US 2008 Presidential Campaign/Debate Discussion Thread - Part Catorce!

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
OOOOkay:eyebrow:

I wasn't aware anyone was saying she couldn't. But her blogs aren't that informative, it's mainly about her experience... that's why I was curious of you posting this.
 
Last edited:
NY Times

February 12, 2008
For Clinton, Bid Hinges on Texas and Ohio
By PATRICK HEALY

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and her advisers increasingly believe that, after a series of losses, she has been boxed into a must-win position in the Ohio and Texas primaries on March 4, and she has begun reassuring anxious donors and superdelegates that the nomination is not slipping away from her, aides said on Monday.

Mrs. Clinton held a buck-up-the-troops conference call on Monday with donors, superdelegates and other supporters; several said afterward that she had sounded tired and a little down, but determined about Ohio and Texas.

They also said that they had not been especially soothed, and that they believed she might be on a losing streak that could jeopardize her competitiveness in those states.

“She has to win both Ohio and Texas comfortably, or she’s out,” said one superdelegate who has endorsed Mrs. Clinton, and who spoke on condition of anonymity to share a candid assessment. “The campaign is starting to come to terms with that.” Campaign advisers, also speaking privately in order to speak plainly, confirmed this view.

Several Clinton superdelegates, whose votes could help decide the nomination, said Monday that they were wavering in the face of Mr. Obama’s momentum after victories in Washington State, Nebraska, Louisiana and Maine last weekend.

Some said that they, like the hundreds of uncommitted superdelegates still at stake, might ultimately “go with the flow,” in the words of one, and support the candidate who appears to show the most strength in the primaries to come.

The Clinton team moved on Monday to shift the spotlight off the candidate’s short-term challenges and focus instead on “the long run,” in the words of her senior strategist, Mark Penn.

“She has consistently shown an electoral resiliency in difficult situations that have made her a winner,” Mr. Penn said. “Senator Obama has in fact never had a serious Republican challenger.”

Clinton advisers have said that superdelegates should support the candidate who they believe would be the best nominee and the best president, while Obama advisers have argued that superdelegates should reflect the will of the voters and also take into account who they believe would be the best nominee. Superdelegates are Democratic party leaders and elected officials, and their votes could decide the nomination if neither candidate wins enough delegates to clinch a victory after the nominating contests end.

With primaries on Tuesday in Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia, Clinton advisers were pessimistic about her chances, though some held out hope for a surprise performance in Virginia.

And as polls show Mr. Obama gaining strength in Wisconsin and his native state, Hawaii, which vote next Tuesday, advisers, donors and superdelegates said they were resigned to a possible Obama sweep of the rest of February’s contests.

Some donors also expressed concern about a widening money imbalance between Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton: Obama fund-raisers say he is taking in roughly $1 million a day, while Clinton fund-raisers say she is taking in about half of that, mostly online. Mrs. Clinton’s aides say that the campaign was virtually broke as of the Feb. 5 primaries, but that finances have stabilized.

Mr. Obama’s financial edge allowed him to begin running television advertisements in Ohio and Texas on Monday, while the Clinton campaign plans to begin advertising on Tuesday. Clinton advisers say that she will have advertisements running statewide in both Ohio and Texas, and that she will have advertisements in English and Spanish in Texas.

“I think that clearly things have not been going as great as they were with her victories on Super Tuesday, and we can’t wait to get to March 4,” said Alan Patricof, one of Mrs. Clinton’s national finance chairmen.

Mrs. Clinton will have “a major ad buy” through the next week in Wisconsin, a senior adviser said Monday, and spend a few days campaigning there. But this adviser and others said the bulk of her time would be devoted to campaigning in Ohio, Texas and a bit in Rhode Island. In a sign of Texas’s importance, she plans to fly there Tuesday, even though Wisconsin votes next week.

While Mrs. Clinton’s advisers and allies emphasize that she has the time and the financial resources to regroup, they say she will have to take more significant steps to shore up her candidacy beyond the staff shakeup she engineered on Sunday, when she replaced her campaign manager and longtime aide, Patti Solis Doyle, with another veteran adviser, Maggie Williams.

Campaign advisers said they expected Ms. Williams to bring new energy to both the campaign team and Mrs. Clinton, after a long year of campaigning, and to encourage her to show more spunk and determination on the campaign trail. They say they do not expect the candidate’s political message to change appreciably; she will increasingly focus on the concerns of working-class voters, a key demographic in Ohio, as well as of Hispanics, a significant population in Texas.

As she seeks to erect a fire wall for her candidacy in Ohio and Texas, Mrs. Clinton will deploy her husband, former President Bill Clinton, to campaign in both states, particularly in Ohio, where her advisers believe his popularity will help her with working-class voters, labor union members and black voters.

In a conference call with reporters on Monday, Mr. Penn, who is also Mrs. Clinton’s pollster, played down some polls that showed strength for Mr. Obama and highlighted Mrs. Clinton’s abilities to beat the leading Republican candidate, Senator John McCain of Arizona.

“We believe that Hillary Clinton in the long run is better positioned to take on John McCain,” Mr. Penn said.

Yet some Clinton donors and superdelegates worry that the focus on Mr. McCain is premature, and that other strategic decisions by the campaign — like counting on Michigan and Florida delegates to be seated at the convention even though their status is in limbo — show faulty thinking that suggests the Clinton campaign does not have a short-term game plan against Mr. Obama.

“They are looking way too much at Florida, Michigan and McCain, because all three won’t matter if she doesn’t blow Obama away in Texas and Ohio,” said a Democrat who is both a Clinton superdelegate and major donor, and who spoke on condition of anonymity to offer a candid assessment of campaign strategy. “Obama has momentum that has to be stopped by March 4.”

Clinton advisers took issue with the notion that Mr. Obama’s momentum was significant, noting that his victory in the Iowa caucuses did not translate into winning the New Hampshire primary five days later, and his South Carolina victory did not prevent Mrs. Clinton from winning the biggest states on Feb. 5.

“There is no evidence that voters are voting based on momentum — in fact the evidence is to the contrary,” said Howard Wolfson, Mrs. Clinton’s communications director.

Hassan Nemazee, another national finance chairman for Mrs. Clinton, said he was also telling his network of allies not to get caught up in the headlines about Obama

“I’m telling donors and supporters: Don’t be overly concerned about what goes on in the remainder of the month of February because these are not states teed up well for us,” Mr. Nemazee said.

Asked if that message was sinking in, he pointed to the campaign’s announcement that Mrs. Clinton had raised $10 million online so far this month, and was on pace to raise more than $25 million in February.

“I predict for you we will have our best single fund-raising month in February, and that’s significant,” he said.
 
MrsSpringsteen said:

The Clinton team moved on Monday to shift the spotlight off the candidate’s short-term challenges and focus instead on “the long run,” in the words of her senior strategist, Mark Penn.

She's doomed.

In other news, Obama smacked Hillary around in the Virginia primaries today. Great job, voters! :yes:
 
OK I'm here again for 30 seconds to share that somebody on Wonkette cracked me up when, in response to Hillary using Streets to come in for that speech said "She must have hit the wrong track number on the U2 Greatest Hits CD. She meant Exit."

(Or Gone, Twilight, or I Fall Down....)
 
Last edited:
HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — Gov. Ed Rendell, one of Hillary Rodham Clinton's most visible supporters, said some white Pennsylvanians are likely to vote against her rival Barack Obama because he is black.

"You've got conservative whites here, and I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate," Rendell told the editorial board of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in remarks that appeared in Tuesday's paper.

To buttress his point, Rendell cited his 2006 re-election campaign, in which he defeated Republican challenger Lynn Swann, the former Pittsburgh Steelers star, by a margin of more than 60 percent to less than 40 percent.

"I believe, looking at the returns in my election, that had Lynn Swann been the identical candidate that he was — well-spoken, charismatic, good-looking — but white instead of black, instead of winning by 22 points, I would have won by 17 or so," he said. "And that (attitude) exists. But on the other hand, that is counterbalanced by Obama's ability to bring new voters into the electoral pool."

Rendell, chairman of the Democratic National Committee in 2000 and previously Philadelphia's mayor, endorsed Clinton on Jan. 23.

Pennsylvania holds its primary April 22.

Several figures in Clinton's campaign, including her husband, the former president, have been criticized in recent weeks for raising Obama's race. In response, Bill Clinton has said he will stick to promoting his wife, rather than defending her.

Later Tuesday, Rendell's spokesman said the governor did not mean to offend anyone.

"He was simply making an observation about the unfortunate nature of some parts of American society," said spokesman Chuck Ardo. "He wasn't being critical, he wasn't making accusations, but just being realistic."
 
John Edwards is "as split as the party he once hoped to lead -- and is seriously considering supporting Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, despite the sharp criticism he leveled at her on the campaign trail, according to former aides and advisers," ABC News reports:

In deciding between his one-time rivals, Edwards appears deeply divided. Several former advisers likened his thought process to a heart-versus-head split -- with his heart favoring Sen. Barack Obama's strong message of change, and his head attracted to Clinton's tested nature and commitment to tough fights.

Though he sometimes aligned himself with Obama -- and against Clinton -- as a candidate, several Edwards campaign insiders say the former senator began to sour on Obama toward the end of his own campaign, and ultimately left the race questioning whether Obama had the toughness needed to prevail in a presidential race.

"He is much more torn than people realize," said one former aide who has stayed in contact with Edwards. "Honestly, he has serious reservations about both of them."
 
MrsSpringsteen said:
HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — Gov. Ed Rendell, one of Hillary Rodham Clinton's most visible supporters, said some white Pennsylvanians are likely to vote against her rival Barack Obama because he is black.

"You've got conservative whites here, and I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate," Rendell told the editorial board of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in remarks that appeared in Tuesday's paper.

To buttress his point, Rendell cited his 2006 re-election campaign, in which he defeated Republican challenger Lynn Swann, the former Pittsburgh Steelers star, by a margin of more than 60 percent to less than 40 percent.

"I believe, looking at the returns in my election, that had Lynn Swann been the identical candidate that he was — well-spoken, charismatic, good-looking — but white instead of black, instead of winning by 22 points, I would have won by 17 or so," he said. "And that (attitude) exists. But on the other hand, that is counterbalanced by Obama's ability to bring new voters into the electoral pool."

Rendell, chairman of the Democratic National Committee in 2000 and previously Philadelphia's mayor, endorsed Clinton on Jan. 23.

Pennsylvania holds its primary April 22.

Several figures in Clinton's campaign, including her husband, the former president, have been criticized in recent weeks for raising Obama's race. In response, Bill Clinton has said he will stick to promoting his wife, rather than defending her.

Later Tuesday, Rendell's spokesman said the governor did not mean to offend anyone.

"He was simply making an observation about the unfortunate nature of some parts of American society," said spokesman Chuck Ardo. "He wasn't being critical, he wasn't making accusations, but just being realistic."

I think that's the case in all states, though. And certainly not as large as a 5% swing like that.

Still, Rendell is the man.
 
You will certainly find such idiots in every state, and with both parties, just as you would find them in any other "white" country.
 
Some interesting stats from firstread.msnbc.com (which every political junkie should read)

From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro
*** The statistical front-runner: No matter how one slices the election results from last night, there's no denying that Obama is the statistical front-runner. He's got a 100-plus pledged delegate lead and even has the lead if you factor in superdelegates. Here's our math: The NBC News election unit hard count stands at 1078 to 969. If you factor in the unallocated pledged delegates, our estimate rises to approximately 1128 to 1009 in Obama's favor (margin of error +/- 5 delegates). Toss in the superdelegates and Obama's lead is 1306 to 1270 (again +/- 5 delegates). What does this mean? For Clinton to overtake Obama for the pledged delegate lead -- which we think is the single most important statistic for the superdelegates to decide their vote -- she'll have to win 55% of the remaining delegates. Assuming next week goes Obama's way in Wisconsin and Hawaii, that percentage rises to 57%. Toss in likely Obama victories in Vermont, Wyoming, Mississippi, Oregon, Montana, and South Dakota, then Clinton's percentage need tops 60% of the remaining delegates available. And this is simply for her to regain the pledged delegate lead…

*** Staying on the statistical front: Check out these cumulative vote totals for primaries and caucuses to date:
States Awarding Delegates
Total Vote %
Obama 9,373,334 50%
Clinton 8,674,779 46%
Others 726,095 4%

With Florida
Total Vote %
Obama 9,942,375 49%
Clinton 9,531,987 46%
Others 984,236 4%

With Florida and Michigan
Total Vote %
Obama 9,942,375 47%
Clinton 9,860,138 47%
Others 1,249,922 6%

*** Follow the leader: So no matter how you slice the total popular vote, Obama is the leader. He's at 50% in states that have awarded delegates; he's at 49% and leads Clinton by 3 points in states where both their names were on the ballot, and his lead is big enough that he leads even when you factor in Michigan where Obama's name wasn't on the ballot. Why does this popular vote total matter? Because it's yet another important talking point when wooing superdelegates. How many supers will be comfortable voting against the candidate who's leading in the pledged delegate count and the total vote count?

*** So now what? This Democratic race has two finish lines. One could be as early as March 4. An Obama victory in either of the big states would probably put the pledged delegate count out of reach for Clinton and would allow Obama to disprove the idea that he either can't win Latinos or blue-collar white Democrats. Should Clinton sweep those big March 4 states, the race goes on to the end and becomes a rhetorical fight over stats and polls. The stats being the ones we've cited above (the pledged delegate count and the national vote totals), as well as the Democratic candidates' standing against John McCain in the national polls. But one other thing to ponder: No one ever writes off a Clinton. How do we know? If Clinton were in the position Obama's in right now, how many folks would be writing Obama's obit?
 
"The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone poll shows Clinton leading McCain 43% to 41% in New Hampshire. At the same time, Obama leads McCain 49% to 36%."

Here.
 
I'm glad his son made it back safely, don't know if he's going back again

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Republican presidential candidate John McCain, who almost always refuses to speak on the campaign trail about his son serving in the military, got a rousing reception Wednesday when he told a private gathering of House Republican congressman that his son Jimmy — whose Marine unit had been deployed to Iraq — had arrived home from safely.

According to three GOP sources present at the closed meeting of the House Republican Conference, the Arizona senator said that when his son first arrived in the country, he reported seeing IEDs everywhere — but when he recently left, some seven months later, Iraq had become so safe he was handing out soccer balls.

According to the sources present, the congressmen greeted the news with standing ovations.

The Associated Press has reported that a plane carrying 300 Marines, including Jimmy McCain, landed at the Portsmouth, New Hampshire, International Airport on Monday.

The unit had just completed a seven-month tour of duty in Iraq. The younger McCain is a member of Bravo 11, 1st Battalion, 1st Marine Division.
 
I find it interesting that so many polls/pundits say that Sen Clinton does better with blue collar/lower income/less higher education people. I wonder why that is. I know in the town I live in that is more middle class she won, and in the next town over that is very wealthy Sen Obama won. Both are equally predominantly white if that even matters at all, I like to think it doesn't.

Clinton leading Obama in Ohio, Pennsylvania
Poll: New York senator gains edge from 'Blue-collar Americans'
Reuters
updated 11:13 a.m. ET, Thurs., Feb. 14, 2008

WASHINGTON - Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton has double-digit leads over Barack Obama in Ohio and Pennsylvania, both crucial states in upcoming primaries, according to Quinnipiac University poll released on Thursday.

Clinton, a New York senator, has lost eight straight nominating contests to Illinois Sen. Obama, but leads him 55 percent to 34 percent among likely Democratic primary voters in Ohio, the poll found.

Among Ohio Democrats, women back Clinton, 56 percent to 30 percent for Obama, while men back Clinton 52 percent to 42 percent, the poll found.

White Democrats favor Clinton 64 percent to 28 percent, while Obama leads 64 to 17 percent among black voters, according to the survey.

Blue-collar America

"Ohio is as good a demographic fit for Sen. Clinton as she will find," Peter Brown, an Quinnipiac University Polling Institute official, said in a statement.

"It has blue-collar America with a smaller percentage of both Democrats with college educations and African-American than in many other states where Sen. Obama has carried the day."

Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas and Vermont hold nominating contests on March 4. Pennsylvania voters will select presidential nominees in a primary election on April 22.

The survey found that among likely Democratic primary voters in Pennsylvania, Clinton leads Obama 52 percent to 36 percent.

McCain versus Clinton or Obama
In a general election matchup with Republican front-runner John McCain, Ohio voters give the Arizona senator 44 percent support to 43 percent for Clinton and 40 percent for Obama.

In Pennsylvania, Clinton leads McCain 46 percent to 40 percent in the general election, Obama has 42 percent to McCain's 41 percent, the poll said.

The Quinnipiac University poll was taken February 6 through 12, after the "Super Tuesday" contests in which McCain all but wrapped up the Republican nomination with coast-to-coast primary victories.

The Ohio poll of 1,748 voters has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.3 percent, including 564 Democratic likely voters with a margin of error of plus or minus 4.1 percent.

The Pennsylvania poll of 1,419 voters has a margin of error plus or minus 2.6 percent, including 577 Democratic likely voters, with a margin of error of plus or minus 4.1 percent.
 
MrsSpringsteen said:
I find it interesting that so many polls/pundits say that Sen Clinton does better with blue collar/lower income/less higher education people. I wonder why that is. I know in the town I live in that is more middle class she won, and in the next town over that is very wealthy Sen Obama won. Both are equally predominantly white if that even matters at all, I like to think it doesn't.

.

Latte Liberals are for Obama.
Dunkin Donut Democrats are for Clinton.

Studies have also showed higher educated Democrats prefer Obama.

I am a bit bothered that even after most of the Kennedys have endorsed Obama, and the Kennedys more or less "owning" the polictical machinery in that state, that Mass voters voted for Hillary.

Are Mass Democrats closet racists?

dbs
 
diamond said:

Are Mass Democrats closet racists?

Yeah that must be it, that's why Senator Clinton won. The Kennedys really don't own anything in 2008 (if they ever did), no one tells people there how to vote. Senator Obama got 41 % of the vote, that must have all been from the only non-racist Democrats.
 
MrsSpringsteen said:


Yeah that must be it, that's why Senator Clinton won. The Kennedys really don't own anything in 2008 (if they ever did), no one tells people there how to vote. Senator Obama got 41 % of the vote, that must have all been from the only non-racist Democrats.



The Kennedys are synonymous with Mass.

That said, perhaps the Mass electorate is more of a less educated "Dunkin Donuts Democrat crowd" than the Obama "Starbucks Latte Liberal crowd".

A look at Mass fashion vs NY fashion bespeaks that notion.

dbs
 
diamond said:




The Kennedys are synonymous with Mass.



yes, that's what people who don't live there seem to think.



[q]That said, perhaps the Mass electorate is more of a less educated "Dunkin Donuts Democrat crowd" than the Obama "Starbucks Latte Liberal crowd".[/q]


you can't drive through two rotaries in Mass and nawt bump into a Dunkin' Donuts.



[q]A look at Mass fashion vs NY fashion bespeaks that notion.[/q]


erm, NY went for Hillary as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom