Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Hillary Rising
Clinton finally catches a few breaks in Carolina
One month ago Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) faced an uphill climb in North Carolina. A few days from Tuesday's primary, Clinton has clearly closed in on Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and there are now whispers of a Clinton win among her state-wide supporters.
The Clinton campaign continues to set the bar low, intending to spin even a close loss to Obama as proof that superdelegates cannot trust the party's nomination to such a weak candidate. However, keep in mind how Clinton managed to make up ground in a state where some polls had her trailing by as much as 20 points. The Clinton campaign has largely lucked into its recent momentum.
Clinton must first thank the state's Republican Party. It's decision to put the most strident anti-Obama ad, one with a heavy dose of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, into the mix two weeks ahead of the primary has rebounded to Clinton's advantage. The ad was ostensibly directed at the two Democratic contenders for the governor's race, both of whom have endorsed Obama.
But a TV ad featuring Rev. Wright damning America from the pulpit presented rural white voters with an uncomfortable image of Obama while at the same time freeing Clinton from having to do that job herself. It was win-win for the Clinton team.
Incidentally, state conservatives will not soon forget John McCain's sanctimonious heartburn over the NC GOP ad. They did not like the Republican nominee much on the issues before the flap, and now they find him pandering—and soft to boot.
Better still for Clinton, Rev. Wright decided to drop by the National Press Club this week to reamplify his previous remarks. This kept the story fresh for another few days and led Obama—prodded along, rumor has it, by spot polling in NC showing the Wright issue sapping his support among well-educated white voters—to finally denounce his former pastor.
Still, the potential for huge numbers of newly registered voters to turn out for Obama next week has clearly troubled the Clinton camp. They were not likely to be turned off by the 24/7 focus on Wright. They were on a mission to vote. But the Clinton network had an answer for that.
The Institute for Southern Studies (ISS), a left-liberal outfit in Durham with a hair-trigger on all voting rights issues, claims that the answer was good ol' voter suppression courtesy of a group with connections to the Clinton campaign. A Beltway non-profit with the tongue-twisting name of Women's Voices Women Vote has made robo-calls around the state—as it did ahead of other primaries—telling potential voters that the "packet" they must sign to be eligible to vote will soon arrive in the mail.
But no such "packet" exists, and the deadline for registration has long since passed. As such, ISS finds this calling effort "misleading"—and with good reason. Turns out one of the group's executives is a frequent contributor to the Clinton campaign, amid other interesting connections:
Women's Voices Executive Director Joe Goode worked for Bill Clinton's election campaign in 1992 as a pollster; the group's website says he was intimately involved in "development and implementation of all polling and focus groups done for the presidential primary and general election campaigns" for Clinton.
Women's Voices board member John Podesta, former Chief of Staff for President Bill Clinton, donated $2,300 to Hillary Clinton on April 19, 2007, according to OpenSecrets.org.
What is a Clinton campaign without a little funny business? The size of the turnout among black voters remains the great unknown for Tuesday; anything which dampens that turnout will be to Clinton's advantage.
One above-board factor the campaign can claim credit for is turning Bill Clinton loose to do his Bubba routine among small towns of displaced blue-collar workers. The former president remains popular with the NASCAR crowd and he never fails to skewer the Bush administration, noting, for example, that he left office with a federal budget surplus.
Much less important—indeed, bordering on the insignificant, despite the spin given it by consultants with the ear of gullible reporters—is Clinton's endorsement by North Carolina Governor Mike Easley. On paper Easley is a four-time statewide winner, including two wins as attorney general before his current run as governor.
But Easley's lame-duck year has been marked by political scandal in Raleigh, with one Democratic ally after another under investigation, and the former Speaker of the House now serving time in the federal pen. Add in the fact that governor's office is institutionally weak and that Easley has no campaign for another office in the field, and Hillary gets very little bump out on the campaign trail from this backing.
However, there is no denying that whatever the cause, Clinton is
on the upswing while Obama seems to be treading water and is
focusing on the insider game of locking down superdelegates.
Weekend events and news coverage will be crucial for both
candidates. As improbable as it seemed 30 days ago, Clinton has a
shot to deny Obama a big victory. This would send the Democrats a
loud-and-clear message: Pick me, I can win this thing.
Jeff Taylor writes from North Carolina.
|5.2.08 @ 12:33PM|#
However, there is no denying that whatever the cause,
Clinton is on the upswing while Obama seems to be treading water
and is focusing on the insider game of locking down
superdelegates.
They're both "focused on the insider game of locking up
superdelegates," since neither one can win with the elected
delegates at this point.
Obama is trying to keep his elected-delegate and popular-vote leads
high enough to convince the superdelegates he's the legitimate
winner of the primaries, and that he is still a viable
candidate.
Clinton is trying to eat into those leads and build a sustained
lead in national polling with solid wins in the remaining contests,
to remove the stigma of "overturning the will of the voters," and
to convince the superdelegates that she is now (as opposed to over
the course of the entire primary season) the stronger
candidate.
Geotpf|5.2.08 @ 12:33PM|#
No way Clinton wins NC. Obama will take it by 8-10 points or
so.
http://www.pollster.com/08-NC-Dem-Pres-Primary.php
Indiana is a bit more up in the air, with Clinton appearing to have
a slight lead.
http://www.pollster.com/08-IN-Dem-Pres-Primary.php
|5.2.08 @ 12:35PM|#
Looks like the strategy of some GOPers is working -- they appear to be (temporarily) throwing HRC a lifeline in order to drag out the bloodying of Obama until the convention, so they can let HRC continue doing their dirty work.
Guy Montag|5.2.08 @ 12:39PM|#
Clinton must first thank the state's Republican Party. It's
decision to put the most strident anti-Obama ad, one with a heavy
dose of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, into the mix two weeks ahead of
the primary has rebounded to Clinton's advantage. The ad was
ostensibly directed at the two Democratic contenders for the
governor's race, both of whom have endorsed Obama.
Ah, Operation Chaos is working!
Neil|5.2.08 @ 12:52PM|#
How does it feel to be the target of Op Chaos, Joe?
Being in NC I'll be sure to vote for Clinton on Tuesday LOL! Just
doing my part to start the riots in Denver.
|5.2.08 @ 12:55PM|#
Just doing my part to start the riots in Denver.
only a true psycho could wish for such destruction.
How does it feel to be a true psycho, Neil?
Elemenope|5.2.08 @ 1:00PM|#
Ah, Operation Chaos is working!
If by working you mean helping to stimulate development of the
party machinery and testing get-out-the-vote strategies and
accumulating experience on the ground in more and more states and
local communities, then yeah, it's working.
If this keeps up the Republicans are going to be facing a monster
of an opponent come November.
Guy Montag|5.2.08 @ 1:02PM|#
only a true psycho could wish for such
destruction.
Is it okay to just expect it from the tolarant and peaceful
party?
|5.2.08 @ 1:02PM|#
Women's Voices Executive Director Joe Goode worked for Bill
Clinton's election campaign in 1992 as a pollster; the group's
website says he was intimately involved in "development and
implementation of all polling and focus groups done for the
presidential primary and general election campaigns" for
Clinton.
Women's Voices board member John Podesta, former Chief of Staff for
President Bill Clinton, donated $2,300 to Hillary Clinton on April
19, 2007, according to OpenSecrets.org.
Should Clinton get the nomination, she has forfeited all moral
authority about dirty campaigning. She would, of course, still
claim to be a victim, but even a staunch Democrat like joe, would
agree that voter supression is dirty fucking politics, only a small
step up from ballot fraud.
Guy Montag|5.2.08 @ 1:03PM|#
testing get-out-the-vote strategies
Like the voting-packets-are-in-the-mail item from the article?
Taktix®|5.2.08 @ 1:03PM|#
AR,
I listen to talk radio in car at work because the music stations
suck here, and Rush Limbaugh has implied that he wants riots at the
DNC convention.
Part of "crushing the Democrats" and "Operation Chaos" and all
that. It's a red herring for his followers so they don't have to
think about having to vote for McCain in November...
P.S. Most of Neil's previous statements, since the first day he
arrived (landed?), are right out of the mouth of Limbaugh.
For me, listening to Rush try to act "conservative" after these
last 8 years really gets the blood flowing. It makes one alert more
powerfully than crystal meth.
Guy Montag|5.2.08 @ 1:05PM|#
Should Clinton get the nomination, she has forfeited all
moral authority about dirty campaigning.
That whole Party lost that well before JFK. Jeesh!
Guy Montag|5.2.08 @ 1:10PM|#
I listen to talk radio in car at work because the music
stations suck here, and Rush Limbaugh has implied that he wants
riots at the DNC convention.
I admit that I do not get to listen as often as you, but what
exactly are you taking as his implications that he "wants"
riots?
Some people might take my expectation of riots as a desire to see
them and nothing can be farther from the truth.
Same with my encouraging Leftists with grievances to attend the
convention and have their voices heard in counter-protest.
Certainly not a call for rioting, more like a call for
clown-suited-lesbians-on-stilts to get more television time,
because they don't show up here in DC often enough. Yes, part of
this is for my own selfish entertainment needs.
|5.2.08 @ 1:44PM|#
How does it feel to be the target of Op Chaos,
Joe?
Like my opponents are desperate, and clearly terrified of facing
the candidate who is going to win the nomination.
Neil|5.2.08 @ 1:44PM|#
I'm just expecting riots not calling for them Ayn Randian. Its
what the Democrat Party does.
Remember liberal Democrats have your voices heard! Dont let her
steal this! Protest!
You going to protest in Denver Joe? Let your voice be heard!
|5.2.08 @ 1:45PM|#
If by working you mean helping to stimulate development of
the party machinery and testing get-out-the-vote strategies and
accumulating experience on the ground in more and more states and
local communities, then yeah, it's working.
So was this why the most recent superdelegate to endorse Obama said
he'd done it to stop the bleeding?
Is this why 9 out of the last 10 presidential races were won by the
person who sewed up their party's nomination first?
Neil|5.2.08 @ 1:46PM|#
Yes I'm totally terrified of a far-left liberal Democrat with
ties to a racist preacher. Oh wait, he had ties to a racist
preacher until he found it politically expedient to pretend like he
never heard his preachers racist views until he started running for
President.
Voters are starting to see through Obama Joe. Hes not running
against Alan Keyes anymore, and even the liberal media is beginning
to wake up to the hate-filled biggot.
|5.2.08 @ 1:46PM|#
what exactly are you taking as his implications that he
"wants" riots
His statement that he is "dreaming" of them.
|5.2.08 @ 1:48PM|#
Yes I'm totally terrified of a far-left liberal Democrat
with ties to a racist preacher.
Clearly, since you continue to do everything you can to keep him
from getting the nomination, and haven't posted an unkind word
about Hillary Clinton in your entire presence on these
threads.
Hell, your hero Limbaugh came out and said months ago that he was
encouraging Republicans to vote for Clinton because she would be
easier to face than Obama.
Neil|5.2.08 @ 1:49PM|#
Only an Obama fanboy would think Clinton being within five points of him in a state where he was once heavily favored is the mark of a strong general election candidate.
Neil|5.2.08 @ 1:52PM|#
Joe back in January Obama was a stronger candidate.
Now the the heat is turned up on him hes melted away. He has a lot
of problems, and is hemmaraging white support. Now Clinton is much
stronger.
matt|5.2.08 @ 1:52PM|#
Hold on to your hats, folks. The dirtiest* trick of the campaign
just happened, and it'll be interesting to see how well it
works.
HRC aide Mickey Kantor is seen making some racist comments about
Indianans (calling them white n*ggers, saying "these people are
shit") in some old documentary footage that was leaked to youtube
this morning.
HotAir is reporting that it's doctored sound. I don't have an
opinion because my audio doesn't work. Is this an attack by an
Obama surrogate? Is this an intentionally weak attack made by a
Clinton surrogate in hopes of looking like an Obama surrogate? Who
knows. The latter is possible; remember Mitt's 'Mormon'
robocalls?
|5.2.08 @ 1:54PM|#
*The Ron Paul newsletter media blitz on the day of the NH primary might have been dirty and cheap, but this is worse.
|5.2.08 @ 1:56PM|#
Now the the heat is turned up on him hes melted away. He has
a lot of problems, and is hemmaraging white support. Now Clinton is
much stronger.
That must be why Limbaugh is now telling people to vote for Obama.
Oh, wait, no he's not, he's still telling them to vote for
Clinton.
NBC/WSJ poll from 2 days ago, BEFORE Obama's denunciation of
Wright:
Is the following a major concern?
McCain being too closely aligned to Bush: 43%
Obama's ties to Wright and Bill Ayers: 32%
Neil|5.2.08 @ 1:59PM|#
Joe we just vote whichever way will keep the primary going on
the longest, thats why I'm voting for a Democrat the first timed in
my life on Tuesday, and its Hillary.
Many, many other Republicans here will do the same. On to Denver!
Remember to go protest Joe.
|5.2.08 @ 2:00PM|#
Neil, when is McCain going to denounce and cut his ties will
corrupt, incompetent warmonger George Bush?
He's really an anchor around his neck, as you can see.
If I go to any convention, Neil, I will be standing outside the RNC
convention with a suit, a short haircut, an elephant pin, and blown
up photo of McCain hugging Bush's armpit at the 2004 Republican
National Convention.
Neil|5.2.08 @ 2:03PM|#
You're not running against Bush this time Joe. You had two,
good, clean honest shots and him and lost. Hes not on the ballot
this time, and McCain is not a Bush clone.
But if Hillary steals the nomination you're not going to protest?
Come on, show the man! Maybe ANSWER will help organize a
protest.
|5.2.08 @ 2:03PM|#
Neil, you're a Republican hack, or at least a simulacrum of
one.
What says "Loyal Republican" more to you as a caption for that
photo?
"Four More Years!"
or
"Two Great Republicans"
|5.2.08 @ 2:04PM|#
You're not running against Bush this time Joe.
And you're not running against Wright.
But it's pretty clear which one of them is going to make more a
difference in this election.
Neil|5.2.08 @ 2:07PM|#
We're not running against Wright directly. But we are running
against a man with judgement so poor and a will so weak he couldn't
disassociate himself from a lunatic hate monger until it hurt him
in the polls. Does that say "moral coward" to you? It sure does to
me.
I wouldn't try to hard to run against Bush since you did twice and
lost.
Neil|5.2.08 @ 2:08PM|#
Maybe you should hold up a photo instead of Obama standing next to Pelosi and Reid, the leaders of the Democrat Congress that has a 18% approval rating.
|5.2.08 @ 2:12PM|#
But we are running against a man with judgement so poor and
a will so weak he couldn't disassociate himself from a lunatic hate
monger until it hurt him in the polls.
No, no, you're running WITH McCane, not against him.
You see what I did there?
Does that say "moral coward" to you? It sure does to me.
Apparently, it says that to a lot fewer people than that picture of
McCain hugging Bush's armpit. But that's to be expected - after
all, the incumbent president is going to play a much larger role in
influencing people's opinion about an election than someone who
used to preach at the church one of the candidates went to.
I wouldn't try to hard to run against Bush since you did twice
and lost.
Thanks for the advice. I wonder if anyone said the same thing to
the Democrats in 1976.
|5.2.08 @ 2:17PM|#
Of course, this year is totally different from 1976.
Nixon actually outpolled his opponnent eight years earlier, and had
a large margin of victory in the previous election.
Neil|5.2.08 @ 2:17PM|#
Joe do you really think voters are going to hold a simple partisan photo op against McCain? Voters know he had to do that, and that hes not a Bush clone.
|5.2.08 @ 2:23PM|#
No, I think they're going to hold eight years of supporting the
Iraq War, Social Security privatization, exploding budget deficits,
and the rest of the Republican misrule against him.
The photo op will just remind them of how snuggly the two are.
|5.2.08 @ 2:25PM|#
a simple partisan photo op
See that third word there?
They're not going to hold it against him that he was loyal to his
party.
They're going to hold it against him that he's a Republican.
Elemenope|5.2.08 @ 2:26PM|#
Neil, you are aware that a person can hold a negative or even
sharply critical opinion of a person or group *without* hating
them, right?
I haven't heard anything *hateful* come out of Wright's mouth,
through he does through inconvenient criticism bombs left and
right.
What, did something hit too close to home? Cheney's a chicken-hawk?
The country does have a checkered history on human rights?
Tuskeegee and stains on medical professional ethics? Black and
white church traditions are historically different and may seem
strange for a person used to one to listen to the other?
Elemenope|5.2.08 @ 2:27PM|#
Is this why 9 out of the last 10 presidential races were won
by the person who sewed up their party's nomination
first?
That's really unimpressive since it includes the times that an
incumbent re-ran and won (Reagan, Clinton, W. Bush).
|5.2.08 @ 2:28PM|#
At this point, I don't care which oddball the Libertarians nominate. They've got my vote. The thought of McCain or either of the Democratic cretins in the White House is nauseating.
Guy Montag|5.2.08 @ 2:28PM|#
Jeff,
So, in your estimation, is Mrs. Clinton ridin' dirty in North
Carolina?
Neil|5.2.08 @ 2:41PM|#
Why don't you just admit Joe that McCain has wide crossover
appeal to independents and Reagan Democrats? Because he does.
And what about Obama being the member of a Democrat controlled
Congress with an approval rating even lower than Bush's? Happy bout
that?
Neil|5.2.08 @ 2:44PM|#
Lots of stuff with hurt Obama at least as much as any amount
Bush hurts McCain. From his wife to his radical academic writings
to his associations with 60s radicals.
And it won't get any better if Hillary gets it. Vince Foster and
Whitewater and Travelgate and the FBI files and all the other
disgraces this country went through in the 1990s will be brought
out again.
Elemenope|5.2.08 @ 2:48PM|#
And what about Obama being the member of a Democrat
controlled Congress with an approval rating even lower than Bush's?
Happy bout that?
Considering that that rating is due in great part to Congress'
seeming inability to end the occupation of Iraq, I'd say if I were
Obama I'd be feeling pretty good about it, considering his stance
on that issue.
Oh yeah, and aren't McCain and Hillary both members of that
selfsame august body?
Guy Montag|5.2.08 @ 2:49PM|#
Elemenope,
If such writings existed the Clintons would have "leaked" them by
now, or they will soon.
|5.2.08 @ 2:50PM|#
And what about Obama being the member of a Democrat
controlled Congress with an approval rating even lower than Bush's?
Happy bout that?
If I recall correctly, the Congress has had a fairly low approval
rating since at least the 1980s. Indeed, it seems an American
tradition to rate the body itself as a pretty lousy organization
while giving individual members high marks.
|5.2.08 @ 2:55PM|#
One significant reason to vote against Hillary Clinton (note that this isn't really a vote for anyone) is what one might call the "legacy issue." Namely that a Clinton Presidency would see one member of two families in the Presidency a possible 28 years - nearly three decades that is. Some people might find this possibility troubling not because it says anything about either family but what it might say about American political institutions. I have as yet to see analysis of this issue.
|5.2.08 @ 2:55PM|#
Calidore,
I voted yesterday and felt like I was one of about ten white guys
in a line of about 300 people; I was there for about an hour.
|5.2.08 @ 2:56PM|#
Why don't you just admit Joe that McCain has wide crossover
appeal to independents and Reagan Democrats?
Because there's no such thing as a "Reagan Democrat" anymore.
They've been Republicans for 10-20 years.
But I'll acknowledge that McCain has wide appeal among
independents, and not just independents, but segments of the other
party. So does Obama, as demonstrated by polling and by his
superior performance in open primaries and caucuses compared to
closed ones.
McCain was absolutely the right choice for the GOP. He's the only
Republican in America who has even a ghost of a chance of not
putting distance between himself and Bush, largely because of the
2000 contest and his heresy on some issues in the early years of
the Bush presidency. Too bad he's pissed that reputation away so
much in the last few years.
And what about Obama being the member of a Democrat controlled
Congress with an approval rating even lower than Bush's? Happy bout
that?
Congressional Democrats poll significantly higher than Bush, when
the question disaggregates the parties instead of asking about
Congress as a whole. Polls of generic party candidates for
president show a double-digit lead for the Democrats. Obama's
partisan identification is a huge benefit to him this year.
Lots of stuff with hurt Obama at least as much as any amount
Bush hurts McCain. From his wife to his radical academic writings
to his associations with 60s radicals. Well, after a month and
a half of those attacks on Obama dominating the election coverage,
while McCain has (not by choice) been completely under the radar,
McCain's closeness with Bush is a serious concern to 43% of the
public, and Obama's relationships area serious concern to 32% of
the public - those numbers coming from polls done before Obama
renounced Wright. BTW, concern about Michelle Obama is so low that
they either didn't poll it, or didn't bother to report the
results.
If you're really, really lucky, McCain's identification as a Bush
Republican will only hurt him AS MUCH as Obama, rather than a great
deal more.
Vince Foster and Whitewater and Travelgate and the FBI files
and all the other disgraces this country went through in the 1990s
will be brought out again. Ohnoes! Please, Neil, don't throw
Hillary Clinton in that briar patch!
|5.2.08 @ 2:57PM|#
Let's not forget, Rush Limbaugh is first and last an
entertainer. I think a lot of people take him far more seriously
than he does himself. Most of what he does is shtick,
The ongoing Democrat primary bloodbath is an endless source of
material for him. Little more. Sure, he'd be happy to have the
Repubs win in November, but lets not forget that his best days are
with Dems in the White House. He's a smart man, you can be sure he
knows that as well.
|5.2.08 @ 3:00PM|#
On "Reagan Democrats" - in the 2006 Congressional midterms, the
Democrats lost white working class men (I think that's the
demographic) by 14 points.
John McCain will almost certainly win this demographic by similar
numbers.
Neil|5.2.08 @ 3:01PM|#
Ok Joe, did they lose that demographic by that amount in the PA, OH, MT, and VA Senate races? I bet not. Maybe nationally over all, but not in specific swing races.
|5.2.08 @ 3:04PM|#
I believe the figure I saw was for House races, which is more
reliable, since the entire country votes for House races in each
election, as opposed to the Senate.
Losing that demographic by that number, the Democrats achieved a
double-digit gain in House seats.
Neil|5.2.08 @ 3:04PM|#
Heh, you're really naieve if you think that when we let everyone know that a vote for Hillary is a vote for returning to the '90s that she isn't going to be hurt by that.
|5.2.08 @ 3:05PM|#
HRC aide Mickey Kantor is seen making some racist comments
about Indianans (calling them white n*ggers, saying "these people
are shit") in some old documentary footage that was leaked to
youtube this morning.
It's been
restricted on youtube, but it was definitely available earlier
today.
|5.2.08 @ 3:08PM|#
Rasmussen has Obama up by 9
Xogby by +12
Clinton win doesn't seem probable.
I think Obama has bottomed out
He may even win Indiana. Zogby shows it even.
Rasmussen +5 for Clinton
Rhywun|5.2.08 @ 3:09PM|#
Better still for Clinton, Rev. Wright decided to drop by the
National Press Club this week to reamplify his previous
remarks.
Are we still pretending Clinton didn't arrange the whole
thing?
Its what the Democrat Party does.
Heh heh. I love when someone finds their way here from WND, wears
out their 'Democrat' and 'riot' macros for a few days, and then
vanishes without a trace.
Pottsy|5.2.08 @ 3:17PM|#
Sure, Calidore - Obama.
I'm unaffiliated, and I'm not starry-eyed over him, but the fact
(as some have pointed out here) that he's actually got government
transparency on his platform did a lot to sway me. Also, he's the
only serious candidate left who would turn our foreign policy
around in the right direction, and I feel reasonably confident that
he's our best chance of rolling back Bush's executive branch power
grab and restoring civil liberties. The refusal to pander with the
gas tax relief sealed the deal (and I'm generally anti-tax).
zoot allures|5.2.08 @ 3:19PM|#
When did the Democrat mouthpiece (joe) and the Republican
mouthpiece (Neil) take over my beloved libertarian site?
Someone please stop the madness.
|5.2.08 @ 3:20PM|#
Heh, you're really naieve if you think that when we let
everyone know that a vote for Hillary is a vote for returning to
the '90s that she isn't going to be hurt by that.
Sure, Neil. Everyone hated the 90s.
If Hillary Clinton wins this nomination, which she won't, she's
going to spend the general election campaign with a plaid flannel
tied around her waist and "Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow"
playing on the PA.
|5.2.08 @ 3:27PM|#
Jeff Taylor's discussion of the possible efforts by the Clinton
campaign to suppress voter turnout is interesting. While the
Clinton's lack of moral center would enable them to do anything,
having worked for the Obama campaign, I can tell you that if this
was going on, the Obama campaign is well ahead of them. I have no
doubt that voter turnout,
and I assume the Clinton's were trying to supress black votes
(amazing that this is even discussed in the 21st century), will be
huge.
This is why, despite the dip that Obama took in the polls after the
Wright appearance, Clinton will have to win 70% of the non-african
american vote to keep this race in the low single digits. Even with
that, at best he wins by 5. But assuming that he does well with
young, upper income and highly educated votes, indeed, even if he
splits them with Hillary, then she will have to better than she did
in PA and OH with remaining rural and blue collar voters and then
she still loses. Obama by 12-14 pts.
after all is said and done. Once that happens,
I don't care what victory she has in Indiana,
the nomination will be his.
Guy Montag|5.2.08 @ 3:34PM|#
I assume the Clinton's were trying to supress black votes
(amazing that this is even discussed in the 21st century), will be
huge.
It is amazing that anybody thinks the party that does this over and
over begins with an R and the one with a D never does it.
Somehow the Clinton antics will be blamed on Rove or somebody
else.
|5.2.08 @ 3:36PM|#
When did the Democrat mouthpiece (joe) and the Republican
mouthpiece (Neil) take over my beloved libertarian site?
Someone please stop the madness.
I don't expect we'll hear much about the policy stances of their
respective faves. It generally degenerates into a "my team is gonna
beat your team" shouting match better suited for one of the sports
fan boards.
joe's an unapologetic democrat with socialist leanings, Neil is a
GOP fanboy who thinks dead U.S. soldiers are somehow bringing
liberal (traditional use) democracy to the middle east.
|5.2.08 @ 3:37PM|#
Women's Voices Women Vote, a partisan group loaded with Hill Shills, is doing fake last-minute robocalls, after the voter registration deadline, to voters in predominately black areas "inviting them to register to vote" to confuse them, make them think they're not registered, and kill the black vote in NC. The Clintons and their Machine are the dirtiest people in the history of American politics and if we're stupid enough to elect or even nominate another one of them we deserve everything they do to us for the next 4-8 years, "and then it's Chelsea's turn." At that point, frankly I won't care if there are another half-dozen 9/11s because we will have shown the world we are every bit the evil idiots they think we are.
|5.2.08 @ 3:38PM|#
|5.2.08 @ 3:40PM|#
Whaat??? Obama has come from way behind in virtually every
state, winning 30 of them and losing 10 by margins far smaller than
those with which he regularly trounced Hillary.
The title of your article should reflect its content: Hillary is
NOT LOSING GROUND for the FIRST TIME!
|5.2.08 @ 3:42PM|#
Did you link this article to the Drudge report? Maybe this isn't your first trash article? Maybe election years just bring out the mouth breathers?
|5.2.08 @ 3:46PM|#
North Carolina. Women's group. Suppression of black
voters.
Is Liddy Dole running this year?
Neil|5.2.08 @ 3:47PM|#
So Hillary is doing what the Democrat Party accuses Republicans
doing in every election?
I think this should make it clear that when these "incidents"
happen its the Democrats doing it to make the Republicans look
racist.
Neil|5.2.08 @ 3:49PM|#
Joe Dole is running and is crusing to re-election since its
quite probable the Democrats are going to run an openly gay guy
LOL! I mean in North Carolina?? Come on! I don't know what theyre
smoking.
Thank God Mike Easley didn't run against her, I would be scared of
him.
Pottsy|5.2.08 @ 3:56PM|#
fake last-minute robocalls...
True enough, but there's already been a few weeks of pretty heavy
campaigning (from both sides) alerting voters to the fact that they
can pretty much show up, register and vote early all at once. I
don't see how the calls will have that much of an effect unless you
live under a rock.
|5.2.08 @ 4:04PM|#
Pottsy,
I have read that over one hundred thousand votes in NC were cast up
to April 29th. I'd imagine that the voting got heavier between then
and today.
|5.2.08 @ 4:07PM|#
LET'S KEEP THE STATISTICS STRAIGHT
The tide has turned. Senator Obama is not winning the Democratic
nomination as clearly as he claims to be. Look at the following
statistics which reveal the more subtle side of the
competition.
• More people have voted for Senator Clinton than Senator
Obama.
• Senator Clinton has won the majority of states where there was an
actual primary. Senator Obama won more caucuses which heavily
sample select portions of the electorate and do not accurately
reflect the voters of the state. The caucus format discriminates
against older voters, blue collar workers and women with children,
each of which represent Senator Clinton's base.
• Differences between the caucus results and primary results in
Texas and Washington prove a pro-Obama bias in the caucuses. In
Texas, Obama lost in the popular vote contest with 47% of the vote,
but won 56% of the caucus vote. In Washington State, Obama won the
caucus, 68% to 31% but only won the non-binding primary 51% to
46%.
• If the delegates were counted only from actual primaries the
candidates would be in a statistical tie. Obama's current delegate
lead comes from his 148 delegate lead in the caucuses. Obama won
1173 delegates from primaries and Clinton has won 1157 from
primaries.
• If delegates were awarded in a winner-take-all system like they
are in the Republican Primary, Senator Clinton would have more
delegates. Using this system Clinton would have 1430 delegates and
Obama 1237 delegates. The winner take all system more accurately
matches the general election in November which awards candidates
all or none of the electoral votes from a particular state based on
the total number of popular votes in a particular state.
• If the electoral college system were used in the primaries,
Senator Clinton would have more electoral votes. Senator Clinton
has won 16 states with 263 electoral votes and Senator Obama has
won 27 states with 202 electoral votes.
• Senator Clinton has won the four largest states, California,
Texas, New York, and Florida and eight of the top ten states with
include New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan. Senator Obama's
won his home state of Illinois and ninth ranked Georgia where he
was boosted by a large African American coalition.
• Senator Clinton has won the swing states which are necessary to
win the primary election.
• Senator Clinton consistently wins white women, the largest voting
block in the country, by a significant margin. During the general
election, an undetermined number of Republican and Independent
Women voters will cross over to elect the first female
president.
• Senator Clinton has won over 50% more of the US population than
Senator Obama. According to the 2007 census, the states Senator
Clinton won have a combined population of 161 million voters. The
states Senator Obama won have a combined population of 102 million
voters.
• Senator Obama's momentum has significantly decreased in the last
several weeks after the electorate has gotten to know him better.
Senator Clinton has won four out of the last five contests winning
Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island and Pennsylvania. Senator Obama has only
won Vermont.
• Senator Clinton has a much more diverse and reliable constituent
base. Senator Clinton draws support from white women, Hispanics,
union voters, white men, Catholics, Jewish voters, Asians, and
working class whites. Obama's support comes from Black voters and
young voters which are the least reliable voting block.
• Senator Obama could not win Pennsylvania, Ohio or Texas even
outspending Senator Clinton almost three to one.
• The impact of the Black-vote is significant in the primaries and
will be less significant in the general election. Approximately
twelve percent of the United States population is Black. Obama is
getting approximately 90% of these votes, which means an estimated
20% boost in the primaries and and 11 percentage point boost in the
general election. For example, thirty-percent of the population of
South Carolina is Black and almost all of these voters are
Democrats. Over half of the Democratic primary voters in the South
Carolina are Black, and these voters in all states have formed a
"racial-block" for Barack Obama, genrally voting 90% for him.
• National polls calling the race a "dead heat" probably mean
Hillary Clinton is in the lead. Past polls in Ohio, New Hampshire,
Pennsylvania, Texas and Pennsylvania have all underestimated her
support.
At the end of all the caucuses and primaries, neither candidate
will have the magic 2025. No where in the rules does it say, who
has the most delegates or the greatest number of popular votes at
the end of the primaries, wins the nomination. It will be decided
by the Superdelegates. They should look at all the statistics, not
just the fact that Senator Obama will be ahead in pledged
delegates. The American people have spoken in subtle and profound
ways. Listen.
Pottsy|5.2.08 @ 4:13PM|#
I have read that over one hundred thousand votes in NC were
cast up to April 29th. I'd imagine that the voting got heavier
between then and today.
Wouldn't surprise me at all.
Elemenope|5.2.08 @ 4:45PM|#
Here's the money-quote:
"The Obama volunteer tent had barbecue and beer. Hillary's
campaign tent only had tuna sandwiches. Obama was the clear winner,
hands down!"
Hillary, believing that it takes a village to raise a child, does
not believe in beer. Recent photographic evidence to the contrary
notwithstanding.
Also, I learned my word for the day. Never knew that "Guamanian"
was the appropriate adjective for people or things of Guam.
|5.2.08 @ 4:46PM|#
When did the Democrat mouthpiece (joe) and the +Democratic dirty
tricks plant to make Repubs look like idiots+ (Neil) take over my
beloved libertarian site?
Fixed that for you, Zoot.
Apologies to Joe.
|5.2.08 @ 4:47PM|#
Joe Dole is running and is crusing to re-election
I agree, it is very likely that Dole will win re-election. I can
only think of one thing that would change that:
Large Obama coat tails.
|5.2.08 @ 4:49PM|#
Whether or not it's an outright win for Clinton in North Carolina, the momentum has now shifted her way overall. Many superdelegates must now be contemplating what the Republican strategists will do to Obama in the fall if he is the nominee. Polls confirm that he's beginning to look unelectable against McCain. I believe Clinton will be the Democrats' nominee at the end of the day.
|5.2.08 @ 4:52PM|#
Yeah, maybe she can beat the black guy in a Southern State but, that's not exactly a lock nationwide in November.
Neil|5.2.08 @ 4:53PM|#
You aren't going to be talking about "coat tails" you're going to be talking abut Obama's iron anchors.
|5.2.08 @ 4:56PM|#
Many superdelegates must now be contemplating what the
Republican strategists will do to Obama in the fall if he is the
nominee.
Since the Pennsylvania primary, Obama has seen a net gain of 5
superdelegates vs. Hillary.
|5.2.08 @ 4:58PM|#
You aren't going to be talking about "coat tails" you're
going to be talking abut Obama's iron anchors.
That will depend on the state, and even the district, in question.
He will probably produce both, in different places.
|5.2.08 @ 5:02PM|#
"That will depend on the state, and even the district, in
question. He will probably produce both, in different
places."
Joe, using nuance in a discussion with kneel is like trying to
teach a pig to sing.
Just sayin...
Boojie Boy|5.2.08 @ 5:23PM|#
Neil, I'm hurt. You couldn't show up on threads I was on and say comsymp? Where's the love?
|5.2.08 @ 5:29PM|#
It's a bit amazing that someone holding him- or herself out as a professional journalist does not know the difference between "rebound" (which is what a basketball player does) and "redound" ("to have an effect or consequence") Shame on the editor too, but that's the state of American journalism today: sloppy, mentally lazy, unprofessional.
|5.2.08 @ 5:31PM|#
Have you just taken into consideration that, if Hussein wins, Wright will be spending time in the White House. May even become a permanent fixture. Have a position that will be paid for by the tax payers of this country.
|5.2.08 @ 5:56PM|#
This thread is a fucking disaster
Threadwinner!
That shows how bad this thread is.
|5.2.08 @ 6:17PM|#
What I do not understand is this:
If the voter registration deadline had ALREADY PASSED how could new
registrants (or intended new registrants) be mislead by a robo call
faslely stating the "packet" was in the mail?
If the deadline has expired it has expired.
One can only infer somthing sinister of BELORE THE REGISTRATION
DEADLINE the robo calls were made to lull those intending to
register in the the false belief that everything would be taken
care of in the "packet".
|5.2.08 @ 6:46PM|#
TO:
Lynette | May 2, 2008, 4:07pm | #
LET'S KEEP THE STATISTICS STRAIGHT Right, Let's Do.
The tide has turned. Senator Obama is not winning the Democratic
nomination as clearly as he claims to be. Look at the following
statistics which reveal the more subtle side of the
competition.
• More people have voted for Senator Clinton than Senator
Obama.
YEAH, IF YOU DON'T COUNT ANY OF THE CAUCUS STATES AND GIVE CLINTON
300,000 VOTES IN MICHGAN AND OBAMA ZERO. CHECK
REALCLEARPOLITICS.COM OBAMA HAS THE POPULAR VOTE.
• Senator Clinton has won the majority of states where there was an
actual primary. Senator Obama won more caucuses which heavily
sample select portions of the electorate and do not accurately
reflect the voters of the state. The caucus format discriminates
against older voters, blue collar workers and women with children,
each of which represent Senator Clinton's base.
INCORRECT. THERE HAVE BEEN 5 CAUCUSES. OBAMA WON 4, CLINTON WON 1.
OBAMA HAS WON MORE PRIMARY STATES.
YOUR JUDGEMENT ABOUT CAUCUSES IS VERY IMPORTANT IN DETERMINING
WHETHER THEY SHOULD BE DISCONTINUED. THEY ARE COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT
TO THIS DECISION.
• Differences between the caucus results and primary results in
Texas and Washington prove a pro-Obama bias in the caucuses. In
Texas, Obama lost in the popular vote contest with 47% of the vote,
but won 56% of the caucus vote. In Washington State, Obama won the
caucus, 68% to 31% but only won the non-binding primary 51% to
46%.
TEXAS HAS AN OPEN PRIMARY. REPUBLICANS CAN VOTE IN IT. RUSH
LIMBAUGH URGED HIS LISTENERS TO VOTE FOR CLINTON IN THE REPUBLICAN
PRIMARY IN TEXAS BECAUSE SHE WOULD BE EASIER TO BEAT. THE VERY
STRANGE TEXAS TWO STEP IS DESIGNED TO COMPENSATE FOR REPUBLICAN
SABOTAGE OF THE OPEN PRIMARY. THEY MIGHT VOTE SECRETLY IN THE
DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY, BUT THEY WON'T SHOW THEIR FACES AT A DEMOCRATIC
MEETING.
• If the delegates were counted only from actual primaries the
candidates would be in a statistical tie. Obama's current delegate
lead comes from his 148 delegate lead in the caucuses. Obama won
1173 delegates from primaries and Clinton has won 1157 from
primaries.
1173 IS NOT A TIE WITH 1157, AND YOU HAVEN'T INCLUDED ANY VOTES
FROM THOSE STATES THAT HAVE CAUCUSES. IF HISTORY WERE DIFFERENT IT
WOULDN'T BE THE SAME. BUT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IT WOULD BE.
• If delegates were awarded in a winner-take-all system like they
are in the Republican Primary, Senator Clinton would have more
delegates. Using this system Clinton would have 1430 delegates and
Obama 1237 delegates. The winner take all system more accurately
matches the general election in November which awards candidates
all or none of the electoral votes from a particular state based on
the total number of popular votes in a particular state.
IF THE RULES WERE DIFFERENT, THE OBAMA STRATEGY LAID OUT IN FEB.
2007 PROBABLY WOULD HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT. RELEVANT DISCUSSION FOR
2012, NOT FOR 2008.
• If the electoral college system were used in the primaries,
Senator Clinton would have more electoral votes. Senator Clinton
has won 16 states with 263 electoral votes and Senator Obama has
won 27 states with 202 electoral votes.
BUT IT ISN'T, AND IF IT WERE, THE RACE WOULD PROBABLY HAVE BEEN RUN
COMPLETELY DIFFERENTLY. SEE NOTE ABOVE.
• Senator Clinton has won the four largest states, California,
Texas, New York, and Florida and eight of the top ten states with
include New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan. Senator Obama's
won his home state of Illinois and ninth ranked Georgia where he
was boosted by a large African American coalition.
CLINTON WON HER HOME STATE OF NEW YORK, IN TEXAS SHE LOST THE
DELEGATES RACE AND WON THE POPULAR VOTE, SHE WON BY UNDER 3% IN
CALIFORNIA, AND FLORIDA DOESN'T COUNT.
• Senator Clinton has won the swing states which are necessary to
win the primary election.
AND POLLS SHOW OBAMA WOULD PICK UP 2 OF THOSE 3, AS WELL AS BRING
NEW STATES INTO PLAY THAT HAVE BEEN TRADITIONALLY REPUBLICAN, SUCH
AS VIRGINIA
• Senator Clinton consistently wins white women, the largest voting
block in the country, by a significant margin. During the general
election, an undetermined number of Republican and Independent
Women voters will cross over to elect the first female
president.
THEN WHY DOESN'T SHE HAVE THE MOST VOTES? IF THEY'RE THE BIGGEST
VOTING BLOCK, SHE SHOULD HAVE MORE VOTES IF THEY'RE ALL VOTING FOR
HER.
• Senator Clinton has won over 50% more of the US population than
Senator Obama. According to the 2007 census, the states Senator
Clinton won have a combined population of 161 million voters. The
states Senator Obama won have a combined population of 102 million
voters.
THIS IS SO CONTORTED I'M NOT EVEN GOING TO RESPOND.
• Senator Obama's momentum has significantly decreased in the last
several weeks after the electorate has gotten to know him better.
Senator Clinton has won four out of the last five contests winning
Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island and Pennsylvania. Senator Obama has only
won Vermont.
SO LET'S LOOK AT THE NEXT 8.
• Senator Clinton has a much more diverse and reliable constituent
base. Senator Clinton draws support from white women, Hispanics,
union voters, white men, Catholics, Jewish voters, Asians, and
working class whites. Obama's support comes from Black voters and
young voters which are the least reliable voting block.
DON'T FORGET THE WELL-EDUCATED, UPPER MIDDLE CLASS WHITES.
UNRELIABLE? THAT'S A REALLY GOOD ONE.
• Senator Obama could not win Pennsylvania, Ohio or Texas even
outspending Senator Clinton almost three to one.
AS DETERMINED BY LYNETTE'S CRYSTAL BALL. THERE ARE NO FACTS HERE TO
CORRECT.
• The impact of the Black-vote is significant in the primaries and
will be less significant in the general election. Approximately
twelve percent of the United States population is Black. Obama is
getting approximately 90% of these votes, which means an estimated
20% boost in the primaries and and 11 percentage point boost in the
general election. For example, thirty-percent of the population of
South Carolina is Black and almost all of these voters are
Democrats. Over half of the Democratic primary voters in the South
Carolina are Black, and these voters in all states have formed a
"racial-block" for Barack Obama, genrally voting 90% for him.
BUT FORTUNATELY CLINTON WON'T BE IN THE GENERAL ELECTION AND IF SHE
WILL EXIT QUICKLY AND GRACEFULLY, HER SUPPORTERS WILL VOTE FOR
OBAMA.
• National polls calling the race a "dead heat" probably mean
Hillary Clinton is in the lead. Past polls in Ohio, New Hampshire,
Pennsylvania, Texas and Pennsylvania have all underestimated her
support.
THE POLLS HAVE BEEN WRONG ON BOTH SIDES, NOT JUST AGAINST
CLINTON.
At the end of all the caucuses and primaries, neither candidate
will have the magic 2025. No where in the rules does it say, who
has the most delegates or the greatest number of popular votes at
the end of the primaries, wins the nomination. It will be decided
by the Superdelegates. They should look at all the statistics, not
just the fact that Senator Obama will be ahead in pledged
delegates. The American people have spoken in subtle and profound
ways. Listen.
YES PLEASE. LISTEN TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE NOT THE CLINTON SPINNERS.
I DON'T WORRY ABOUT THE SUPERDELEGATES LISTENING, BUT I DO HAVE A
CONCERN THAT CLINTON WILL LISTEN AND FACE THE MUSIC WHEN THEY
PLEDGE TO OBAMA.
|5.2.08 @ 6:54PM|#
Obama supporters don't be deceived!
You have been told Obama will bring change to Washington. Is that
so? Well, the evidence points in the opposite direction.
Just look at who is behind Obama's candidacy…
- Sen. Kennedy: age 76 has been a Senator in Washington for 46
years!
- Sen. Kerry: age 64 and has been a Senator in Washington for 24
years!
Let's see…
- Both were in Washington before Bill Clinton was first elected (15
years ago)
- Both Senators are older than Hillary (age 60)
- Kennedy is even OLDER than McCain (age 71).
Do you believe you'll get change with Obama? Think again!
Beware of the "change" charade of the Obama campaign. You are about
to be duped!
|5.2.08 @ 6:58PM|#
Voters of the remaining primaries, please take note…
Gov. Bill Richardson, after endorsing Obama, meets in Venezuela
with totalitarian dictator Hugo Chavez in a "private" mission to
negotiate the release of some American hostages held in South
America. He comes back and tells CNN's Wolf Blitzer (I'm
paraphrasing) "…I just came from this trip and I can tell you that
the Venezuelans really like Obama…"
In non-official visits, ex-President Jimmy Carter meets with Hamas
leaders and Syrian President Asad. For his courtesy meetings and
tacit recognition of Hamas, Carter gets absolutely nothing in
return. (Let's remember Carter's negotiation resume includes the
444 day Iran Crisis that paralyzed his presidency because of his
inability to resolve it.)
Obama states repeatedly that he would meet with our sworn enemies,
such as Amadhinejad of Iran and Chavez from Venezuela, without
preconditions. (These wolves would eat Obama's lunch before he even
sits down to talk!)
Do we see a pattern here?
Is the Democratic Party becoming the Party of the naïve,
wishful-thinking politicians?
Does anyone still doubt that Obama is naïve and inexperienced?
(Besides being deceitful and condescending.)
We need a President with experience and a strong character.
Hillary is still our best available choice. Vote Hillary!
|5.2.08 @ 7:45PM|#
The better question is, who cares. HRC's campaign is dead and over with. Thank God. Time to move on and focus on the Obama-McCain race in Fall.
|5.2.08 @ 8:40PM|#
Obama might be bleeding under Hillary's attacks and lies but The game is simply over for Hillary, period.
|5.2.08 @ 8:47PM|#
Obama must get back on message. He spends so much time talking about what he is against that that people have forgotten what he is for. The only good news is that he is still the "champ" and Hillary cannot win this thing unless she completely knocks him out. AA Dems are going to riot in the streets if it is perceived that Hillary "stole" the nomination. The Dem party will lose its most loyal constituents and will never be the same. Perhaps it's time anyway.
Mark Simmons|5.2.08 @ 9:50PM|#
If the voter registration deadline had ALREADY PASSED how could new
registrants (or intended new registrants) be mislead by a robo call
faslely stating the "packet" was in the mail?
Yep. You'd think the author might want to update this post. Sad to
see I jump on "Reason" and see some of the most ignorant logic that
prevails on the interent.
"hillary can't win"
"blacks will riot"
"things will never be the same"
"Clinton played Jedi Mind Tricks on wright".
|5.2.08 @ 10:08PM|#
On the political blogs it is said that the majority of Clinton supporters will crossover to McCain or write her name in if Obama is the nominee. Obama has based his speeches on three words hope, change and said no to the war. Two of the words hope and change are undebatable. We all want that. saying no to the war is debatable because if he was in the Senate at the time and given the same info as they were given he cannot say he would have voted no. His no to war was not when he was in National government only state government. Hillary has great fortitude to be able to keep going for what she so well deserves. It would be detrimental to our country to place a candidate in the highest office in the world with only three spoken words and a person that has had and still has terrorist friendship and a mentor that hates America. we cannot forget the words of Michelle Obama I have not been proud of America til now. That is not consider a quality of a First lady and should no way be there to represent our country as First Lady.
|5.2.08 @ 10:08PM|#
If the voter registration deadline had ALREADY PASSED how
could new registrants (or intended new registrants) be mislead by a
robo call faslely stating the "packet" was in the mail?
Perhaps by making people think that they aren't registered, because
they didn't receive and sign the packet?
|5.2.08 @ 10:10PM|#
Yes, Wright and Obama are two different people; therefore, one does not speak for the other. However, Obama's platform is his self-claimed ability to CHANGE for HOPE. When he disowned Wright this week, HOPE was lost. For 20 years, Obama could not CHANGE Wright, just one person. Why would anyone believe Obama could deliver what he is preaching now. It is naive, isn't it.
|5.2.08 @ 10:23PM|#
I can't believe that Clinton would win in NC. It's nice to hope
but I don't think it's gooing to happen. The last poll I saw gave
Obama 50% and Clinton 32 with the rest undecided.
KAs this campaign goes on the more and more I do not want to see BO
as the stardard bearer or for that matter president. This last
devious ploy of his to get the white votes has turned me off even
more. Any body with brains can see through the recent sham. Wright
and Obama planned to have Wright spout off on National TV to enable
Obama to denounce him publically. This was his last ditch attempt
to try to get the votes from all those"white folks" who have been
bothered by Wright, Obamas mentor for the last 20 years. Wright
said nothing new. It was the same old garbage but Obama had the
audacity to say this came as a surprise to him. He always tries to
wheedle his way out of his mistakes., just like he tried to argue
his professor into changing his grade when he was given a grade
lower than he thought he should get.
As far as Obama'a spiritual self was concerned belonging to Trinity
may be just what he needs but for a guy with political ambitions to
become president of the USA it was a bad idea and shows a lack of
judgment on his part. It was especially bad judgment to claim this
man was his mentor. Under those circumstances you are judged by the
company you keep. In this particular case the company was wanting.
Why would a man who has political ambitions launch his career from
Willaim Ayers home in 1995? That also shows a lack of good
judgment.
Ironic|5.2.08 @ 11:03PM|#
If Obama had chosen Islam and a peace loving Iman, well studied in the classics of Christian and Islamic theology as his guide, his chances in the American political arena would have been even far less than what he has achieved with the poor choice he had made in Wright.
|5.2.08 @ 11:46PM|#
LOL, wonder where Jeff Taylor's sympathies lie in this
contest?
The average Obama supporter may be stupid enough to swallow the
poison pill he has served up for Hillary Clinton, but the average
Democratic voter is not nearly that stupid, I hope.
Crawl back in your hole, worm, you'll dry out and shrivel up if you
spend too much time in the light of day.
|5.2.08 @ 11:51PM|#
Before casting your vote, watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xq8aopATYyw
T. Barrett|5.2.08 @ 11:57PM|#
So let me get this straight: Obama cuts a 20+ point lead in PA down to 9.4, and he's blown out. Clinton MIGHT cut a 20 point deficiet in NC down to single digits, and its supposed to be a sign of his weakness? Talk about a double-standard. The worse part: the media continues to buy the Clinton campaign spin - hook, line and sinker.
|5.3.08 @ 12:44AM|#
The Shocking Video Hillary Does not want you to see at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xq8aopATYyw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMfUajhL24I
|5.3.08 @ 1:59AM|#
Hillary's getting points both because she's trying to sucker
people into the gas tax holiday. It's considered one of the worst
policies one could possibly have. For someone who's supposed to be
strong on jobs and the economy, it really leaves you
wondering.
It puts 300,000 people out of jobs.
It stops road repairs and construction.
The oil companies (historically) hike the price to make up most of
the difference, leaving the savings almost negligible.
Hillary is double-talking because she says she'll tax the oil
companies to pay for it (which she doesn't have the power to do)
while at the same time she says she'd use that windfall tax for
researching alternative fuels.
Hillary's promise with the gas tax is nothing but a political play
for votes. It's something she can't deliver. She knows it, but uses
the ignorance of people to play them.
She should be jailed for such deceit and yet she wants our loyalty
to support her as being the President.
NEVER!
|5.3.08 @ 2:08AM|#
Voter Suppression of this kind is a HUGE STORY. This is bigger than the Rev. Wright ad. Why is this buried in the middle of the article? We need more information about this, especially if this is being targeted to African Americans.
Fairfisq|5.3.08 @ 2:18AM|#
It would be a huge Story, if it wouldn't be total
propaganda.
I guess Bill and Hillary did record the Robo Call by themself, just
after they burned the 42 dead bodies in their cellar.
Come on, Jeff, you have better lies than that.
|5.3.08 @ 3:38AM|#
The details on the efforts at VOTER SUPPRESSION via the phony
"packet that will soon arrive in the mail" before voters will be
allowed to vote -- organized and sent out by the despicable group
with all the top CLINTON connections!! -- is absolutely repulsive
and repugnant to decent and honorable people of North
Carolina.
As incredibly disgusting as this back- alley thuggery is, I guess
we really shouldn't be a bit surprised:
Hillary and the Clinton machine thugs have a long, long, sordid
history of using absolutely ANYTHING simply to win an
election.
With her it's all about PERSONAL POWER -- and it's just fine to use
ANY tactic...and say or do ANYTHING to win.
My daughters and I have confidence that the fine, decent, honorable
voters of our great state of North Carolina will hand a super
victory on Tuesday to the one candidate who is a person of
IMPECCABLE INTEGRITY....the only one who can UNITE this country:
Senator Obama.
Thanks. -- Susan and my 2 daughters, Jacki and Juli
|5.3.08 @ 3:51AM|#
***Bosnia "sniper fire"......
***Pander and buy off a few votes on the cheap w/ a "gas tax
holiday" that will save folks 30 cents a day ($ 28 total) -- while
costing 7,000 construction jobs for highways and bridges in NC
alone and costing another 6,000 such jobs in Indiana......
***Use voter suppression ("You need to sign a packet that will be
arriving in the mail before you're eligible to vote.") to SCARE
away voters whose votes you weren't going to get.....
************ Is it any wonder that 60% of the American electorate
simply does NOT TRUST HILLARY -- by far the highest figure of ANY
candidate for president??!!??
.........We're gonna send Barack on toward the presidency in a few
days in North Carolina -- and bring this most fabulous country in
the world back together as one united nation again.
Go USA! Go Obama! -- Janet and Steve
|5.3.08 @ 12:46PM|#
Be careful what you wish for. For all of you that are enjoying the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of personal research or, most obviously, critical thought, you will ultimately get exactly what you deserve, and it will not be the Peace, Prosperity and Pride in America that Hillary would bring to us.
|5.3.08 @ 3:02PM|#
Whichever Kool Aid addled Obama supporter (or employee) who went
to the trouble to FRAUDULENTLY ALTER THE WORDS OF MICK KANTOR in
order to create a DRUDGE DRIVEL style expose attacking the Clinton
campaign, has grabbed the evidence and ducked back into his or her
spiderhole. Perhaps next to the one occupied by Jeff Taylor.
Speaking of cheap frauds.
|5.3.08 @ 3:36PM|#
You're right, Easley's endorsement isn't all that meaningful,
considering what a low profile he has and his firm lame-duck
status.
But you're wrong -- indeed if you were actually reporting from
North Carolina, you see -- that there is anything like real
electoral movement toward Clinton. Note Obama's major rallies in
the Dean Dome and at the state fairgrounds. North Carolina might
get 20,000 people together for a basketball game, but NEVER for
politics, that is until Obama.
You also failed to mention the thousands of new Democratic voters
-- far more than any alleged "Operation Chaos" could generate, and
the more than 120,000 early votes -- most of which are in the big
urban counties, such as Wake and Guilford. Ever person in
Whiteville and Kinston could vote for Clinton and they wouldn't be
able to overcome significant urban turnout like that.
On top of that, it's a semi-open primary. Registered party members
can only take their party's ballot, but unaffiliated voters have
three -- D, R and nonpartisan -- to pick from.
Unaffiliateds don't figure into your "fairy tale" of analysis.
Oh.my.Cthulhu|5.3.08 @ 8:33PM|#
Lots of seeming acolytes in this thread. I wonder whether they
expect to influence the (mainly libertarian leaning) Reason readers
with their shrill cries of "my team is better than your
team".
I'm also honestly wondering how large a percentage of those stoking
the internecine flames are, in fact, naive Bushites who fancy
themselves part of some grand Limbaugh-led blackop which will bring
the downfall of the democratic party.
|5.3.08 @ 8:53PM|#
Vedac | May 2, 2008, 10:08pm | #
On the political blogs it is said that the majority of Clinton
supporters will crossover to McCain or write her name in if Obama
is the nominee. Obama has based his speeches on three words hope,
change and said no to the war. Two of the words hope and change are
undebatable. We all want that. saying no to the war is debatable
because if he was in the Senate at the time and given the same info
as they were given he cannot say he would have voted no. His no to
war was not when he was in National government only state
government. Hillary has great fortitude to be able to keep going
for what she so well deserves. It would be detrimental to our
country to place a candidate in the highest office in the world
with only three spoken words and a person that has had and still
has terrorist friendship and a mentor that hates America. we cannot
forget the words of Michelle Obama I have not been proud of America
til now. That is not consider a quality of a First lady and should
no way be there to represent our country as First Lady.
**********
But Obama didn't always say 'No' to the war in Iraq. When Russert
was interviewing him after the 2004 convention, he asked him how he
would have voted had he been in the senate at the time. His answer:
"I don't know". So there you go - it hasn't always been 'no'.
|5.3.08 @ 9:06PM|#
Janet & Steve | May 3, 2008, 3:51am | #
***Bosnia "sniper fire"......
***Pander and buy off a few votes on the cheap w/ a "gas tax
holiday" that will save folks 30 cents a day ($ 28 total) -- while
costing 7,000 construction jobs for highways and bridges in NC
alone and costing another 6,000 such jobs in Indiana......
***Use voter suppression ("You need to sign a packet that will be
arriving in the mail before you're eligible to vote.") to SCARE
away voters whose votes you weren't going to get.....
************ Is it any wonder that 60% of the American electorate
simply does NOT TRUST HILLARY -- by far the highest figure of ANY
candidate for president??!!??
.........We're gonna send Barack on toward the presidency in a few
days in North Carolina -- and bring this most fabulous country in
the world back together as one united nation again.
Go USA! Go Obama! -- Janet and Steve
*****************
It is obvious that you have been listening to Obama, so you don't
have your facts straight. None of the construction workers would be
laid off, because the Road Fund would still be intact. This is just
another of Obama's lies.
Hillary had nothing to do with any voter suppression. Also, how can
you suppress a vote when the registration date had passed
anyway?
Obama is buying his SuperDelegates. Did Bill Richardson get his
campaign debts paid as part of his support for Obama????
By the way, Obama's negatives are pretty high too. I don't trust
him. His decision to stay in Rev Wright's church for 20 years shows
a definite lack of judgement. He lacks integrity, judgement and
honesty. The guy can't beat McCain either, because Democrats like
me will decide we don't care what the Supreme Court make up is or
any of the other arguments. I don't care. Our country will not
survive an Obama presidency. He will sell us to Iran..and he will
refuse to protect Israel.
If Obama wins the nomination, you should get use to President
"McCain".
rob|5.4.08 @ 2:29AM|#
Average polls on 5.3 (www.realclearpolitics.com): clinton 41.80
- obama 48.80. Spread Obama +7.
Average on 3.21: clinton 41.30 - obama 46.70. Spread Obama
+5.4.
That's a fact...
Josh|5.5.08 @ 2:49AM|#
In my option Hillary Clinton will seal the deal
in North Carolina .But if she does not win it may be off by just
2%-3% points and takes half of the 155 delegates the state has.We
are looking for a
candidate who can defeat Senator John McCain this November.The only
reason the Republicans want Senator Obama to win is because his
lack of weakness in emotions.The incident with Rev.Wright was
probably the first time Obama showed anger and sadness in this
primary election.Superdelegates are looking for a nominee who is
strong against McCain.
The recent polls show that Clinton can win
aganist and McCain and Obama maybe
tied and with McCain it can go either way.
Whoever the nominee is they must support the winner is they want to
pull the Democrat
party together .Which i hope is Hillary Clinton .
Leave a Comment
More Articles by Jeff Taylor
- Katrina in Kentucky, Jeff Taylor, February 6, 2009
- Why 2009 Will be Worse than 2008, Jeff Taylor, January 2, 2009
- Banking on Big Changes, Jeff Taylor, August 28, 2008
Related Articles (Campaigns/Elections, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama)
- Mandating Disaster, Shikha Dalmia, November 20, 2009
- Are Tea Parties Racist?, Matt Welch, November 16, 2009
- The Secret Message of Stimulus Spending, Veronique de Rugy, November 3, 2009
- Sanity on Marijuana?, Steve Chapman, October 22, 2009
- In Defense of Fox News, David Harsanyi, October 21, 2009
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245