I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t want Hillary Clinton waiting around for me to die

by lestro

As Hillary Clinton rolls to another victory among stupid white people (sorry West Virginia, but I call them like I see them: You are 95 percent white, only 15 percent of you went to college and you are a full 5 percent below national average on high school graduates) in a state that leans so red it isn’t even considered a swing state, a new Gallup poll says that a majority of Democrats want Hillary as Obama’s Veep:

“A new Gallup poll shows 55 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents surveyed think Obama should offer the New York senator a spot on his ticket.”

but the next sentence explains how that could possibly be true:

“That number is significantly influenced by Clinton’s supporters — close the 75 percent of her backers want the No. 2 spot to be offered, while only 43 percent of Obama supporters feel the same.”

It means like their candidate, Hillary supporters can’t let go. They are clinging tenaciously to the idea that she could still get back in the White House, that it’s not over, that she didn’t lose, couldn’t lose.

A majority of Obama supporters, meanwhile, seem to want a clean break and want to turn the page.

Imagine that.

Read more of this post

Baby, he was Born to Run

by lestro

Today on his web site, the Boss publicly endorsed Obama:

https://i2.wp.com/wonkette.com/assets/resources/2008/04/brucespringsteen.jpgSenator Obama, in my view, is head and shoulders above the rest.

He has the depth, the reflectiveness, and the resilience to be our next President.

He speaks to the America I’ve envisioned in my music for the past 35 years, a generous nation with a citizenry willing to tackle nuanced and complex problems, a country that’s interested in its collective destiny and in the potential of its gathered spirit.

That should definitely help some with those blue collar voters Obama may have offended with his ill-advised and poorly phrased “cling to” bit.

But like the Wright controversy, Obama may be weathering this “cling to” thing better than expected and has significantly cut into Clinton’s lead in Pennsylvania and Indiana, according to the LA Times:

The poll found Clinton leading Obama 46% to 41% in Pennsylvania — a far cry from the double-digit margins she held in earlier polls.

In Indiana, where little polling has occurred, previous surveys gave Clinton the edge. The Times/Bloomberg poll put Obama ahead, 40% to 35%.

The leads in Pennsylvania and Indiana are within the poll’s margin of sampling error.

It is also important to note when this poll was conducted:

The telephone interviews took place Thursday through Monday, meaning the bulk were conducted just as controversy broke out over an Obama remark widely criticized as demeaning to rural voters in Pennsylvania.

This really isn’t surprising. In every state where he has campaigned, Obama starts out well behind Clinton – whose name recognition, especially among Democrats, stretches back 16 years – but ends up closing the gap and, given enough time, passing her. (This is why it would be completely unfair to include Michigan and Florida in the delegate totals without a re-vote, because Obama agreed to not campaign there, at the request of the DNC and as a consequence for those states scheduling their primaries early.)

The six weeks between the last primary and the Pennsy vote next week could actually give Obama a chance to not only catch, but pass Clinton, whose favorable ratings now hover around the President’s.

But while the more people see of Obama, the more they like him, the more people see of Hillary, the less they like her. And her husband.

A new Washington Post/ABC News poll shows that nearly 60 percent of the country now thinks Hillary Clinton is not trustworthy:

Read more of this post

Hillary gets it wrong again

by lestro

So the big headline yesterday was “Clinton says Obama wants to stop votes” or something to that effect. According to the AP, Sen. Clinton in a series of interviews today told primary voters that Sen. Obama doesn’t want their votes to count:

“My take on it is a lot of Senator Obama‘s supporters want to end this race because they don’t want people to keep voting,” she told CBS affiliate KTVQ in Billings, Mont. “That’s just the opposite of what I believe. We want people to vote. I want the people of Montana to vote, don’t you?”

Montana holds its primary June 3. The New York senator made similar comments in interviews with stations in Indiana and North Carolina, which hold primaries May 6.

Funny thing is, just two days before, he said almost exactly the opposite and it was all over the damn place:

“My attitude is that Senator Clinton can run as long as she wants,” Mr. Obama, of Illinois, said at a news conference in a high school gymnasium here. “Her name is on the ballot. She is a fierce and formidable opponent, and she obviously believes she would make the best nominee and the best president.”

While it is true many of his supporters have recently reminded Hillary that math is certainly not in her favor and have recently urged her to stop her attacks on the likely Democratic candidate and give up her Quixotic Candidacy for the good of the party, Sen. Obama has not been one of them. Others have also urged the superdelegates to get real (despite threats from the Clinton mafia) and coalesce behind Obama since he will almost undoubtedly finish the primaries with more elected delegates.

Clinton, on the other hand, is getting her advice elsewhere.

Officially, however the campaign has not said such a thing and publicly supported Clinton’s right to continue running. Why should they? They have three times the money, all the momentum and he’s ahead by a comfortable enough margin that he was able to vacation in the Virgin Islands last week.

The AP story also offers this:

“I don’t even keep track of it, I can’t even tell you that figure,” Clinton said when asked by Pittsburgh CBS affiliate KDKA how many superdelegates had endorsed her in recent weeks.

Which is total bullshit, as the next sentence points out:

As she spoke, her husband, former President Clinton, was in Oregon, lobbying uncommitted superdelegates.

But, just to recap, Clinton is not doing well in that race, even losing a longtime friend who owes his entire political career to the Clintons. In thast respect, James Carville’s metaphor was apt, Richardson’s endorsement of Obama really is a Judas-like move if you’re a Clinton disciple.

But really, i suppose some Democrats could say the same thing about a candidate who continues to not only campaign but attack – sometimes viciously – the party’s best hope in nearly a decade to reclaim the White House. (***UPDATE BELOW!***)

Read more of this post

postcards from the internets

by twit

when he’s right he’s right: “I have some news for John McCain,” Obama said, according to The Politico. “There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain” started their war… John McCain may like to say he wants to follow Osama bin Laden to the gates of Hell, but so far all he’s done is follow George Bush into a misguided war…”

when she’s right she’s right twice: “It’s a hard sell for Hillary to say that she is the only one capable of leading this country in a war when she helped in leading the country into that war.” aaaand: “It is only because of the utter open-mindedness of the press that Hillary can lose 11 contests in a row and still be treated as a contender.”

through the looking glass: “First came Harold Ickes, who gave a presentation about Hillary Rodham Clinton’s prospects that severed all ties with reality.”

and back again: “A new CBS News/New York Times poll finds Barack Obama with a 16-point lead over rival Hillary Clinton among Democratic primary voters nationwide…

When all registered voters were asked who they favored in a head-to-head general election match up between Obama and McCain, Obama led by 12 percentage points, 50 to 38 percent. In a Clinton-McCain match up, registered voters were evenly split, with 46 percent backing each candidate.”

when the kitteh’z right…

https://i2.wp.com/yeswecanhas.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/republicat.jpg

more postcards after the jump…

Read more of this post

monday cartoons

by twit

Rampant technical issues prevent embedding videos for reasons beyond the twit’s comprehension. Videos are available at the links.

From the Raw Story on Feb 25, 2008:

Sen. Hillary Clinton blames some of her presidential woes in part on unfair press coverage but said she believed Obama had come under increased media scrutiny in recent days.On Sunday, she urged donors to watch the latest episode of Saturday Night Live, which featured a skit mocking last Thursday’s CNN debate as little more than a love fest for Obama.

Video at this link. Additional videos of SNL sketches from the episode are available here, including Tina Fey’s “Bitch is the New Black” sketch.

The twit’s first response was ‘aaiiigh!’ but then she saw the video and how it really, really makes fun of Hillary, her string of losses and her unified lack of popularity. Her endorsement of the video because of its extreme depictions of the media is so out of touch it boggles the twit’s mind.

Read more of this post

How to Speak Hillary

by twit

It can be an exercise in apoplectic futility to attempt to make sense of the various messages sent from the Clinton campaign. So with clips from a Feb 24, 2008 New York Times article entitled “Somber Clinton Soldiers On as the Horizon Darkens” the twit offers a translation, with emphasis added throughout:

“She has a real military discipline that, now that times are tough, has really kicked into gear,” said Judith Hope, a friend and informal adviser to Mrs. Clinton, and a former chairwoman of the New York State Democratic Party. “When she’s on the road and someone has a negative news story, she says, ‘I don’t want to hear it; I don’t need to hear it.’ I think she wants to protect herself from that and stay focused.

Hillary intentionally filters the information she receives so she doesn’t have to acknowledge reality. An uncanny bit of de ja vu all over again, considering that President Bush also likes his news filtered.

Read more of this post

The superdelegates need to “get real” with the Clinton campaign

by lestro

And once again, the Clinton campaign has revamped its message.

After failing to get much traction by accusing her opponent of plagiarism (lifting two lines from a national campaign co-chair and long time friend and used in response to the Hillary’s fadeaway shots on Obama’s powerful oratory), the Hillary campaign is trying out some new material, according to CNN:

As Barack Obama solidifies his lead, Hillary Clinton is shaking things up with a revamped message and sharper digs at her party’s front man…

“It is time to get real,” Clinton said, “to get real about how we actually win this election… It is time to move from good words to good works — from sound bites to sound solutions.”

As it increasingly looks as though neither candidate will get the requisite delegates necessary to lock up the nomination through primaries and caucuses, the focus in this race has turned to the superdelegates, the 795 party insiders and muckity-mucks who get to be delegates fro whomever they choose.

As (mostly) high-ranking party members, however, one would expect that the superdelegates would not only vote their conscience, but also have to think about what is best for the party and which candidate has the best chance of securing the White House for the Democrats.

And with that in mind, it is time for the delegates to take Mrs. Clinton’s advice and “get real” with each of the campaigns.

The first thing to remember is that if one candidate has more elected delegates, more popular vote and more states won, but party members select the other candidate, they will destroy the Democratic Party. After all, why should rank and file members of any political party stay with a group that overrides their votes and feelings?

There would be no viable explanation for such a move and it would turn off all of those voters who thought they could believe in the Dems to listen to their collective voices.

And smart money says it would lead to a landslide for John McCain.

But beyond all that, these two candidates have similar positions and neither has any real executive experience (despite what Hillary may tell us) so one of the best ways judge these matters is to look at the administration of their campaigns.

And by that measure, the choice is obvious: The Obama campaign has been run much, much better.

It didn’t always seem that way, but after the events of the past few weeks there can be no doubt.

The first real mistake the Clinton campaign made was underestimating their opponent and the general desire for change in the country, and not just a figurehead change, but a real, honest-to-god change of perspective and vision.

In failing to recognize that, the Clinton camp decided to run a fairly traditional Democratic campaign, focusing on a few early contests and then targeting the Big States, all of which she won.

But failing to learn the lessons of the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, the Clintons mostly ignored what is commonly referred to as “flyover country,” barely, if ever, visiting states that Democrats do not tend to do well in and, just like Al Gore and John Kerry before her, failing to recognize that you don’t need to win NY and Cali to win.

So, while Hillary was stumping around a few select places, Obama set up organizations in every state and drummed up support in every corner of the country, even in Idaho, where he set attendance records at an arena in Boise. Acknowledging the turnout, he opened with the line “they told me there were no Democrats in Idaho,” at which the 15,000 or so in attendance exploded into applause.

We know whose strategy proved better.

Read more of this post