Picture a cozy weekend at Camp David for President Obama, Vice President Hillary Rodham Clinton and their lively spouses.
They'd talk policy and politics in the confines of the rustic retreat. After the long campaign and all the bruised feelings, Michelle Obama could finally reach out to Bill Clinton, as she recently said she's been wanting to do.
To be exact, she said: "I want to rip his eyes out."
Then added: "Kidding."
They could bring along Obama's national security adviser, let's say Samantha Power. She's the foreign policy specialist who had to leave the Obama campaign after calling Hillary Clinton a "monster."
Now that Clinton is angling to become Obama's running mate, the question arises how two frosty rivals and their seething camps might come together without sticking flag pins into each other.
It's all pretty awkward right now.
Clinton's aides and surrogates are boldly pitching her for the No. 2 spot even as many of them, like her, refuse to acknowledge she's failed in her quest for No. 1. Instead, she said she's open to being Obama's running mate.
For months, she's cast her rival as wet behind the ears and herself as the one to be trusted to deal with crises in the middle of the night.
In an Obama-Clinton White House, he'd take the 3 a.m. call. She might or might not be awakened.
For his part, Obama has painted Clinton as a figure of another time and himself as a clean break from all that's past and passe about Washington. He'd be eager to bring in his own team, to bring "change," the coin of his realm.
Then there's Bill, a man of deep experience, in-your-face opinions and more baggage than a boxcar.
Even so, some Democratic strategists are salivating at the prospect of Obama and Hillary Clinton joining forces.
They are fixated on her electoral strengths and not at all on Oval Office atmospherics or what might be done about her husband.
Obama's side is trying to tamp down the veep speculation that threatens to overshadow his historic achievement as the first black presidential nominee, but in a way that does not seem dismissive of her and does not rule out the chance of offering her the position.
They can't afford to dismiss her, or, more precisely, the more than 17 million voters who turned out for her, including masses of blue-collar voters in swing states, Hispanics and older voters, especially women.
Obama picked his words with exquisite care when he talked about Clinton with supporters, directly addressing his but really speaking to hers.
"You can rest assured that when we finally win the battle for universal health care in this country - and we will win that fight - she will be central to that victory," he said.
Clinton, of course, has already fought that fight for another president, her husband, and lost. She's also assailed Obama's health care plan, which does not mandate universal coverage, as seriously deficient.
Obama purposely did not address in what capacity she might take another run at health care. It's unlikely he knows. He and Clinton have yet to talk in a serious way.
The Illinois senator is famously willing to meet with difficult people, even Iran's hard-line, terrorist-underwriting, nuclear-developing, anti-American president.
But a sit-down with Clinton isn't coming together too quickly, days after he proposed that it happen once the dust settled.
After he secured the Democratic presidential nomination Tuesday, he called her in the evening, missed her and left a message.
She got back to him.
Then they ran into each other backstage Wednesday between delivering speeches at a Washington conference. Obama said they'd have a conversation in "coming weeks."
It's an awkward time.
And then there's Bill.
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
On a night when Obama made history, Clinton's reaction was dangerously abrasive and selfish
The lead story tonight - my "lede," as we spell it here - should have been about the remarkable fact that a black man has been nominated by a major party to lead a developed Western nation for the first time in the history of the world. A man - in whose lifetime people with his shade of skin were denied the right to vote and to use public accommodations - who is now on the cusp of the presidency. It says something good about America, and I would like to have been able to dwell on it.
But no. Once again, it's all about Hillary Clinton, who delivered the most abrasive, self-absorbed, selfish, delusional, emasculating and extortionate political speech I've heard in a long time. And I've left out some adjectives, just to be polite.
Here's an interesting point for you. Barack Obama's speech, which featured a long and gracious nod to Clinton toward the beginning, was posted on various websites as early as 8:10pm East coast time. That means that Clinton - who didn't start speaking until 9:31pm, noticeably missing her introductory cue - and her staff had more than an hour to read Obama's speech and see that he was going to be more than kind to her.
But Clinton, who did not post her speech in advance, gave Obama a much briefer and more perfunctory nod. She congratulated him on his well-run campaign, but not on his victory, which is historic and assured. She told her crowd that, though she is now defeated, she "will be making no decisions tonight." She urged her voters - naturally nudged up to 18 million, which exaggerates the matter by about a half a million votes - to visit her website and send her messages, a piece of demagoguery that merely ensures that a week hence, if she wants to, she'll be able to say, "more than 10 million of my supporters have written to encourage me to go on to Denver". And speaking of the convention city, when her audience began chanting its name, she did not of course try to stop them and say that a convention fight was not in the interest of party unity.
What's her game? It's this, I think. It's not merely to be vice president. Although apparently it is that. I take it she and Bill have decided that being Obama's vice-president for eight years is the most plausible path to the presidency. But she did not on Tuesday night merely try to make a case for herself as a good vice-presidential candidate. She held a rhetorical knife to Obama's throat and said, in not so many words: I'm still calling some shots, buddy. You offer me the vice-presidency, or I walk away. But she has also forced Obama into a situation whereby if he chooses her now, he looks weak. So that's the choice she is hoping to impose on the nominee: don't choose me, and Bill and I will subtly work to see that you lose; choose me, and look like a weakling who can't lead the party without the Clintons after all. Now that's putting the interests of the party first, isn't it?
Democrats had better understand what this means, and they'd better not kid themselves. With any person other than a Clinton, this whole thing would have been over in late February - that is, any other candidate who lost 11 primaries in a row and ran out of money would have been shamed out of the race at that point. Or if not then, after May 6 (North Carolina and Indiana), when it became obvious that she could not come within 100 delegates of Obama, no matter what happened with Florida and Michigan.
But the Clintons know no shame, and more importantly, there has been no referee who could end this game, no one who could say to a Clinton, "Enough now." Well, Democrats have to say it. Now. Enough.
I really wanted to write a happy piece tonight. I wanted to write about Obama's amazing victory and about Clinton's tenacity being finally tempered by an acceptance of reality - reality that she'd lost and reality that, while there are indeed good arguments for her being on the ticket, the person who won the nominee has the right to choose the running mate.
Obama, after a slowish start, ended up giving a good, fiery speech aimed at John McCain. And McCain's speech, though flat in delivery, laid out his themes reasonably well. A race between these two men will be a race between two people who - whatever you think of their politics - are presenting substantive cases to the country and asking the people to choose. That's going to be a good show. But someone has to send that sore loser on the sidelines off to the showers once and for all.
But no. Once again, it's all about Hillary Clinton, who delivered the most abrasive, self-absorbed, selfish, delusional, emasculating and extortionate political speech I've heard in a long time. And I've left out some adjectives, just to be polite.
Here's an interesting point for you. Barack Obama's speech, which featured a long and gracious nod to Clinton toward the beginning, was posted on various websites as early as 8:10pm East coast time. That means that Clinton - who didn't start speaking until 9:31pm, noticeably missing her introductory cue - and her staff had more than an hour to read Obama's speech and see that he was going to be more than kind to her.
But Clinton, who did not post her speech in advance, gave Obama a much briefer and more perfunctory nod. She congratulated him on his well-run campaign, but not on his victory, which is historic and assured. She told her crowd that, though she is now defeated, she "will be making no decisions tonight." She urged her voters - naturally nudged up to 18 million, which exaggerates the matter by about a half a million votes - to visit her website and send her messages, a piece of demagoguery that merely ensures that a week hence, if she wants to, she'll be able to say, "more than 10 million of my supporters have written to encourage me to go on to Denver". And speaking of the convention city, when her audience began chanting its name, she did not of course try to stop them and say that a convention fight was not in the interest of party unity.
What's her game? It's this, I think. It's not merely to be vice president. Although apparently it is that. I take it she and Bill have decided that being Obama's vice-president for eight years is the most plausible path to the presidency. But she did not on Tuesday night merely try to make a case for herself as a good vice-presidential candidate. She held a rhetorical knife to Obama's throat and said, in not so many words: I'm still calling some shots, buddy. You offer me the vice-presidency, or I walk away. But she has also forced Obama into a situation whereby if he chooses her now, he looks weak. So that's the choice she is hoping to impose on the nominee: don't choose me, and Bill and I will subtly work to see that you lose; choose me, and look like a weakling who can't lead the party without the Clintons after all. Now that's putting the interests of the party first, isn't it?
Democrats had better understand what this means, and they'd better not kid themselves. With any person other than a Clinton, this whole thing would have been over in late February - that is, any other candidate who lost 11 primaries in a row and ran out of money would have been shamed out of the race at that point. Or if not then, after May 6 (North Carolina and Indiana), when it became obvious that she could not come within 100 delegates of Obama, no matter what happened with Florida and Michigan.
But the Clintons know no shame, and more importantly, there has been no referee who could end this game, no one who could say to a Clinton, "Enough now." Well, Democrats have to say it. Now. Enough.
I really wanted to write a happy piece tonight. I wanted to write about Obama's amazing victory and about Clinton's tenacity being finally tempered by an acceptance of reality - reality that she'd lost and reality that, while there are indeed good arguments for her being on the ticket, the person who won the nominee has the right to choose the running mate.
Obama, after a slowish start, ended up giving a good, fiery speech aimed at John McCain. And McCain's speech, though flat in delivery, laid out his themes reasonably well. A race between these two men will be a race between two people who - whatever you think of their politics - are presenting substantive cases to the country and asking the people to choose. That's going to be a good show. But someone has to send that sore loser on the sidelines off to the showers once and for all.
Questions To Ask About The Unity Ticket - Latest Barack Obama news
(1) Does Clinton want to be vice president?
It's clear that she is open to the possibility, as she says; it's probable that she hasn't had the time to contemplate the question with attention to all of the personal, professional and psychic ramifications -- what it would mean for her, her family, what she would do, what Bill would do? A person very close to Clinton, someone who talks to her regularly, someone who is reliable, said that Clinton ultimately does not want, in the sense of an affirmative desire, to be vice president, but would never turn down an offer.... in other words, she is an American and a patriot and a loyal Democrat and would not refuse a chance like that to serve her country.
(2) Would Clinton accept the vice presidency if it were offered?
At this point, yes, say her aides and advisers. She wants to do what's necessary to unite the Democratic Party, and the consequences of refusing an invitation would be pretty terrible.
(3) Would Obama consider her, seriously?
At this point, no. Judging by the attitude of those who are advising him, what turns Obama off the most about the Clintons generally is the sense that the party was hers and her sense of desert that she is owed something. Some Obama advisers were very much turned off by the presence of vice presidential talk yesterday although they attribute this more to Clinton's advisers than to Clinton. From my first interviews with Obama advisers and members of his family, I've gotten an overwhelming sense that President Clinton's Oval Office dalliance with Monica Lewinsky deeply offended them and that the incident, its effect on the country, and its aftermath, shape in many ways the Obama family's view of the Clintons today. (It is certainly true of some of his staff members.)
The thinking in the Obama campaign is that the party will, over the next few weeks, coalesce around Obama; that the fervor to put her on the ticket will diminish; that right now, the active phase of speculation is driving most of the unity talk, and if Obama, by mid-summer, has a comfortable lead in the polls, the demands will die down, especially if he treats her with respect.
(4) So how does he treat with respect?
He vets her, or he indicates that he will vet her, and he vets at least one of her supporters -- perhaps Gov. Strickland of Ohio; he promises her a prime-time speaking slot; he offers to let her shepherd his health care plan through Congress; he promises her regular input in his decisions.
(5) There will be lots of pressure on Obama to change his mind, though.
Unquestionably. And since we're in the moment, a lot of it is to be expected. You can be sure that Obama will do nothing rash, and that whatever he decides, he's going to take lots of time. If the pressure on him does not abate and if the support of a good chunk of the 17 million Democrats who voted for Hillary Clinton does not migrate to him by the middle of July, then Obama might find himself in a quandary.
(6) So basically, the answer to the original question is: if Obama can coalesce the Democratic Party before he needs to pick a vice president, there's almost no chance that he will pick Hillary Clinton.
That's pretty much it, yes.
(7) What's the next step?
Well, Clinton wants a one-on-one meeting with Barack Obama at his soonest convenience to discuss her exit from the race.
You can expect some of her supporters to very aggressively and almost ungraciously spout the opinion that she is owed the vice presidency. I do not know whether Clinton herself will sanction these endeavors.
There may be a movement by her supporters to place her name in contention for the vice presidential nomination even if Obama nominates someone else.
It's clear that she is open to the possibility, as she says; it's probable that she hasn't had the time to contemplate the question with attention to all of the personal, professional and psychic ramifications -- what it would mean for her, her family, what she would do, what Bill would do? A person very close to Clinton, someone who talks to her regularly, someone who is reliable, said that Clinton ultimately does not want, in the sense of an affirmative desire, to be vice president, but would never turn down an offer.... in other words, she is an American and a patriot and a loyal Democrat and would not refuse a chance like that to serve her country.
(2) Would Clinton accept the vice presidency if it were offered?
At this point, yes, say her aides and advisers. She wants to do what's necessary to unite the Democratic Party, and the consequences of refusing an invitation would be pretty terrible.
(3) Would Obama consider her, seriously?
At this point, no. Judging by the attitude of those who are advising him, what turns Obama off the most about the Clintons generally is the sense that the party was hers and her sense of desert that she is owed something. Some Obama advisers were very much turned off by the presence of vice presidential talk yesterday although they attribute this more to Clinton's advisers than to Clinton. From my first interviews with Obama advisers and members of his family, I've gotten an overwhelming sense that President Clinton's Oval Office dalliance with Monica Lewinsky deeply offended them and that the incident, its effect on the country, and its aftermath, shape in many ways the Obama family's view of the Clintons today. (It is certainly true of some of his staff members.)
The thinking in the Obama campaign is that the party will, over the next few weeks, coalesce around Obama; that the fervor to put her on the ticket will diminish; that right now, the active phase of speculation is driving most of the unity talk, and if Obama, by mid-summer, has a comfortable lead in the polls, the demands will die down, especially if he treats her with respect.
(4) So how does he treat with respect?
He vets her, or he indicates that he will vet her, and he vets at least one of her supporters -- perhaps Gov. Strickland of Ohio; he promises her a prime-time speaking slot; he offers to let her shepherd his health care plan through Congress; he promises her regular input in his decisions.
(5) There will be lots of pressure on Obama to change his mind, though.
Unquestionably. And since we're in the moment, a lot of it is to be expected. You can be sure that Obama will do nothing rash, and that whatever he decides, he's going to take lots of time. If the pressure on him does not abate and if the support of a good chunk of the 17 million Democrats who voted for Hillary Clinton does not migrate to him by the middle of July, then Obama might find himself in a quandary.
(6) So basically, the answer to the original question is: if Obama can coalesce the Democratic Party before he needs to pick a vice president, there's almost no chance that he will pick Hillary Clinton.
That's pretty much it, yes.
(7) What's the next step?
Well, Clinton wants a one-on-one meeting with Barack Obama at his soonest convenience to discuss her exit from the race.
You can expect some of her supporters to very aggressively and almost ungraciously spout the opinion that she is owed the vice presidency. I do not know whether Clinton herself will sanction these endeavors.
There may be a movement by her supporters to place her name in contention for the vice presidential nomination even if Obama nominates someone else.
The dream ticket - Latest obama news and views
Putting Hillary Clinton on the ticket for vice president creates a ménage-à-trois. Bill will be the unexpected roommate. Even if a President Obama can discipline Hillary and get her to play second fiddle, there is not the remotest chance that he can get the former president to accept such rules. Even if Bill Clinton wanted to rein in his newly prolific public expressions of rage and frustration, there is doubt that he is any longer capable of doing so.
Hillary, who likely desperately wants to be tapped for vice president, is going about it in exactly the wrong way. She seems to be demanding a kind of coalition government between herself and Obama, a definition of the vice presidency not likely to appeal to the president. It reminds me of 1980 when there were discussions of a ticket with Reagan as the presidential nominee and former President Gerald Ford as the vice president in a coalition government where the VP would have extraordinary powers.
Intended to reassure voters who were panicked by Reagan's "extreme" conservatism, the arrangement never came to fruition, a development which gave us the House of Bush.
Instead of conceding defeat and campaigning for Obama, auditioning for the spot of loyal teammate, Hillary insists on keeping her options open and vies for the spotlight with Obama, exactly what you do not want a vice president to do.
Last night, when Obama went over the top in delegates and could claim the nomination as his, Hillary organized a rally of all of her supporters, directly competing for airtime with the newly minted nominee.
Adding Hillary to the ticket would not bring Obama a single vote (except possibly for Bill's). Her supporters are divided into two distinct categories. The original Clintonistas were strong Democrats, party faithful, pro-choice, middle-aged and up, largely female and all white. But Hillary's recent backers have been downscale whites of both genders who were turned off by Obama's pastor, wife and other associates and were afraid he might be a Muslim in disguise. Unhappy about voting for a woman, they never really liked Hillary but turned to her when the alternative was Obama.
If Hillary had won the Democratic nomination, these latent backers of Hillary in the primaries might still have voted for McCain in the general. Their support of Hillary is purely linked to her opposition to Obama. Were she to join the ticket, they would vote for McCain anyway. After all, Obama will still be black and the Rev. Wright will still be nuts.
But adding Hillary to the ticket brings, along with her, Bill.
The public Bill Clinton has morphed over the past few months from a statesman and philanthropist to a petulant, angry, cursing, spoiled narcissist, accusing everyone of being sleazy and biased and in so doing fashioning himself as a foil for Obama. This unattractive image is not the right one for the bottom of a ticket in a presidential race. And make no mistake, Bill comes along with Hillary.
But the more serious problem is the public record that Todd Purdum, an excellent journalist, laid out in his Vanity Fair piece. Bill's relationships with billionaires, his pursuit of financial gain, his alliance with the emir of Dubai, and his acceptance of speaking fees and income from some of the least savory of types is not what you need to carry around with you in a presidential race. To put Hillary on the ticket is to confront nagging questions about donors to the Clinton Library and Bill's refusal to release them. It would be to inherit a load of baggage that Obama does not need as he tries to position himself as the candidate of change, antithetical to the corrupt and corrupting ways of Washington.
On her own, Hillary would be no bargain as vice president. She would never accept direction and never sublimate her ambition or agenda to Obama's. But with Bill in tow, her candidacy becomes even more fraught with peril should Obama be inclined to bow to pressure and put her on the ticket.
Hillary, who likely desperately wants to be tapped for vice president, is going about it in exactly the wrong way. She seems to be demanding a kind of coalition government between herself and Obama, a definition of the vice presidency not likely to appeal to the president. It reminds me of 1980 when there were discussions of a ticket with Reagan as the presidential nominee and former President Gerald Ford as the vice president in a coalition government where the VP would have extraordinary powers.
Intended to reassure voters who were panicked by Reagan's "extreme" conservatism, the arrangement never came to fruition, a development which gave us the House of Bush.
Instead of conceding defeat and campaigning for Obama, auditioning for the spot of loyal teammate, Hillary insists on keeping her options open and vies for the spotlight with Obama, exactly what you do not want a vice president to do.
Last night, when Obama went over the top in delegates and could claim the nomination as his, Hillary organized a rally of all of her supporters, directly competing for airtime with the newly minted nominee.
Adding Hillary to the ticket would not bring Obama a single vote (except possibly for Bill's). Her supporters are divided into two distinct categories. The original Clintonistas were strong Democrats, party faithful, pro-choice, middle-aged and up, largely female and all white. But Hillary's recent backers have been downscale whites of both genders who were turned off by Obama's pastor, wife and other associates and were afraid he might be a Muslim in disguise. Unhappy about voting for a woman, they never really liked Hillary but turned to her when the alternative was Obama.
If Hillary had won the Democratic nomination, these latent backers of Hillary in the primaries might still have voted for McCain in the general. Their support of Hillary is purely linked to her opposition to Obama. Were she to join the ticket, they would vote for McCain anyway. After all, Obama will still be black and the Rev. Wright will still be nuts.
But adding Hillary to the ticket brings, along with her, Bill.
The public Bill Clinton has morphed over the past few months from a statesman and philanthropist to a petulant, angry, cursing, spoiled narcissist, accusing everyone of being sleazy and biased and in so doing fashioning himself as a foil for Obama. This unattractive image is not the right one for the bottom of a ticket in a presidential race. And make no mistake, Bill comes along with Hillary.
But the more serious problem is the public record that Todd Purdum, an excellent journalist, laid out in his Vanity Fair piece. Bill's relationships with billionaires, his pursuit of financial gain, his alliance with the emir of Dubai, and his acceptance of speaking fees and income from some of the least savory of types is not what you need to carry around with you in a presidential race. To put Hillary on the ticket is to confront nagging questions about donors to the Clinton Library and Bill's refusal to release them. It would be to inherit a load of baggage that Obama does not need as he tries to position himself as the candidate of change, antithetical to the corrupt and corrupting ways of Washington.
On her own, Hillary would be no bargain as vice president. She would never accept direction and never sublimate her ambition or agenda to Obama's. But with Bill in tow, her candidacy becomes even more fraught with peril should Obama be inclined to bow to pressure and put her on the ticket.
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Barack Obama news : Hillary Clinton is her own worst enemy
Context, as in "you've taken my words out of context," is the last refuge of a politician caught with foot in mouth. That's where Hillary Clinton is today, alternately explaining and apologizing. But with both feet in her mouth, she doesn't have a leg to stand on.Gravity is the toughest opponent of all, even for a Clinton hellbent on a comeback.
Of course the meaning of words can be distorted if they are lifted from their surroundings. The problem for Clinton is that her reference to the assassination to Robert F. Kennedy is just as outlandish when everything she said before and after is taken into account.
There is no question she was citing the RFK murder of 40 years ago in the spirit of "anything can happen" and thus as a reason she should stay in the race against Barack Obama.
Which means she was thinking of murder as a momentum changer. Not a pretty thought in any context.
But the full context works against Clinton for a larger reason, too. The assassination remark is the latest evidence that her increasingly erratic campaign suffers from a severe case of split personality disorder.
One day it's a focused machine, gobbling up votes in numbers big enough to stave off Obama's nomination triumph. The next day the same machine spews out gaffes and B.S. as though it's been sabotaged.
Dr. Jekyll, meet Mr. Hyde.
Consider the last three months. Fresh off big popular vote wins in Ohio and Texas in March, she shot herself in the foot with a tall tale about coming under sniper fire during her trip to Bosnia as First Lady. Only when she became the subject of ridicule, with a videotape showing her smiling and accepting flowers from a child in Bosnia, did she confess to being wrong.
In April, her top strategist, Mark Penn, was caught working both sides of a key issue in the upcoming Pennsylvania primary. Among Penn's private clients was the government of Colombia, which was pushing for approval of a free-trade agreement at the same time Clinton was denouncing the idea. When Clinton fired him, he was her second campaign honcho to get dumped.
May brought more of the same, even before the RFK reference. The day after disappointing results in Indiana and North Carolina, she trotted out the race card, saying "Senator Obama's support among working, hardworking Americans, white Americans, is weakening again." She went on to landslide wins in West Virginia and Kentucky by tapping that very demographic.
The headline-grabbing blunders stopped her from scoring big gains against Obama, even though he was wounded by the Jeremiah Wright issue, his "bitter" comments about small-town values and growing concerns about his kumbaya foreign policy overtures. The delegate deficit is a hurdle for her, but she had a potent argument about his vulnerability in the general election.
Instead of cashing in, Clinton repeatedly stepped on her own story. And with finger-wagging Bubba piping up with frequent off-message zingers, the prospect of the restoration of the Clinton presidency has been a political wash at best.
She's now so toxic she's probably doomed any hope of being named Obama's running mate. He didn't want her to start with; now he won't have to take her.
This one matters most because the notion of Obama being assassinated has been much discussed. He is the first black candidate with a real chance to be President, and, not incidentally, received the endorsement of Ted and Caroline Kennedy, making him the symbolic heir to the Camelot legend that was twice felled by assassin bullets. She couldn't have picked a worse point.
Still, myths aside, Obama is looking weak. In addition to Clinton's pounding him in key states, President Bush and Republican nominee John McCain have taken turns using Obama as a piñata. His yes-we-can crusade has been reduced to explaining why he wants to meet personally with the leader of Iran, whose militias are killing American troops in Iraq and who pledges to wipe Israel off the map.
Obama's views on the Mideast are so muddled the appeasement label is starting to stick, but Clinton is in no position to benefit. That's the impact, full and final, of her mentioning murder in a political context.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Hillary the Evil - Hillary Clinton is staying in the race in the event some nut kills Barack Obama.
SICK. Disgusting. And yet revealing. Hillary Clinton is staying in the race in the event some nut kills Barack Obama.
It could happen, but what definitely has happened is that Clinton has killed her own chances of being vice president. She doesn't deserve to be elected dog catcher anywhere now.
Her shocking comment to a South Dakota newspaper might qualify as the dumbest thing ever said in American politics.
Her lame explanation that she brought up the 1968 assassination of Robert Kennedy because his brother Ted's illness was on her mind doesn't cut it. Not even close.
We have seen an X-ray of a very dark soul. One consumed by raw ambition to where the possible assassination of an opponent is something to ponder in a strategic way. Otherwise, why is murder on her mind?
It's like Tanya Harding's kneecapping has come to politics. Only the senator from New York has more lethal fantasies than that nutty skater.
We could have seen it coming, if only we had realized Clinton's thinking could be so cold. She has grown increasingly wild in her imagery lately, invoking everything from slavery to the political killings in Zimbabwe in making her argument for the Florida and Michigan delegations. She claimed to be the victim of sexism, despite winning the votes of white men.
But none of it was moving the nomination needle, with Obama, despite recent dents, still on course to be the victor.
So she kept digging deeper, looking for the magic button. Instead, she pushed the eject button, lifting herself right out of consideration.
Giving voice to such a vile thought is all the more horrible because fears Obama would be killed have been an undercurrent to his astonishing rise. Republican Mike Huckabee made a stupid joke about it recently. Many black Americans have talked of it, reflecting their assumption that racists would never tolerate a black President and that Obama would be taken from them.
Clinton has now fed that fear. She needs a very long vacation. And we need one from her.
Say good night, Hillary. And go away.
It could happen, but what definitely has happened is that Clinton has killed her own chances of being vice president. She doesn't deserve to be elected dog catcher anywhere now.
Her shocking comment to a South Dakota newspaper might qualify as the dumbest thing ever said in American politics.
Her lame explanation that she brought up the 1968 assassination of Robert Kennedy because his brother Ted's illness was on her mind doesn't cut it. Not even close.
We have seen an X-ray of a very dark soul. One consumed by raw ambition to where the possible assassination of an opponent is something to ponder in a strategic way. Otherwise, why is murder on her mind?
It's like Tanya Harding's kneecapping has come to politics. Only the senator from New York has more lethal fantasies than that nutty skater.
We could have seen it coming, if only we had realized Clinton's thinking could be so cold. She has grown increasingly wild in her imagery lately, invoking everything from slavery to the political killings in Zimbabwe in making her argument for the Florida and Michigan delegations. She claimed to be the victim of sexism, despite winning the votes of white men.
But none of it was moving the nomination needle, with Obama, despite recent dents, still on course to be the victor.
So she kept digging deeper, looking for the magic button. Instead, she pushed the eject button, lifting herself right out of consideration.
Giving voice to such a vile thought is all the more horrible because fears Obama would be killed have been an undercurrent to his astonishing rise. Republican Mike Huckabee made a stupid joke about it recently. Many black Americans have talked of it, reflecting their assumption that racists would never tolerate a black President and that Obama would be taken from them.
Clinton has now fed that fear. She needs a very long vacation. And we need one from her.
Say good night, Hillary. And go away.
barack obama news: Voters just don't trust Hillary
Is Hillary Clinton the victim of a Vast Misogynist Conspiracy? Have her efforts to breach the ultimate glass ceiling in the world's labour market been destroyed - as in the end we're told all women's efforts inevitably are destroyed - by a lethal combination of sneering chauvinism and locker-room clubbiness?
To the cynics this US presidential election was always going to be a race to the bottom between racism and sexism. As the Democratic party continues to writhe through the final agonies of Senator Clinton's collapsing ambitions, her people think they know the real winner. They are muttering angrily that she is the most high-profile victim yet of sexual discrimination in the workplace. A favourite theme among them now is that Mrs Clinton is a kind of sacrificial figure: the woman who so obviously should have won the presidency but was denied by woman-hatred, the one whose efforts were not enough to conquer the legions of male bigots but whose sacrifice has made it possible for future women to scale the mountaintop. Henceforth, as it were, all generations shall call her blessed.
Before ascribing this sentiment to a particularly powerful case of sore loser syndrome, we ought to acknowledge that it surely has a little merit. There are things that are said all the time about Mrs Clinton's manner, her speaking style, assumptions that are made about her motivations, even the vocabulary in which she is described, that are, shall we say, certainly gender-specific. The cultural allusions played out with tired regularity to describe her campaigning style conjure the worst female images that lurk in the darkest corners of the male brain. She's Lady Macbeth and The White Queen and Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction rolled into one.
And yet, are we truly expected to believe this is why Democratic voters have rejected her? I've no doubt that there are still some men who physically recoil at the thought of a woman in a powerful job but do people really think that there were not other - good - reasons for denying Senator Clinton her prize?
In the end the beauty of the “We only lost because people are sexist/racist/homophobic/stupid” argument is that it can't really be rebutted. The only way to deal with it is to explain patiently and with great understanding that there were valid reasons why millions of intelligent, thoughtful and tolerant Americans decided to run a million miles from the idea that this woman - this woman - should become the most powerful person on the planet.
The principal reason voters give for not liking Senator Clinton is that they don't trust her, that they sense that someone who would do or say anything to get elected is not someone who should be entrusted with the presidency. If anything has been demonstrated in the two long years in which she has been actively campaigning for the presidency, it is how right they are.
As she ratchets up her final efforts to wrest the nomination from Barack Obama's grasp, she has finally cut herself free from the frayed moorings that connected her campaign with honesty and reality. This week, as Senator Obama moved closer to securing a majority of delegates needed for the Democratic nomination, she was insisting with more urgency than ever that the votes cast in Michigan and Florida must be counted.
These states, you'll recall, broke the Democratic Party's rules and went ahead with their primaries earlier than they were supposed to. As a result the Democratic Party - not the Republicans, or the Supreme Court or the Bush Administration - decided to disqualify those states from the process. In Michigan, Senator Obama was not even on the ballot papers, yet now Senator Clinton not only insists those votes must count towards the final vote totals, but says it would be a terrible denial of Americans' civil rights if they did not.
She compared her effort to overturn the decision not only to Al Gore's controversial defeat in Florida in a disputed recount in 2000, but to the victims of tyranny throughout history - from enslaved blacks in pre-Civil War America to the cheated voters in the election in March in Zimbabwe.
This is, truly, disturbing. It matters not whether it is a man or a woman saying it. It is not only hyperbolic and cynical. It is inflammatory nonsense. But it is at least of a piece with her increasingly desperate struggle.
Mrs Clinton has received much credit for the fighting posture she has adopted of late. She has found her voice, it is said, as she fights to win votes in the remaining primary states among predominantly low-income, white voters. Yet what is this voice? It is a voice that explicitly appeals to white working-class solidarity and implicitly suggests that people outside that demographic cannot be president. It plays on the worst populist instincts of Americans, issuing threats to obliterate Iran and attacking the Chinese for poisoning Americans with toxic toys.
To see how completely Senator Clinton has changed in the course of her campaign, we have only to consider how the Democratic race was viewed two years ago as it got under way. Back then, when Mr Obama's campaign was merely a twinkle in his own eye, the question on Democrats' lips was: who could possibly beat Hillary? The assumption was that Senator Clinton would be the candidate of the elite, liberal, progressive types and African-Americans who in the end, as it turned out, flocked to Mr Obama.
Her problem, it was assumed back then, was that she would not be able to appeal to the white working class with its more conservative instincts and values. And so the discussion about potential rivals revolved around candidates who might appeal to those voters - Mark Warner, the former Governor of Virginia, John Edwards, the former senator from North Carolina. Instead, Senator Obama became her main rival and outflanked her on the Left and outranked her among the progressives. So with barely a change of step, she pivoted and turned herself into the candidate of the hardworking ordinary Americans.
Now, there is much talk that if Mrs Clinton cannot be president she must be Mr Obama's vice-presidential nominee. But in her most recent speeches and actions she has surely demonstrated how dangerously unfit she would be. It would not be sexism or chauvinism but the clear-headed decision of a wise statesman, if Senator Obama brought this particular woman's presidential hopes to an unmourned end.
To the cynics this US presidential election was always going to be a race to the bottom between racism and sexism. As the Democratic party continues to writhe through the final agonies of Senator Clinton's collapsing ambitions, her people think they know the real winner. They are muttering angrily that she is the most high-profile victim yet of sexual discrimination in the workplace. A favourite theme among them now is that Mrs Clinton is a kind of sacrificial figure: the woman who so obviously should have won the presidency but was denied by woman-hatred, the one whose efforts were not enough to conquer the legions of male bigots but whose sacrifice has made it possible for future women to scale the mountaintop. Henceforth, as it were, all generations shall call her blessed.
Before ascribing this sentiment to a particularly powerful case of sore loser syndrome, we ought to acknowledge that it surely has a little merit. There are things that are said all the time about Mrs Clinton's manner, her speaking style, assumptions that are made about her motivations, even the vocabulary in which she is described, that are, shall we say, certainly gender-specific. The cultural allusions played out with tired regularity to describe her campaigning style conjure the worst female images that lurk in the darkest corners of the male brain. She's Lady Macbeth and The White Queen and Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction rolled into one.
And yet, are we truly expected to believe this is why Democratic voters have rejected her? I've no doubt that there are still some men who physically recoil at the thought of a woman in a powerful job but do people really think that there were not other - good - reasons for denying Senator Clinton her prize?
In the end the beauty of the “We only lost because people are sexist/racist/homophobic/stupid” argument is that it can't really be rebutted. The only way to deal with it is to explain patiently and with great understanding that there were valid reasons why millions of intelligent, thoughtful and tolerant Americans decided to run a million miles from the idea that this woman - this woman - should become the most powerful person on the planet.
The principal reason voters give for not liking Senator Clinton is that they don't trust her, that they sense that someone who would do or say anything to get elected is not someone who should be entrusted with the presidency. If anything has been demonstrated in the two long years in which she has been actively campaigning for the presidency, it is how right they are.
As she ratchets up her final efforts to wrest the nomination from Barack Obama's grasp, she has finally cut herself free from the frayed moorings that connected her campaign with honesty and reality. This week, as Senator Obama moved closer to securing a majority of delegates needed for the Democratic nomination, she was insisting with more urgency than ever that the votes cast in Michigan and Florida must be counted.
These states, you'll recall, broke the Democratic Party's rules and went ahead with their primaries earlier than they were supposed to. As a result the Democratic Party - not the Republicans, or the Supreme Court or the Bush Administration - decided to disqualify those states from the process. In Michigan, Senator Obama was not even on the ballot papers, yet now Senator Clinton not only insists those votes must count towards the final vote totals, but says it would be a terrible denial of Americans' civil rights if they did not.
She compared her effort to overturn the decision not only to Al Gore's controversial defeat in Florida in a disputed recount in 2000, but to the victims of tyranny throughout history - from enslaved blacks in pre-Civil War America to the cheated voters in the election in March in Zimbabwe.
This is, truly, disturbing. It matters not whether it is a man or a woman saying it. It is not only hyperbolic and cynical. It is inflammatory nonsense. But it is at least of a piece with her increasingly desperate struggle.
Mrs Clinton has received much credit for the fighting posture she has adopted of late. She has found her voice, it is said, as she fights to win votes in the remaining primary states among predominantly low-income, white voters. Yet what is this voice? It is a voice that explicitly appeals to white working-class solidarity and implicitly suggests that people outside that demographic cannot be president. It plays on the worst populist instincts of Americans, issuing threats to obliterate Iran and attacking the Chinese for poisoning Americans with toxic toys.
To see how completely Senator Clinton has changed in the course of her campaign, we have only to consider how the Democratic race was viewed two years ago as it got under way. Back then, when Mr Obama's campaign was merely a twinkle in his own eye, the question on Democrats' lips was: who could possibly beat Hillary? The assumption was that Senator Clinton would be the candidate of the elite, liberal, progressive types and African-Americans who in the end, as it turned out, flocked to Mr Obama.
Her problem, it was assumed back then, was that she would not be able to appeal to the white working class with its more conservative instincts and values. And so the discussion about potential rivals revolved around candidates who might appeal to those voters - Mark Warner, the former Governor of Virginia, John Edwards, the former senator from North Carolina. Instead, Senator Obama became her main rival and outflanked her on the Left and outranked her among the progressives. So with barely a change of step, she pivoted and turned herself into the candidate of the hardworking ordinary Americans.
Now, there is much talk that if Mrs Clinton cannot be president she must be Mr Obama's vice-presidential nominee. But in her most recent speeches and actions she has surely demonstrated how dangerously unfit she would be. It would not be sexism or chauvinism but the clear-headed decision of a wise statesman, if Senator Obama brought this particular woman's presidential hopes to an unmourned end.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Obama wins Oregon - Clinton Takes KY. - Latest Obama news
Barack Obama took a long stride toward history Tuesday, capturing a majority of pledged delegates to the Democratic convention even as he lost Kentucky by a wide margin to Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Obama's big win in Oregon, combined with a share of Kentucky delegates, left him fewer than 100 shy of the 2,026 delegates needed to clinch the party's presidential nomination.
But Obama -- vying to become the first African American to head a major-party ticket -- staked no claim to the nomination, and Clinton showed no sign of standing down.
Instead, Obama celebrated the delegate milestone -- important both psychologically and mathematically -- with a Tuesday-night stop in Iowa, traveling full circle to the state where his candidacy took off with a win in the caucuses that began the nominating fight.
Standing in front of the gold-domed state Capitol, which glowed in the darkness, Obama declared: "Tonight, in the fullness of spring, with the help of those who stood up from Portland to Louisville, we have returned to Iowa with a majority of delegates elected by the American people, and you have put us within reach of the Democratic nomination for president of the United States."
He offered a salute to Clinton -- "one of the most formidable candidates to ever run for this office" -- and urged Democrats to unify once the contentious nominating season had ended. "While our primary has been long and hard-fought," Obama said, "the hardest and most important part of our journey still lies ahead."
Clinton, appearing before cheering supporters in Louisville, Ky., reiterated her intention to keep running at least until the final primaries were held June 3. Describing the contest as "one of the closest races for a party's nomination in modern history," Clinton said she was "more determined than ever to see that every vote is cast and every ballot counted."
But the New York senator commended Obama and called for a cessation of hostilities after the nomination is settled. "While we continue to go toe-to-toe for this nation, we do see eye-to-eye when it comes to uniting our party when it comes to electing a Democratic president," Clinton said.
She defeated Obama 65% to 30% in Kentucky. Obama was leading 58% to 42% in Oregon, with about half of the returns counted.
Each state was suited to the candidates' respective strengths. Kentucky is heavily rural, white and filled with the kind of working-class Democrats who have strongly favored Clinton throughout the nominating fight. Oregon is home to large numbers of independent-minded, highly educated and more-affluent Democrats, the sort who have embraced Obama in large numbers. Tuesday's voter surveys showed that pattern repeating itself.
But the vote totals and demographics were less significant than the delegate math, which gave Obama 1,949 delegates to Clinton's 1,769 in incomplete returns, according to the Associated Press. It takes 2,026 delegates to clinch the nomination at the Democrats' August convention in Denver. The party has two kinds of delegates: pledged, or those awarded through primaries and caucuses, and so-called superdelegates, who are free to support whomever they choose.
Increasingly, these last primaries seem like an afterthought as Obama turns his focus to the general election against Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona. The two spent the last week sparring long-distance over foreign policy, Social Security and the influence of Washington special interests.
At the same time, the Democratic Party began to coalesce around the Illinois senator. A day after Clinton won West Virginia in a 41-percentage-point landslide, Obama picked up the endorsement of erstwhile rival John Edwards as well as the abortion-rights group NARAL Pro-Choice America.
For her part, Clinton has scaled back her criticisms of Obama on the stump and pulled the plug on TV ads criticizing her rival. But that does not mean surrender. Today, she plans to campaign in Florida, a trip she scheduled after Obama announced his intention to spend the next three days in the Sunshine State.
The trip is driven by a simple calculation: Clinton's faint hopes of winning the nomination largely depends on seating the delegates from Florida and Michigan. Clinton won the popular vote in both states, though neither seriously competed and Obama removed his name from the Michigan ballot. The Democrats' Rules and Bylaws Committee will meet May 31 to discuss whether to seat delegates from the two states, which broke party rules by scheduling their primaries too early.
The Clinton campaign hopes to shave Obama's lead to fewer than 100 delegates by June 3, at which point she would argue to superdelegates -- members of Congress and other party insiders -- that she would be the stronger general election candidate. There are about 175 uncommitted superdelegates remaining, though any of the 800 or so could switch sides at any time.
One Clinton aide, granted anonymity because he is not authorized to speak for the campaign, said: "I don't want to sound naive or foolish, but if she's willing to play this out for two weeks to see where she gets . . . then those of us who believe she'd be a better candidate in the fall don't want to give up too soon."
Three contests remain: Puerto Rico on June 1 and Montana and South Dakota on June 3. Together, they offer 86 pledged delegates.
Obama's big win in Oregon, combined with a share of Kentucky delegates, left him fewer than 100 shy of the 2,026 delegates needed to clinch the party's presidential nomination.
But Obama -- vying to become the first African American to head a major-party ticket -- staked no claim to the nomination, and Clinton showed no sign of standing down.
Instead, Obama celebrated the delegate milestone -- important both psychologically and mathematically -- with a Tuesday-night stop in Iowa, traveling full circle to the state where his candidacy took off with a win in the caucuses that began the nominating fight.
Standing in front of the gold-domed state Capitol, which glowed in the darkness, Obama declared: "Tonight, in the fullness of spring, with the help of those who stood up from Portland to Louisville, we have returned to Iowa with a majority of delegates elected by the American people, and you have put us within reach of the Democratic nomination for president of the United States."
He offered a salute to Clinton -- "one of the most formidable candidates to ever run for this office" -- and urged Democrats to unify once the contentious nominating season had ended. "While our primary has been long and hard-fought," Obama said, "the hardest and most important part of our journey still lies ahead."
Clinton, appearing before cheering supporters in Louisville, Ky., reiterated her intention to keep running at least until the final primaries were held June 3. Describing the contest as "one of the closest races for a party's nomination in modern history," Clinton said she was "more determined than ever to see that every vote is cast and every ballot counted."
But the New York senator commended Obama and called for a cessation of hostilities after the nomination is settled. "While we continue to go toe-to-toe for this nation, we do see eye-to-eye when it comes to uniting our party when it comes to electing a Democratic president," Clinton said.
She defeated Obama 65% to 30% in Kentucky. Obama was leading 58% to 42% in Oregon, with about half of the returns counted.
Each state was suited to the candidates' respective strengths. Kentucky is heavily rural, white and filled with the kind of working-class Democrats who have strongly favored Clinton throughout the nominating fight. Oregon is home to large numbers of independent-minded, highly educated and more-affluent Democrats, the sort who have embraced Obama in large numbers. Tuesday's voter surveys showed that pattern repeating itself.
But the vote totals and demographics were less significant than the delegate math, which gave Obama 1,949 delegates to Clinton's 1,769 in incomplete returns, according to the Associated Press. It takes 2,026 delegates to clinch the nomination at the Democrats' August convention in Denver. The party has two kinds of delegates: pledged, or those awarded through primaries and caucuses, and so-called superdelegates, who are free to support whomever they choose.
Increasingly, these last primaries seem like an afterthought as Obama turns his focus to the general election against Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona. The two spent the last week sparring long-distance over foreign policy, Social Security and the influence of Washington special interests.
At the same time, the Democratic Party began to coalesce around the Illinois senator. A day after Clinton won West Virginia in a 41-percentage-point landslide, Obama picked up the endorsement of erstwhile rival John Edwards as well as the abortion-rights group NARAL Pro-Choice America.
For her part, Clinton has scaled back her criticisms of Obama on the stump and pulled the plug on TV ads criticizing her rival. But that does not mean surrender. Today, she plans to campaign in Florida, a trip she scheduled after Obama announced his intention to spend the next three days in the Sunshine State.
The trip is driven by a simple calculation: Clinton's faint hopes of winning the nomination largely depends on seating the delegates from Florida and Michigan. Clinton won the popular vote in both states, though neither seriously competed and Obama removed his name from the Michigan ballot. The Democrats' Rules and Bylaws Committee will meet May 31 to discuss whether to seat delegates from the two states, which broke party rules by scheduling their primaries too early.
The Clinton campaign hopes to shave Obama's lead to fewer than 100 delegates by June 3, at which point she would argue to superdelegates -- members of Congress and other party insiders -- that she would be the stronger general election candidate. There are about 175 uncommitted superdelegates remaining, though any of the 800 or so could switch sides at any time.
One Clinton aide, granted anonymity because he is not authorized to speak for the campaign, said: "I don't want to sound naive or foolish, but if she's willing to play this out for two weeks to see where she gets . . . then those of us who believe she'd be a better candidate in the fall don't want to give up too soon."
Three contests remain: Puerto Rico on June 1 and Montana and South Dakota on June 3. Together, they offer 86 pledged delegates.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Obama rops in 8 Edwards delegates
At least six of John Edwards' pledged delegates in South Carolina will throw their support to Barack Obama following Edwards’ endorsement of the Democratic frontrunner, bringing the total number of delegates switching to Obama on Thursday to eight.
One Edwards delegate from Iowa, Machelle Crum, came out for Obama on Thursday morning, as did New Hampshire delegate Joshua Denton. Crum made the decision after receiving a phone call from Edwards supporters encouraging her to make the switch.
In South Carolina, Daniel Boan, Christine Brennan-Bond, Robert Groce, Susan Smith, Mike Evatt and Lauren Bilton — all elected as pledged delegates for Edwards following his third place finish in the primary there on January 29 — announced Thursday they will follow Edwards’ lead and pledge their support to Obama at the Democratic National Convention in August.
John Moylan, the Columbia attorney who directed Edwards’ campaign in the state and is now serving as an alternate delegate for Edwards, appeared on CNN’s “American Morning” Thursday. He stated his support for Obama and hinted that more members of the Edwards delegation would follow later in the day.
“I didn't reach all eight of them, but I can tell you that at least six of the eight are prepared to endorse Senator Obama,” Moylan said this morning.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
How best to punish Hillary Clinton - Options for Barack Obama
After 15 months of fighting her off, as she veered wildly from bully to victim, as she brandished any ice pick at hand, whether racial, sexual, mathematical or marital (in the form of her Vesuvian husband), Obama must decide the most efficacious means of doing to Hillary what she has been trying to do to him: putting her in her place.
Her last resort is to continue to press the “Psssst — he’s a black man” tactic. She insisted to USAToday, after the North Carolina and Indiana slide, that she has a broader base, citing an Associated Press article “that found how Senator Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.”
So how does Obama repay Hillary for running a campaign designed both to unman him and brand him as an unelectable black? Is the most ingenious way to turn the screw by not choosing her as his running mate, or by choosing her?
It is, verily, a sticky wicket.
One top Hillary supporter who is black warns that, despite the giddy dreams of some punch-drunk Democrats, a fusion ticket could backfire because “Americans can’t handle too much change at once.”
But should Obama ignore that caution and appease Hillary fans by putting her on the ticket?
As president, he could announce that, because Dick Cheney abused the powers of his office so grievously, taking the title “Vice” literally, he intends to shrink the vice presidency back to its “bucket of warm spit” Constitutional prerogatives — presiding over the Senate and taking over if the president goes under anesthesia.
He might also neglect to give Bill (whose acronym would be SLOTUS, Second Lad of the United States) full White House access.
Aside from the delight Bill would get from living at the Naval Observatory and having a huge telescope to window-peep with, there wouldn’t be much joy in Hillaryland.
The lady-in-waiting would be surrounded by Obama disciples who disdained her for fighting dirty. And she would be miserable holding up the train of the young prince who usurped her dream, derailing the post-nup she had with Bill to trade places.
As de facto veep for Bill, she had enough leverage over him, due to his shenanigans, to co-opt huge chunks of policy and personnel decisions.
But in a return engagement with Obama at the top, could she really wake up every day in the back seat and wish him well, or would she just be plotting? (Fourteen vice presidents have ascended, after all.) Wouldn’t she be, in Monty Python parlance, the Trojan Rabbit behind the gates?
On a positive note, maybe she could bring back all that stuff she pilfered on her way out.
Obama’s other option, laid out by Teddy Kennedy on Friday, is to go with someone who wouldn’t be a big dark cloud over his sunshiny new politics.
Teddy told Bloomberg’s Al Hunt that Obama should choose a partner “in tune with his appeal for the nobler aspirations of the American people.”
That would be smart for another reason: Hillary has a strange, unnerving effect on Obama, and whenever he is around her, he’s unable to do his best. Probably, it’s because she’s furious, always shaking his hand off her arm, ignoring him, giving him the evil eye and emasculating him, and the Golden One is not used to such rough treatment.
In the last few days, as Hillary has deflated and Obama and the Democrats have dashed for daylight, he has been more like his old self, flashing his all-is-right-with-the-world smile on the cover of Time, joshing and charming Democrats and Republicans as he wooed superdelegates on the House floor, taking on James Carville for insulting his manhood.
“James Carville is well known for spouting off his mouth without always knowing what he’s talking about,” he told Terry Moran on “Nightline.”
Obama will never be at his best around Hillary; she drains him of his magical powers. She’s Jane Jinx to him. It’s a similar syndrome to the one Katharine Hepburn’s star athlete and her supercilious fiancé have in “Pat and Mike.”
The fiancé is always belittling Hepburn, so whenever he’s in the stands, her tennis and golf go kerflooey. Finally, her manager, played by Spencer Tracy, asks the fiancé to stay away from big matches, explaining, “You are the wrong jockey for this chick.”
“You know, except when you’re around, we got a very valuable piece of property here,” he says, later adding, “When you’re around, she’s no good, she’s dead, see?”
The best way Obama can punish Hillary is to reward himself. He’s no good around her, see?
Edwards slaps Hillary over racial comments
Former Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards said Sunday that Hillary Rodham Clinton probably didn't choose her words carefully when she suggested Barack Obama was losing the white vote.
Edwards also hedged on whether he might still endorse one of his former rivals, but said he thinks Obama will be the nominee. He cautioned that in Clinton's continued push for the nomination, she "has to be really careful" not to damage the Democratic Party's prospects in November.
"I know how hard it is to get up and go out there every day, speak to the media, speak to crowds, when people are urging you to get out of the race. I mean, it's a very hard place to be in. But she's shown a lot of strength about that," said Edwards, a former North Carolina senator who dropped out of the race in January.
"But I think the one thing that she has to be careful about ... going forward, is that, if she makes the case for herself, which she's completely entitled to do, she has to be really careful that she's not damaging our prospects, the Democratic Party, and our cause, for the fall," he said in a taped interview broadcast on CBS' "Face the Nation."
Clinton pledged to stay in the race after losing to Obama by a wide margin in North Carolina and barely winning in Indiana, which cemented his status as the front-runner. She touts her overall electability in a general election and, pointing to demographics, she recently told USA Today in an interview:
"There was just an AP article posted that found how Senator Obama's support among working — hardworking Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how the, you know, whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."
Some accused Clinton of reintroducing race into the campaign. Edwards seemed to give her a pass.
"She's in a very tough, very competitive race that's been going on a long, long time. And you know, she didn't probably — I'm sure she feels like she didn't choose her words very well there," he said.
"What I think is, at the end of the day, when this is over — and I think it is likely, certainly, at this point, that Senator Obama will be the nominee — that the Democrats will unite. We'll all be behind our nominee. And we'll be out there campaigning our hearts out," Edwards said.
David Axelrod, Obama's chief campaign strategist, disputed Clinton's assertion.
Axelrod said Obama and Clinton split Indiana voters who make $50,000 a year or less, and that Obama performed better among non-college-educated voters there. He said the same was true in North Carolina.
"The words weren't well chosen, but the thesis was wrong," Axeldrod said on "Fox News Sunday.
Meanwhile, on the subject of an endorsement, Edwards said he "might" still, but "I don't think it's a big deal, to be honest with you."
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Hillary's five big mistakes or how Obama outplayed her.
For all her talk about "full speed on to the White House," there was an unmistakably elegiac tone to Hillary Clinton's primary-night speech in Indianapolis. And if one needed further confirmation that the undaunted, never-say-die Clintons realize their bid might be at an end, all it took was a look at the wistful faces of the husband and the daughter who stood behind the candidate as she talked of all the people she has met in a journey "that has been a blessing for me."
It was also a journey she had begun with what appeared to be insurmountable advantages, which evaporated one by one as the campaign dragged on far longer than anyone could have anticipated. She made at least five big mistakes, each of which compounded the others:
It was also a journey she had begun with what appeared to be insurmountable advantages, which evaporated one by one as the campaign dragged on far longer than anyone could have anticipated. She made at least five big mistakes, each of which compounded the others:
1. She misjudged the mood
That was probably her biggest blunder. In a cycle that has been all about change, Clinton chose an incumbent's strategy, running on experience, preparedness, inevitability — and the power of the strongest brand name in Democratic politics. It made sense, given who she is and the additional doubts that some voters might have about making a woman Commander in Chief. But in putting her focus on positioning herself to win the general election in November, Clinton completely misread the mood of Democratic-primary voters, who were desperate to turn the page. "Being the consummate Washington insider is not where you want to be in a year when people want change," says Barack Obama's chief strategist, David Axelrod. Clinton's "initial strategic positioning was wrong and kind of played into our hands." But other miscalculations made it worse:
2. She didn't master the rules
Clinton picked people for her team primarily for their loyalty to her, instead of their mastery of the game. That became abundantly clear in a strategy session last year, according to two people who were there. As aides looked over the campaign calendar, chief strategist Mark Penn confidently predicted that an early win in California would put her over the top because she would pick up all the state's 370 delegates. It sounded smart, but as every high school civics student now knows, Penn was wrong: Democrats, unlike the Republicans, apportion their delegates according to vote totals, rather than allowing any state to award them winner-take-all. Sitting nearby, veteran Democratic insider Harold M. Ickes, who had helped write those rules, was horrified — and let Penn know it. "How can it possibly be," Ickes asked, "that the much vaunted chief strategist doesn't understand proportional allocation?" And yet the strategy remained the same, with the campaign making its bet on big-state victories. Even now, it can seem as if they don't get it. Both Bill and Hillary have noted plaintively that if Democrats had the same winner-take-all rules as Republicans, she'd be the nominee. Meanwhile, the Clinton campaign now acknowledges privately:
3. She underestimated the caucus states
While Clinton based her strategy on the big contests, she seemed to virtually overlook states like Minnesota, Nebraska and Kansas, which choose their delegates through caucuses. She had a reason: the Clintons decided, says an adviser, that "caucus states were not really their thing." Her core supporters — women, the elderly, those with blue-collar jobs — were less likely to be able to commit an evening of the week, as the process requires. But it was a little like unilateral disarmament in states worth 12% of the pledged delegates. Indeed, it was in the caucus states that Obama piled up his lead among pledged delegates. "For all the talent and the money they had over there," says Axelrod, "they — bewilderingly — seemed to have little understanding for the caucuses and how important they would become."
By the time Clinton's lieutenants realized the grave nature of their error, they lacked the resources to do anything about it — in part because:
4. She relied on old money
For a decade or more, the Clintons set the standard for political fund raising in the Democratic Party, and nearly all Bill's old donors had re-upped for Hillary's bid. Her 2006 Senate campaign had raised an astonishing $51.6 million against token opposition, in what everyone assumed was merely a dry run for a far bigger contest. But something had happened to fund raising that Team Clinton didn't fully grasp: the Internet. Though Clinton's totals from working the shrimp-cocktail circuit remained impressive by every historic measure, her donors were typically big-check writers. And once they had ponied up the $2,300 allowed by law, they were forbidden to give more. The once bottomless Clinton well was drying up.
Obama relied instead on a different model: the 800,000-plus people who had signed up on his website and could continue sending money his way $5, $10 and $50 at a time. (The campaign has raised more than $100 million online, better than half its total.) Meanwhile, the Clintons were forced to tap the $100 million — plus the fortune they had acquired since he left the White House — first for $5 million in January to make it to Super Tuesday and then $6.4 million to get her through Indiana and North Carolina. And that reflects one final mistake:
5. She never counted on a long haul
Clinton's strategy had been premised on delivering a knockout blow early. If she could win Iowa, she believed, the race would be over. Clinton spent lavishly there yet finished a disappointing third. What surprised the Obama forces was how long it took her campaign to retool. She fought him to a tie in the Feb. 5 Super Tuesday contests but didn't have any troops in place for the states that followed. Obama, on the other hand, was a train running hard on two or three tracks. Whatever the Chicago headquarters was unveiling to win immediate contests, it always had a separate operation setting up organizations in the states that were next. As far back as Feb. 21, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe was spotted in Raleigh, N.C. He told the News & Observer that the state's primary, then more than 10 weeks away, "could end up being very important in the nomination fight." At the time, the idea seemed laughable.
Now, of course, the question seems not whether Clinton will exit the race but when. She continues to load her schedule with campaign stops, even as calls for her to concede grow louder. But the voice she is listening to now is the one inside her head, explains a longtime aide. Clinton's calculation is as much about history as it is about politics. As the first woman to have come this far, Clinton has told those close to her, she wants people who invested their hopes in her to see that she has given it her best. And then? As she said in Indianapolis, "No matter what happens, I will work for the nominee of the Democratic Party because we must win in November." When the task at hand is healing divisions in the Democratic Party, the loser can have as much influence as the winner.
Clinton may be the possible running mate of Barack Obama
Barack Obama on Thursday did not rule out selecting rival Hillary Clinton as his vice presidential running mate if he ultimately defeats her in a race in which he has an almost insurmountable lead.
"There's no doubt that she's qualified to be vice president, there's no doubt she's qualified to be president," Obama told NBC News.
In a CNN interview, he said he had not wrapped up the Democratic presidential nomination, but when he does, he will start going through the process of selecting a running mate.
"She is tireless, she is smart. She is capable. And so obviously she'd be on anybody's short list to be a potential vice presidential candidate," said Obama, who inched closer to winning the nomination by routing Clinton in North Carolina and almost defeating her in Indiana on Tuesday.
Some Democrats are saying Obama and Clinton would be a formidable team against Republican John McCain in the race to the November election.
According to a CBS News/New York Times poll released last week, a majority of both Obama and Clinton voters say they would favor a so-called "Dream Ticket" involving both candidates.
The Clinton campaign has deflected such talk. Clinton campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson told reporters on Wednesday that it was premature to discuss such a ticket and he had not heard her express any interest in the vice presidency.
"There's no doubt that she's qualified to be vice president, there's no doubt she's qualified to be president," Obama told NBC News.
In a CNN interview, he said he had not wrapped up the Democratic presidential nomination, but when he does, he will start going through the process of selecting a running mate.
"She is tireless, she is smart. She is capable. And so obviously she'd be on anybody's short list to be a potential vice presidential candidate," said Obama, who inched closer to winning the nomination by routing Clinton in North Carolina and almost defeating her in Indiana on Tuesday.
Some Democrats are saying Obama and Clinton would be a formidable team against Republican John McCain in the race to the November election.
According to a CBS News/New York Times poll released last week, a majority of both Obama and Clinton voters say they would favor a so-called "Dream Ticket" involving both candidates.
The Clinton campaign has deflected such talk. Clinton campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson told reporters on Wednesday that it was premature to discuss such a ticket and he had not heard her express any interest in the vice presidency.
Hillary Clinton eyes 2012 ticket by degrading Obama
Why Hillary contnues to fight?? It is because she's eyeing the 2012 ticket by the destruction of Obama in this election.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) is staying in the presidential race despite losing among elected delegates, facing a slimming lead among superdelegates, losing the popular vote and behind by 2-to-1 in the number of states carried. She slogs on, hoping against hope for a sudden turnaround in the race.
Apart from the psychological reasons for her stubbornness, is there a more subtle political calculation going on?
Is she continuing her race so as to have a platform from which to continue to bash Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) in the hopes of so damaging him that he can’t win the general election? Is she doing this to keep her options alive for the 2012 presidential race?
Hillary is obviously entitled to keep running until Obama has secured the votes necessary for the nomination, and it is certainly understandable that she would want to run until the last popular vote is counted. But must she run a negative, slash-and-burn campaign? Must she use her time on the platform and on television to belittle, mock, deride and try to destroy the man who will eventually be the candidate of her own party?
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) felt similarly justified in staying in the race for the Republican nomination until Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) reached the majority threshold required for nomination. He contested the Texas primary vigorously, even though his earlier losses in South Carolina and Florida made it most unlikely that he could win the nomination. But he chose to run a positive campaign. He didn’t knock McCain. He just articulated the case for his own candidacy.
But Hillary won’t avail herself of that option because it does not serve her long-term fallback position: a shot at the nomination in 2012. If Obama is elected this year, he will seek reelection in 2012 and Hillary would have to face taking on an incumbent in a primary in her own party if she wanted to run, a daunting task. But if McCain wins, the nomination in 2012 will be open. And it might be worth having. McCain will be 76 years old and the Republican Party will have been in power for 12 years. Not since FDR and Truman has a party lasted that long in power. When the Republicans tried to do so, in 1980 and 1992, they fell flat on their face.
Hillary is using white, blue-collar fears of Barack Obama to try to stop him from getting nominated or elected.
She is playing on his “elitism” by hammering him on blue-collar issues and is mincing no words in painting him as a stranger to blue-collar white America.
Hillary is attracting the votes of cops, firefighters, construction workers, union members. Are they in love with Hillary? They can’t stand her. But they are terrified of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers and the various influences to which Obama seems to be subject. By playing on those fears, Hillary is undermining Obama’s ability to get elected.
This is not a byproduct of her continued candidacy — it is the goal. She, the consummate realist, must know that she has no practical shot at the nomination herself after her numbing loss in North Carolina and her paper-thin margin in Indiana. But she welcomes the opportunity an ongoing candidacy offers to bash Obama and to drive a wedge between him and the voters he must have to beat McCain.
The question is how long Democratic primary voters and the party leadership let her go on hitting their ultimate nominee. Will they bring Hillary up short and speak out about the harm she is doing to their party’s prospects by way of her refusal to recognize reality?
Hillary doesn’t have to pull out. She is entitled to run in the remaining states. But she should curtail her negative campaign and adopt the Huckabee strategy: Maximize your own vote share, but don’t beat up the party’s nominee. Unless, of course, that is her goal all along.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) is staying in the presidential race despite losing among elected delegates, facing a slimming lead among superdelegates, losing the popular vote and behind by 2-to-1 in the number of states carried. She slogs on, hoping against hope for a sudden turnaround in the race.
Apart from the psychological reasons for her stubbornness, is there a more subtle political calculation going on?
Is she continuing her race so as to have a platform from which to continue to bash Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) in the hopes of so damaging him that he can’t win the general election? Is she doing this to keep her options alive for the 2012 presidential race?
Hillary is obviously entitled to keep running until Obama has secured the votes necessary for the nomination, and it is certainly understandable that she would want to run until the last popular vote is counted. But must she run a negative, slash-and-burn campaign? Must she use her time on the platform and on television to belittle, mock, deride and try to destroy the man who will eventually be the candidate of her own party?
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) felt similarly justified in staying in the race for the Republican nomination until Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) reached the majority threshold required for nomination. He contested the Texas primary vigorously, even though his earlier losses in South Carolina and Florida made it most unlikely that he could win the nomination. But he chose to run a positive campaign. He didn’t knock McCain. He just articulated the case for his own candidacy.
But Hillary won’t avail herself of that option because it does not serve her long-term fallback position: a shot at the nomination in 2012. If Obama is elected this year, he will seek reelection in 2012 and Hillary would have to face taking on an incumbent in a primary in her own party if she wanted to run, a daunting task. But if McCain wins, the nomination in 2012 will be open. And it might be worth having. McCain will be 76 years old and the Republican Party will have been in power for 12 years. Not since FDR and Truman has a party lasted that long in power. When the Republicans tried to do so, in 1980 and 1992, they fell flat on their face.
Hillary is using white, blue-collar fears of Barack Obama to try to stop him from getting nominated or elected.
She is playing on his “elitism” by hammering him on blue-collar issues and is mincing no words in painting him as a stranger to blue-collar white America.
Hillary is attracting the votes of cops, firefighters, construction workers, union members. Are they in love with Hillary? They can’t stand her. But they are terrified of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers and the various influences to which Obama seems to be subject. By playing on those fears, Hillary is undermining Obama’s ability to get elected.
This is not a byproduct of her continued candidacy — it is the goal. She, the consummate realist, must know that she has no practical shot at the nomination herself after her numbing loss in North Carolina and her paper-thin margin in Indiana. But she welcomes the opportunity an ongoing candidacy offers to bash Obama and to drive a wedge between him and the voters he must have to beat McCain.
The question is how long Democratic primary voters and the party leadership let her go on hitting their ultimate nominee. Will they bring Hillary up short and speak out about the harm she is doing to their party’s prospects by way of her refusal to recognize reality?
Hillary doesn’t have to pull out. She is entitled to run in the remaining states. But she should curtail her negative campaign and adopt the Huckabee strategy: Maximize your own vote share, but don’t beat up the party’s nominee. Unless, of course, that is her goal all along.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Obama wins North Carolina, Clinton takes Indiana
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton split crucial presidential contests in Indiana and North Carolina on Tuesday, pushing Obama closer to securing the Democratic nomination but keeping Clinton's faint hopes alive.
CBS News projected Clinton's win in Indiana, which preserved her slender chances in a prolonged Democratic duel that now moves to the next contest in one week in West Virginia. Other networks had not made a projection with more than two-thirds of the vote counted and Clinton leading 53 percent to 47 percent.
"I want to start by congratulating Senator Clinton on what appears to be a victory in the great state of Indiana," Obama told supporters in Raleigh, North Carolina.
Obama swamped Clinton in North Carolina, righting his campaign after a rough patch fueled by his comments on "bitter" small-town residents and a controversy over racially charged comments by his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
Indiana and North Carolina, with a combined 187 delegates to the Democrats' August nominating convention at stake, were the biggest prizes left in the Democratic race. Only six contests remain.
The two Democrats have battled for months for the right to represent the party in November's presidential election against Republican John McCain.
Obama, a 46-year-old Illinois senator who would be the first black U.S. president, has an almost unassailable lead in pledged delegates who will help select the Democratic nominee.
His win in North Carolina will move him closer to the 2,025 delegates needed to clinch the nomination and reduce the chance Clinton will be able to overtake his lead in either pledged delegates or popular votes won in the state-by-state nominating battle.
CBS News projected Clinton's win in Indiana, which preserved her slender chances in a prolonged Democratic duel that now moves to the next contest in one week in West Virginia. Other networks had not made a projection with more than two-thirds of the vote counted and Clinton leading 53 percent to 47 percent.
"I want to start by congratulating Senator Clinton on what appears to be a victory in the great state of Indiana," Obama told supporters in Raleigh, North Carolina.
Obama swamped Clinton in North Carolina, righting his campaign after a rough patch fueled by his comments on "bitter" small-town residents and a controversy over racially charged comments by his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
Indiana and North Carolina, with a combined 187 delegates to the Democrats' August nominating convention at stake, were the biggest prizes left in the Democratic race. Only six contests remain.
The two Democrats have battled for months for the right to represent the party in November's presidential election against Republican John McCain.
Obama, a 46-year-old Illinois senator who would be the first black U.S. president, has an almost unassailable lead in pledged delegates who will help select the Democratic nominee.
His win in North Carolina will move him closer to the 2,025 delegates needed to clinch the nomination and reduce the chance Clinton will be able to overtake his lead in either pledged delegates or popular votes won in the state-by-state nominating battle.
Obama takes North Carolina - Big win for Barack Obama in North Carolina
Sen. Barack Obama will win the North Carolina Democratic primary, CNN projects, but it is too early to call Indiana because not enough results are in from key areas.
As North Carolina results came in, Obama was leading Sen. Hillary Clinton by a margin of roughly 57-41.
The win will give him the larger share of the state's 115 delegates.
"Some were saying that North Carolina would be a game-changer in this election. But today, what North Carolina decided is that the only game that needs changing is the one in Washington," Obama told supporters in Raleigh, North Carolina.
Obama congratulated Clinton on what he called her apparent victory in Indiana.
Obama took an overwhelming 91 percent of the black vote in North Carolina, according to exit polls, while Clinton claimed only 6 percent.
Clinton took 59 percent of the white vote compared to 36 percent for Obama, according to the polls.
With 73 percent of Indiana precincts reporting, Clinton was leading Obama, 52-48 percent.
There are 72 delegates at stake in Indiana.
Poll workers in Indiana and North Carolina reported heavy turnout in the two primaries.
Turnout in the North Carolina Democratic primary was expected to reach 50 percent, according to Gary Bartlett, executive director for the North Carolina Board of Elections.
That figure would far exceed the 15 percent to 30 percent that usually turn out for a primary, he said.
The Indiana secretary of state's office said turnout was high throughout the day.
Indiana Secretary of State Todd Rokita will not release official figures until the end of the day, but said turnout looked more like a general election than a primary.
A judge ordered some polling stations in Indiana to stay open past closing time because the lines were so long.
Polling officials in Indianapolis said they had set a record for voter turnout after being open for only six hours.A third of Clinton voters said they would pick McCain over Obama, while 17 percent said they would not vote at all. Forty-eight percent of Clinton supporters said they would back Obama in November.
Obama got even less support from Clinton backers in North Carolina where 45 percent of Clinton supporters said they would vote for him over McCain. Thirty-eight percent of Clinton supporters said they would vote for McCain while 12 percent said they would not vote.
Obama voters appear to be more willing to support Clinton in November. In Indiana, 59 percent of Obama backers said they'd vote for Clinton, and 70 percent of Obama backers in North Carolina said vote for her against McCain.
Obama on Tuesday said he didn't agree with those who said his party would not be able to unite.
"Tonight, many of the pundits have suggested that this party is inalterably divided -- that Sen. Clinton's supporters will not support me, and that my supporters will not support her," he said.
"I'm here tonight to tell you that I don't believe it. Yes, there have been bruised feelings on both sides. Yes, each side desperately wants their candidate to win. But ultimately, this race is not about Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama or John McCain.
"This election is about you -- the American people -- and whether we will have a president and a party that can lead us toward a brighter future."
Voters from both states were spilt over the controversy surrounding Obama's former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, early exit polls suggest.
In Indiana, 49 percent of voters in the Democratic primary said the issue was not important, compared to 48 percent who said it was an important factor in their vote.
In North Carolina 50 percent of voters said the Wright controversy was important, and 48 percent said it was not.
In both states, those who said it was an important issue largely broke for Clinton, and those who said it was not backed Obama.
Obama currently leads in pledged delegates and in states won, and he is ahead in the popular vote, if Florida and Michigan are not factored into the equation. Those states are being penalized for moving their primaries up in violation of party rules.
In all, only 404 pledged delegates remain to be chosen, and Tuesday's total of 187 makes it the biggest single primary day left. Clinton would need to win 70 percent of the remaining pledged delegates to catch up with Obama.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Poll: Obama losing support
A new national poll suggests the battle for the Democratic presidential nomination between Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama is a virtual tie.
Forty-six percent of registered Democratic voters questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Thursday support Obama as their party’s nominee and 45 percent back Clinton, a statistical dead heat when taking into account the poll’s 4.5 percent sampling error on that specific question.
“In mid-March, Obama had a 52 percent to 45 percent edge over Clinton, but his support has dropped six points while she has not gained any ground,” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. He adds that “six percent now volunteer that they want neither one to be the nominee; no Democrats in the March poll felt that way.”
So why is Obama losing support?
“Obama has lost his edge. Is it because of the controversy over his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright? While most Democrats have an unfavorable opinion of Wright, only 19 percent say Wright's statements have made them less favorable to Obama. More than two thirds say they've had no effect at all,” says CNN Senior Political Analyst Bill Schneider.
“The bigger problem appears to be Obama's string of losses to Clinton in big states like Pennsylvania and Ohio. Those losses have not driven up Clinton's support. But they may have created doubts about Obama's ability to win,” says Schneider.
Forty-six percent of registered Democratic voters questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Thursday support Obama as their party’s nominee and 45 percent back Clinton, a statistical dead heat when taking into account the poll’s 4.5 percent sampling error on that specific question.
“In mid-March, Obama had a 52 percent to 45 percent edge over Clinton, but his support has dropped six points while she has not gained any ground,” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. He adds that “six percent now volunteer that they want neither one to be the nominee; no Democrats in the March poll felt that way.”
So why is Obama losing support?
“Obama has lost his edge. Is it because of the controversy over his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright? While most Democrats have an unfavorable opinion of Wright, only 19 percent say Wright's statements have made them less favorable to Obama. More than two thirds say they've had no effect at all,” says CNN Senior Political Analyst Bill Schneider.
“The bigger problem appears to be Obama's string of losses to Clinton in big states like Pennsylvania and Ohio. Those losses have not driven up Clinton's support. But they may have created doubts about Obama's ability to win,” says Schneider.
Poll: Obama losing support
A new national poll suggests the battle for the Democratic presidential nomination between Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama is a virtual tie.
Forty-six percent of registered Democratic voters questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Thursday support Obama as their party’s nominee and 45 percent back Clinton, a statistical dead heat when taking into account the poll’s 4.5 percent sampling error on that specific question.
“In mid-March, Obama had a 52 percent to 45 percent edge over Clinton, but his support has dropped six points while she has not gained any ground,” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. He adds that “six percent now volunteer that they want neither one to be the nominee; no Democrats in the March poll felt that way.”
So why is Obama losing support?
“Obama has lost his edge. Is it because of the controversy over his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright? While most Democrats have an unfavorable opinion of Wright, only 19 percent say Wright's statements have made them less favorable to Obama. More than two thirds say they've had no effect at all,” says CNN Senior Political Analyst Bill Schneider.
“The bigger problem appears to be Obama's string of losses to Clinton in big states like Pennsylvania and Ohio. Those losses have not driven up Clinton's support. But they may have created doubts about Obama's ability to win,” says Schneider.
Forty-six percent of registered Democratic voters questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Thursday support Obama as their party’s nominee and 45 percent back Clinton, a statistical dead heat when taking into account the poll’s 4.5 percent sampling error on that specific question.
“In mid-March, Obama had a 52 percent to 45 percent edge over Clinton, but his support has dropped six points while she has not gained any ground,” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. He adds that “six percent now volunteer that they want neither one to be the nominee; no Democrats in the March poll felt that way.”
So why is Obama losing support?
“Obama has lost his edge. Is it because of the controversy over his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright? While most Democrats have an unfavorable opinion of Wright, only 19 percent say Wright's statements have made them less favorable to Obama. More than two thirds say they've had no effect at all,” says CNN Senior Political Analyst Bill Schneider.
“The bigger problem appears to be Obama's string of losses to Clinton in big states like Pennsylvania and Ohio. Those losses have not driven up Clinton's support. But they may have created doubts about Obama's ability to win,” says Schneider.
Top 10 "Surprising Facts About Barack Obama,"
Barack Obama will appear on the Late Show with David Letterman Thursday night to deliver the Top 10 "Surprising Facts About Barack Obama," including his interest in singer Paula Abdul.
From the home office in Wahoo, Nebraska:
10. My first act as President will be to stop the fighting between Lauren and Heidi on “The Hills.”
9. In the Illinois primary, I accidentally voted for Kucinich.
8. When I tell my kids to clean their room, I finish with, “I’m Barack Obama and I approved this message.”
7. Throughout high school, I was consistently voted “Barackiest.”
6. Earlier today I bowled a 39.
5. I have cancelled all my appearances the day the “Sex and the City” movie opens.
4. It’s the birthplace of Fred Astaire. (Sorry, that’s a surprising fact about Omaha)
3. We are tirelessly working to get the endorsement of Kentucky Derby favorite Colonel John.
2. This has nothing to do with the Top Ten, but what the heck is up with Paula Abdul?
1. I have not slept since October.
From the home office in Wahoo, Nebraska:
10. My first act as President will be to stop the fighting between Lauren and Heidi on “The Hills.”
9. In the Illinois primary, I accidentally voted for Kucinich.
8. When I tell my kids to clean their room, I finish with, “I’m Barack Obama and I approved this message.”
7. Throughout high school, I was consistently voted “Barackiest.”
6. Earlier today I bowled a 39.
5. I have cancelled all my appearances the day the “Sex and the City” movie opens.
4. It’s the birthplace of Fred Astaire. (Sorry, that’s a surprising fact about Omaha)
3. We are tirelessly working to get the endorsement of Kentucky Derby favorite Colonel John.
2. This has nothing to do with the Top Ten, but what the heck is up with Paula Abdul?
1. I have not slept since October.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Obama news: Obama avoids media in final days of PA
It's now been ten days since Democrat Barack Obama has made himself available for questions from his traveling press corps, and it appears as though that number could rise even higher.
Aides have said it's unlikely he’ll hold an availability with reporters before Tuesday's Pennsylvania primary, but that they "could always add one." Given their track record over the past few days, however, that doesn't sound promising.
Since the start of the weekend, the possibility of a press conference has been dangled in front of reporters twice—only to be snatched away at the last possible moment.
On Saturday, reporters were teased for the majority of the day with a possible evening avail, only to be told at the eleventh hour that it would not be happening. To make it up, staffers said they were aiming to put him in front of cameras on Sunday but that, too, did not happen.
And at a diner Thursday morning, a reporter slipped in a question about former President Jimmy Carter's meeting with Hamas, but Obama responded by saying he just wanted to eat his waffle. Later that afternoon while taping an interview for "The Daily Show," a reporter tried to ask Obama about a new Clinton ad and the Obama ad that came as a response. The White House hopeful asked the reporter if she was "supposed to be" asking a question at that time and added that he might answer but that "it depends on how well behaved you are." In the end, he did not take the question.
Traveling press secretary Jen Psaki declined to comment on exactly why no time has been allotted for traveling press questions since a press conference in Indianapolis April 11. Obama did, however, make time Thursday for a few one on one interviews.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)