in Iowa the more confident I become. I don’t make political bets, but I really like what is happening.

    I’m so glad I found this website. It’s making life much better for me in the way it keeps me informed on the things that really matter.

  86. Sherm Kader,

    I fell the same as you. Since I find this web site I stop watching Big Media and I come to this web site to get election info.

  87. Matthews isn’t doing Hillary any favors. I deplore the way he treats all the Democrats and some of the Republicans. He’s trying to drag Obama and Hillary down together, so I wouldn’t thank him for that.

  88. Matthews doesn’t want Democrat to win. I used to be big fan of him but not anymore. I even ask my husband not watch his show.

  89. I’m not confident that Al Gore will make an endorsement in the primary compaign. It would surprise me if he made one at all. Of course, I expect him to support the nominee — up to a point.

    First, I don’t think he feels good about his endorsement four years ago after what happened. I think he would not like to make it two in a row.

    Second, (from thousands of miles away) I got the feeling from what news I could find that he partially blamed Bill Clinton for the difficulty he was having in the campaign. Many people have said since then that he made a mistake by distancing himself from Clinton at that time.

    Third is an uglier idea. Maybe he would not believe it to his advantage to help a Democrat to win this time, though that’s hard to swallow. It could extend the time he has to wait to run again from four years to eight years. I hate to think he is that cynical though. I like to think much better thoughts about him. I’m sure he is an unselfishly loyal Democrat.

  90. I belive Gore is a loyal Democrat. I love Gore. But I think he had better not back Obama before Jan. 3. Otherwise, the media will spend time talking about why Gore do not back Hillary and distract the issue we care about.

  91. So glad to know that I am not alone in my loathe for Chris Matthews. We should start a thread on that topic alone … I loathe him more than I do Bill O and that is saying something …

  92. As for Gore, Gore’s problem for history is the political actions of the 90s. He and Bill face future historians trying to figure out if there really was something to the rhetoric. Hillary’s nomination and election puts Gore (and Bill) in a sunnier light. He knows first hand that she is a brilliant candidate and will make a brilliant president whether he likes her personally or not. And he is adult enough to know that his personal likes and dislikes are irrelevant to capability.

    If he endorses anyone, I think it will be Hillary. He’ll go down in history as a bit of vindictive joker if he endorses someone else. He doesn’t want that. I can understand him not endorsing as well. He’s way too much of a wonk to endorse Obama – he’ll have no patience with the “gut” stuff O is trying to foist on us. That’s the exact opposite of how Gore and both Clintons work.

    Gore made the mistake of assuming there was something genuine behind the anti-Clinton rhetoric and that mistake sabotaged his actions in the post-election debacle. After eight years of watching Clinton battle the GOP moment by moment, Gore was totally unprepared for what he faced in Florida and that’s why he ultimately did not prevail. Bosse’s arguments in front of the Supreme Court totally missed the point of what was transpiring because all of them misjudged how deviant the GOP was. His experience in 2000 and Bush’s subsequent actions as president have thoroughly debunked that belief.

    With the exception of Obama, who I think has a very strong potential for being one of the worst Democratic presidents in history, everyone running will make a fine president. Hillary’s the one with the potential for a genuinely transcendent presidency though. To my mind, that’s the big difference between her, Dodd, Biden, Richardson and Kucinich. And that’s what we all want – a genuine shot at transcending the partisanship that has prevented progress for the past 27 years. Not that the GOP will change their stripes if she’s elected, but that she will take action sufficient to allow her to overcome their obstreperousness and will have the political capital necessary to do so.

    All of this is by way of saying that the canvas Gore is painting is much larger than any small immediate equation. His actions in this election help color how history perceives everything else he has done in his entire political career. Endorsing someone beside Hillary in the primary gives credence to the people who stole the election from him and dims some of the future sunlight from the administration which he served so ably.

  93. UGH! “Obama Republicans!??!?” Seriously??? Man, he has really drunk his own kool-aid in a FRIGHTENING way.

    Does Barak REALLY want to compare his campaign to Reagan’s?!?! Reagan, who used race-baiting to prey upon the prejudices of marginal Democrats and convert them to his regressive agenda? WHAT. EVER, Barak! Wake up, my friend and PUT DOWN THE KOOL AID!!!

  94. I posted this in barackobama.com under Susan Klopfer’s blog (the one who supposedly switched camp because of the dirty attacks by the Clinton camp):

    [b]”Hi Susan,

    I hope my posts inspired you to think more critically the next time. I have serious doubts about your candor or your critical thinking and I hope that through my posts you will see how contrived your reasons for changing camp were. I am fully supportive of your decision but I ask you to be honest about your reasons rather than make up one in the interest of furthering Obama’s lies.

    Obama was the one who lied in his attacks on Hillary Clinton and yet you seem to take exception to the Clinton camp responding with the truth. Obama painted your former candidate as ambitious using a dirty Republican lie and yet when Clinton showed through factual research that Obama was hypocritical in his attacks you seem to have decided to change camp. Is this, by any stretch of imagination, rational? And still you expect us to believe it. You insult the intelligence of everyone here and yet you expect their support.” [/b]

    I posted a lot more under the name Rex Lipana:

    http://iowa.barackobama.com/page/community/post/susanklopfer/CBmX#comment-gGBn3S

Comments are closed.