Per capita per shcmapita. CA gives a gazzillion dollars to the Feds, iirc.

The interesting stat would be to see the % of money to feds vs fed money back to state. Which in itself sounds really weird.

"per capita" and "% of money to feds vs fed money back to state" are more-or-less the same statistic. :)

For CA and NY, it's historically been ~80 cents back for every dollar paid to the feds. I'm pretty sure it's the same for Taxachusetts.

For MI, it's historically been ~75 cents back on every dollar, though it's moved more toward ~80 cents because Michigan pays less taxes due to the shitty economy.

I was thinking per capita meant 'x amount of dollars per person' paid to the Feds not that the money back to the states(per capita) was in that equation.

I figured that Michigan would get a larger % of their money back (% wise) than CA. That was one of the things Arny was bitching about a few years back.

Good point. I remember the numbers being something like "rate of return per capita" attempting to factor out population and absolute dollars for purposes of what the relative return really was. I should dig it up, but I've been trying to avoid thinking about taxes. I have a need to procrastinate until after March 15th, but now it's April and I know I have shit to do this weekend. :)

Michigan has historically been a donor state in the worst way. We were dead last during the automakers heydey. We don't have a surplus of big military contracting and bases or big guv'mint research labs that pump up the economy for a given region.

I heard Randi Rhodes (not the dead guitar player) on Air America the other day say that she feels that it is a real possibility that Hillary will run as an Independant (possibly with Joe Lieberman) if she doesn't get the Democratic nomination.

Wow, she got suspended and rightfully so. Jeaminy hebagloben she is out there.

She was just saying that Hillary Clinton would pretty much do anything to get more votes, ergo she's a whore. In context...well, still pretty bad, but not as bad as just starting a sentence with "Hillary Clinton is a huge fucking whore."

there is a huge difference between hil and obama running as indy's.

i think we might be going a little overboard in demonizing hilary though. shes done some things that i dont agree with, but i find it very hard to imagine her running indipendent if she lost in delegates, pop vote, and states.

She already looked evil as a kid:

http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/Third_Party_Photo/2007/03/04/1173002616_4309.jpg

I see zero chance of Hillary running as an independent. However, it wouldn't surprise me if Bill puts a bullet between Bill Richardson's eyes.

Hillary posted her 2000-2006 tax returns, filed jointly with Bill, and summarized their post-presidential earnings at $100+ million. A nice way to scare off your donors is to remind them that you're rich and could fund the campaign all on your lonesome. A nice way to appeal to working-class folks is to look like you are hiding your big money from them.

My favorite part, which seems to have gone underreported is: They "gave" $10 million of that to charity. But the bulk of that consisted of speeches by Bill where the proceeds went to charity (probably in countries where there's no writeoff for donating to Bill's charity). By filtering people's money to his charity through their own personal finances, they got a nice tax writeoff.

In other words, Bill gave money to his own charity that was never really meant for him, was only his for a split-second to claim a charitable deduction.

yea but he could have just kept the money from the speach he made.

i researched what he was pulling per speach around the time he gave the commencement speach at UM's graduation this year and my jaw dropped.

figuring that he can make 2 speaches in one day and its unbelievable.

100 million really doesnt give you enough to fund a campaign. guys that do that have way more money. i think romney is worth like 4 times that, and he did play with his own money, but he would have been eating into his wealth big time to keep up with barack or hilary. 100 million really only gives you the ability to loan your campaign 5 million.

yea but he could have just kept the money from the speach he made.
In many cases, people are billing the event as something that's for charity, and paying Bill on the assumption that Bill will direct it to his charity. That's especially the case if they don't have any particular motivation to pay Bill's charity directly (e.g. tax writeoffs, which have different rules outside the U.S.). Ask yourself -- are you more likely to pay just to listen to Bill Clinton speak, or if it were some event involving the Bill Clinton Foundation charity? Would you care how the money works if you weren't declaring a write-off on your taxes for whatever reason?

It's not illegal, but it gives a skewed view on the donor sources to the charity and gives them a nice writeoff.

100 million really doesnt give you enough to fund a campaign. guys that do that have way more money. i think romney is worth like 4 times that, and he did play with his own money, but he would have been eating into his wealth big time to keep up with barack or hilary. 100 million really only gives you the ability to loan your campaign 5 million.
It's the perception that matters. People understand that their politicos can be well to do, but $100 million is "fat cat" territory to most. Being coy about it doesn't help matters any.

On another happy Hillary note:

http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/04/oops_another_clinton_story_tur.html


Oops. Another Clinton Story Turns Out To Be Not So True

I've heard Hillary Clinton tell the story many times in speeches, and it rarely fails to bring a horrified gasp from the crowd: An uninsured and pregnant Ohio woman, working for minimum wage at a pizza parlor, is turned away from a hospital because she can't come up with $100. The baby dies, and so does the woman. Clinton talks about how this woman haunts her, and how stories like this show the moral imperative--and the urgency--of fixing a badly broken health care system. (You can see a video here.)

Except, it turns out, it didn't happen--at least, apparently, not the way Clinton said it did. There was indeed a tragedy last August in Athens, Ohio, in which a woman, Trina Bachtel, gave birth to a stillborn baby and subsequently died herself. But the New York Times reports this morning that the hospital involved says Bachtel had coverage,and received treatment. And here's the remarkable part, given how important this story has become to the overall narrative of the Clinton candidacy:

Linda M. Weiss, a spokeswoman for the not-for-profit hospital, said the Clinton campaign had never contacted the hospital to check the accuracy of the story, which Mrs. Clinton had first heard from a Meigs County, Ohio, sheriff’s deputy in late February.

A Clinton spokesman, Mo Elleithee, said candidates would frequently retell stories relayed to them, vetting them when possible. “In this case, we did try but were not able to fully vet it,” Mr. Elleithee said. “If the hospital claims it did not happen that way, we respect that.”

Hillary Clinton is far from the first politician to find herself in this kind of embarrassing situation. Remember how hard Al Gore got hit after the first debate in 2000, when it turned out that in his description of the very real problem of overcrowded schools in Sarasota, Fla., he used the wrong verb tense in telling of children who were forced to stand in their classrooms?

What is astounding here is that for all the research that the Clinton campaign has done, scouring and scrubbing the opposition, they didn't put a bit more effort into looking at what their own candidate is saying.

The story that I feel is bullshit (this week) is Bill said that Hillary ran down to join the military but no one would take here cuz of her eye sight?

That and Hillaries speech yesterday on what she was doing and how she felt when MLK was murdered. I just can't believe anything she says anymore.

Clinton Steps Up Call to Count Voided Florida, Michigan Contests

by FOXNews.com


Hillary Clinton strengthened her pitch to recognize the discounted Florida and Michigan primaries Saturday following the collapse of yet another re-do primary proposal.
The pitch potentially lays the groundwork for her to make the case to uncommitted superdelegates that she’s the popular vote favorite should she narrow the gap with Barack Obama in the upcoming contests.
“I will … keep fighting to make sure the votes of the people in Florida and Michigan are counted,” Clinton said in Hillsboro, Ore., Saturday. “2.3 million voters turned out.”
The New York senator won both primaries in January, but neither candidate campaigned there ahead of the vote and Obama was not even on the ballot in Michigan. The Democratic Party stripped the states of their delegations for holding early primaries in violation of party rules.
“Now some say their votes should be ignored and that the popular vote in Michigan and Florida should just be discounted. Well I have a different view,” Clinton said Saturday. “The popular vote in Florida and Michigan has already been counted. It was determined by election results, it was certified by election officials in each state. It’s been officially tallied by the secretary of state in each state.”
Clinton is arguing anew that those elections were bona fide tests of the candidates’ appeal among voters, after Michigan Democrats on Friday formally ditched the latest effort to hold a do-over primary. Florida has done the same, effectively killing chances of holding re-dos of any kind.
The decisions mean that hopes for a resolution to seat the delegates at the August convention mostly rest on the two Democrats’ campaigns striking a compromise on how to allocate the delegations. And while Obama’s campaign has firmly resisted seating the delegations based on the states’ January primaries, Clinton’s campaign has pushed to have the states represented at the August Democratic National Convention in Denver.
Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean this week even said he’s committed to finding a way to seat both delegations, though it’s unclear how that would happen.
With the candidates 134 total delegates apart, Florida and Michigan could tip the race, especially if Clinton carries significant wins in the 10 remaining Democratic contests. It’s impossible for either candidate to score enough delegates to clinch the nomination on pledged delegates alone in those contests. So aside from Florida’s and Michigan’s 313 pledged delegates, the superdelegates — party officials and insiders not bound to either candidate — could decide the nomination if both candidates tough out the race to the end in June.
That’s where Michigan and Florida come into play again. One of the key considerations superdelegates are expected to make is electability, in this case against presumptive GOP nominee John McCain. Clinton on Saturday hinted that the results in Florida and Michigan make her a popular favorite.
“The question is whether those 2.3 million Democrats will be honored and their delegates seated by the Democratic Party as we move forward to put together the strongest campaign in the fall in order to win. And we cannot afford to give up on Michigan and Florida … in order to do that,” she said.
The Obama campaign has proposed a 50-50 split of both states’ delegations, an option Clinton advisers have rejected.
Obama spokesman Bill Burton dismissed Clinton’s latest call to recognize Florida and Michigan’s results.
“Senator Clinton herself said these contests ‘didn’t count for anything.’ But now that it serves her own political self-interest, she’s trying to change the rules and count the results of contests where she and every other candidate pledged not to campaign,” Burton said. “In Michigan, Senator Obama wasn’t even on the ballot. Our focus should now be on seating the Michigan and Florida delegations in a fair manner.”
Saturday was Clinton’s first campaign visit to Oregon, whose primary is May 20. The state holds a largely vote-by-mail primary with ballots mailed starting April 28.
FOX News’ Aaron Bruns and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

good, hopefully she gets it all out of her system, reaches closure, and drops out.

rasmussen as of monday said hilary is up 47/42 in penn, with barack moving ground like crazy. its gonna be a draw in penn, just like ohio would have been a draw if obama would have campaigned there (he concentrated on texas, which was a draw).

hilary says she's a quitter and wont give up till its over. it SEEMS like the negative attacks / dirty politics have subsided, so thats good atleast. but she is still eating important democratic races for the GE presidential and congressional races. i mean, she and her fundraisers must realize by now they will not get the nom, right?

Some think she is staying in to keep the donations coming. She loaned her campaign some money, so she wants to get that back. ???

The only way she could win this thing is if something tremendously damaging came out on BO(sex tape with some strippers), then the Super-delis can say, he can't win it, we throw our support to Hill. That ain't gonna happen, so she's toast.

Bill's approval ratings have dropped a lot since he started in on all of this too. Like i said in the very first post starting this thread, if he would be pulling for the Dems, instead of pulling for his wife, he'd have been a huge plus. Instead he spent a lot of political capital on this race. Too bad for him.

The popular vote in Florida and Michigan has already been counted. It was determined by election results, it was certified by election officials in each state. It’s been officially tallied by the secretary of state in each state.”
BTW, it is now the official position of the Michigan Secretary Of State is that the presidential primary on January 15th never happened. None of what Hillary says above is true for Michigan.

Part of the legislation for Michigan's primary, involving the disposition of voter lists to parties, was the subject of an ACLU lawsuit. The ACLU won, and that bit of nonsense was declared to be unconstitutional by a judge. The State of Michigan has no plans to spend money to contest the ruling. There was some poison pill language such that if any part of the January 15 primary legislation was voided, ALL of it would be voided.

And note that the issues that made it voided have NOTHING TO DO with Obama or Hillary strategery. In fact, the biggest victim would be Romney, since officially he didn't take Michigan. Not that it would matter unless McCain had a heart attack, mind you...

BTW, it is now the official position of the Michigan Secretary Of State is that the presidential primary on January 15th never happened. None of what Hillary says above is true for Michigan.

Part of the legislation for Michigan's primary, involving the disposition of voter lists to parties, was the subject of an ACLU lawsuit. The ACLU won, and that bit of nonsense was declared to be unconstitutional by a judge. The State of Michigan has no plans to spend money to contest the ruling. There was some poison pill language such that if any part of the January 15 primary legislation was voided, ALL of it would be voided.

And note that the issues that made it voided have NOTHING TO DO with Obama or Hillary strategery. In fact, the biggest victim would be Romney, since officially he didn't take Michigan. Not that it would matter unless McCain had a heart attack, mind you...

You gotta be kidding me. She's stretching things?

That's pretty sneaky, Tahoe.

i researched what he was pulling per speach around the time he gave the commencement speach at UM's graduation this year and my jaw dropped.

figuring that he can make 2 speaches in one day and its unbelievable.
Past a certain point, speeches easily morph into "influence peddling". Where's the line between "paid him to give a speech" and "paid him to lean on beltway bandits in D.C. for my interests"? How much of that is being grateful for past initiatives, and how much of that was payola for past favors?

tim russert was much more concerned with the 29 million dollars that did not come from books and speeches. that, and the 500 million dollars in donors to the clinton foundation.

since the foundation is altruistic in nature, i agree with those who say it doesnt matter who is giving to it. but i can see the discomfort with that 29 million.

Mark Penn, Clinton's senior campaign strategist, stepped down after making a boo-boo (doing work for the Colombian government that wouldn't play well in Pennsylvania). He's not actually leaving, just not being a strageist. Penn is owed money by Hillary's campaign, which may explain it. Or, it could just be a way to banish him without really banishing him.

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a81/kos102/2008/Campaign/markpenn3.jpg

this stinks, to me.

your telling me this guy has been operating with the columbian gov discussing free trade agreements and they never discussed that he was operating as the ceo of a pr firm and not as a clinton surrogate?

i dont know how that wouldnt be the first thing discussed.

i think everyone is skeptical as to how anti-free trade the democrats actually are. if they arent going to change nafta, they should say so.

Mark Penn is CEO of Burson-Marsteller, a huge PR lobbying polling firm with a ton of interests which are at odds with one party or another. Heck, one of his subsidiaries is the lead political strategy firm for McCain. Charlie Black, the lobbyist working out of McCain's campaign bus ran that subsidiary (though he quit to be full-time for McCain just recently).

Everyone knew this. This is business as usual -- lobbyist incest way too close to politicians, exactly the kind of crap Obama's taken a stand against. The news knew this and never made a stink about it.

Enter the Colombians, who had a big-deal free trade thing going. They wanted to engage Penn's firm at a level where Penn had to get directly involved in order to secure the business. Penn had a choice -- go for the business, or stay away for Hillary's sake. He went for the business. He assumed that, as with most aspects of Burson-Marsteller in the past, no one would tie it with Hillary. But the subject matter and timing was all wrong. Combined with other fuckups that can be summarized as "why the fuck isn't Hillary winning", and a fuckup in how he apologized that kept this fiasco in the news an extra day, he was forced to take a minor fall.

As for free trade, Obama's never been opposed to it. There's no skepticism. He wants better labor and environmental protections on NAFTA, but NAFTA is a specific subset of free trade and his protectionism here has as much to do with immigration and energy policy as it does with labor policy. In Obama's view, the problem isn't free trade. The problem is that the profit distribution resulting from free trade has been uneven.

call me naive, but i think its possible for penn to have held two positions that were at odds with each other. you couldnt in law, but conflict of interest issues are more stringent in law for practical reasons. but to be a consultant, had he simply identified in what capacity he was working under, this would probably not be a huge deal... not that i agree with lobbyists, just keeping things in practical terms.

i believe penn was either trying to hoodwink the columbians, or is trying to hoodwink us now.

for someone to hold such an intimate possition to hilary's campaign, and to be consulting a 3rd party on an issue as sensitive as this to hilary's campaign, i find it impossible to believe that he would do so without explaining that he was not acting as part of hilary's campaign.

call me naive, but i think its possible for penn to have held two positions that were at odds with each other. you couldnt in law, but conflict of interest issues are more stringent in law for practical reasons. but to be a consultant, had he simply identified in what capacity he was working under, this would probably not be a huge deal... not that i agree with lobbyists, just keeping things in practical terms.
If you have to wear two hats, keep them at arm's length. If you get your hand caught in the cookie jar, don't handle it in a way that makes more bad press (which Penn did by coming across as dissing the Colombians in a public apology, which led them to dismiss his firm and make more news).


i believe penn was either trying to hoodwink the columbians, or is trying to hoodwink us now.
I think you're missing something. There's absolutely no hoodwinking alleged to be going on in this regard. Everyone knew he wore two hats. In fact, that's depressingly normal in D.C. politics. The Colombians knew that, which is part of why they had wanted to pay his firm. Hillary knew that -- him being allied with corporate interests was part of the appeal. The media widely reported that he wore two hats. His really big error was not keeping enough distance between the two hats with the media actively following him around during a slow news cycle.


for someone to hold such an intimate possition to hilary's campaign, and to be consulting a 3rd party on an issue as sensitive as this to hilary's campaign, i find it impossible to believe that he would do so without explaining that he was not acting as part of hilary's campaign.
His firm deals with interests contrary to Hillary's on a routine basis. They do lobbying for Blackwater, with Microsoft, with hugo Chavez, with all kinds of folks. Rarely is public presented lobbyist incest in the form of 2+2=4, where it's easy to put the pieces together. It's usually (1+3.5-(32/16))/2)^2=4, which is snore-worthy.

(1+3.5-(32/16))/2)^2=1.5625
Fixed

Actually, I meant:

(1+3.5-(16/32))/2)^2=4

^math, didn't read

Glenn just proved my point. ;)

I'm actually pretty deft at proving other people's points.

If only you could prove your own, you'd be set.

and i just disagree.

i dont think he would have pissed off the columbians by describing the situation as a 'error in judgment' when thats exactly what it was.

i think he is missleading someone about what hat he was wearing. i believe he was acting on behalf of hilary, and is now covering his tracks; or he was selling 'access' when he was actually just bsing.

either way, i believe the columbians were under the impression they were talking to hilary's camp.

The Colombians were under the impression that they were talking with a firm who enjoyed political access across the spectrum. This is absolutely true. Remember, Penn's firm does McCain's campaigning as well as Hillary's, along with lots of other politicians and political interests. Penn's been tied with the Clintons for a decade. Colombia paid Penn for this since March 2007.

The Colombians were also under the impression that they were talking with someone who'd be smart enough to not negatively impact their chances of success. That's been proven to be false. Penn should've been smart enough to not have a face-to-face meeting with them, then smart enough to not play it up as a bad thing if he were caught.

The big misleading going on is Hillary misleading herself into thinking that you could have lobbyists this close to you and not have it come across badly. Of course, that hasn't been so misleading in general because most people don't really get lobbying, or just assume they're all bought and sold muthafuckers and shitheads.

My brother is a life-long, die-hard lib, but can't bring himself to like Hill.

Called him yesterday and we were talking about Hills speech at MLK ceremony. He made a good point... which is, her speech was supposed to be about MLK, instead it was about her.

"I felt such despair'
"I had to go to my dorm room'
"I threw my books across the room"
"I blah blah blah'

He was saying that BO used 'you' a lot. It makes peeps feel that 'you' (we) are included. Whereas Hill is looking for sympathy or attention for herself. His words..."its like shes using MLK to get votes for herself"

btw...he has 2 degrees. One from the Penis and the other from UofM AA(thats Ann Arbor) I think. I'm not entirely sure what they are in but it has something to do with forensics in literature or some shit, so I think he has some experience in this area.

Contrast emo-Hillary's MLK speech with Obama's speech about MLK in Indiana on the same day:
ABdDSxI6eSY

What a contrast!

Hillary's saying that we should boycott the opening ceremony of the Olympics. I don't think it's the right move, but it's a noble sentiment. Obama had protested the situation in China with Tibet earlier, but it got drowned out by the Wright fiasco. He's ambivalent about boycotts. He's against the politicization of the Olympics, a time to gather everyone together. And he probably knows it's hard to negotiate with a country once you've publicly dissed them.

That said, Hillary leave herself wide open to something that hasn't really been brought up. It was Bill Clinton who made China's "Most Favored Nation" status permanent, despite protest, despite saying he'd tie to their human rights status.

It'll be interesting to see what Obama does with this.

By "a degree from the Penis", do you mean Florida, America's Wang?

I assumed he meant Eastern Michigan University.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1e/YpsilantiWaterTower.jpg/320px-YpsilantiWaterTower.jpg

A stone falls from this tower for every student who graduates as a virgin.

Hillary's saying that we should boycott the opening ceremony of the Olympics. I don't think it's the right move, but it's a noble sentiment. Obama had protested the situation in China with Tibet earlier, but it got drowned out by the Wright fiasco. He's ambivalent about boycotts. He's against the politicization of the Olympics, a time to gather everyone together. And he probably knows it's hard to negotiate with a country once you've publicly dissed them.

That said, Hillary leave herself wide open to something that hasn't really been brought up. It was Bill Clinton who made China's "Most Favored Nation" status permanent, despite protest, despite saying he'd tie to their human rights status.

It'll be interesting to see what Obama does with this.

Looks like someone told her to go on the offensive about something...ANYTHING!

The news reports on her, lately, have been about her ebellishments(I'm being kind). She needed to change that cycle.

Ala kazoo, kazoo kazam
son of a bitch, God damn
horses cock, witch's titty
we're the boys from ypsi city

http://cbs13.com/local/clinton.campaign.debt.2.694498.html


DAVIS (CBS13) ― Bill Clinton may have charmed the crowd at UC Davis in January, when 7500 people showed up to see him, but charm has not covered the Clinton campaign bill.

The University of California in Davis is ready to take the Clinton presidential campaign to a collection agency if they do not pay back the thousands of dollars they are still owed.

Here's a breakdown of expenses:

- The UC Davis Marching Band cost $500.
- Cleanup services after the rally cost $250.
- UC Davis Police officers didn't come as cheap. The security bill is more than $5,600.

"I'm more than willing to be held accountable for it, because that's the way life is," Hillary Clinton said to a Montana crowd on Monday. There is no word whether she'll apply that philosophy here, or if she even knows about the outstanding debt.

Her Sacramento campaign office closed its doors after Super Tuesday, and her campaign spokespeople didn't return my calls.

UC Davis is planning to put its final bill out this week, and if the debt has not been settled within a month, they are going to turn the matter over to a collection agency.

Clinton should take a big hit from the Penn dibacle. There are speaches she made specifically talking about how they should avoid trade agreements with in particular Columbia. Then her top strategest meets when them to broker a deal. I think this will hit home in Pennsylvania. She already dropped from a 14 point edge to a 7 point edge in the last week. I wonder how this will effect the numbers.

Her top strategist had been meeting with the Colombians for the past year, along with many other clients who don't have Hillary's best intentions in mind.

Should we blame the media? They reported who Penn was and what hats he was wearing all throughout. Should the media have been more clear in saying "hey, we have an influence-peddling lobbyist shithead near the top"? Maybe, but that influence-peddling lobbyish shithead was giving them access to the campaign and the media's parent companies interact with him, which tends to complicates matters.

Should we blame ourselves? I don't anyone SHOULD be surprised by this.

Just venting...

Well, i didn't know about it prior. I guess I would have to blame the media because I keep myself pretty informed. I'm sure I could have found out on my own, but I read a lot of political sources and listen to talk radio and heard nothing about it until about a week ago. It doesn't really surprise me though. It would from Obama's camp, but not her's.

Normally losing ones top strategist would be a fairly big deal, but there has been so much blood in the street already, its a blip.

I think the bigger deal is more hypocrisy from Hill. Iirc, didn't she beat BO up because one of his strategist was talking to Canada or was it a country in Europe? If I recollection is correct, she got caught doing what she was beating up BO for doing.

I listened to BO speach again and damn, I wish I agreed with his positions on policies. I still might vote for him but if were a lil more to the center, I'd vote for him in a New York second.

Sooo.... what positions is he "left" on that you wish he'd be more "center" on?

Prolly the war and taxes.

I just listened to him asking questions to Patreus and the US Amb, thought he did a pretty good job.

Hillary's saying that we should boycott the opening ceremony of the Olympics. I don't think it's the right move, but it's a noble sentiment. Obama had protested the situation in China with Tibet earlier, but it got drowned out by the Wright fiasco. He's ambivalent about boycotts. He's against the politicization of the Olympics, a time to gather everyone together. And he probably knows it's hard to negotiate with a country once you've publicly dissed them.

That said, Hillary leave herself wide open to something that hasn't really been brought up. It was Bill Clinton who made China's "Most Favored Nation" status permanent, despite protest, despite saying he'd tie to their human rights status.

It'll be interesting to see what Obama does with this.

Such a vote whore. Little Miss Flavor-Of-The-Week.

Prolly the war and taxes.
Getting out of Iraq is fairly centrist and mainstream these days. 40-odd % of Republicans think we should get out. Obama hasn't proposed new taxes, except for overseas corporations. He's opposed to extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich, but that's a pretty populist view. McCain waffled on the same tax cuts, so he's been centrist in that sense.

If I wanted to tag Obama as a leftist, I'd go with gun control and the death penalty. He's moved toward the center on those, which is why the Western states have warmed up to him. But he's definitely had left-of-center views on those things in the not-so-distant past. It's not something Hillary could easily campaign against as a leftist view, but I'd expect McCain to.

Important endorsement:

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23509864-5006003,00.html

Well, that gets my vote.

Obama and the Holy Grail, mayhaps?

I don't agree with Jack Lessenberry on a lot of things, but his statements on the Michigan Democratic primary are cogent:

http://metrotimes.com/editorial/story.asp?id=12769

http://www.thestarpress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080409/NEWS06/80409025


MUNCIE — A Republican voter registration deputy faces battery charges after he tackled a newspaper reporter and hit the Democratic 6th District congressional candidate after a contentious Delaware County Election Board meeting this afternoon.

The meeting had just ended when Will Statom, GOP registration deputy and secretary of the local Republican Party, attacked Star Press reporter Nick Werner while Werner was interviewing Ball State University student Johanna Perez about hundreds of last-minute voter registrations for Democrat Barack Obama’s campaign.

ADVERTISEMENT

“He did not seem very happy that we were stating our opinions,” Perez said afterwards about Statom.

Werner said Statom seemed critical of his reporting, sarcastically saying to make sure he screwed up the story again.

Statom had just walked past Werner when Statom turned around and pushed Werner against the wall, grabbed him and they fell to the ground, according to witnesses.

Barry A. Welsh, Democratic 6th district congressional candidate, who attended the meeting, stepped in, and Statom turned around and hit Welsh in the eye.

“When Nick went to the floor, I tried to break it up,” Welsh said.

“He did not seem very happy that we were stating our opinions,” Perez said afterwards about Statom.

I keep hoping that Republicans will get with it and begin to stop free speech.

Elton John did a high-dollar fundraiser for Hillary in New York. Elton didn't have the balls to play "The Bitch Is Back", but did substitute "Hillary" for "Suzie" in Crocodile Rock. Elton called Hillary-haters misogynists. Clever.

Dave Matthews did a free concert for Obama in Indiana, and timed the free tickets giveaway to sabotage a Bill Clinton event that was happening at the same time/place. No songs were damaged in the making of the concert.

Go Dave Matthews. Smart move.

Clinton's selfishness shall tear a hole in the democratic party.

Why tax returns matter -- turns out Penn wasn't the only person taking money on behalf of Colombian Free Trade:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/09/clinton.colombia/index.html


According to AP, Bill Clinton raked in $800,000 from Gold Service International, a development group based in Bogota, Colombia, that supports the Colombia free trade deal. The payment was for appearances in Mexico, Colombia and Brazil in 2005.

I'm real curious about how Hillary's Pennsylvania superdelegates react to this. The governor there, who's been aggressively on her side, is pissed off that Penn was only demoted and not really fired over the Colombian affair.

What I don't understand is that Hillary and Bill have opposing views on the Columbia situation, and they say that's ok. I just hate how she plays both sides of every card with her experience BS and then saying she doesn't agree with half the things that went on. I voted for the approval of force, but not for the war the way Bush waged it. Blah Blah. She'll just say whatever she thinks will help her at the time.

How can she tell people that she would have left Obama's church, but then say it's ok for your husband (a person that should be your best friend) to support something that you say is putting blue collar workers out of jobs?

I just can't see how possible Clinton voters don't see a big disconnect with what she says and what she stands for, especially since all she talks about is the "solutions instead of speaches" BS.

What I don't understand is that Hillary and Bill have opposing views on the Columbia situation, and they say that's ok. I just hate how she plays both sides of every card with her experience BS and then saying she doesn't agree with half the things that went on. I voted for the approval of force, but not for the war the way Bush waged it. Blah Blah. She'll just say whatever she thinks will help her at the time.

How can she tell people that she would have left Obama's church, but then say it's ok for your husband (a person that should be your best friend) to support something that you say is putting blue collar workers out of jobs?

I just can't see how possible Clinton voters don't see a big disconnect with what she says and what she stands for, especially since all she talks about is the "solutions instead of speaches" BS.

But she didn't leave her husband when he cheated on her. Another hypocrisy?

I'm not saying she should have or shouldn't have, but she seems to act like she's so righteous about everything.

Hillary-ariously bad laughter:

dGeQ6dxGMFA

Barack's mom was named Stanley and he had a pet crocodile growing up:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1729524-1,00.html

Wow, Hillary just has no political appeal to me whatsoever.

i just saw a close up of Hillary.... McCain is HOT!

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9514.html

i find the 'columbians paid bill (you) 800k in favor of free trade, you funded your campaign with that money. conflict of interst' point particularly cogent.

hence hilary's brain damn near exploding looking for an angle to spin. of course, she made it 100x worse by reaction. this was the 'and then streight to the white house! byahhhhh!!!' moment of the hilary campaign.

Billy brought back the Bosnia thing yesterday when he said it was the press that made a big deal out of Hillary forgetting something in a speech at 11 at night. He said something like you forget things that late at night after a tough day of campaigning...

Allow me to retort...well then what the hell happens at 3am when the phone in the White House rings?

Sick burn!
[smilie=heatsmiley2:

BO's statement about PA was pretty stupid. Mainly cuz it opened the door for the elitist of elitists, Hillary Clinton, to call BO an elitist. Wow

What was his statement about PA?

BO's statement about PA was pretty stupid. Mainly cuz it opened the door for the elitist of elitists, Hillary Clinton, to call BO an elitist. Wow

every so often the gall of her really gets me, and this is one of those times. to question a man of barack's origins, and the amount of time he spent in the trenches and what he sacrificed, lets just say hilary and her 110 million dollar bank account and continuous existence in the most prestigious public offices for the last 25 yeras, that doesnt work for me.

In California, at a fundraising event at someone's home, volunteers going to Pennsylvania asked Obama what it was like. The bolded comments have gotten a surprising amount of play.


So, it depends on where you are, but I think it's fair to say that the places where we are going to have to do the most work are the places where people are most cynical about government. The people are mis-appre...they're misunderstanding why the demographics in our, in this contest have broken out as they are. Because everybody just ascribes it to 'white working-class don't wanna work -- don't wanna vote for the black guy.' That's...there were intimations of that in an article in the Sunday New York Times today - kind of implies that it's sort of a race thing.

Here's how it is: in a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, people have been beaten down so long. They feel so betrayed by government that when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn't buy it. And when it's delivered by -- it's true that when it's delivered by a 46-year-old black man named Barack Obama, then that adds another layer of skepticism.

But -- so the questions you're most likely to get about me, 'Well, what is this guy going to do for me? What is the concrete thing?' What they wanna hear is -- so, we'll give you talking points about what we're proposing -- to close tax loopholes, you know, roll back the tax cuts for the top 1 percent. Obama's gonna give tax breaks to middle-class folks and we're gonna provide health care for every American.

But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

Um, now these are in some communities, you know. I think what you'll find is, is that people of every background -- there are gonna be a mix of people, you can go in the toughest neighborhoods, you know working-class lunch-pail folks, you'll find Obama enthusiasts. And you can go into places where you think I'd be very strong and people will just be skeptical. The important thing is that you show up and you're doing what you're doing.

His point is that people are pissed off because they don't see anyone from either side solving their economic issues, and they vote for one side or the other based on non-economic issues that frustrate them.

He goofed a bit on the wording. It's a point he's made in the past with smoother words, dating back to when he first hit the national spotlight:

6oGF3cyHE7M

I've been surprised by the reactions from the various media. I haven't been sure what to make of it, which is why I haven't posted about it just yet. The reaction has ranged across the board, from a non-issue to bigger than Wright to a non-issue.

Hillary called him an elitist, but it seems like it's backfired because she's tried to overplay her hand by saying that people aren't bitter (which is false) and bringing up her own stance on guns (which is to the left of Obama). Both of her political feet fight for that limited space in her mouth.

And, when she's not blowing her response to Obama, she's blowing her response to China, as it's come out that Bill Clinton gave speeches to and took money from folks involved in suppression of Chinese dissidents:

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-clintonchina13apr13,1,2958700.story

Yeah, that was definitely just poor phrasing on his part. I understand exactly what he was TRYING to say though, and he's got a very valid point.

There's really a couple points:

1) Some people are economically bitter. That's a no-brainer. This seems to be getting most of the press -- heard it called "bittergate". The outrage over that aspect seems to be largely fabricated. Anyone who denies this will just look out of touch. In a way, I'm glad to see that's gotten so much play. It's a different take on John Edwards' "Two Americas" theme.

2) The bit about "turning to guns or religion", which is being spun as the elitist bit, even though it's fairly clear in context, stuff he's said better before. You vote on matters you have power over versus ones you don't. Immigration and free trade aren't big problems if prosperity abounds. But when it looks like they're taking your jobs, they become "fucking spics and Chinks".

In the latest attempt to spin this, it appears that Hillary just dissed Gore, saying that he lost because he was elitist. Y'know, Gore, the dude that won the popular vote, who is now nearly a Christ-like in some Democratic voters' minds. Gore's problem at the time was not so much elitism as it was lack of charisma and too much whining. It's amazing that she went negative at a faith panel where she and Obama were getting questions on religion. Obama took all the hard questions and came across as a star.

It takes a lot of balls to openly criticize the people you're courting votes from.

Obama's "bitter" remarks aren't really criticism, though. (His speech on race was another story... that took balls.)

People vote on issues where they think their vote matters. If they don't think their vote on the economy matters because both sides keep screwing them, they'll vote on other issues, especially when encouraged to do so. It's Karl Rove that invoked "God, gays, and guns" as a way to group the wedge issues into one powerful wedge. It worked. And for the most part, the people who voted on those issues got what they wanted.

The biggest "criticism" is that many of those issues mask frustration with some inability to get to the bigger issues. But even that's not exactly critical. Most single-issue gun voters don't think that 2nd Amendment rights are THE most important issue going on in the country. But, they think that guns are among the few issues they get to vote on where they'll have a clear choice (though not this time -- McCain flopped during Columbine in his 2000 run) and their vote will reflect in some kind of action.

Do something that really matters. Make sure they recognize that it matters to them, and that it was the result of something you and your party did.

After reading the posts my position is the same. He fucked up to allow Hillary to classify him as condescending and an elitist.

After reading the posts my position is the same. He fucked up to allow Hillary to classify him as condescending and an elitist.

He admitted as much.

I see Obamas remarks less about certain communities in need of help, and more along the lines of describing the ingredients for homegrown terrorist organizations.

Most of the ingredients are already in place:

•Economic hardship
•Lack of education
•Hopelessness
•Strong religious beliefs
•Anger towards a government they inevitably blame

What's left are the spoon and the heat. Namely, a person with the charisma and convictions to blend it together, rally them to a fever pitch, and follow blindly, and the weapons to carry out his deeds.

I agree he fucked up. So does he. But this seems to be playing out in Obama's favor. Pennsylvania folks seem to get that Obama was right. This is playing well for Obama in places like Allentown and Scranton that are solidly in Hillary's court. Hillary's attack only works if Obama's not able to connect with people, and that hasn't been Obama's issue.

Hillary's further attempts to play up on this have just dug herself into hole after hole. Obama gave Hillary a bullet, and it's as if she's shooting it by swallowing it and launching it out of her asshole. All she's doing is emitting shit that isn't firing very far. He's got Hillary compared to Annie Oakley on one 'of 'em, and comedians are gonna come a'mocking her on that one.

In other amusing Hillary news, yesterday she said she went to church on Easter Sunday in a news conference leading up to that panel on religion. But it turns out she didn't go to church on Easter, unless she had a secret escape door from her house in New York to a church that no one else ever goes to. She just can't stop lying. It's astounding.

In other amusing Hillary news, yesterday she said she went to church on Easter Sunday in a news conference leading up to that panel on religion. But it turns out she didn't go to church on Easter, unless she had a secret escape door from her house in New York to a church that no one else ever goes to. She just can't stop lying. It's astounding.

Not that I don't trust you, but I'd like to see the link on that one (because it's pretty funny).

Every time Hillary Clinton stands in front of a microphone, she shouts the most ridiculous things that can easily be falsified, at the top of her lungs. It just goes to show that she has a fundamental misunderstanding about how public address systems work.

Indeed, shouting is now restricted to those who comment on what is said in front of said microphone.

It's hard to prove a negative. But it's hard to reconcile Hillary's "I went to church on Easter Sunday" remark...

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/13/clinton-not-relevant-last-time-i-went-to-church-fired-gun/

...with people noting at the time that she was holed up at home in New York and and NOT going to church. For example:

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/its-a-shame-hillary-skipped-ch-1.php

At the time, reporters and other people were looking for where she went to church to see if her pastor would mention Wright, who was the hot issue of the day and the subject of many sermons. Reportedly, her only public outing on Easter was some swank restaurant for lunch with Bill and Chelsea.

BTW, I agree with Hillary that this religious stuff really doesn't belong in politics and candidates shouldn't be asked such horseshit questions. But don't lie, especially when you don't have to.

Thank Mxy. I wasn't doubting you, I just like to read about this stuff. I think Obama's camp needs to run an add with Hillary making her usual "actions and not speaches" crap and then show this and the sniper fire lies. they could close by saying something like "Who's speaches do you believe?"

The poll variabilities have gotten awfully strange lately. I really don't know what to make of them.

Two Pennsyltucky polls came out today from people polled over the weekend -- one shows Hillary ahead by 20, the other by 3. Say what?! My hunch is that the numbers are a single digit somewhere in between, but this is whacked out shit for this late.

Gallup daily tracking shows Obama ahead by 10 after all this "bitter" crap. But Rasmussen showed a weird downturn that Obama's only now starting to come out of, and that happened before the "bitter" business amidst a hugely good news cycle for Obama.

An Indiana poll came out today. Hillary supposedly went from 9 points to 16 points ahead, but Republicans broke 20% in favor of Obama in the 16 point poll vs. 20% in favor of Hillary in the 9 point poll. Given the preponderance of Republicans in Indiana, that's just daft.

Oh, Hillary got booed today for bringing up the bitter nonsense at some rally of her's. Is that real, or not?

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/14/888068.aspx

The 'bitter' comment hurt him in the polls.

And now, mostly all he says is that he 'chose my words badly"

He was talking shit behind peeps backs, in what he thought was a closed door elitist group in San Francisco.

Stupid. Green, like I said in my other post.

This will hurt him in a big way in the general.

Rev Wright, speaking at his friends funeral, took the opportunity to vent on FoxNews.

This shouldn't be in this thread but this is where its been discussed so far.

The 'bitter' comment hurt him in the polls.
What polls? Gallup and Rasmussen have gone UP in his favor. Are the polls reliable? Are the crowds? Hell, I dunno.

And, how the heck is he talking behind people's backs? He's said the same thing on national TV, years ago.

CNN had their "poll of polls" last night (a compilation of 3-5 major polls, I forget which ones). Clinton was leading Obama by 4 points in Penn, which was 7-9 point last week.

What polls? Gallup and Rasmussen have gone UP in his favor. Are the polls reliable? Are the crowds? Hell, I dunno.

And, how the heck is he talking behind people's backs? He's said the same thing on national TV, years ago.

Tahoe getting slammed in conference play. Ranking will hurt.

Seriously, the fact that Hillary is even still IN this thing is laughable. But what could be a surprising turn for the dems when Obama finally rids himself of that bitch is the general election. Really, Obama's "trial by fire" might actually hurt McCain, considering there could be very little new dirt on Obama by the time the Republican mudmachine cranks into gear.

On the flipside, McCains cakewalk has shielded him, for the most part, from the barbs of negative campaigning. But when the dems begin to attack, much of the info is going to be fresh to the voting ears and minds, while crap slung at Obama could whittle to a pedestrian "old news" mindset.

In that sense, Hillary's shrill bitching could, in the end, help the democrats. Who woulda thunk.....*

I agree DM. The repubs will dig up stuff but I can't imagine it being any worse than the Wright stuff. It will be too late for McCain to really jump on that too much.

i think hilary helped prepare him, to a point. but now is hurting him, and hurting the party. no doubt it has made him a better, tougher candidate. but its a fine line.

He was talking to his limousine liberals out in San Fran and was talking about small town peeps in PA, thats how he was talking behind their backs.

It isn't a little mix-up in his words. Its his sentiment that is fucked up. He talked down to regular peeps.

I watched an interview with Rasmussen himself, he said it Mxy. It hurts him.

And this is exactly why Hillary is in the race. If he keeps fucking up, the SDeli's might still pick her.

He's as green a politician as they come.

i think hilary helped prepare him, to a point. but now is hurting him, and hurting the party. no doubt it has made him a better, tougher candidate. but its a fine line.

If anything, Obama is proving to be an honest sound byte, as compared to the ShrillHill and her consistent lies. The shit about Pennsylvania, IMO, won't hurt him at all. It was said with enough distance from the primary where the truth might reveal itself in many voting minds -- similar to the how negative flak born from an overly eager media subsides over time, and the truth becomes clear.

What's funny about that is, as she's declaring him out of touch and an elitist, she's doing EXACTLY what the system has been doing to these people for years -- deflecting the focus and ignoring the situation.

I agree DM. The repubs will dig up stuff but I can't imagine it being any worse than the Wright stuff. It will be too late for McCain to really jump on that too much.

The thing is peeps don't know a lot about BO.

If he keeps making missteps(hes already made a few,imo) Hillary and then the Repubs will be able to frame him(not the bad frame but the frame like 'framing the debate) as someone who talks down to peeps, bad judgement etc. And then they can bring up this old stuff and examples.

Then it prolly won't be viewed as 'old news'.

Politics is a tough game.

The thing is peeps don't know a lot about BO.

If he keeps making missteps(hes already made a few,imo) Hillary and then the Repubs will be able to frame him(not the bad frame but the frame like 'framing the debate) as someone who talks down to peeps, bad judgement etc. And then they can bring up this old stuff and examples.
What's interesting about this argument is the very core of what we're talking about -- a person desiring to become leader of the free world. Think about that for a moment... what kind of person wishes the world to be placed on his/her shoulders? What kind of person wishes to public scrutiny? What kind of person wants the power?

The last "common man" president, IMO, was Truman. It takes an immense amount of ego and cash to run a successful campaign these days, so much so that no common man could ever hope to succeed in securing a nomination (under the present system). You have to be connected. You have to have powerful friends. And, you have to shovel shit and not smell it. Obama IS an elitist, as is Hillary, McCain, and any of the Veep selections forthcoming.

To have Hillary use it as a four letter words is assinine. Please remember, FDR was an "elitist". JFK was an "elitist". By snubbing Obama, she's snubbing some of the great institutions of the Democratic Party.

^ See, here is a reasonable man with wisdom beyond his years.

And back on topic...Did anyone see Gladiator? <dumb question...Remember when Cesar was talking to Marcus...asking him to be the next leader of Rome? Marcus says I'm planning on going home. I don't want any of that power bullshit. Cesar says..That why it must be you.

All these egotistical fucks think they know what best for us lil plebians.

An ordinary peep can't make it through the Democratic and Republican filter to get a vote.

Thats why peeps get excited when theres an semi-ordinary peep that tries to run. Nader, even that squirrel Ross Perot was up around 15% iirc. Donald Trump. No one wanted Donald Trump but his poll numbers showed a decent number to start at. Not that they wanted Donald Trump, they wanted someone who is not a Dem or Rep. Someone who is not a politician

BO called Hillary Annie Oakley today cuz she said she learned to shoot at a young age..she wasn't 'clinging' to a gun. She's just a normal peep like PA peeps.

They had a great back and forth. Fabulous for American voters...but thats for another thread.

I watched an interview with Rasmussen himself, he said it Mxy. It hurts him.
Rasmussen's publicized polling data hasn't show that, though:

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_democratic_presidential_primary_tracking_pol ling_history

The tracking poll for the day before the "bitter" mess showed 47-44 Obama-Hillary (with Obama trending down -before- the gaffe for no reason that could be discerned). Today's tracking poll (including all the days of "bitter",) shows 48-44 Obama-Hillary.

The same thing happened with Gallup, where he's up 50-40, about the same that he was before the mess.

Compare with the Wright or Bosnia messes, where tracking polls absolutely showed the effect on the candidates after three days.

Ras said that only 40 something % of peeps have heard about the story, but a % of the ones who have, it had a negative effect on them about BO.

Its just creeping its way in but it has effected them according to Ras. unless I heard him wrong.

40% hearing about it would still show up in the polls. It took awhile for Bosnia to spread, for example, but it showed up in the polls within 3 days.

I'm not sure what to make of it. Like I said, I've had trouble wrapping my head around the actual impact of the issue, because the signs have been so variable. I mean, here's Bill Clinton blowing smoke about it:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/04/bill-clinton-ke.html


Over seven stops in North Carolina, Clinton said "Everywhere I go there are all these people with signs, saying I'm not bitter - I'm not bitter."
...
The strong sentiments were appreciated by the crowd, but were not entirely accurate. During Clinton's seven stops in North Carolina on Saturday there were no "I'm not bitter" signs. There was a small assortment of people at his later events wearing stickers with the slogan, but many of those sporting the stickers weren't even sure what they meant.

I think the problem is, or part of it, once again a politician did a half apology. "I didn't choose the right words" or something.

I'm tellin ya, peeps don't know that much about him and what the media feeds us about him is NOT good. He's fucking up and they're happy to tell us all about it. I should change that a lil...cuz Hillary and I heard some Dems today too really jump on this.

I heard one dem, Hill supporter, say 'finally, he being vetted.

but the truth is that this thing will prolly have very lil effect in the Dem nomination but it will be brought out in full force in the general election in states like Ohio, PA, you know midwestern states. It will hurt him in those states.

John Ashcroft on Osam--- um, Obama.

Hl1yBCgK0vQ

^ is that newsworthy?

A director for the AP just did the same thing in a Q&A last night, but instead he asked if Obama would hunt "Obama" in the Pak./Afg. border.

^ is that newsworthy?


Moreso than a lot of other things you'll see on the news, IMO.

And back on topic...Did anyone see Gladiator? <dumb question...Remember when Cesar was talking to Marcus...asking him to be the next leader of Rome? Marcus says I'm planning on going home. I don't want any of that power bullshit. Cesar says..That why it must be you.

All these egotistical fucks think they know what best for us lil plebians.

That's the thing, though, isn't it Tahoe? In real life, Julius Caesar actually destroyed the Roman republic. He instituted a military dictatorship that completely marginalized the Roman Senate and ended rule by democracy in the Roman world, and began the Imperial Age of Rome.

...and the whole while, Caesar was saying he did it for the common people, and the common people loved him for it. What a farce! "I'm taking away all your rights but I'm doing it because I love you." In over 2000 years, civilized people have learned nothing.

I saw this last night, it was pretty funny. The Clinton camp is spinning it that it was some lone Obama supporters booing, but she didn't get any cheers. The closest to support she got was dead silence.


Clinton heard a few boos Monday as she continued to criticize Obama.
"I understand my opponent came this morning and spent a lot of his time attacking me," she said at the same forum where Obama launched his assault.
The crowd responded with audible grumbles, and a few in the hall shouted, "No!"
Clinton continued, "I know that many of you, like me, were disappointed by the recent remarks he made."
This time, a louder, sustained chorus of "No!" emanated from the audience.
"I am well aware that at a fundraiser in San Francisco he said some things that many people in Pennsylvania and beyond Pennsylvania have found offensive," she said.
Again, she was met with jeers, which the Clinton campaign said came from Obama supporters.

Another interesting development was when Hillary's biggest supporter in Penn (Gov. Rendell) said that he didn't think Obama would have any trouble in the general election if he beat Hillary. That shoots a big hole in one of her biggest attacks on Obama, his electibilty.

I also found it interesting when Hillary threw Kerry and Gore under the bus as well:


"We had two very good men and men of faith run for president in 2000 and 2004," Mrs. Clinton said at a forum on faith televised live on CNN (http://www.nysun.com/related_results.php?term=Cable+News+Network+LP+LLL P) last night. "But large segments of the electorate concluded that they did not really understand or relate to or frankly respect their ways of life."

Obama replied by saying last time he checked Gore won.

That's the thing, though, isn't it Tahoe? In real life, Julius Caesar actually destroyed the Roman republic. He instituted a military dictatorship that completely marginalized the Roman Senate and ended rule by democracy in the Roman world, and began the Imperial Age of Rome.



Wow. Just like in Star Wars.

That's the thing, though, isn't it Tahoe? In real life, Julius Caesar actually destroyed the Roman republic. He instituted a military dictatorship that completely marginalized the Roman Senate and ended rule by democracy in the Roman world, and began the Imperial Age of Rome.

...and the whole while, Caesar was saying he did it for the common people, and the common people loved him for it. What a farce! "I'm taking away all your rights but I'm doing it because I love you." In over 2000 years, civilized people have learned nothing.

I agree with a lot of this, but I also think that it shows what happens when one man, especially one man with the ego of Caesar ends up with all that power.

I truely believe he initially wanted to get Rome to overcome the fat oligarchy it had in power and return to the old days of farmers being soldiers and generals and senators (the last two in any order). But in the end it did become all about him and since people seem to love to follow one strong ruler (which you perfectly point out in two posts now) he was immensely popular and they let him have his way.

It's amazing how one man starts with good or noble ideas, gets an immense amount of power and popularity and then simply becomes the ruler he supposedly detested "for the people" in the first place. And how often those same "people" just hand him the keys and let him go.

it shows what happens when one man, especially one man with the ego of Caesar ends up with all that power.

We had that same situation once. We got lucky and the man was George Washington.

^ is that newsworthy?

In as much as it's just another pebble in the avalanche of "Obama = muslim = osama" jabs we'll see between now and november. At least we'll have the "z0mg did you realize he's black??" race baiting for variety but that'll get old too.

Unlike the Clintonian definition of the word "is", "cling" actually has a couple distinct meanings that apply:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cling

1 a: to hold together b: to adhere as if glued firmly c: to hold or hold on tightly or tenaciously
2 a: to have a strong emotional attachment or dependence <he clung to his friends for support> b: to remain or linger as if resisting complete dissipation or dispersal <the odor clung to the room for hours

Obama meant "1" in his remarks. People don't see good economic distinctions between the two parties. Frustrated, they express and tenaciously hold onto to those remaining issues where they can make a difference, often with a bent toward issues they perceive as being close to their frustrations. That's clear from the overall context and from what he's said in the past. It's not a negative connotation to cling on for dear life to what you can in a world that is screwing you on all sides. But, without a bit of context, Obama's use of "cling" is ambiguous. It can be interpreted as "2", the negative context, right along with that clingy bitch girlfriend and her fucking emo self-esteem bullshit.

Ras said that only 40 something % of peeps have heard about the story, but a % of the ones who have, it had a negative effect on them about BO.

Its just creeping its way in but it has effected them according to Ras. unless I heard him wrong.
All I know is that his numbers aren't showing what alleged:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll


Tuesday, April 15, 2008
...
In the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination, Obama leads Clinton 50% to 41%.

We had that same situation once. We got lucky and the man was George Washington.
But he didn't have "all" the power. Everyone recognized back then that the Presidency wasn't a powerful position, that the Congress was really where all the action was. George refused to be called "Your Excellency" as was the custom at that time (and is apparently still the custom for the governor of Massachusetts). He served 2 terms and retired, so he wouldn't amass too much power. Up through the first few years of the 20th century, the Presidency was regarded as weak. In fact, Teddy Roosevelt was nominated for the Presidency by the Republicans because they found him annoying and wanted to get rid of him.

Why Hillary shouldn't want a do-over in Michigan:

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080414/POLITICS/804140415/1361

In as much as it's just another pebble in the avalanche of "Obama = muslim = osama" jabs we'll see between now and november. At least we'll have the "z0mg did you realize he's black??" race baiting for variety but that'll get old too.

Focusing on this minutia is a waste of ones time.

That's the thing, though, isn't it Tahoe? In real life, Julius Caesar actually destroyed the Roman republic. He instituted a military dictatorship that completely marginalized the Roman Senate and ended rule by democracy in the Roman world, and began the Imperial Age of Rome.

...and the whole while, Caesar was saying he did it for the common people, and the common people loved him for it. What a farce! "I'm taking away all your rights but I'm doing it because I love you." In over 2000 years, civilized people have learned nothing.

I apreciate that. But my larger point is that we need more common men/women to get involved in politics. Will the Dems and Reps let that happen? Prolly not.

Its all a big circle jerk and a cluster fuck at the same time.

Focusing on this minutia is a waste of ones time.

Ignoring it is to be in a state of denial.

Why should I focus on that stupid shit? For what? Racism? Whats your point?

Focus on to the exclusion of any and all other things? No... and I assume that everyone understands that implicitly. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Understand that race and religion baiting are part of the campaign and be aware when it happens and who's doing it... yeah, I think it's pretty cogent.

I just heard the larger clip of what Obama said (the clinging part). He's dead on and I don't know what the Clinton's are jumping on. There was nothing elitist about it. Actually, they read a quote from Bill Clinton (when he ran against Bush) that is very similar to that.

i think it was poorly worded and part of the reason why many people dont like liberals and the democratic party. the way he said it was a little elitist, kind of sounded like a guy in harvard law who had never even met a redneck.

that said, obama is addressing a larger, serious issue. one that bush, mccain, and now hilary (i see people who want to roll up their sleaves...) seem completely out of touch with. bitter may be a bad word to use, but atleast hes actually addressing the issue. obama could have said 'white trash jobless rednecks are bitter' andi would have been more receptive to it than bush's 'the economy is strong'.

and your right that bill has said similar things. thats because what barack said has pretty much been the party line since the new deal.

qtVjsHo_598
kyuLD8FHwJc

Holy shit, that girl in the second video was buff as shit!

i think it was poorly worded and part of the reason why many people dont like liberals and the democratic party. the way he said it was a little elitist, kind of sounded like a guy in harvard law who had never even met a redneck.

that said, obama is addressing a larger, serious issue. one that bush, mccain, and now hilary (i see people who want to roll up their sleaves...) seem completely out of touch with. bitter may be a bad word to use, but atleast hes actually addressing the issue. obama could have said 'white trash jobless rednecks are bitter' andi would have been more receptive to it than bush's 'the economy is strong'.

and your right that bill has said similar things. thats because what barack said has pretty much been the party line since the new deal.

It was.

I love how Hillary can't even find a Pennsylvanian for her "Pennsylvanians are outraged" ad:

http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2008/04/clintons_offended_pa_voter_not.html

Nice job finding someone that is already a Clinton supporter. If you are going to fool the masses into thinking people got turned off to Obama by his remarks, you might want to at least find an undecided or better yet an Obama supporter to fool everyone with.

Nice job finding someone that is already a Clinton supporter. If you are going to fool the masses into thinking people got turned off to Obama by his remarks, you might want to at least find an undecided or better yet an Obama supporter to fool everyone with.

I completely agree. Those comments turned some peeps off, but NOT BO supporters.

Focus on to the exclusion of any and all other things? No... and I assume that everyone understands that implicitly. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Understand that race and religion baiting are part of the campaign and be aware when it happens and who's doing it... yeah, I think it's pretty cogent.

And the Dems with their Age baiting on McCain, race baiting on BO. They should be ashamed.

theres nothing wrong with age baiting. thats a legit concern.

So is religion

Robert Johnson says Ferraro's comments were correct and the only reason she was attacked was cuz she is white.

hil is having a pretty good night.

barack just said 'windfal tax'. something ive been clamoring for re: energy companies.

however, he then said we can lower demand with fuel efficiency. i believe there is no way to lower demand.

china, the up and comer, artificially lowers demand with its price caps. pretty much, theres this huge artificial gap in china that will absorb literally all the oil we conserve in the united states. individual demand can go down, agregate never will. even if the united states cut its consumption 100%, china would probably just take it. not to say dont conserve, its just it wont make the difference the tree huggers will tell you it will.

its the invisible hand and shit.

From what I could tell (was mostly watching the game), the debate was crap. It took them an hour to talk about the economy and Iraq. Did they ever get to healthcare? It seemed like all that ABC wanted to do was talk about what they thought was important, not what people actually cared about, but Amir Johnson and Walter Herrmann getting decent playing time trumped the debate for me. :)

So is religion
Please explain to me why.

From what I could tell (was mostly watching the game), the debate was crap. It took them an hour to talk about the economy and Iraq. Did they ever get to healthcare? It seemed like all that ABC wanted to do was talk about what they thought was important, not what people actually cared about, but Amir Johnson and Walter Herrmann getting decent playing time trumped the debate for me. :)

i think they were trying to ask the q's that hadnt been covered before. they actually spent substantial on the flag pin issue. so yea, your probably right on it being sucky.

obama did seem to be on the defensive for a good portion of it, but i think he handled himself well. he probably also talked for hte vast majority of the debate, so i guess it could be viewed as a win for him in that regard.

i thought they could have asked hilary about columbia and free trade, since she hasnt really seemed to answer it yet. she also looked really bad on the honesty issue again, seeming to waffle over her answer several times, including saying ' i wasnt as accurate as i have been in the past'. at some points she said she knowingly misstated the trueth, but then she also threw around the 'tired' excuse.

that story is probably played out now. kind of silly, and yet also pretty relevent at once.

Because we have a seperation of church and state.

From what I could tell (was mostly watching the game), the debate was crap. It took them an hour to talk about the economy and Iraq. Did they ever get to healthcare? It seemed like all that ABC wanted to do was talk about what they thought was important, not what people actually cared about, but Amir Johnson and Walter Herrmann getting decent playing time trumped the debate for me. :)

What a concept!

Yes, which is why it shouldn't matter what religion the president is (or maybe I took your original statement wrong, and that's what you were trying to say, i'll have to go back and check)

barack just said 'windfal tax'. something ive been clamoring for re: energy companies.

however, he then said we can lower demand with fuel efficiency. i believe there is no way to lower demand.

china, the up and comer, artificially lowers demand with its price caps. pretty much, theres this huge artificial gap in china that will absorb literally all the oil we conserve in the united states. individual demand can go down, agregate never will. even if the united states cut its consumption 100%, china would probably just take it. not to say dont conserve, its just it wont make the difference the tree huggers will tell you it will.

its the invisible hand and shit.

I don't really understand what you are saying. I worked for GM in the late 90s when they decided to pour all of their resources into the truck division. I said at the time that it was a terrible idea with global warming and emerging economies. Now that time is here. The government absolutely can lower demand by raising fleet fuel economy standards like it did in the 70s. If china puts huge subsidies on fuel in their country, they will have to raise taxes to pay for those subsidies. Inefficiency begets inefficiency. When McCain drops the fuel tax, it will be a huge transfer to oil companies who will just raise their prices again. The cost of gasoline is already highly subsidized when you figure in the geopolitical and environmental costs. People need to get the message that they need more fuel efficient cars or be willing to pay the full price for oil from a cartel of countries that make up some of our worst enemies.

Also, that debate was a joke and unwatchable. It was like the media was trying to make a parody of itself.

I don't really understand what you are saying. I worked for GM in the late 90s when they decided to pour all of their resources into the truck division. I said at the time that it was a terrible idea with global warming and emerging economies.
The issue was that the Big Three couldn't make a profit doing cars in the U.S., especially with gas at a buck a gallon, but...

Now that time is here. The government absolutely can lower demand by raising fleet fuel economy standards like it did in the 70s.
...they kept loser car lines around in the name of CAFE simply so their "fleet" numbers wouldn't be bad. I'm all for better, more efficient vehicles, but we've bought into a mindset that it's an auto industry problem moreso than an oil industry problem. Like the war on drugs, we're content to pick at the dealers in our faces at the expense of the folks behind the scenes profiting massively.


Also, that debate was a joke and unwatchable. It was like the media was trying to make a parody of itself.
Apparently, others thought the same:

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1731655,00.html

I don't really understand what you are saying. I worked for GM in the late 90s when they decided to pour all of their resources into the truck division. I said at the time that it was a terrible idea with global warming and emerging economies. Now that time is here. The government absolutely can lower demand by raising fleet fuel economy standards like it did in the 70s. If china puts huge subsidies on fuel in their country, they will have to raise taxes to pay for those subsidies. Inefficiency begets inefficiency. When McCain drops the fuel tax, it will be a huge transfer to oil companies who will just raise their prices again. The cost of gasoline is already highly subsidized when you figure in the geopolitical and environmental costs. People need to get the message that they need more fuel efficient cars or be willing to pay the full price for oil from a cartel of countries that make up some of our worst enemies.

That is exactly why I bought my POS '81 biodiesel. It may not look flashy and it may have a lot of rust, but my fuel economy is putting yours to shame, so I'm fine with it.

Well, the reason gas prices have gone up is because 1) the dollar is declining in value, 2) worldwide demand for oil is increasing, but supplies are static. Unless you expect oil companies to make less money selling oil to America than to other countries, I don't see why they are more to blame than the auto companies or, more specifically, American energy policy in general. The oil companies are making a ton of money because oil is worth more, and prices are especially high because the dollar is weaker. The only way to combat these issues is to decrease demand in our country. If Americans were using less gas, the price would not be as high as it is today. If the big 3 had any foresight, they would have attempted to improve their car lines or putting more effort into electric or hybrid cars in anticipation of rising fuel costs. Their inability to produce profitable cars stems from their own incompetence and, to a lesser degree, their issues with unions' higher effective wage rates and lack of flexibility. (Union contracts would often require that specific jobs needed to be continued, regardless of whether those jobs were productive.)

http://www.benbest.com/polecon/shift.gif

Well, the reason gas prices have gone up is because 1) the dollar is declining in value, 2) worldwide demand for oil is increasing, but supplies are static.
Don't forget "3" -- destabilizing the region by being in Iraq.


Unless you expect oil companies to make less money selling oil to America than to other countries, I don't see why they are more to blame than the auto companies or, more specifically, American energy policy in general.
Yeah, but the auto companies get the bulk of the pressure, while the oil companies get wars fought for their interests. Unlike Canada and Europe, we didn't tax gas to offset the costs (public transportation, urban planning, green investment) so car companies had little incentive to do this domestically and oil companies got more profitable than they should have.


If the big 3 had any foresight, they would have attempted to improve their car lines or putting more effort into electric or hybrid cars in anticipation of rising fuel costs. Their inability to produce profitable cars stems from their own incompetence and, to a lesser degree, their issues with unions' higher effective wage rates and lack of flexibility. (Union contracts would often require that specific jobs needed to be continued, regardless of whether those jobs were productive.)
There's no lack of incompetence. But the biggest problem is that retiree and healthcare costs were out of whack because few expected people to live as long as they have, that the remaining years would cost so much. It's the same problem that a lot of industries have had. Many solved it by declaring bankruptcy, reemerging from the ashes like a phoenix, and leaving a bunch of screwed-over long time employees in their wake (often leading to additional costs by government which they rarely stick back to the reborn businesses). The automakers haven't generally done the big screw-you. Is that to their credit or detriment?

That debate was stupid. Everyone complains about not getting to the issues yet all the media does is talk about Wright, Bitter, Bosnia, etc.

I missed the question, but all the analysts on CNN were talking about how Hillary was asked if Obama is electable and she said YES 3 times. That puts a major hole in one of her biggest attacks on him.

I agree that destabilizing the middle east also leads to higher gas prices; however, until it is proven otherwise, that region should be considered unstable for the foreseeable future regardless of us policy. I think that you fail to acknowledge the link between automakers and the energy policy. Generally, what has been good for the oil industry has been good for the US auto industry. The auto industry has always fought against gas taxes and/or public transport, so their "lack of incentive" to develop more fuel efficient cars was generally a result of their own lobbying efforts. Gas prices have always been higher in Europe, yet their automakers were profitable even with a well paid workforce. GM was able to con the federal govt. into subsidizing almost the full price of hummers in the guise of a bush administration effort to "support small businesses". The federal govt. has always de

European car makers have been able to survive despite high labor costs because their countries had a more reasonable energy policy. I worked in the engineering department of GM and had firsthand knowledge of the idiots in charge (i.e. their incompetence). They made the conscious decision to devote most of their resources to developing more and more trucks with terrible gas mileage. They basically mocked the idea of hybrid cars at the turn of the century. IMO, they cynically promoted hydrogen as an excuse not to worry about developing more fuel efficient cars and trucks in the short term (short term being 20+ years). It is hard for me to believe that American car makers couldn't have made profitable smaller cars, they never really tried. Their inability to remain competitive in the car market is almost a self-fulfilling prophecy. The US auto industry has historically struggled with every economic downturn, but made themselves more susceptible than ever by focusing almost entirely on high price trucks. OPEC countries could recreate the oil crisis of the 1970s at any time they want, yet our energy policy made no effort to deal with fuel efficiency in the last 30 years! Our national vehicle average fuel efficiency did not improve between the early 1980s and when I left GM in 2000. It is as if the big 3 learned nothing from the 1970s. I would assert that this energy policy was driven as much if not more by the auto companies than the oil industry. By the time I left GM, it had virtually stopped designing and/or engineering small cars in the US. That work was all done in Europe. If they had invested their late 90s record profits into revamping their car divisions, they would have been much better off. Instead, they devoted all of their efforts into the truck division as if fuel costs would never increase and the US economy would expand forever.

I understand that union costs are high, but employee costs are very high for most japanese and euro auto companies (maybe not for the Koreans). The auto industry has been shielded by the competitive pressures of other industries because the entry cost for a new automaker is enormous. Thus, the Chinas and Indias of the world can't just replicate american technology, and comparisons with other types of industries are somewhat apples to oranges.

CNN is really taking a lot of heat for this retarded debate. I've said it before, I'll say it again: CNN's problem is not that they're biased, it's that they're retarded. And if you get all your news from CNN, you run the risk of developing an incredibly shallow understanding of politics.

Oops, it was an ABC debate. Oh well, they suck too.

what your missing is that china, what could be a gigantic demander for oil, keeps demand down with an artificial price cap, enforced at the refinery level. this creates a huge gap in the supply and demand curve.

its true that the US lowering demand should move down the price, but whatever the US does in lowering demand just gets absorbed by 'the gap'.

whats scary is that there are talks of removing the cap. if you think prices are high now, wait til china is free to compete in an open market with us.

what your missing is that china, what could be a gigantic demander for oil, keeps demand down with an artificial price cap, enforced at the refinery level. this creates a huge gap in the supply and demand curve.

its true that the US lowering demand should move down the price, but whatever the US does in lowering demand just gets absorbed by 'the gap'.

whats scary is that there are talks of removing the cap. if you think prices are high now, wait til china is free to compete in an open market with us.

I don't understand this at all. If China removes a price cap, wouldn't the price go up in China? This would reduce demand. Also, if there is a price cap in China, their price would remain the same even if the US started to use less gas and the global price declined. The capped price would set the demand in CHina regardless of what other countries do.

the affect of the cap is that people dont sell oil in china. demand is not met. its not like the US where you can go to the store anytime you want and get oil.

in an open market you could buy all you want, just at significantly higher prices.

your mistake is assuming that the artificial price is also equilbrium between supply and demand. it is not. without the cap, price and demand would both go up.

How many debates does this make for the Dems? Enough? 5 more? 10 more?

your mistake is assuming that the artificial price is also equilbrium between supply and demand. it is not. without the cap, price and demand would both go up.

It is easily possible to have a price cap and a stable equilibrium. The US subsidizes vaccines, but there is no shortage. I have never looked into the pricing of oil in China, but the elasticity of demand would be important to determine if demand would increase at full cost and without rationing. There must be a reason for the country to set a price cap in the first place. Anyways, if there is an artificial gap in supply and demand, China's govt. would have to be willing to pay for the additional volume if the global price of oil didn't change (since the govt. has to make up for the difference between the real price and the subsidized price for any volume). If China is rationing oil as part of its pursuit of limiting economic growth, then we wouldn't need to worry about our effect on oil prices in the short term. Anyway you look at it, the US needs to address the oil situation sooner rather than later, and subsidizing gas/road infrastructure is not the answer.

With the Ohio vote counts complete, Obama just picked up an extra pledged delegate at Hillary's expense.

Is there anyone who does NOT think this race is over?

Robert Reich finally endorses Obama, something I thought already happened:

Qwg7CD5rX1Q

Robert Reich was trying to stay neutral because he was the Secretary of Labor for Clinton's 1st term.

Is there anyone who does NOT think this race is over?
EGsNO_9rY1k

Sam Nunn, my fav Dem ever, endorsed BO today. He was also asked about being on the ticket. He gave that no answer with holes, but if Nunn was his VP, BO might get my vote yet.

Mxy...at this point it apears that the 'bitter gate' has not hurt BO. I concede your point. At least in the Dem nomination race.

The only people who seem to give a shit about "bitter" or Wright or the Weather Underground guy seem to be the media. No one else gives a shit, as usual. It's pleasantly surprising that people are ignoring the bullshit machine.

The only people who seem to give a shit about "bitter" or Wright or the Weather Underground guy seem to be the media. No one else gives a shit, as usual. It's pleasantly surprising that people are ignoring the bullshit machine.

I pretty much agree with that, but some polls showed the Rev Wr issue was a big deal to 40%, but those peeps weren't going to vote for BO anyway.

Somewhat like McCain. He has alread lost all the voters for his stance on Iraq.

i dont agee with that part on mccain. the iraq war issue seems to be picking up steam. people may have made up there mind by now whether they are for or against it, but what has not been determined is what priority that is.

tying the war to our economy is going to put getting out over the edge. when people realize that the cost of victory (still that ambiguous, perhaps meaningless word) is greater than the cost of defeat. i put a lot of merit into the argument that everyone's best interest is perhaps served with the us withdrawing.


barack is teflon. nothing sticks to him. these issues not registering are not suprising at all. hilary will risk embarassment if she stay in after pennsylvania. best case scenario, she picks up, what, 10, 15 delegates? its OVAH. i think people have been suprisingly vociferous in calling for her withdrawl, i believe after tuesday it will be defenning (cant spell).

Rasmussen was just on the tube showing his April 18th Presidential tracking poll which had JM leading BO 48-42 and leading Hill 50-41. Granted the Dems are still slicing each other up.

Ras also said JM is viewed favorably by 56%, BO 47%, Hill 43% Nationwide. See the last line above.

And I agree, nothing sticks to BO...at least as far as Dem primaries are concerned. We'll see come the general.

Gallup showed some minor Obama slippage post-debate that Rasmussen or Newsweek (which gave Obama a seemingly-improbable 19-point lead over Hillary) hasn't. We'll see just how real that is. The general consensus of the printed media seems to be that ABC fucked up the debate more than either candidate, but the TV talking heads are trying to defend themselves mightily.

Supposedly, Obama gave the finger to Hillary at the speech:

http://i295.photobucket.com/albums/mm137/jimmyhoffa2222/Image2-2.jpg

except he really didn't and it was a camera angle thing. But I have to wonder -- would giving the bird to Hillary have gotten him more voters at this point?

he scratched the side of his face with his middle finger at the same time as saying her name....


heres my prediction: they split penn, people get very loud about hillary dropping out. obama wins indy by 5-10 and nc by 20-30 and hilary drops out, but claims the system was broken and blames her loss on the mean party leaders not letting democracy play out.

i think if the above happens and hillary stays in it, it wont be a bid deal. obama would be almost the presumptive nominee. hillary would run out of cash and these primaries would become more ceremonial than anything else. most candidates, the media would start ignoring them. i doubt that happens with hil.

A peek into the psychology of a Hillary voter who's probably not alone:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/34071.html


On paper, her stances make her as likely to support Obama as Clinton.

But she sees a difference between the two. In Clinton, she sees someone who has struggled for years, just like her, and has earned the right to be president. In Obama, she sees someone who rose like a rocket, always has a smooth explanation for everything — whether it's about his former preacher or the flag pin — and who makes it all look too easy.

"That's what upsets me about Barack Obama," she says. "He takes everything so nonchalantly."

She admits that she's more likely to give Clinton the benefit of the doubt while looking for fault in Obama. For example, McCabe says that she once saw Obama on television and noticed that "he turned his back on the flag" before the Pledge of Allegiance ended. That irritated her to no end.

Hillary flew to California for fundraising this morning, the weekend before the primary. Either she thinks she has Pennsylvania in the bag, or she really needs the money.

Hillary flew to California for fundraising this morning, the weekend before the primary. Either she thinks she has Pennsylvania in the bag, or she really needs the money.

It means she's still running after PA, imo.

I moved this part of the discussion over here

Another point that I thought was somewhat cogent was that while BO's negs have risen (mainly cuz of the slicing and dicing thats went on between Hill, Bill and BO) it hasn't benefited Hillary. So they only thing she can do is continue to get peeps away from voting for him and just have them go away...type of thing. You get what I'm saying there Mxy? Not sure if thats clear. I thought it was a good point.



I've say he was more peeved than rattled. But again, I didn't watch all of it, just read the transcripts to catch up. There's only so much of George S.'s whiny voice that I can take. It seemed like once he realized he wasn't going to get a fair shake, his goal was to get through it.

And yup, you make a great point. Hillary's tactic is to smear Obama, hope that the people who haven't been paying attention who are likelier to vote your way come through big. If that miracle happens, then worry about how to win pissed off Obama voters later.

I just got off the phone with my brother who would make you look like a conservative and he was saying that Hillary looks like she is in her element with the negative attacks and BO is starting to look tired. He's concerned that this stuff is starting to stick.

Hillary flew to California for fundraising this morning, the weekend before the primary. Either she thinks she has Pennsylvania in the bag, or she really needs the money.

Oops...California, Pennsylvania. Wasn't aware there was one.

Same here. Good catch, Tahoe! I was thinking "whoa, she went to California at THIS point?!"

On paper, her stances make her as likely to support Obama as Clinton.

But she sees a difference between the two. In Clinton, she sees someone who has struggled for years, just like her, and has earned the right to be president. In Obama, she sees someone who rose like a rocket, always has a smooth explanation for everything — whether it's about his former preacher or the flag pin — and who makes it all look too easy.

"That's what upsets me about Barack Obama," she says. "He takes everything so nonchalantly."

She admits that she's more likely to give Clinton the benefit of the doubt while looking for fault in Obama. For example, McCabe says that she once saw Obama on television and noticed that "he turned his back on the flag" before the Pledge of Allegiance ended. That irritated her to no end.


I don't like people who have their shit together. I'd rather vote for someone like me, who can't find her ass with both hands and a flashlight.

The general consensus of the printed media seems to be that ABC fucked up the debate more than either candidate, but the TV talking heads are trying to defend themselves mightily.


Even the policy questions were republican talking points bullshit:



You have however said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, "I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was 28 percent."

And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?


The reason revenues increase the year after a change in the capital gains tax is because taxpayers can choose when to sell off their capital gains. If they know the rate will go down in the following year, they are much better off waiting a year to realize the low tax rate. Why sell off a mutual fund at a high tax rate instead of a lower tax rate. The opposite happens in the presence of a cap gains rate increase. You would sell off as much as possible the year before the tax increase came into effect. In fact, you would be better off selling early to get the lower tax rate, and then buying again in the following year.

This is one way that republicans can really boost the income inequality gap. Now, the rich can pay themselves in stock options, wait a year, and then take their pay at a 15% tax rate, which is much lower than the average taxpayer's rate. In fact, capital gains rate cuts probably exacerbate stock market and housing bubbles. However, the true economics behind this is very complicated and almost impossible to understand without visual aids and some baseline economic coursework in the viewing audience. I understand pretty well because I have had a lot of economics and I've done a lot of investing.

So yes, capital gains revenues will go often go up the year after a rate drop, but that does not tell the whole story the way Charlie Gibson tries to dumb it down to. When capital gains tax are decreased, there is great incentive to set up different types of tax shelters so that the rich will be taxed at the lower rate. As a result income tax (other than capital gains) revenues decrease. If you look at a graph of government revenues, you will see that tax revenue doubled during Clinton's eight years, but have only increased by about 25% during the Bush years. This shows the huge drop in government revenue caused by the Bush tax cuts. Remember that it is almost impossible for revenues to drop from one year to the next because the population of working Americans increases every year.

really good post xanadu.

i had this debate all the time with brokers when i used to work on the exchange floor at the CME. pretty much every one with money swears by voodoo economics. but thats hardly an unbiased opinion.

you dont want to deter people from investing money. but over the long run, that would be really hard to do.

Charlie Gibson's asked that question twice now -- seems like a personal pet peeve of his. He was exposed as pretty ignorant in the first debate, when he was talking about the average salaries of professors and professors were like "uhh... we don't make nearly that much!".

Speaking of economics, Hillary's campaign in the red

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/20/campaign.finance.ap/index.html


WASHINGTON (AP) -- Barack Obama raised $41 million in March and had $42 million available to spend against debt-ridden Democratic rival Hillary Rodham Clinton in April, campaign finance reports filed Sunday show.
art.debate.afp.gi.jpg

Barack Obama entered April with $42 million in campaign funds; Hillary Clinton raised about $20 million in March.

Clinton reported raising $20 million in March and had $9 million for the primary available at the beginning of April. But she also reported debts of $10.3 million, putting her in the red.

Overall, Obama had $51 million in the bank at the end of March, with nearly $9 million of that available only for the general election.
...

Peeps making 50k and under make up almost 20% of those paying capital gains tax.

So BO raises taxes on them.

Its funny to me how the libs are circling the wagons around BO cuz he got some questions they didn't like.

Iirc, the CNN Republican debate wasn't exactly a puff piece.

Peeps making 50k and under make up almost 20% of those paying capital gains tax.

So BO raises taxes on them.

Not if they don't make enough to pay taxes.

Do you know what % of overall gains they pay or what % of their income that is?

Hillary is succeeding in dragging BO into the gutter. She's in her element, BO isn't.

He went from inspirational speeches of hope to having to campaign negatively and its because of her.

Not if they don't make enough to pay taxes.

Do you know what % of overall gains they pay or what % of their income that is?

I think you are correct there. Bush's tax cuts took quite a few more peeps(I think a million) off having to pay taxes. The bottom earners that is.

And I don't know the % but I can try to find the article again later.

OT...Capital gains isn't just for the rich and capital gains aren't always a choice when to sell like some would have you believe.

I noted this in that article. It wasn't a hit piece on BO, btw. Its was just a fact sheet thing.

top 1% pay 38.8
20% pay 86.3
top40 pay 99.4
bottom 60 pay 0.6%

Thanks T.

I think the solution (or ambiguous thought that poses as a solution) is to find the % point at which people use cap gains as income, and at that level tax as income.

Another Republican trick is to point to the fraction of government revenue generated by the wealthiest sector of the population. However, the reason this hasn't changed much since the Reagan "revolution" is because of the growing income disparity. The richest people capture a much larger fraction of GDP and yet their % contribution to government revenue remains relatively static. I never said capital gains were only for the rich. Anyone who sells their house obviously receive capital gains. While a large fraction of the population may claim capital gains, the amount of capital gains are highly divergent and lower income people have far less opportunity to game the system relative to rich people. When the marginal tax rate of capital gains is 15% and the marginal tax rate of income is 35%, you distort the economy and artificially inflate the value of the stock and housing markets. Private investment for the sake of tax shelters is no more of an economy driver than government spending increases. Under Bush, we've had spending increases, tax cuts, and interest rate cuts to mask the fundamental weakness of our economy. If you recall, the bush tax cuts were proposed as a short term intervention to stimulate the economy. Like most Bush objectives, the original proposition was a farce and the administration never expected to rescind those cuts once enacted.

The folly of free market fundamentalism is information assymetry, which is best explained by Stiglitz. Recent deregulation and changes in the tax code further exacerbate the information problems leading to perpetually greater income disparities. What's worse, our current fiscal policy would appear to have absolutely no long term concern or perspective. The Bush administration fired their chief economic advisor for daring to suggest that the upper bound estimate of the Iraq War would be $200 billion, which shows that, once again, only absolute yes-men will be allowed in the policy tent. The Fed currently has a negative interest rate relative to inflation, and cut a sweetheart deal without giving much of a reason. This type of irresponsibility is completely unprecedented, and is more representative of the way Enron operated more so than any long term coherent strategy.

Honestly, none of the candidates' strategies address the core problems of our economy, but at least the spending increases by the dems are more easily challenged and carefully considered than the tax cuts and military spending increases proposed by mccain. The pentagon itself can' account for the money it spends and yet it is the only federal institution given free reign with tax dollars. My dad worked for the defense department for 30 years, and defense contractors are probably the most dishonest businessmen in the country.

Hillary is running ads with bin laden now???? As soon as I think it can't get any worse, it spirals into an otherwordly sphere of bullshit. Clinton is easily the most rediculous candidate of my lifetime. I am going to go vomit and avoid any type of news outlet until after this soul-sapping debacle in PA.

Its funny to me how the libs are circling the wagons around BO cuz he got some questions they didn't like.

Iirc, the CNN Republican debate wasn't exactly a puff piece.
If all the questions are directed at only one candidate who's not an incumbent, and that candidate doesn't get a representative majority of the time to respond, then it can turn into a farce.

Speaking as someone who pays capital gains taxes (and claims capital losses too -- urgh), Obama has been decidedly nebulous on specifics. He's proposed to raise capital gains tax, but also speaks of sliding scales and such so that it doesn't stick it to the middle class and retirees. The basic idea is to raise it enough to narrow down the "15% flat tax loophole for the mega-rich", while not stifling the investment or putting a serious ding into folks who aren't mega-rich. Barring bubbles resulting from changes in tax policy, it's not at all clear that 15% versus 20% makes any sizable difference in investment. And for the less well-to-do, capital gains is largely a "seniors" issue where he has specific tax cuts for seniors that more than offset this. Check out:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/23832520
-or-
zz5SglJPqms

Hillary is running ads with bin laden now???? As soon as I think it can't get any worse, it spirals into an otherwordly sphere of bullshit. Clinton is easily the most rediculous candidate of my lifetime. I am going to go vomit and avoid any type of news outlet until after this soul-sapping debacle in PA.

Do you have a linke to those so we can see them? Or did you just see it on TV?

Osama goodness from Hillary:
ZDap46WOCmA

If all the questions are directed at only one candidate who's not an incumbent, and that candidate doesn't get a representative majority of the time to respond, then it can turn into a farce.

Speaking as someone who pays capital gains taxes (and claims capital losses too -- urgh), Obama has been decidedly nebulous on specifics. He's proposed to raise capital gains tax, but also speaks of sliding scales and such so that it doesn't stick it to the middle class and retirees. The basic idea is to raise it enough to narrow down the "15% flat tax loophole for the mega-rich", while not stifling the investment or putting a serious ding into folks who aren't mega-rich. Barring bubbles resulting from changes in tax policy, it's not at all clear that 15% versus 20% makes any sizable difference in investment. And for the less well-to-do, capital gains is largely a "seniors" issue where he has specific tax cuts for seniors that more than offset this. Check out:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/23832520
-or-
zz5SglJPqms

I wasn't aware of that part. I thought the left felt both were attacked. understood now.

I'll do some more reading on BO's plan. That part of a voters job but boring.

Except for one question about Bosnian snipers, all of the from the first half of the debate were Obama-specific. Obama would respond more than Hillary did because he was the focus of the question. Then, when the debate changed to some of the more pertinent issues, Obama was clipped for time because he spent the first part of the debate defending himself. Usually, the moderators try to balance that shit out, especially if they're going for equal time from all. It wasn't as if Obama was an incumbent or the only game in town. It seemed pretty calculated.

Thanks T.

I think the solution (or ambiguous thought that poses as a solution) is to find the % point at which people use cap gains as income, and at that level tax as income.

And work to get more of those lower earners off the tax rolls. The money has to come from somewhere with all the gov'ts waste, but it would be great if peeps 50k and under didn't pay anything.

Except for one question about Bosnian snipers, all of the from the first half of the debate were Obama-specific. Obama would respond more than Hillary did because he was the focus of the question. Then, when the debate changed to some of the more pertinent issues, Obama was clipped for time because he spent the first part of the debate defending himself. Usually, the moderators try to balance that shit out, especially if they're going for equal time from all. It wasn't as if Obama was an incumbent or the only game in town. It seemed pretty calculated.

A rebuttal might be that we pretty much know about Hillary and McCain, but heres BO who I bet none of us followed while he was a State Senator. Now he wants to Prez. He has to expect more questions. To what extent? who knows.

I have never felt George or Charlie were Republicans. Or that either were conservative. Agian, iirc, CNN asked some pretty slanted questions of the Republicans, or watch a presser in the WH with Bush. just sayin...

A rebuttal might be that we pretty much know about Hillary and McCain, but heres BO who I bet none of us followed while he was a State Senator. Now he wants to Prez. He has to expect more questions. To what extent? who knows.
Right, but then don't do a debate with equal time conventions. That's what long, probing interviews are for.

What passes for debates is junk in my book, even when they're good.

I'd love to see debates with themes moreso than states. The faith weenies got it right with their own forum on their own issues. Put candidates up on the stage for 60 minutes talking just about foreign policy, then another one about healthcare, the economy, character, or whatever. Reserve maybe a couple questions for spur-of-the-moment stuff, but that's it.

Or, if you ARE gonna have the "state" debates and overall potpourri, have actual media from the state moderate. Let them ask questions with local overtones. I'd trust the local folks in Detroit more than I trust the national talking head squad, simply because they don't have their own scheming and politics when it comes to candidate access.

<sigh>

I'm with you on the topic debates rather than covering everything (and nothing at the same time).

On the local thing...I was with ya till I remembered the lady from the Iowa newspaper and her despicable performance. Maybe we could get that lady from Detroit City Council meeting to moderate. :)

BTW...Tom Shales left leaning Washington Post writer, characterized ABC's debate as despicable and shotty.

A member of the Clinton camp, Jay Carson, wrote Shales "I didn't recall you ever having the same negative reaction to any of the multiple debates where the moderators were extremely tough on Sen Clinton. MSNBC was so tough on Sen Clinton that they were mocked (I'm assuming the SNL gig) and criticized by many for the imbalance of their coverage, though notably NOt by you"

No response by Shales...yet.

Obama's now saying: No more Dem debates.

I messed with CNN's delegate calculator again just now. If they have a dead 50-50 split on all states and the supers, Obama wins the nomination 2086 to 1943.

She will probably win Ohio by 8-10 points, but he'll pick those delegates back up in NC.

In fact, she could win %85 of the vote in Penn, split the rest and Obama still comes out on top with 2034 delegates. Of course the primary results impact how the supers act, but you get the picture.

Good info.

I think the Clintons are still thinking about the 1. popular vote, 2. maybe another misstep by BO(if you think he has missteped) and 3. that she wins the big states to persuade the Super Delis to go with her.

I'm assuming by OH you meant PA.

^ Not bad for a guy way out in Denver DRay. He was only a state away. :)

The media called PA for Hillary. But between the exit polls and the fact that it took 'em an hour to make the call, she didn't win by a big enough margin to be what she needed in a pledged delegate sense.

I'm hearing (between innings) that she'll gain some, but not huge too.

I just listened to a guy (that shall go nameless) just rip the Dem process. Proportional representation and all this and that. No one can get a head, no one can catch up in the system. Some areas carry more weight than others even though there are the same number of voters. Hillary won Texas but not delis...on and on.

It does seem to me that you'd want your nomination process to mirror the general electoral process. Because Hill did win the big ones that you really need to take back the WH, but BO will end up with the nomination. Then throw in the Super deli thing.

I haven't really thought it through, but it seems like something needs to be done to it.

Every electin should be popular vote, period, IMO. Otherwise it remains that we don't really believe in our own "all men are created equal" doctrine, seeing as some end up to be worth more than others (see Gore v. Bush). Then again, I'm still a relative noob to all this and this will be the first general election I vote in, but that's how it seems to me. The delegate system, for national elections on this scale, needs to be ended.

I think the electoral college is flawed relic at this point. When it was developed, it was assumed that the federal govt. would have a minor role in law making relative to the states. Thus, it made sense to elect a president that was preferred by the greatest number of states. Nowadays, I think most would agree that the federal govt. is considerably more important than state government. Thus, it would make more sense for the pres. candidate with the greatest number of national votes to win. I think it's rediculous that Ohio plays such a large role in pres. elections. I've never voted is a pres. election for which the winner of my state was not already predertimed: MI '96 Clinton, CA '00 Gore, NC '04 Bush. If every vote counted, pres candidates would have to run a national campaign and more controversial issues should be debated in earnest. No one wants a govt. that is determined by who can get 51% of the vote in OH/FL/MI/WI, usually based on morris/rove politics.

I actually think disproportionate weighting of districts is a bigger problem for dems, since it is entirely opaque to the electorate. Just award delegates based on totals from the state, even though it would hinder the candidate that I favor.

By the way, I think the repub. idea of have some proportional and some winner-take-all states is worse. If the SE were winner take all and the NE were proportional, you might be looking at Huckabee as a front runner by now. At least make the process the same across states or you differentially weight certain states based on process rather than population.

Fuck a huckabee

It does seem to me that you'd want your nomination process to mirror the general electoral process. Because Hill did win the big ones that you really need to take back the WH, but BO will end up with the nomination. Then throw in the Super deli thing.

I haven't really thought it through, but it seems like something needs to be done to it.
There's a lot of goals for the nomination process, only one of which is to select a president, and some of which conflict with each other.

One goal has been to NOT have a "national" same-day primary (though this Super Tuesday came close). One reason some states chose their primaries to be later is that they gained bonus delegates just for not going close to Super Tuesday. If either party wanted to do the nomination like a general election, they would have a primary day (or maybe just a few regional primary days -- Super Tuesday was the southern region, initially) and it'd be done.

Another goal is to pick someone who isn't gonna fuck up the races down the ticket. The Bill Clinton era is proof that "just" winning the Presidency isn't everything. A lot of party losses from the time were due to Clinton being bad-to-toxic in many downstream races, even in years when he shouldn't have been. "Anyone But Clinton" no small part of why a good chunk of superdelegates prefer Obama today.

Yet another goal is to energize the state party as a whole. That's one reason for "weird" Iowa-style caucuses and other differences in how states run all of their elections. There's a theory that getting the more-hardcore party people together will benefit more than the more-passive primaries. Sometimes, there are unrelated state party political goals tied to primaries, like the property tax cut in Florida.

And how many of those goals have been met? Keep in mind the number of Dems that support 'BO will not support Hillary and Hill will not support BO' in the general is rising from the polls I've seen. So while the Dem numbers are up, will they come out in Nov?

I've heard Dems complain about it too. Having this knock down, drag out process does not seem to be what any Dem likes looking forward to the General.

It's hard to tell. Many goals are hard to measure. You can roughly calculate, say, dollar savings created from a state primary instead of a party caucus (a popular issue). But does that mean that the $ saved leads to "mo' money" for state and local races? Or, is that choice simply about the party not having the money in the first place? Most of the meta-goals are even less concrete. How much worse would it be for Hillary in VA vs. Obama, and does it matter?

In heated primaries, the negatives for both candidates go down, then there's a bounce after it's all over. What *may* make things different here is time. Six months for a primary schedule? Six weeks between primaries? These are just stupid timings. I think that's much worse than the proportional nature of the individual races. The superdelegate role needs re-examination, but they exist on the Republican side in th same proportion as well.

Oh well... enough musing. It looks like Hillary won by ~9% for about +10 delegates or so. There'll be hype, but the math just got much worse for her.

Fox vs Obama, greatest hits

i8SZvWzP58s

I don't buy the people saying they would vote for McCain if their Dem didn't win. I'm an Obama supporter who finds Clinton grating every time I hear her speak, but I'd still rather have her in office than have more of the same crap we've had for 8 years. I think the grating comments would stop anyway if she was elected, so what does that matter?

Sure, there will be some who will stay home if their canidate is not on the ballot, but I bet most of those complainers would still vote for the Dem. Otherwise they are idiots that are supporting their canidate for the wrong reasons anyway (ie because of race or gender or something else besides policy).

I was reading where the Wright thing, Bittergate, I'm finally proud of my country comments didnt hurt BO in the Dem party, but it did with Indis and Reps. I know..who cares about the Reps, but the Indi thing could be bad news come November.

At this point, if I were the Republicans, I'd rather run against BO then Hillary.

Fox vs Obama, greatest hits



Wow, A far left lib doesn't like Fox? unbeeweebable

I do like the way you conflate accuracy with far left lib.

"conflate" is very bukdowish

that's a compliment, btw

I just want to say, I rarely post in this thread, I don't know enough about politics, but its great at keeping me informed. Keep up the great work guys.

I just want to say, I rarely post in this thread, I don't know enough about politics, but its great at keeping me informed. Keep up the great work guys.

That's no surprise since Ohio frequently screws up politics.

IMO, the best thing for the Dems is to nominate Hillary and heal the wounds by asking BO to be her VP. Let BO get some experience and run in 8 years.

^ Could be a 16 year run, imo.

I do like the way you conflate accuracy with far left lib.

LOL

If he doesn't know enough about politics, how does he know if the guys are doing a great job?

IMO, the best thing for the Dems is to nominate Hillary and heal the wounds by asking BO to be her VP. Let BO get some experience and run in 8 years.

^ Could be a 16 year run, imo.
Going into the primary season, that might have been a dream ticket. But to give the nod to Hillary now, when she's losing the number of states, popular vote and delegate count would be highway robbery. You'd lose a HUGE number of new voters seeking change and having it stolen from them.

IMO their best bet would be the change canidate (Obama) with a vet as the VP (Edwards) that can attack the special interests for Obama. Edwards would probably also draw a lot of older people back in that supported Hillary.

Not a bad scenario either.

I'm just surprised at Hillary's resilience. She's tough and she wins the big states. If she wins Indiana handily, she can definately claim the momentum. Granted its like scoring 2 TDs in the 4th quarter when you're down 3, but she is a tough cookie. If nothing else, she her toughness has impressed me.

Well, in the last two months she has only really won 3 states (and I'm not counting Texas because Obama got more delegates there):

Pennsylvania by 9-10 points (about 12 delegates)
Ohio by 10 points (9 delegates)
Vermont by 20 points (only 3 extra delegates)

In all 3 of those states she was heavily favored to win and certainly in Ohio and Pennsylvania Obama closed the gap a lot. Wins for him would have been huge upsets. Considering %59 of the democratic voters were female, and also %59 were over age 50 in Penn, he did pretty good. Ohio had %57 women.

You might think Obama doesn't have a chance with older white votes, but he won %90 of the black vote in Penn and only lost the white vote 40-60 to Clinton (%80 of the voters were white). Obama scores big with his base (young voters and blacks). Clinton just scores big enough to win where her base is huge.

The Clinton camp is saying they are winning the popular vote (including MI and FL, and not counting the caucuses either):


From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
After Clinton's victory last night, the latest out of Clinton camp is that Clinton has pulled ahead of Obama in the popular vote. Of course, as we noted in First Thoughts, this can only be done by including Florida and Michigan, which is what the Clinton campaign has done.
Coming across journalists desks this morning was the following e-mail from Phil Singer at Clinton camp with the subject, "More People Have Voted For Hillary Than Any Other Candidate":
"After last night's decisive victory in Pennsylvania, more people have voted for Hillary than any other candidate, including Sen. Obama. Estimates vary slightly, but according to Real Clear Politics, Hillary has received 15,095,663 votes to Sen. Obama's 14,973,720, a margin of more than 120,000 votes. ABC News reported this morning that 'Clinton has pulled ahead of Obama' in the popular vote. This count includes certified vote totals in Florida and Michigan."
ABC's The Note (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/TheNote/story?id=3105288&page=1)reported this morning, however, similarly to what we wrote in First Thoughts: "By one (rightly disputed) metric -- the popular vote, including Florida and Michigan -- Clinton has pulled ahead of Obama. But without the rogue states, Obama is still up by 500,000 -- and if you can find another objective measurement by which she's in the lead, let us know."
RealClearPolitics (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html)keeps a popular vote tally, which breaks down the totals. It has a line also factoring in Michigan, which has an asterisk.

What we wrote (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/23/935854.aspx): "That new popular vote total (not counting FL or MI) has Obama leading Clinton, 49%-47%. For those keeping score, that's a difference of 483,129. ... So those remaining contests, per this conservative projection, bring Obama’s popular vote lead to 515,629. If you add Florida, that gives Clinton almost another 300,000 more. So you if you include the Sunshine State, Obama will still lead her by about 215,000 popular votes. No wonder Clinton herself decided to start talking about Michigan again, because she can't "win" the popular vote without it. The problem: Even many Clinton supporters believe it’s not a valid measurement."

The Popular Vote Still Doesn't Add Up

Andrew Romano

Terry McAuliffe is a quick draw. Last night, mere seconds after the networks had crowned Hillary Clinton the Keystone State victor, the former DNC chairman--and current Clinton adviser--was already on the air, spinning like a top. His main talking point? It's the popular vote, stupid. "By the time we finish this process," he told MSNBC at 9:20 p.m., "Hillary Clinton will have moved ahead in the popular vote."

We can sympathize. Winning in Pennsylvania earned Clinton only 10 to 12 pledged delegates, which is a lot less than the 150 or so separating her from Barack Obama at the start of the night. And the Illinois senator will inevitably erase her gains with a big win in North Carolina. That said, the New York senator did manage to pick up more than 200,000 votes, significantly narrowing Obama's lead of 800,000--and giving her the potential to pass him if Florida (and, perhaps, Michigan) are ever factored in. (McAuliffe, of course, included the Sunshine State in his count.) So it's understandable that Clinton and Co. want to deemphasize the delegates and argue that the popular vote is the proper metric for determining the Democratic nomination.
The thing is, it's also preposterous. For starters, the Democratic rules clearly state that delegates, not votes, are decisive. But even if you grant that Team Clinton is only asking tiebreaking superdelegates to consider the popular vote when choosing a candidate--and not claiming that votes should replace delegates altogether--there's still a pesky little problem to deal with: the popular vote is completely and utterly uncountable. So as speculation swirls and the math gets mangled, we thought it'd be a good time to remind you, dear reader, of a few incontrovertible truths. From our April 4 item entitled "The Popular Vote Fallacy (http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/04/04/the-popular-vote-fallacy.aspx)" (updated to reflect the most recent results):

Here's the math. To date, 41 of the 47 states or territories to hold primaries or caucuses have released precise, undisputed popular-vote totals. In this count, according to RealClear Politics (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html), Obama leads Clinton by 501,138 votes (14,397,506 to 13,896,368). So far, so good. But what, you ask, about the remaining six states? That's where we get into trouble.

First, there's Florida. Despite warnings from the Democratic National Committee, the Sunshine State scheduled its primary before Feb. 5--and true to its word, the party stripped the state of its delegates. That said, we're not talking about delegates; we're talking about votes. In Florida, where both Obama and Clinton were on the ballot, Clinton won by 294,772 (870,986 to 576,214). It's an open question, of course, whether a primary in which both candidates refrained from campaigning should even count. But let's say, for the sake of argument, that it should--which reduces Obama's popular-vote advantage to 206,366. Unfortunately, this doesn't help us much.

Next up is Florida's fellow gun-jumper, Michigan, where Clinton racked up 328,309 votes. Obama's total? Zero. That's because his name wasn't even listed on the ballot. On Jan. 19, Michiganders had two choices: Clinton or "uncommitted." And while "uncommitted" earned about 45 percent of the vote, it's impossible to determine what portion of that bloc backed Obama and what portion backed John Edwards, whose name was also absent. Ignoring the fact that Clinton herself said Michigan wouldn't "count for anything," this murkiness alone makes an overall popular-vote tally impractical: either you award all of the "uncommitted" votes to Obama, which would be grossly inaccurate; count Clinton's votes and leave Obama at zero, which would undoubtedly disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of Obama supporters; or don't include Michigan at all, which would disenfranchise even more, both pro-Clinton and pro-Obama.

That said, the worst is yet to come. The final four states--Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington--all held caucuses. But unlike Florida and Michigan, none of them even kept track of how many people voted for each candidate. (This is standard operating procedure in some caucuses, where delegates are awarded proportionally in thousands of precincts.) Wonks can devise equations to estimate the popular vote all they want, but mixing precise vote totals from other states with caucus approximations--which are, by definition, inaccurate--is mixing apples and oranges. Besides, thousands of voters in Iowa entered the caucuses intending to support Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and Dennis Kucinich, but were forced to jump to Obama, Edwards or Clinton once their preferred candidate didn't reach the 15-percent viability threshold; in Nevada, the same thing happened to Edwards supporters. How can you possibly pretend to count people required to resort to their second choices?

The fact is, the Democratic Party has only one mechanism in place for deciding the nomination: delegates. The system is simply not equipped to produce an accurate tally of popular votes.
Clinton is hoping that some strange, hybrid form of overall ballot approximation will delegitimize Obama's inevitable delegate victory and spur the supers to declare her the "people's choice"-- however incomplete, imprecise or selective that approximation (necessarily) is. And now that two-hundred thousand Pennsylvanians have put her one step closer to making that dream a reality, Terry McAuliffe couldn't be happier.
But that doesn't mean he's right.

Well, in the last two months she has only really won 3 states (and I'm not counting Texas because Obama got more delegates there):

Pennsylvania by 9-10 points (about 12 delegates)
Ohio by 10 points (9 delegates)
Vermont by 20 points (only 3 extra delegates)
Ohio only netted Hillary 7 pledged delegates. And it was Rhode Island where Hillary won +5, not Vermont which Obama won comfortably. Remember, she was slated to win Pennsylvania by 20 points at the start of April.


In all 3 of those states she was heavily favored to win and certainly in Ohio and Pennsylvania Obama closed the gap a lot. Wins for him would have been huge upsets. Considering %59 of the democratic voters were female, and also %59 were over age 50 in Penn, he did pretty good. Ohio had %57 women.
Men are less likely to vote in primaries than women, and women are more likely to be Democratic. The male vote kicks up a few points for the actual election.

Obama's leaked spreadsheet from 2.5 months ago predicted the delegate allocations to a spooky degree. That sort of political foresight will be every bit as valuable as so-called toughness, if not moreso. If Hillary's so tough, why is she losing? Why is she bankrupt?

FoxNews just said Popular vote totals are

BO 14,417,134
Hill 13,916,781

BO surplus of 500,353.

Thats with PA 215,169 surplus for Hill

edit...oops didn't see you postd this WTFC.

The money thing is pretty much done now Mxy. I mean they have Indiana left and the rest (if you trust what I've read) don't cost crap to campaign in.

BTW...This also shortens the general election season too. The longer the Dems go and the general doesn't start, the more money JM is adding up and spending less. The longer the Dems go, the better for money strapped JM.

Well, I heard they still owe millions of dollars to people they haven't paid yet (like temporary capaign headquarters, etc). She may be OK on ad money, but that's because she isn't paying people along the way.

Hillary is batshit crazy for the stuff she's saying about winning the popular vote and whatnot including Michigan and Florida. Obama wasn't even on the ballot in MI let alone didn't campaign either place. She had my respect but is beginning to lose it with this talk, it is not even logical.

I am most irritated by her friendly relationships with the limbaughs, sciafes, and fox news of the world. She seems to be seeking out their patrons to vote for her and extend this circus even though she knows these groups would instantly turn against her the moment she would become the nominee. Yesterday, mcaulliffe was slobering all over fox as fair and balanced. It was disgusting. It is hard for me to imagine going on a radio show where the host referred to my daughter as the white house dog. Of course, for bill clinton that is no problem.

Hillary is batshit crazy for the stuff she's saying about winning the popular vote and whatnot including Michigan and Florida. Obama wasn't even on the ballot in MI let alone didn't campaign either place. She had my respect but is beginning to lose it with this talk, it is not even logical.

I always thought that was stupid but I never thought of the caucuses until I read that article. They don't keep track of the popular vote and like they said even if they did it may be your 2nd or 3rd choice you ended up with.

I don't think she's even won a caucus, has she? So how can she make the popular vote arguement regardless of Michigan and Florida?

How can she?

She's batshit crazy, that's how.

Rush Limbaugh wants his listeners to:


Talk show host Rush Limbaugh is sparking controversy again after he made comments calling for riots in Denver during the Democratic National Convention this summer.

He said the riots would ensure a Democrat is not elected as president, and his listeners have a responsibility to make sure it happens.

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/15980105/detail.html

Of course, Hillary Clinton ran 4 ads during this broadcast. Right wing talk show hosts are the lowest form of bigoted trash, yet hillary has no problem adverstising and supporting his show. The same guy who called chelsea the white house dog. This type of blind pursuit of power no matter what the collateral damage is what is wrong with american politics on both sides.

edit: I've also heard the fat pill popping, womanizing douche bag was playing I'm dreaming of a White Christmas in the background.

Of course, Hillary Clinton ran 4 ads during this broadcast. Right wing talk show hosts are the lowest form of bigoted trash, yet hillary has no problem adverstising and supporting his show. The same guy who called chelsea the white house dog. This type of blind pursuit of power no matter what the collateral damage is what is wrong with american politics on both sides.
So how do you feel about Obama doing an interview on Fox News?

Limbaugh has been telling his listeners to vote for Hillary to damage the democratic party (and for no other reason). Fox news on the other hand has been attacking BO non-stop. Thus, challenging people that attack you is different than pandering to people whose support is nefarious and superficial. People have been saying that BO is not tough enough, and I am sure that fox will not pull any punches. I think more democrats should stand up to fox news and call them on their bullshit on air. I wouldn't advocate that any legitimize hannity, but I don't begrudge interviews with some of the other anchors. Chris wallace is usually ok from I have seen. IF BO praises fox news in any way, i would be tremendously disappointed.

edit: I don't think meaningful debate is ever bad. If someone like William F. Buckley had a show on Fox, I would advocate that all democrats and social advocates debate with him.

FoxNews has not been attacking BO non-stop.