Clinton thread
- Started
- Last post
- 442 Responses
- OSFA0
100 ???
- TheBlueOne0
Hey Clinton..no mississippi for you!!
- ********0
You know what would be awesome, ukit? That it all got as clear as water; it would be awesome that a candidate (in US or Europe, doesn't matter - although in Europe there's presently more fake ideological partisanship that can be related to pressure groups) would say:
"These and that people gave me this amount of money. They support what I want to do with business and my ideas and expect some feedback, and influence, and power - and they gave me money so that I could buy clever advertising and a powerful marketing campaign to tell you this." (US straight-forwardness style)
"But do I need their money now that I'm speaking the truth to you, fellow citizens?" (EU style)
"No. I just need you to believe me." (Obama style)
That is the problem.
- I mean, either you believe in a system or you go for an unknown guy. Question is: how far is that guy from the system?********
- It's not as bad as you think. You can actually look up who got what - it's all publicly available. Plus, there a limits on how much people can donate. Limited to only a few thousand per person.ukit
- much people can donate - a few thousand per person.ukit
- well now that's good.********
- Not as simple as that of course...people try to buy influence by holding fundraisers and organizing donations from their friends, but still, it's not a black holeukit
- donations from friends....but still, there is at least some transparency and limits placed on the systemukit
- but why do uninterested people donate? Just for Country's sake? If so that is beautiful.********
- Don't get me wrong: I appreciate that interests and expected influences r clear. That kind of transp is a lesson we should learn around here.********
- many countries should take.********
- I mean, either you believe in a system or you go for an unknown guy. Question is: how far is that guy from the system?
- ukit0
Looks like Ferraro said the same thing 20 years ago:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/be…
A Ferraro flashback
"If Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn't be in the race," she said.
Really. The cite is an April 15, 1988 Washington Post story (byline: Howard Kurtz), available only on Nexis.
Here's the full context:
Placid of demeanor but pointed in his rhetoric, Jackson struck out repeatedly today against those who suggest his race has been an asset in the campaign. President Reagan suggested Tuesday that people don't ask Jackson tough questions because of his race. And former representative Geraldine A. Ferraro (D-N.Y.) said Wednesday that because of his "radical" views, "if Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn't be in the race."
Asked about this at a campaign stop in Buffalo, Jackson at first seemed ready to pounce fiercely on his critics. But then he stopped, took a breath, and said quietly, "Millions of Americans have a point of view different from" Ferraro's.
Discussing the same point in Washington, Jackson said, "We campaigned across the South . . . without a single catcall or boo. It was not until we got North to New York that we began to hear this from Koch, President Reagan and then Mrs. Ferraro . . . . Some people are making hysteria while I'm making history."
Classy stuff.
- even more scandalous, the campaign fails to denounced it********
- Not just fails, refuses toukit
- even more scandalous, the campaign fails to denounced it
- ********0
"Nominating Hillary Clinton will destroy the Democratic Party
As Will Rogers once famously stated, "I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!" Heading into the endgame of the current nomination season, this aphorism has never been more apt, and the fault lines in the Democratic coalition are becoming ever more clear. Hillary Clinton has gotten the votes of older voters, white women, Latinos, lower-middle income voters, and voters with less formal education. Barack Obama has received his votes from younger voters, African-American voters, those considered upper-class, and voters with increased formal education.
In the general election, most of these Democratic voters will solidify behind the eventual nominee. However, there are two demographic groups - young voters and African-Americans - who could not show up if Hillary Clinton is the nominee. Not only will it likely mean a loss in the general election against John McCain, but it will fracture the Democratic Party at a time when we have a chance to claim a transformative majority in Congress.
Simply put, Hillary Clinton at the top of the Democratic ticket spells doom.
PsiFighter37's diary :: ::
(Preface: I'm going to admit that some of this analysis is purely conjecture on my part, but I think a good deal of it can be backed up empirically)First, I'm going to address young voters. Yes, we (and by we, I mean the under-30 age demographic) get a lot of flack for not participating in the political process. However, our turnout has been going up in recent years. In 2004, youth participation was up to 47%, up 9% from 2000. Similarly, youth participation increased to 24% in the 2006 midterm elections, better than participation in the 2002 elections. Furthermore, there is plenty of evidence that young voters are increasingly voting Democratic; in the 2006 midterm elections, young voters voted Democratic in House races by a 20% margin and voted Democratic in Senate races by a 27% margin. Given the continued unpopularity of the Republican Party under George W. Bush, these margins may continue to hold - or even increase - in the coming years...
...if we don't nominate Hillary Clinton. While it's undeniable that Clinton's run for the White House has allowed her to command a strong majority of the female vote, that enthusiasm is not filtering down to young voters. In fact, she's probably one of the most disliked politicians amongst youth voters after the current administration. To boot: the "One Million Strong for Barack Obama" Facebook group that was written about in the Washington Post has over 496,000 members right now. The individual Barack Obama Facebook page has over 681,000 people. Contrast this with Hillary Clinton's page, which has a mere 132,000+ supporters. Perhaps more importantly, look at the Facebook group titled "One Million Strong Against Hillary". It has over 926,000 members - outpacing the support for Obama (keep in mind that there is probably an immense amount of overlap between the aforementioned Obama groups). This phenomenon was blogged about over at the Seattle Post-Intelligencer website, where it noted that there are many negative groups aimed at Clinton - and Obama is the topic of many more positive ones.
A Hillary Clinton nomination will dissuade an entire generation of young people from being involved in the Democratic Party. My generation may have been fairly young when the battles of the 1990s were fought, but they still do not view her that favorably. Young voters are the seeds for the transformative nature that this election could bring. If we lock in an entire generation of voters as strongly Democratic, we can bring a broad Democratic majority to govern for a generation.
Second, African-American voters will be vitally important to the continued vitality of the Democratic Party. While they have become a staunch part of the base, they have also gone strongly for Barack Obama - and in large part due to the race-baiting comments that Bill Clinton engaged in before the South Carolina primary. But it hasn't been just that - whether it was Andrew Cuomo's 'shuck and jive' comments, Bob Kerrey's insinuations that Obama attended a madrassa, Hillary Clinton's own comments demeaning Martin Luther King's work, or Geraldine Ferraro's straight-up racist remarks (and the even-more absurd defense of those comments) - there has been a continued pattern of insults towards African-American voters.
Let's put this in the context of electoral politics: the African-American vote went to both Al Gore and John Kerry by a huge margin - both received about 90%. Given the continued alienation of minority support by Hillary Clinton, her husband, and their surrogates, it's quite possible that this percentage could drop. Consider that African-American participation in the 2004 election increased 25% - and Kerry still lost the election. If African-American support is depressed due to the Clinton campaign essentially stealing the nomination (which is realistically the only way they can win it now), or even flips to McCain by a factor of 5-10%, we will get shellacked in the general election. If Clinton is the nominee, this is an extremely likely scenario and would mean that the Democratic Party would have to engage in a lot of reconciliation with a community that is absolutely integral to our electoral prospects.
In conclusion, there's no way we can afford to have Hillary Clinton be the nominee. Aside from the fact that it's highly unlikely at this point, it will squander our chances at locking in a strong Democratic majority within the Millennials - something that could give us electoral dominance for a generation. And her nomination will almost certainly damage core support from the African-American community. Sending Bill Clinton to black churches won't be able to repair the damage that his wife's campaign has inflicted over the course of the past few months. The repercussions could be felt within the Democratic Party for decades...without the continued strong support - and voting participation from African-Americans - the Democratic Party would be relegated to minority status for the foreseeable future.
The Democratic Party can't afford Hillary Clinton as the nominee because it will destroy the party - and that's without even mentioning the devastating effects of re-instituting the DLC/Clinton machine in the party infrastructure. To nominate her is to enforce a death wish upon our electoral chances."
- TheBlueOne0
*PHEW* I was really starting to worry there for a little while that somehow the Democrats would actually pull this out. Good to see that they're being consistent and finding a way to self destruct...once again able to pull defeat from the jaws of certain victory...
- mrdobolina0
huckabee got 7,000 votes in mississippi, cosmo. so you can sleep well knowing that. :)
- ********0
Ukit is a gentleman and a sport - take no less. Ukit for President.
Ukit doesn't want changes. Changes want Ukit ;)
- ********0
Chuck Norris doesn't vote. He bites Ukit's finger.
- ********0
Sorry Rand, I got carried away and intruded somewhat.
"this thread is about the way Hillary Clinton is running her campaign" (Randd).
Please carry on.
- should I just thrust a job offer so that my posts get deleted?********
- should I just thrust a job offer so that my posts get deleted?
- rtr0
Hillary...putting the 'cunt' back into country
- ********0
"Texas has now joined the ranks of states that don't matter anymore. From CNN:
After a comprehensive review of these results, CNN estimates that Obama won more support from Texas caucus-goers than Clinton. Based on the state party's tally, Obama's caucus victory translates into 38 national convention delegates, compared to 29 for Clinton.
And though Clinton won more delegates than Obama in the primary, 65 to 61, Obama's wider delegate margin in the caucuses gives him the overall statewide delegate lead, 99 to 94 — or once superdelegate endorsements are factored in, 109 to 106.
CNN's estimate is based on a statistical review, which combined the county-level results provided by the state party with data from the U.S. Census, exit polls and telephone surveys.
That analysis showed that the counties that reported data to the state party last week appear to be a representative cross-section of the Texas population. The analysis also indicates that areas that were won by Obama reported results at essentially the same rate as areas that were won by Clinton.
Every procedure used to statistically model the outcome of the caucuses indicated that Obama had more support than Clinton."
- TheBlueOne0
Randd, don't look at this. You might throw some coffee at your screen or some shit:
- MY BROTHER JUST SENT ME THAT LINK!********
- GRR N GRR********
- MY BROTHER JUST SENT ME THAT LINK!
- ********0
"The Clinton campaign claims that since it won the "big states", it makes her a more effective general election candidate. Let's take a look at that logic.
The 10 biggest states by population. I've added numbers form SUSA's 50-state poll matching up Obama and Clinton to McCain.
1.) California: O +9, C +10
2.) Texas: O -1, O -7
3.) New York: O +14, C +18
4.) Florida: O -2, C +9
5.) Illinois: O +29, C +11
6.) Pennsylvania: O -5, C +1
7.) Ohio: O +10, C +10
8.) Michigan: O +1, C-even
9.) Georgia: O -13, C -21
10.) North Carolina: O -2, C -8Of those, California, New York, and Ohio (all of which Clinton won) are solidly Democratic. California and New York will certainly stay (D) in November. Illinois, which Obama won, is solidly (D) no matter who the nominee is. The two are essentially even in Michigan, while neither is currently competitive in Georgia.
Of the states that will be competitive, Obama has clear advantages in Texas and North Carolina, while Clinton has clear advantages in Pennsylvania and Florida. In the electoral math, that is 49 EVs for Obama, 48 for Clinton.
Yup, Obama has a one electoral vote advantage from the top 10 "big states" that Clinton can't stop yammering about.
But more important than the biggest states should be the closest states in 2004. I've coded states that Obama won this primary season in Blue, Clinton in Red. Those still pending in black:
New Mexico: -1
Iowa: -1
New Hampshire: +1
Wisconsin: +1
Ohio: -2
Pennsylvania: +2
Michigan: +3
Minnesota: +3
Nevada: -3
Oregon: +4 [update: changed to "pending" from Blue]
Colorado: -5
Florida: -5
Delaware: +7
Washington: +7
Missouri: -7
New Jersey: +7
Virginia: -8If you were to make the moronic assumption that only the winner of the primary could win those states, that would add up to 81 74 electoral votes for Obama, 49 for Clinton. But better yet, let's look at SUSA's 50 state poll and see how the candidates fared in these states against McCain. I've color coded them Blue for states that Obama does better in, and Red for those Clinton does better:
New Mexico: O +7, C-even
Iowa: O +9, C -5
New Hampshire: O +2, C -8
Wisconsin: O +11, C +4
Ohio: O +10, C +10
Pennsylvania: O -5, C +1
Michigan: O +1, C-even
Minnesota: O +7, C +4
Nevada: O +5, C -8
Oregon: O +8, C -5
Colorado: O +9, C -6
Florida: O -2, C +9
Delaware: O +9, C +5
Washington: O +14, C -2
Missouri: O -6, C -4
New Jersey: O-even, C +5
Virginia: O-even, C -10Pretty stark, huh? In terms of electoral votes, that's an advantage of 101 for Obama, 74 for Clinton.
No matter how you parse it, the data is clear that Obama is the more competitive November candidate for the Democratic Party."
- flashbender0
that's a lot of numbers.
my head hurts now.
All I know s that Obama can beat McCain and Hillary can not.
- Well, until Bush bombs Iran in, say October....then War Hero McCain gets all the votesTheBlueOne
- is that when the US wins the war?flashbender
- According to Dick Cheney, Yes.TheBlueOne
- ukit0
Ferraro: Give it to the Woman, Not to the Black Guy Hotlist
by DHinMIThe latest in the disgusting story of longtime racist Geraldine Ferraro:
"Sexism is a bigger problem," Ferraro argued. "It's OK to be sexist in some people's minds. It's not OK to be racist."
Hey, former Congresswoman Ferraro, I've got a message for you from the 21st Century: it's not OK to be sexist OR racist. It's not OK to create a hierarchy of persecution and apply it to Democratic politics. It's not OK to imply, as you've seemed to be implying in recent days, that because women supposedly have it harder, that Hillary Clinton should get an easier path or that it's OK to denigrate Barack Obama's achievements by characterizing them as arising from advantages supposedly afforded to African-Americans.
There's also this reaction from Clinton campaign manager Maggie Williams:
Williams’s statement includes this reaction from Clinton: "I do not agree with that and you know it’s regrettable that any of our supporters on both sides say things that veer off into the personal. We ought to keep this focused on the issues. That’s what this campaign should be about," she said today. Williams goes one step further and suggests that Obama’s campaign is the one breaking the rules. "Sen. Obama’s campaign staff seems to have forgotten his pledge. We have not," Williams said, "And, we reject these false, personal and politically calculated attacks on the eve of a primary."
When John Edwards and the other candidates were still in the race, legitimate questions raised about Hillary Clinton were characterized by her campaign as examples of the male candidates "ganging up" on Clinton, as if she should be measured by different rules because she was a woman. Since these arguments were advanced on behalf of the same person who was claiming that only she was experienced enough and tough enough to be commander in chief, reporters and voters couldn't be convinced to see her as the tender woman under assault from the testosterone-addled brutes. The Clinton campaign eventually abandoned that calumny.
Ferraro is reprising the same tactic, but with a twist. She's fusing the politics of gender bias with a resentment of racial integration that glides imperceptibly past many people but like a dog whistle delivers its message on a frequency that many older white voters hear acutely. It's not legitimate for Barack Obama to question or challenge Hillary Clinton, implies Ferraro, not only because Hillary is a woman and women take too much crap from men, but also—and this is crucial—because Barack Obama is a Black guy, and the elites in their nice homes with their fancy degrees are once again taking something away from "us" that we worked hard to earn and they're giving it away on a silver platter to some young Black guy.
Ferraro is playing a feminist George Wallace. Wallace appealed to insecure whites who felt that their struggles and hard work entitled them to live in all white neighborhoods, and elitist judges shouldn't be able to force them to accept black neighbors and integrated schools. Ferraro is trying to appeal to insecure white women who believe they've put in their time and now they're entitled to get their woman president, and nobody should be allowed to take away their presidency and give it to the Black guy who hasn't earned it.
When Obama rejects racist garbage put forth by a Clintonite, the Clinton campaign attacks Obama for supposedly making the campaign personal and nasty. The tender woman line didn't work by itself. But the tender woman under assault from the Black man, that hadn't yet been tried, so Geraldine Ferraro is giving it a whirl, and Hillary Clinton's response is a tepid "it's regrettable" paired with the false claim that "both sides" are doing it.
We Democrats--with the evident exception of Geraldine Ferraro and possibly some members of the Clinton braintrust--are better than this. We have evolved to the point where a woman and an African American are competing for our Presidential nomination. I'm happy to be supporting the candidate who is likely to stave off a tough challenge from a formidable rival and become our Presidential nominee. Geraldine Ferraro is angry because she believes the woman she supports is entitled to the nomination but her Black rival is not.
I want the person I believe is our best candidate to earn our nomination. Geraldine Ferraro wants the woman to get the nomination instead of the Black guy. Hillary Clinton says Ferraro's comments are regrettable. I think Clinton should declare that the attitudes and beliefs underlying Ferraro's comments are repugnant.
- emukid0
"The Obama campaign is attacking me to hurt you."
- She's hurting me with her words...and then my shoes came off.TheBlueOne
- flashbender0
"It wasn't a racist comment, it was a statement of fact"
- ********0
Keith Olbermann's diary :: ::
My point tonight is that the resignation of Geraldine Ferraro from the Finance Committee of Senator Clinton's campaign is a lost opportunity for the candidate to do simply do the proverbial, cheesy, cornball, 'right thing.'
Instead, the Comment will trace the path down which Senator Clinton's advisors led her:
Do they have Senator Clinton herself compare the remark to Al Campanis talking on Nightline -- on Jackie Robinson day –- about how blacks lacked the necessities to become baseball executives, while she points out that Barock Obama has not gotten his 1600 delegates as part of some kind of Affirmative Action plan?
Do these advisors have Senator Clinton invoke Samantha Power -- gone by sunrise after she used the word "monster" -- and have Senator Clinton say, "this is how I police my campaign and this is what I stand for," while she fires former Congresswoman Ferraro from any role the campaign?
No.
Somebody tells her that simply disgreeing with and rejecting the remarks is sufficient.
And she should then call, "regrettable," words that should make any Democrat retch.There is much in the decisions made by the Senator and her strategists that was obvious, mistaken, and damaging.
And there is the grimmer prospect. That these, as Howard Fineman suggested on Countdown last night, were not mistakes at all.It sounds as if those advisors want their campaign to be associated with those words, and the cheap... ignorant... vile... racism that underlies every syllable.
And that Geraldine Ferraro has just gone free-lance.
Senator Clinton:
This is not a campaign strategy.
This is a suicide pact.
- mg330
I heard Clinton on NPR this morning, making her dumb argument that the states she has won should be an indication of how she would do in the general election... does she not realizing she's only running against another democrat right now? It is not the general election. Just because she won some big states, she thinks she should win. Of course, there are other reasons she thinks that, ranging from insanity to obviously not being so good at math.
- she knows, she's just twisting the truth to inlfluence stupid people, as usual********
- So, she would win all the same states that Gore & Kerry won. Excellent. Awesome winning strategy there.TheBlueOne
- she knows, she's just twisting the truth to inlfluence stupid people, as usual