Clinton thread
- Started
- Last post
- 442 Responses
- CALLES0
Clinton likens herself to 'Rocky'
- Will there be video of her chasing a chicken?TheBlueOne
- She obviously does not know that Rocky lost.mg33
- ********0
"In the wide-ranging interview, Ickes also [confirmed] that the Hillary campaign could still try to woo super-dels even if she lost the popular vote, with Michigan and Florida counted
So what's the point of even counting the popular vote?
Hillary Clinton is out there arguing in favor of counting the votes in all 50 states and here is Ickes saying that the RESULT of those votes will not matter to the Clinton campaign.
Of course it won't matter. I'm not sure why Armando or anyone else would be surprised about that.
Clinton's campaign has one premise -- victory at all costs. If that requires sundering the Democratic Party, so be it. She doesn't care. Therefore, there is no logic that applies. The popular vote only matters if it favors her. The pledged delegate lead only matters if it favors her. Michigan and Florida only matter if it favors her. States only matters if they vote for her. Groups and communities in this country only matters if they supports her. Super delegates only matter if they cast their lot with her.
Clinton personifies the worst of the "with us, or against us"-type thinking that has gotten us in trouble with the rest of the world.
So we have a campaign that is losing by every metric imaginable. And now that campaign says that it doesn't care if she's losing by every metric imaginable. Her campaign will carry on regardless.
No one can say that Clinton doesn't play to win. In some circumstances, that is admirable.
The only problem is that she already lost. At this point, this is just pathetic."
- in other news, fuck you********
- < Who wrote this?Mimio
- koz, in Daily Koz********
- sorry, mispelled it. Kos********
- in other news, fuck you
- ********0
Loyalty to My Country
By Bill Richardson
Tuesday, April 1, 2008; 10:29 AMMy recent endorsement of Barack Obama for president has been the subject of much discussion and consternation -- particularly among supporters of Hillary Clinton.
Led by political commentator James Carville, who makes a living by being confrontational and provocative, Clinton supporters have speculated about events surrounding this endorsement and engaged in personal attacks and insults.
While I certainly will not stoop to the low level of Mr. Carville, I feel compelled to defend myself against character assassination and baseless allegations.
Carville has made it very clear that this is a personal attack -- driven by his own sense of what constitutes loyalty. It is this kind of political venom that I anticipated from certain Clinton supporters and I campaigned against in my own run for president.
I repeatedly urged Democrats to stop attacking each other personally and even offered a DNC resolution calling for a positive campaign based on the issues. I was evenhanded in my efforts. In fact, my intervention in a debate during a particularly heated exchange was seen by numerous commentators as an attempt to defend Sen. Clinton against the barbs of Sens. Obama and John Edwards.
As I have pointed out many times, and most pointedly when I endorsed Sen. Obama, the campaign has been too negative, and we Democrats need to calm the rhetoric and personal attacks so we can come together as a party to defeat the Republicans.
More than anything, to repair the damage done at home and abroad, we must unite as a country. I endorsed Sen. Obama because I believe he has the judgment, temperament and background to bridge our divisions as a nation and make America strong at home and respected in the world again.
This was a difficult, even painful, decision. My affection and respect for the Clintons run deep. I do indeed owe President Clinton for the extraordinary opportunities he gave me to serve him and this country. And nobody worked harder for him or served him more loyally, during some very difficult times, than I did.
Carville and others say that I owe President Clinton's wife my endorsement because he gave me two jobs. Would someone who worked for Carville then owe his wife, Mary Matalin, similar loyalty in her professional pursuits? Do the people now attacking me recall that I ran for president, albeit unsuccessfully, against Sen. Clinton? Was that also an act of disloyalty?
And while I was truly torn for weeks about this decision, and seriously contemplated endorsing Sen. Clinton, I never told anyone, including President Clinton, that I would do so. Those who say I did are misinformed or worse.
As for Mr. Carville's assertions that I did not return President Clinton's calls: I was on vacation in Antigua with my wife for a week and did not receive notice of any calls from the president. I, of course, called Sen. Clinton prior to my endorsement of Sen. Obama. It was a difficult and heated discussion, the details of which I will not share here.
I do not believe that the truth will keep Carville and others from attacking me. I can only say that we need to move on from the politics of personal insult and attacks. That era, personified by Carville and his ilk, has passed and I believe we must end the rancor and partisanship that has mired Washington in gridlock. In my view, Sen. Obama represents our best hope of replacing division with unity. That is why, out of loyalty to my country, I endorse him for president.
The writer is governor of New Mexico and a former Democratic candidate for president.
- subversve0
i don't know if this has made its way to another thread... but it's too funny not to put into the clinton thread!
- ********0
"Illinois Sen. Barack Obama is surging in Pennsylvania, according to several new polls. In one survey, released by Public Policy Polling this morning, Obama is now leading New York Sen. Hillary Clinton for the first time, 45 percent to 43 percent. That represents a closing of a 26-percentage-point Clinton advantage from only two and a half weeks ago.
The Pennsylvania Democratic presidential primary is scheduled for April 22.
Obama’s gains are largely due to a narrowing of the gap with white voters—29-percentage points according to PPP—but he continues to trail Clinton 49 to 38 percent among whites. In mid-March, according to PPP, Clinton led 63 percent to 23 percent among whites. That mid-March poll occurred prior to Obama’s race speech, at the height of the controversy over Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
The PPP poll of 1224 likely Democratic primary voters between March 31 and April 1, with a margin of error of 2.8 percent, found that Obama has improved by double digits with both white women and white men. Today, PPP has Clinton leading 56 percent to 31 percent with white women. Obama leads 44 percent to 43 percent with white men.
Obama also improved with black voters, long his base. He now captures the support of three in four African Americans in the state.
A Rasmussen Reports poll, released April 1, had Clinton leading Obama by five points, 47 percent to 42 percent. Clinton had a 13-point lead two weeks earlier, according to Rasmussen. Another poll released the same day by SurveyUSA shows Obama making more modest gains. That survey found that Clinton was still ahead by 12 points, though Obama had narrowed her lead by 7 points in the past three weeks.
Taken together, the polls suggest that Pennsylvania, a state that once looked to be a lock for Clinton, has become considerably more competitive. His surge is especially notable considering Pennsylvania’s demographics and its closed primary, two factors thought to be key advantages for Clinton."
- ********0
"Yesterday I discussed speculation that that Hillary Clinton's campaign was getting caught under growing debt while Barack Obama continues to raise massive amounts of money.
Today we learned more about the finances of the two campaigns. First, Obama's fundraising:
Senator Barack Obama’s campaign announced today that more than 442,000 contributors across the country gave more than $40 million in March. More than 218,000 donors contributed to the campaign for the first time, and the average contribution level was $96.
"Senator Obama has always said that this campaign would rise or fall on the willingness of the American people to become partners in an effort to change our politics and start a new chapter in our history," campaign manager David Plouffe said. "Today we’re seeing the American people’s extraordinary desire to change Washington, as tens of thousands of new contributors joined the more than a million Americans who have already taken ownership of this campaign for change. Many of our contributors are volunteering for the campaign, making our campaign the largest grassroots army in recent political history."
One of the truisms of campaign fundraising is that if you're not going after max donors ($2,300 for the primary, $2,300 for the general), then the key is getting donors in to the pipeline early. When someone contributes once, they're more likely to contribute again. We're seeing the confirmation of this belief with Obama's fundraising. He's bringing in new donors, but he has hundreds of thousands of donors making repeated contributions.
March was arguably Obama's worst month of the campaign. He wasn't able to take advantage of his shot to knock Clinton out of the race by winning the primaries in Ohio and Texas (and yes, I know, he got more delegates out of Texas, but he didn't win the primary). Clinton got a bit of a bounce after the March 4th contests. Then the Jeremiah Wright story blew up on Obama. His poll numbers tanked in the middle of the month. His extraordinary speech on race in Philadelphia has helped him recover, but he probably lost well over a week of momentum, so one would expect his fundraising to have suffered.
Obviously it didn't. Based on what the Clinton campaign leaked to Time, that Clinton didn't hit $20 million, and adding in the $13 million raised by McCain, Obama raised more money in March than both his Democratic and Republican rivals combined.
That leads us to the second thing about fundraising we've learned today: the Clinton campaign is financially screwed; from Ben Smith at The Politico:
Clinton aide Howard Wolfson suggested that Hillary's tax returns will be out today or tomorrow:
"She said late last week that they would be out within a week and so you can count on that," he said.
Wolfson also said Clinton's fundraising totals would be out when the filings are due, around April 20.
People have started asking whether Clinton is going broke. Obama is outspending her 5-1 on TV. Now, for probably the first time in the campaign, the Clinton campaign is refusing to divulge their finances until they're required by law.
There is no plausible explanation for why the campaign would refuse to release their fundraising totals except that the news is dreadful. Releasing her tax returns today, which they've refused to do for months, appears to be a diversionary tactic, something to buy them a few days of avoiding having to ignore too many questions about whether the campaign is in debt and going broke.
We know why Obama might have had a tough month fundraising. Why would Clinton's fundraising go in the tank?
One obvious answer, that savvy people have predicted for some time, is that Clinton's fundraising was heavily skewed toward people who gave the maximum donation. When those folks gave their $2,300 for the primary, they were done. They can't give any more money to her for the primary. Unlike Obama, she doesn't have a comparatively deep well from which to draw repeat contributions.
Another possibility, though, is that some of Clinton's potential donors are just as angry with the divisive and racial direction of her campaign as many other Democrats. If you're from a state that Clinton's campaign says doesn't matter, why would you contribute to her campaign? If you want to heal rather than exacerbate racial divides in the United States, why would you reward her for the campaign she's conducted?
It would be great for the party if Hillary Clinton would admit she won't be the nominee, and step aside so Obama can focus exclusively on defeating John McCain. By staying in a contest she can't win, Hillary Clinton is imposing an opportunity cost on Democrats by keeping Obama from being able to devote his full resources from taking on John McCain. But even though she refuses to admit she shouldn't continue, at some point, her bank account may insist that she admit to the world, and admit to herself, that she will not win, that Barack Obama will be our Presidential nominee. "
- mg330
I can't believe she is running another 3am ad, this time on "who do you want to answer the phone at 3am when there is an economic crisis," as if any president would be called at THREE AM IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT to be told something catastrophic just happened to the economy AT THREE AM IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT that no one knew about before that.
Seriously, she and her campaign crew must be out of their minds with desperation that they think an ad like that is at all logical or relavent. It's hilarious.
- "In a real dark night of the soul it is always three o'clock in the morning."-********
- "In a real dark night of the soul it is always three o'clock in the morning."-
- rylamar0
I want her to do my idea for a 3AM ad in response to Obama's bad bowling to show how petty she can be.
"When your best bowling team member can't make it on league night who do you think will be the most prepared to take that call at 3AM to be the emergency alternate? I believe I have the qualifications, scores, and experience to do so.
Obama has proven that he may be able to take that call at 3AM, but as you've seen he will fail under the pressure!"
- ********0
"Carter Endorses Obama
Almost.Speaking to Nigerian reporters Wednesday in the town of Abuja, Carter responded to a question about the prolonged race for the Democratic nomination.
"We are very interested in the primaries," Carter said, according to the Nigerian newspaper This Day. "Don't forget that Obama won in my state of Georgia. My town, which is home to 625 people, is for Obama. My children and their spouses are pro-Obama. My grandchildren are also pro-Obama. As a superdelegate, I would not disclose who I am rooting for, but I leave you to make that guess."
- TheBlueOne0
I like the way she doesn't want to "deny anyone the right to vote", but back in December she said "It'll be over by Feb 5th..."
But Hillary!!Why? You were so willing to let Americans not speak their mond before, but now now it's soooo important! Yes. Evil beootch.
- ukit0
Clinton can't quite believe it's over. She probably dreams that she's ahead and then wakes up and cries.
- mg330
Interloper on Clinton Conference Calls Wants HRC to "Talk Sexy"
In the "just plain bizarre" category, some "dude," as our colleague Chris Cillizza, a.k.a, "the Fix," tells us, got on today's conference call with Hillary Clinton's chief campaign strategist Mark Penn, communications director Howard Wolfson and deputy communications director Phil Singer and asked whether Clinton could "talk sexy" in her ads so he could "pinch the squid."The unidentified man then said he thought Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has "nice ears."
Needless to say, the conference call crasher was ignored.
- ********0
"AS HER ham-handed handlers insult entire states, and her self-absorbed husband indulges in red-faced, finger-wagging outbursts, Sen. Hillary Clinton soldiers on.
It is a joyless campaign, with stump speeches that carry tales of woe and get delivered in a booming voice that could open a wall safe.
A full three months after the Iowa caucuses, nearly two months after Washington's caucuses, the Clintons seem bent on turning the Democrats' fertile ground into scorched earth.
The campaign has come back to the Northwest.
Clinton's candidacy is hardly the same one touted by national pundits as "inevitable" when she held three $2,300-a- head fundraisers here in October.
And we've witnessed a former front-runner's ability to step in it -- and stay there.
Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, holder of two Cabinet-level posts in the Clinton administration, bounded into a Portland rally two weeks ago to endorse Sen. Barack Obama.
The retaliation was swift, furious and self-defeating.
Clinton backer James Carville, noting that Richardson made up his mind during Holy Week, opined: "Mr. Richardson's endorsement came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out for 30 pieces of silver, so I think the timing is appropriate, if ironic."
If Richardson is Judas, which Clinton is Jesus?
Act 2 came last weekend in California, when Bill Clinton met privately with California's convention superdelegates.
Rachel Binah, a supporter of Richardson's presidential candidacy earlier this year who now backs Clinton, told the ex-president she was "sorry" to hear Carville's remarks. (Carville has gone to every media outlet that would have him to repeat the insult.)
Bill Clinton erupted. "Five times to my face (Richardson) said that he would never do that," said a beet-faced Bubba.
"The former president then went on a tirade that ran from the media's unfair treatment of Hillary to questions about the fairness of votes in state caucuses that voted for Obama," the San Francisco Chronicle reported.
The official Clinton reaction to Richardson's endorsement was condescension.
"The time (Richardson) could have been effective has long since passed. ... I don't think it is a significant endorsement in this environment," declared Clinton "chief strategist" Mark Penn.
Sound familiar? After Super Tuesday, Penn declared that Obama had won only one "significant" state, his home base of Illinois. Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Missouri -- and Washington that Saturday -- are dismissed by Hillaryland.
The campaign stumbled on, trying to explain the candidate's false statement that she landed under fire while on a visit to Bosnia as first lady. The TV footage of the event showed a standard-issue welcoming ceremony.
Come Wednesday, Richardson's endorsement was back on ABC News. Hillary Clinton was quoted as disparaging Obama to Richardson, saying: "He cannot win, Bill. He cannot win."
She was denying the statement Thursday.
The defections must stick in the craw of the Clintons. Bill Clinton watched the Super Bowl with Richardson in New Mexico, seeking the very endorsement that is now dismissed.
Senior party nabobs are sending a message: It's time for you to go. They've cleared the table, put the cat out, and are yawning at the power couple that gave them the first Democratic presidential re-election since FDR.
Look at Tuesday's Obama endorsements: Wyoming Gov. Dave Freudenthal, a U.S. attorney under Clinton; 9/11 Commission member and former Indiana Rep. Tim Roemer; ex-House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Lee Hamilton; and ex-Montana Sen. John Melcher.
Jimmy Carter was heard from in (of all places) a Nigerian newspaper.
"Don't forget that Obama won my state of Georgia," Carter said. (Take that, Mark Penn.) "My town, which is home to 625 people, is for Obama. My children and their spouses are pro-Obama. My grandchildren are pro-Obama."
He's staying officially neutral, of course.
When left to her own devices, Hillary Clinton can be a highly impressive human being.
She delivered a superlative, insightful briefing on global warming in the Arctic, after a 2005 tour with Sen. John McCain. At a Mexican restaurant in Las Vegas, a man shouted that his wife was "an illegal." "No woman is illegal," Clinton shot back, earning days of rancid abuse from right-wing pundits.
New Year's Day found Clinton in Ames, Iowa, delivering a so-so stump speech, but then engaging in an engrossing question-and-answer session. Alas, The Des Moines Register reported that morning that the candidate had taken questions in only three of her previous 27 "town meetings."
The press is rough on the Clintons, but Obama has lately stilled a media firestorm.
The miscalculations and misjudgments -- which likely have cost Hillary Clinton the nomination, and Bill Clinton much of his reputation -- are the campaign's own doing.
In years past, the Clintons showed an amazing knack for getting themselves into binds, then escaping tight corners. It has deserted them.
Obama and Hillary Clinton will appear Saturday night when Montana Democrats hold their annual Mansfield-Metcalf Dinner in Butte. It won't be hard to tell which candidacy carries the most baggage."
- ********0
C"linton's God talk is more complicated--and more deeply rooted--than either fans or foes would have it, a revelation not just of her determination to out-Jesus the gop, but of the powerful religious strand in her own politics...
Through all of her years in Washington, Clinton has been an active participant in conservative Bible study and prayer circles that are part of a secretive Capitol Hill group known as the Fellowship. Her collaborations with right-wingers such as Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) and former Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) grow in part from that connection.
When Clinton first came to Washington in 1993, one of her first steps was to join a Bible study group. For the next eight years, she regularly met with a Christian "cell" whose members included Susan Baker, wife of Bush consigliere James Baker; Joanne Kemp, wife of conservative icon Jack Kemp; Eileen Bakke, wife of Dennis Bakke, a leader in the anti-union Christian management movement; and Grace Nelson, the wife of Senator Bill Nelson, a conservative Florida Democrat.
Clinton's prayer group was part of the Fellowship (or "the Family"), a network of sex-segregated cells of political, business, and military leaders dedicated to "spiritual war" on behalf of Christ, many of them recruited at the Fellowship's only public event, the annual National Prayer Breakfast. (Aside from the breakfast, the group has "made a fetish of being invisible," former Republican Senator William Armstrong has said.) The Fellowship believes that the elite win power by the will of God, who uses them for his purposes. Its mission is to help the powerful understand their role in God's plan.
The Fellowship isn't out to turn liberals into conservatives; rather, it convinces politicians they can transcend left and right with an ecumenical faith that rises above politics. Only the faith is always evangelical, and the politics always move rightward.
This is in line with the Christian right's long-term strategy. Francis Schaeffer, late guru of the movement, coined the term "cobelligerency" to describe the alliances evangelicals must forge with conservative Catholics. Colson, his most influential disciple, has refined the concept of cobelligerency to deal with less-than-pure politicians. In this application, conservatives sit pretty and wait for liberals looking for common ground to come to them. Clinton, Colson told us, "has a lot of history" to overcome, but he sees her making the right moves."
- TheBlueOne0
Another Sunday morning, another day of me throwing sofa cushions at the media talking heads on TV talking about Hillary as the "comeback kid". These media morons are keeping this alive because it's good copy. I hate these fuckers. And David Brooks can suck my cock.
Man, I'm getting old.
- mg330
- ********0
"Tied to another superdelegate endorsement for Barack Obama, the New York Times looks at the delegate math more broadly, and sees what we've known for a while: Hillary Clinton has lost.
Since February 5, Obama has picked up 69 superdelegates, while Clinton has lost two, even as she held them out as her path to the nomination.
Trailing by more than 160 pledged delegates — those chosen in state primaries or caucuses — Mrs. Clinton has counted on superdelegates to help her overtake Mr. Obama with a late surge before the party’s convention in August. The party’s rules for proportional allocation make it highly difficult for her to erase Mr. Obama’s pledged delegate lead, even if she sweeps the final 10 contests.
So her aides have lobbied to persuade those still uncommitted superdelegates to back her — or to continue holding out so her campaign has the chance to demonstrate momentum and superior electability in primaries from Pennsylvania’s on April 22 through Montana’s on June 3.
Yet Mrs. Clinton’s once formidable lead among superdelegates who have announced preferences has shrunk to 34 by the Obama campaign count. The pool of remaining uncommitted superdelegates for her to draw from has dwindled to around 330, fewer than half the overall total of 795 superdelegates.
So what's the end game?
Even if Mrs. Clinton narrows Mr. Obama’s delegate lead to 100, and if no further superdelegates make commitments through the end of the primaries, she’d wake up June 4 needing to win over two-thirds of the still-uncommitted superdelegates.
In two months, she's lost two superdelegates while Obama has gained 69. But two more months is going to turn the math around for her?
This thing is over. All that's left is for her to admit that."
- Randd - source on this please...TheBlueOne
- blog: http://www.dailykos.…
nytimes article: http://www.nytimes.c…flashbender
- ********0
"I just had the strangest experience. A presidential candidate gave me back my donation, told me would not accept it because of what I do for a living, and it left me more committeed to the candidate and conviced that he is the person that must be the next president.
I went to the mailbox and found a letter from the Obama Campaign. Enclosed was a check for $100, the return of my contribution from earlier this month along with a letter explaining why it would not be accepted.
You see, I am a registered lobbyist for a non-profit organziation. We are a non-partisan, non-political membership organziation, we do not have a political action committee and strictly observe a policy of non-particpation in any event that even remotely appears political. I serve as their legislative rep, trying to ensure that expertise of our membership is heard by public officials on issues related to their area of expertise (public safety).
I guess given the fact that I was not a corporate/industry lobbyist, I never really considered that Obama's no-lobbyist money ban would apply to me, but it did! The letter thanked me for my interest in the campaign, but stated flately that my donation was not acceptable.
It's not often you get told that you are persona non grata and end up praising the person who exiled you. But that what I am doing. Obama actions are living up to his words. Through the actions of his campaign he is demonstrating that his values are real and his commitment is certain.
Another aspect that is quite impressive to me is that the Obama campaign has a mechnism set up to check each donation, even one as small as mine, against the lobbyist database, and then return it.
If I ever doubted the sincerity of the Obama Campaign, this action removed any questions.
I know my donation is not going to make a difference one way or another, and I hope that I am not the type of "corrupt lobbyist" that has infested washington.
Obama, and his campaign, are committed to bringing about change. They are doing this in both large and small steps. Refusing my money is a small step, but it spoke volumes to me. It showed me Obama means what he says and backs it up with action. It shows me that no detail is to small and that his organization is top notch. It strengthened my commitment to see him elected President.
I guess I just can't use my money to do it:).
p.s.: As a side note, last year my spouse had set up automatic monthly payments to Hillary (nothing big $10/month) but after switching to Obama, had to battle with the Clinton campaign to cancel the automatic payment. I find it ironic that one campaign won't take my money, the other won't give it back!
Updated to add: I though we had finally stopped the payments to the Clinton Campaign, but after checking with my spouse, it turns out they are still taking the payments 3-4 months after we asked them to stop."
- ********0