Registrierungsdatum: Jan 2002
March 4, 2008
As Four States Vote, Clinton Talks About a Long Battle
By JODI KANTOR
As voters in Ohio, Rhode Island, Vermont and Texas headed to the polls potentially to decide the Democratic nomination for the presidency, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on Tuesday urged voters to settle in for a nomination fight that could roll on for months to come.
“You know this is a long process,” Mrs. Clinton told reporters Tuesday morning outside a polling place in Houston.
It was an entirely different message from the one delivered by former President Bill Clinton just a few weeks ago, when he told Ohio and Texas voters that his wife would not succeed without victories in those delegate-rich states.
Turnout appeared to be heavy. In Cleveland, heavy rains did not deter voters, and parts of Texas reported particularly strong turnout even though people had been voting there since Feb. 19.
"Best I can tell it’s a tsunami of voters,” said Gerry Birnberg, chairman of the Harris County Democratic Party, which encompasses Houston and its environs. At some polling sites there, as many as 100 voters lined up before the polls opened at 7 a.m., Mr. Birnberg said. A record 180,000 voters cast Democratic ballots in early voting in Harris County and some 300,000 more were expected today, far surpassing the 75,000 in the 2004 presidential election.
While the Mrs. Clinton projected determination to soldier on, the Obama campaign issued reminders of Mr. Clinton’s earlier statements saying that Mrs. Clinton needed to win Texas and Ohio.
“Three weeks ago, when they led polls in Texas and Ohio by 20 points, the Clinton campaign set their own test for today’s primaries,” Bill Burton, a spokesman, said in an e-mail statement. He set expectations for his candidate’s performance fairly low, saying Mr. Obama will maintain his delegate lead. But behind the scenes, leading supporters of Senator Barack Obama were working to persuade Democrats, particularly the superdelegates who could decide the nomination, to step forward and coalesce behind him as soon as Wednesday.
A few months ago, today’s voting was not expected to count much, thanks to a front-loaded calendar that was supposed to settle the nominations of both parties early. Instead, with the path to the Democratic nomination still unclear, voters in Texas flooded the polls.
But today Mrs. Clinton reached back much further in time, citing her husband’s nomination victory in June of 1992 as well as the long-lost days when parties chose candidates at summertime conventions. Her campaign “is just hitting its stride,” Mrs. Clinton said, even though she has been running for well over a year, in a race that has gone on longer than anyone expected.
“We’re just beginning to draw those contrasts and those differences and that’s when voters start to zero in,” she said, expressing optimism despite 11 straight losses to Mr. Obama in recent contests.
On a conference call with reporters, representatives from her campaign played up upcoming contests particularly Pennsylvania’s April 22 primary , where Mrs. Clinton is the early favorite.
Registrierungsdatum: Dec 2005
Clinton scrambles to freeze defectors
By: Mike Allen and Ben Smith
Mar 4, 2008 07:29 PM EST
A behind-the-scenes battle broke out late Tuesday over superdelegates who had secretly committed to Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), with Clinton campaign officials scrambling to “freeze” them before they announced support for him.
The battle reflects the trench warfare that both campaigns expect if the battle for the Democratic presidential nomination stretches on to the Pennsylvania primary on April 22.
Democratic officials involved in the conversations said Obama was lining up a package of superdelegates — the party insiders whose votes help select the Democratic nominee — with plans to announce their support as a bloc.
Obama also plans to announce he raised more than $50 million in February, considerably more than Clinton’s $35 million.
The Obama theory was that the separate announcements would convey juggernaut-like momentum if Obama had big wins on Tuesday, and would help turn the page if he had a disappointing showing in the Texas or Ohio primaries.
But aides to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) became convinced by network exit polls and her own data that she would have a stronger-than-expected showing. So they immediately began urging Obama’s prospective superdelegates to withhold their support.
An Obama aide said: "Despite last-minute Clinton pranks, the rumor they're floating about a massive superdelegate rollout tomorrow is not true."
One Democratic lawmaker described “pushback” from the Clinton campaign but did not elaborate.
A senior Clinton aide said her supporters were scrambling to "freeze" members of Congress on the verge of announcing for Obama, and said a good night for Clinton would be key to forestalling the move.
The Obama campaign had an extensive “whip” organization set up to track and woo these officials, including members of Congress.
“We’ll wake up tomorrow and we’ll see where folks are,” an Obama aide said. “We have new support every single day.”
Obama forces responded to the Clinton overtures by telling superdelegates that regardless of Tuesday’s outcome, Obama would retain the lead in elected delegates.
An Obama official said his campaign plans to argue that even if she scored one or more victories on Tuesday, it would be “virtually impossible” for her to catch up in the delegate count.
An Obama statement said: “Three weeks ago, when they led polls in Texas and Ohio by 20 points, the Clinton campaign set their own test for today's primaries. They confidently predicted that they would win by landslide margins and wipe out the substantial edge Barack Obama has built in pledged delegates.
“But what we've seen is that voters in Ohio, Texas, Vermont and Rhode Island share the same urgent desire for change we have seen throughout the country. That's why we're confident that Barack Obama will maintain his delegate lead, leaving the Clinton campaign to explain why they failed their own test and exactly how they plan to win a nomination that, after tonight, will be virtually out of reach.”
Registrierungsdatum: Dec 2005
Clinton sees ticket with Obama
By: Mike Allen
Mar 5, 2008 08:15 AM EST
The morning after reviving her candidacy with two big primary wins, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) hinted Wednesday that she and Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) may wind up as ticket mates.
“That may, you know, be where this is headed, but of course we have to decide who’s on the top of ticket,” Clinton said with a laugh on the CBS's “The Early Show.” “I think that the people of Ohio very clearly said that it should be me."
Clinton's wins in Texas and Ohio mean the race will go on for at least seven weeks, to the Pennsylvania primary on April 22. Each side expects to harden its attacks on the other, creating potential complications in swiftly becoming a ticket.
Democratic strategists say Clinton would be more likely to pick Obama than vice versa, for two big reasons:
Obama has attracted tens of thousands of young supporters who are loyal to him, not to the Democratic Party. Clinton, on the other hand, has strong support among party regulars.
So if Clinton became the nominee, inviting Obama aboard her ticket would help keep that support. Obama might be reluctant to join, figuring that if Clinton lost, he’d be able to run for the top job four years later. But he might accept her invitation at the behest of the party.
Obama would have much less reason to pick Clinton. He has made his campaign about the future, and her presence on the ticket would complicate that message. And she has not brought in voters he would automatically have trouble attracting.
Both candidates did a round of interviews with the network morning shows.
Asked about voters’ view of Obama, Clinton said on NBC’s “Today” show: “I think they’re starting to ask some hard questions, and I think voters want this race to go on because they … are now really concerned about who can best go against Senator [John] McCain.”
Obama said on “The Early Show”: “We had won 12 state contests. Senator Clinton was due.”
Obama added ABC’s “Good Morning America”: “I think it’s going to be very hard for her to catch up on the pledged delegate count.”
Registrierungsdatum: Jan 2002
Hillary als "Siegerin"? Nicht wirklich, Bill war da näher an der Wahrheit als er vor zwei Wochen deutliche Siege in Ohio und Texas als zwingend bezeichnete. Obama hat den Caucus in Texas gewonnen in dem es um 1/3 der Delegierten ging, Hillary knapp die normale Wahl, Rhode Island und Vermont heben sich gleichzeitig auf was die Anzahl Delegierten betrifft.
Nach den vorliegenden Resultaten:
Vermont (15 delegates)
Rhode Island (21 delegates)
Primary (126 delegates, Link)
Caucuses (67 delegates; tentative results based on a straight percentage from 34% reporting)
Total (Nowhere near final)
Ohio (141 delegates, punching in results with 97% reporting here)
So total for the night, thus far, is Clinton 185 and Obama 184.
Der "Sieg" hat Hillary einen ganzen Delegierten mehr gebracht als Obama ! Somit ändert sich an seinem Vorsprung von 110-130 Delegierten je nach Zählung rein gar nix .
Für Hillary wäre es der ideale Moment mit einem Sieg im guten Licht die Kampagne zu beenden, sind damit ihre Chancen doch praktisch auf 0 gefallen. Alle restlichen Vorwahlen muss sie nun gewinnen, und alle mit mindestens 60%, ansonsten bleibt sie 2. bis zum Schluss.
www.slate.com hat einen praktischen Delegiertenrechner für theoretische Spiele mit den kommenden Vorwahlen
Ganz witzig wird der Umstand wenn man gerade in Texas etwas in die Tiefe geht. Da liefen offensichtlich gezielte Aktionen seitens der GOP um Hillary im Rennen zu halten und so den Demokraten zu schaden. Dumm an der Sache ist nur eines: damit sind sie bis nach November nur noch bei den Demokraten wahlberechtigt. Zu dumm, da haben sie sich ins eigene Knie geschossen:
Und all die werden in der eigentlichen Wahl sicher nicht Hillary wählen ...
Registrierungsdatum: Dec 2005
McCain: McSame as Bush
Registrierungsdatum: Jan 2002
Clinton? Obama? Al Gore for President!
von Peter Blunschi
Der Zweikampf zwischen Hillary Clinton und Barack Obama wird härter, ein Ende ist nicht in Sicht. Die Demokraten suchen fieberhaft nach einer Lösung. Schlägt nun die Stunde von Al Gore? Wird er am Ende gar als
Gestern liess sie sich als grosse Siegerin feiern. Heute zeigt sich: Hillary Clinton konnte am Dienstag ihren Rückstand auf Barack Obama nur um zwölf Delegiertenstimmen verkleinern. Obama verfügt nach Angaben der Nachrichtenagentur AP nun über 1567 Stimmen. Clinton kommt auf 1462 Stimmen. Und noch sind nicht alle Caucus-Wahlen in Texas ausgezählt. Bei diesen Parteiversammlungen dürfte Obama besser abschneiden als Clinton. Er hat denn auch bereits erklärt, er sei der eigentliche Sieger von Texas.
Für die meisten Beobachter ist klar: Geschieht nichts Aussergewöhnliches, kann die Senatorin ihren Kontrahenten bis zum Parteitag im August nicht mehr einholen. Es droht ein langer, schmutziger Wahlkampf, an dessen Ende die so genannten «Superdelegierten» entscheiden müssten, wer von den beiden dann möglicherweise arg ramponierten Kandidaten gegen den Republikaner John McCain antreten wird.
Al Gore wie Charles de Gaulle?
Kein Wunder wird in den US-Medien heftig über einen Ausweg aus dieser Bredouille spekuliert. Dabei taucht ein Name auf, mit dem kaum noch jemand gerechnet hat: Al Gore. Der renommierte Ökonom und «New York Times»-Kolumnist Paul Krugman hat ihn bereits im Februar in einem Interview mit der deutschen Zeitung «taz» erwähnt: «Möglicherweise gibt es erst am Nominierungsparteitag im Sommer eine Entscheidung. Gott weiss, wie das ausgeht. Vielleicht steigen beide aus und sie geben Al Gore die Kandidatur.»
Paul Abrams, Polit-Blogger der Internet-Zeitung «The Huffington Post», vergleicht Gore mit Charles de Gaulle, der sich 1958 «zur Verfügung stellte», als sich Frankreich in einer tiefen Krise befand. Er wurde Präsident, führte das Land aus dem Sumpf des Algerien-Kriegs und trieb das Konzept eines vereinigten Europas voran. «Ist die Zeit für „Al de Gore“ gekommen, sich für sein Land zur Verfügung zu stellen?» fragt Abrams.
In den Kommentaren seines Blog fallen die Antworten teilweise enthusiastisch aus: «Ein Gore/Obama-Ticket wäre nicht aufzuhalten», schreibt ein Leser. In der Tat eine faszinierende Vorstellung. Al Gore ist nach wie vor eine der profiliertesten Figuren in der US-Politik. Als Warner vor dem Klimawandel hat er den Oscar und den Friedensnobelpreis gewonnen. Zudem hat Al Gore – immerhin der ehemalige Vize von Bill Clinton - sich bisher im Wahlkampf nicht auf einen Kandidaten festgelegt.
Frage nach der Legitimation
Doch so verlockend die Idee, so viele Einwände gibt es. So ist fraglich, ob Barack Obama und vor allem Hillary Clinton einfach zu seinen Gunsten verzichten würden. Ganz besonders nach einem harten, aber auch packenden Wahlkampf. Paul Abrams glaubt zwar, dass «85 Prozent der Delegierten und der Wählerschaft ihn begeistert unterstützen würden». Doch Fragen nach seiner Legitimation würden unweigerlich aufkommen. Ein weiterer Schönheitsfehler: Statt erstmals eine Frau oder einen Schwarzen zu nominieren, würden die Demokraten am Ende doch wieder einen älteren weissen Mann aufstellen.
Fraglich bleibt auch, ob Gore überhaupt zu einer Kandidatur bereit wäre. Seine «Niederlage» gegen George W. Bush bei den Wahlen 2000 durch ein Urteil des Obersten Gerichts hat er lange nicht verwunden. Will er sich das wirklich nochmals antun? Trotz heftigem Drängen seiner vielen Fans war er nicht bereit, im diesjährigen Wahlkampf anzutreten. In seiner Rolle als Klima-Retter liefert er zudem zahlreiche Angriffsflächen.
Gore als Schiedsrichter?
Doch es gibt noch eine andere Möglichkeit für Al Gore, sich in den Wahlkampf einzuschalten: Als Schiedsrichter zwischen Clinton und Obama. «Wenn die Demokraten Glück haben, wird Al Gore oder ein anderes hochrangiges Parteimitglied einschreiten, um einen Frieden auszuhandeln», sagte Larry Sabato, Politik-Professor an der University of Virginia, im Magazin «Time». Eigentlich wäre das ein Fall für Bill Clinton, doch der komme für diese Rolle nicht in Frage. «Bleibt also nur Al Gore», so Sabato.
Noch weiter geht ein Kommentar in der Zeitung «New York Post». Sie fragt, wo sich das rote Telefon einer Partei im Zustand der Selbstzerstörung befinde, und wo der Parteiführer mit Respekt, Statur, Weisheit und Einfluss, der es abnehmen könnte? Ihre Antwort: «Al Gore ist die einzige Person mit Erfahrung, die den Hörer abnehmen und ein friedliches Ende dieses Bürgerkriegs erzwingen könnte.» Die Frage sei nur, ob er auch den Schneid dafür habe.
Wird der Friedensnobelpreisträger zum Friedensstifter? Rettet Al Gore die Demokraten? Gelingt ihm gar der lang ersehnte Einzug ins Weisse Haus? Noch handelt es sich bloss um Spekulationen. Doch im Wahlkampf 2008 scheint vieles möglich.
Was sicher ein genialer Schachzug wär, nur will ja Gore bis jetzt selber nicht zur Verfügung stehen
Registrierungsdatum: Jan 2002
Offensichtlich hat Obama die Lektion gelernt: wer Präsi werden will der kann nicht immer nur Mr. Nice sein
'Most secretive politician in America'?
Wednesday, March 05, 2008 6:34 PM
by Domenico Montanaro
From NBC/NJ's Aswini Anburajan and Domenico Montanaro
The Obama campaign is stepping up the rhetoric. Campaign Manager David Plouffe went so far as to call Hillary Clinton the "most secretive politician in America today."
The tough talk underscored not only the negative shift in tone of the Obama campaign in the past 24 hours, but just how contentious this fight for the nomination is becoming.
Part of what the Obama campaign would like the focus to be on is ethics -- something adviser David Axelrod said they would be glad to have a debate over. But the Obama campaign may be a victim of time, since an argument on ethics could be tough to steer with the ongoing Rezko trial.
"I think that you know Sen. Clinton has talked a lot about disclosure in the last few days,” Plouffe told reporters. “Sen. Clinton is the most secretive politician in America today. This has been a pattern throughout her career of the lack of disclosure.”
Echoing Axelrod, Plouffe said the campaign would be more than willing to tangle with the Clintons, appearing to suggest that if needed they would raise issues like Whitewater that plagued the Clintons in the 90s.
"As it relates to ethics and transparency,” Plouffe said, “we're surprised that they would want to have an extended conversation about contributors and land deals and ethics issues. I don't think that's a lengthy conversation that's probably going to work out very well for them.
"So we are obviously not going to allow these attacks to go unanswered, and we think things like who has the strongest ethics, who has the chance to really bring about reform, who's going to be the most open with the American people that that's a real distinction," he said.
He added that because the Clinton campaign couldn't win on pledged delegates, it would try to devise "alternative nomination strategies." He added that the Obama campaign would fight back and "raise questions on things like disclosure, like ethics, like foreign policy."
He added that Clinton "exaggerated her experience and can't name anything she's done."
"The only thing she talks about, by the way, is a speech she gave in China,” Plouffe said. “She criticizes us for giving a speech. There's an exaggeration there. Her experience, they believe, is just conferred on her; we have to prove ours somehow. She is not a candidate with deep experience on these matters.”
Hillary hatte auch ihre Skandale, Whitewater ist nur einer davon. Und wer Präsidentin werden will, aber nicht ihre eigentlichen "Sponsoren" nennen will, der macht sich angreifbar & verdächtig...
Registrierungsdatum: Jan 2002
March 5, 2008, 11:36PM
Bottom line: It'll take the convention to determine Democratic nominee
Neither Clinton nor Obama can win enough delegates before the convention
By RICHARD S. DUNHAM
Copyright 2008 Houston Chronicle
Resting up after a bruising primary battle, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama left Texas in their rearview mirrors Wednesday and headed home to plan for three more months of political combat.
But even as the candidates tried to decipher the daunting math required to lock up the closest Democratic presidential race in a half-century, their surrogates squabbled over which candidate actually won the most delegates in Texas.
The Lone Star State's complicated delegate-selection methods gave both campaigns a plausible reason to claim victory. In final, unofficial results, Clinton won the popular vote, 51 percent to 48 percent. But Obama backers boasted that the Illinois senator had won a majority of the state's pledged delegates — a result of his ability to mobilize supporters in the evening caucuses, which account for about one-third of the delegates selected Tuesday.
"It could be our Texas version of 'Dewey Defeats Truman,' " said Waco Rep. Chet Edwards, an Obama supporter, referring to the infamous Chicago Tribune headline that misstated the 1948 election results. "After all the confetti and uncorked champagne bottles, it could turn out that Obama won Texas."
Projections released Wednesday afternoon by the Texas Democratic Party based on still-incomplete caucus returns indicated that Obama would receive 98 delegates elected Tuesday to Clinton's 95.
Clinton led Obama in delegates selected as a result of primary voting, 65 to 61, while Obama appears headed for a 37-to-30 edge among delegates selected through the caucuses.
Including elected officials and party leaders with automatic "superdelegate" status, the two candidates are dead even at 107 Texas delegates, with 14 superdelegates still uncommitted.
But whichever campaign ends up with Texas bragging rights, Clinton's narrow 12-delegate edge in Tuesday's contests in Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island and Vermont has done little to change the intricate delegate dynamics of 2008.
Bottom line: With just 600 delegates up for grabs and front-runner Obama 658 short of the 2,025 needed for victory, it is mathematically impossible for either candidate to clinch the nomination before the process is scheduled to end with Puerto Rico's June 7 caucuses.
Obama remains in the overall delegate lead, 1,567 to 1,462, according to Associated Press estimates.
With neither candidate able to wrap up the nomination during the primary season, Clinton and Obama must try to seal the deal by courting the 350 still-uncommitted superdelegates, including 14 from Texas. These party insiders get invitations to the Democratic National Convention in Denver based on their elected positions or leadership role in the party.
"The key to the nomination is the superdelegates," said University of Houston government professor Christine LeVeaux-Haley. "The superdelegates seemed to lean to Clinton before Super Tuesday. With her now proving that she is a viable candidate — again — the superdelegates who have been leaning toward Clinton will stick with her."
Going after superdelegates
To influence any undecided superdelegates, Clinton and Obama will try to build a sense of momentum over the next three months. Their goal is to be the candidate with the most elected delegates — something that is becoming increasingly difficult for Clinton to do. The former first lady would need to win more than 60 percent of the remaining primary election delegates to catch up with Obama.
"We are vigorously talking to the uncommitted automatic delegates," Clinton adviser Harold Ickes told reporters. "The Obama campaign is doing the same thing."
Clinton's aim in the next two months is to convince currently uncommitted superdelegates that she is the Democrat most likely to defeat Arizona Sen. John McCain in swing states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida.
But Obama, who has won far more states and total votes than Clinton, counters by citing polls indicating that he runs stronger than Clinton against McCain. He also tells superdelegates that it is their moral obligation to back the choice of most rank-and-file Democrats.
"I cannot imagine party insiders, behind closed doors, overturning the votes of millions of Democrats," said Edwards. ............
McCain wird sich die Hände reiben auch wenn er derzeit noch gegen beide verlieren würde, Obama wie Clinton. Aber in 3 Monaten weiterer Wahlschlacht kann noch sehr viel passieren
Registrierungsdatum: Dec 2005
Registrierungsdatum: Jan 2002
Es wird immer klarer: ohne Hilfe der Republikaner hätte Hillary in Texas klar verloren . Dumm nur ging der kleine Trick zu Gunsten ihrer Erzfeindin auf
Rushing to Reason?
5:37 PM Wed, Mar 05, 2008 | Permalink
Mike Hashimoto E-mail News tips
Not that I'd ever take the word of someone who blogs for Reason magazine ("Free minds, free markets") over "Mancrush" Landauer, but David Weigel puts pencil to paper in analyzing the Clinton victory in Texas and determines that the Rush Limbaugh call to listeners to cross over may have swung the popular vote her way.
Go and check the exit polls. In Wisconsin, Republicans made up 9 percent of the Democratic primary vote. Obama won them 72-28 over Clinton. Just as tellingly, 14 percent of primary voters said they were "conservative," and Obama won them 59-40, a bigger margin than he won with liberals or moderates. Tactical voters who said Obama stood a better chance of winning in November? They went for him 87-13.
Now, look at Ohio. Once again 9 percent of voters were Republicans, but Obama and Clinton split them evenly, 49-49. Once again, 14 percent of voters were "conservatives," and Obama and Clinton split them 48-48. (Obama did better with them than he did with liberals and moderates.) Those tactical voters who thought Obama could win gave him a 80-18 victory, a margin twelve points smaller than the margin in Wisconsin.
It's a similar story in Texas, where Limbaugh has the most listeners of any of these states. Obama won the Republican vote 52-47, but conservatives (22 percent of all voters, up from 15 percent in the Kerry-Edwards primary) went against Obama. For the first time since Super Tuesday, they were Clinton's best ideological group: She won them 53-43. And Clinton won 13 percent of the people who said Obama was the most electable candidate.
Ohio didn't wind up being very close, but Clinton won the Texas primary by about 98,000 votes out of 2.8 million cast. If the exits are right, about 252,000 of those voters were Republicans, and about 618,000 were conservatives. Clinton truly might have won the Texas primary on the backs of Rush Limbaugh listeners.
Weigel, for the record, doesn't sound like he agrees with the wisdom of this, if it in fact happened.
Die etwas über 800'000 Stimmen werden Hillary im Herbst in Texas fehlen, wenn sie denn den Dreh noch hinbringt. Was nach der reinen Mathematik nicht mehr möglich ist
Registrierungsdatum: Jan 2002
Advice to Barack Obama: You Can Take Clinton Apart and Still Respect Yourself in the Morning (Profanity-Free For the Kiddies):
So, like, Barack, here's the conundrum you find yourself in: you wanna keep the Hope Train running, so you're shoveling coal into that engine like you're Casey Jones on the Illinois Central. You know that Hillary Clinton and her minions, like Howard Wolfson and Mark Penn, are gonna start tossing way, way more than the kitchen sink at you. You better be ready to duck, 'cause the whole house is whirling your way, Twister-style.
And you're stuck. You know you gotta start jumping in the mud with both feet, but you built this whole movement on staying so above-it-all. Here's the thing: you don't have to join Hillary Clinton for a wallow. You don't need someone associated with your campaign to go on CNN and question, say, whether or not she's a Muslim.
Yes, her bizarre refusal to release her tax returns means that she has something to hide, and it will become a trust issue in a general election, so you may as well make a huge deal about it now. Here's a couple of other tactics:
1. Question the legitimacy of her victories. Sure, sure, Ohio was clearly a Clinton victory. But that Texas win? Well, let's hear from rude reader CW:
"I can tell you that Clinton did not *win* the popular vote in Texas. We are the state of the 19-percenters, Huckabee-lovers and Hagee. Republicans knew that McCain would win Ohio and since in Texas we have open primaries, the RNC, Texas Repubs and Rush had been telling all their zombies to vote Clinton because they think they can beat her. My own mother, who hasn't voted for a Democrat for 40 years, told me that she voted for Hillary because 'you know, I support McCain, so I voted for her like everyone else up here.' My mother wasn't our only contact to verify our suspicions. All those rural counties with few votes...Republicans to the core and they HATE Hillary with the fiery passion of a thousand suns. Although I live in an Obama county near the George HW Bush Presidential Library, we must have had a huge number of crossovers ourselves because Huckabee nearly beat McCain here."
Get some research going, man. How widespread was a Republican vote in Texas because of the open primary? How has the open primary benefited Clinton before because Republicans want to run against her and not you? C'mon, if her people can question the legitimacy of caucuses, you can question the legitimacy of the open primary.
As CW continues regarding Texas, "Watch the caucus results. Those are going to be far more accurate because only the true-blue Democrats return for the meetings after the polls close. The delegate representation is determined by how many supporters for each candidate show up for the caucus. The popular vote has nothing to do with how these delegates are chosen. At the caucus we vote on delegates to the county and state conventions as well as resolutions for the party platform, so the Republicans stay away lest they be outed or contaminated with our Democratic ideals."
2. Go after who is associated with her campaign. The hammers of Rezko and Farrakhan will keep bludgeoning you. So howzabout a little payback? If there's anything we've learned from the Rove school of media manipulation, little things can take the big things off the table: how quickly did we forget about whether or not George W. Bush blew off his National Guard duties once we were told that Dan Rather might have been given a forged document? Also, moral equivalency can be ludicrously imbalanced.
For instance, did you know that Hillary Clinton's "top election lawyer" in New Jersey, Peter Cammarano, is under investigation by the state Election Law Enforcement Commission for what seems to be a clear violation of the law? Yeah, Cammarano chaired a PAC that raised funds for Democrats while still an elected councilman. Funds might not have gone to the Clinton campaign, but this is exactly the kind of rule-bending that reminds people of what they don't like to remember about the Clintons (fairly or unfairly, but this ain't really about fair). And, c'mon, Clinton's election lawyer might be violating election law? Surely, there's a few superdelegates in the state that this might matter to.
It's a little thing, but the little things add up, Barack. They provide the foundation for an argument against someone. And that's where you are. You gotta say why not to vote for Hillary Clinton, not just why to vote for you.
Oh, and don't forget about McCain and Bush. But the Rude Pundit can't talk about that and keep his profanity-free pledge.
Registrierungsdatum: Dec 2005
Obama Raises $55 Million in February
Mar 6, 5:39 PM (ET)
By JIM KUHNHENN (AP) Democratic presidential hopeful, Sen. Barack Obama D-Ill., talks to reporters on the plane in San...
WASHINGTON (AP) - Democratic Sen. Barack Obama raised a record $55 million in February for his presidential campaign, eclipsing rival Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's own substantial fundraising for the month. All told, Obama has raised $193 million during his yearlong bid for the White House.
The campaign's announcement Thursday came two days after Obama lost three of four primaries to Clinton. Her victories stopped his winning streak and extended the race into an unpredictable future.
Obama's February total was his second fundraising record. He raised $36 million in January, more than any other presidential candidate who has ever been in a contested primary. His combined January and February totals nearly matched what he raised last year.
"That's a humbling achievement, and I am very grateful for your support," Obama said in another fundraising appeal. "No campaign has ever raised this much in a single month in the history of presidential primaries. But more important than the total is how we did it - more than 90 percent of donations were $100 or less ..."
Registrierungsdatum: Jan 2002
Clintons blocking release of pardon papers
March 7, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Remember how Barack Obama called Hillary Clinton one of the most secretive politicians in America? That apparently applies to both Hillary and her husband as a team. Archivists at the Clinton Presidential Library have decided to keep the records of Bill’s pardons locked away from prying eyes — such as those of Obama, John McCain, and the media:
Federal archivists at the Clinton Presidential Library are blocking the release of hundreds of pages of White House papers on pardons that the former president approved, including clemency for fugitive commodities trader Marc Rich.
That archivists’ decision, based on guidance provided by Bill Clinton that restricts the disclosure of advice he received from aides, prevents public scrutiny of documents that would shed light on how he decided which pardons to approve from among hundreds of requests.
Clinton’s legal agent declined the option of reviewing and releasing the documents that were withheld, said the archivists, who work for the federal government, not the Clintons.
The decision to withhold much of the requested material could provide fodder for critics who say that the former president and his wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, now seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, have been unwilling to fully release documents to public scrutiny.
Hillary is a curious candidate. She wants to run on her “experience” as First Lady in the Clinton administration — but she wants us to see as little evidence of that experience as possible. In fact, she says that “experience” is so compelling that we would want her in the White House answering the phone at 3 AM when a crisis occurs. If it really is that impressive, why is she and Bill going to such lengths to hide it?
The pardons present a very tricky problem for Hillary. That really does speak to the character of the Clinton administration, and obviously not in glowing terms. In the final days of his administration, Clinton pardoned Marc Rich, who had been a fugitive from American justice for tax evasion and other indictments, apparently because his ex-wife donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to the presidential library that now hides those records. The Department of Justice had asked Clinton not to issue a pardon to Rich, as precedent had been not to grant clemency to fugitives, but that didn’t stop Clinton.
Marc Rich demonstrated why the Clintons had such faith in him by proceeding to become a major figure in the Oil-for-Food scandal.
But Rich isn’t the only questionable figure in the pardons scandals, and he’s not the only family member under suspicion. Hillary’s brother Tony Rodham represented Edgar and Vonna Gregory for a pardon, which Bill granted so that Gregory’s business could get federal contracts. Edgar and his wife had convictions for bank fraud that interfered with United Shows, and the Gregorys needed connections. Not only did they hire Rodham to represent them, they donated $10,000 to Hillary Clinton — half before the pardon, and half afterwards, in 2000.
The story doesn’t end there. The Gregorys then made a series of “loans” to Tony Rodham totaling over $100,000, the last of which came right before they declared bankruptcy in 2002, leaving creditors holding the bag once again. Rodham never made a single payment to repay these loans, and the Gregorys never made any attempt to collect them. Only after the United Shows books came under the scrutiny of bankruptcy courts did anyone press Rodham to repay the debt as an asset of United Shows.
The Clintons have plenty of reasons to hide their handiwork on pardons. If they released them, the only way people would want Hillary to answer that phone at 3 AM is if John McCain hired her as a switchboard operator.
Registrierungsdatum: Jan 2002
Hillary Clinton, fratricidal maniac.
Jonathan Chait, The New Republic
Thursday, March 06, 2008
The morning after Tuesday's primaries, Hillary Clinton's campaign released a memo titled "The Path to the Presidency." I eagerly dug into the paper, figuring it would explain how Clinton would obtain the Democratic nomination despite an enormous deficit in delegates. Instead, the memo offered a series of arguments as to why Clinton should run against John McCain--i.e., "Hillary is seen as the one who can get the job done"--but nothing about how she actually could. Is she planning a third-party run? Does she think Obama is going to die? The memo does not say.
The reason it doesn't say is that Clinton's path to the nomination is pretty repulsive. She isn't going to win at the polls. Barack Obama has a lead of 144 pledged delegates. That may not sound like a lot in a 4,000-delegate race, but it is. Clinton's Ohio win reduced that total by only nine. She would need 15 more Ohios to pull even with Obama. She isn't going to do much to dent, let alone eliminate, his lead.
That means, as we all have grown tired of hearing, that she would need to win with superdelegates. But, with most superdelegates already committed, Clinton would need to capture the remaining ones by a margin of better than two to one. And superdelegates are going to be extremely reluctant to overturn an elected delegate lead the size of Obama's. The only way to lessen that reluctance would be to destroy Obama's general election viability, so that superdelegates had no choice but to hand the nomination to her. Hence her flurry of attacks, her oddly qualified response as to whether Obama is a Muslim ("not as far as I know"), her repeated suggestions that John McCain is more qualified.
Clinton's justification for this strategy is that she needs to toughen up Obama for the general election-if he can't handle her attacks, he'll never stand up to the vast right-wing conspiracy. Without her hazing, warns the Clinton memo, "Democrats may have a nominee who will be a lightening rod of controversy." So Clinton's offensive against the likely nominee is really an act of selflessness. And here I was thinking she was maniacally pursuing her slim thread of a chance, not caring--or possibly even hoping, with an eye toward 2012-that she would destroy Obama's chances of defeating McCain in the process. I feel ashamed for having suspected her motives.
Still, there are a few flaws in Clinton's trial-by-smear method. The first is that her attacks on Obama are not a fair proxy for what he'd endure in the general election, because attacks are harder to refute when they come from within one's own party. Indeed, Clinton is saying almost exactly the same things about Obama that McCain is: He's inexperienced, lacking in substance, unequipped to handle foreign policy. As The Washington Monthly's Christina Larson has pointed out, in recent weeks the nightly newscasts have consisted of Clinton attacking Obama, McCain attacking Obama, and then Obama trying to defend himself and still get out his own message. If Obama's the nominee, he won't have a high-profile Democrat validating McCain's message every day.
Second, Obama can't "test" Clinton the way she can test him. While she likes to claim that she beat the Republican attack machine, it's more accurate to say that she survived with heavy damage. Clinton is a wildly polarizing figure, with disapproval ratings at or near 50 percent. But, because she earned the intense loyalty of core Democratic partisans, Obama has to tread gingerly around her vulnerabilities. There is a big bundle of ethical issues from the 1990s that Obama has not raised because he can't associate himself with what partisan Democrats (but not Republicans or swing voters) regard as a pure GOP witch hunt.
What's more, Clinton has benefited from a favorable gender dynamic that won't exist in the fall. (In the Democratic primary, female voters have outnumbered males by nearly three to two.) Clinton's claim to being a tough, tested potential commander-in-chief has gone almost unchallenged. Obama could reply that being First Lady doesn't qualify you to serve as commander-in-chief, but he won't quite say that, because feminists are an important chunk of the Democratic electorate. John McCain wouldn't be so reluctant.
Third, negative campaigning is a negative-sum activity. Both the attacker and the attackee tend to see their popularity drop. Usually, the victim's popularity drops farther than the perpetrator's, which is why negative campaigning works. But it doesn't work so well in primaries, where the winner has to go on to another election.
Clinton's path to the nomination, then, involves the following steps: kneecap an eloquent, inspiring, reform-minded young leader who happens to be the first serious African American presidential candidate (meanwhile cementing her own reputation for Nixonian ruthlessness) and then win a contested convention by persuading party elites to override the results at the polls. The plan may also involve trying to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations, after having explicitly agreed that the results would not count toward delegate totals. Oh, and her campaign has periodically hinted that some of Obama's elected delegates might break off and support her. I don't think she'd be in a position to defeat Hitler's dog in November, let alone a popular war hero.
Some Clinton supporters, like my friend (and historian) David Greenberg, have been assuring us that lengthy primary fights go on all the time and that the winner doesn't necessarily suffer a mortal wound in the process. But Clinton's kamikaze mission is likely to be unusually damaging. Not only is the opportunity cost--to wrap up the nomination, and spend John McCain into the ground for four months--uniquely high, but the venue could not be less convenient. Pennsylvania is a swing state that Democrats will almost certainly need to win in November, and Clinton will spend seven weeks and millions of dollars there making the case that Obama is unfit to set foot in the White House. You couldn't create a more damaging scenario if you tried.
Imagine in 2000, or 2004, that George W. Bush faced a primary fight that came down to Florida (his November must-win state). Imagine his opponent decided to spend seven weeks pounding home the theme that Bush had a dangerous plan to privatize Social Security. Would this have improved Bush's chances of defeating the Democrats? Would his party have stood for it?
In ähnlichen News: Kalifornien hat endlich ein endgültiges Resultat. Omaba gewinnt 3 Delegierte dazu, Hillary verliert 3. Sind in der Summe 6 Gewinne für Obama gegenüber Clinton und damit die Hälfte ihres Vorsprungs vom 4. März
Registrierungsdatum: Dec 2005
.....so ganz geschickt gehen Obamas Leute die Sache aber auch nicht immer an
Blog Results: Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
March 07, 2008
Read More: Barack Obama
Plouffe: "You have to wonder whether she'll be open and honest with the American people"
Obama campaign manager David Plouffe returned to the issue of Clinton's secrecy today, pointing to a USA Today story that reports that Bill Clinton's instructions to the National Archive have resulted in copious redactions to documents concerning his pardons.
"Behind closed doors, they’re trying to prevent the American people from evaluating [Clinton's White House] experience," he said. "You have to wonder whether she’ll be open and honest with the American people as president."
He also noted, again, that Clinton doesn't need to wait until April 15 to release the last six years of tax returns.
Clinton is "one of the most secretive politicians in America today," he said.
Plouffe, floating the attacks, used more or less the same excuse that Clinton's advisors have in attacking -- aka "vetting" -- Obama.
"The Republicans certainly aren’t going to consider anything out of bounds," he said.
He also responded to Samantha Power's suggestion that Obama's plan for Iraq is nothing more than a "best case scenario."
Obama's plan is a "rock-solid commitment," he said.
ALSO: Plouffe suggested that the campaign had mishandled the Goolsbee story.
"We regret how it was handled and wish all the information had been provided at the first moment," he said, though he maintained that Goolsbee had been misquoted.