David Corn

HRC can be denied the possibility by some simple math, it is not impossible yet but soon, very soon.

What if the superdelegates split 50/50? Then it will be only those voters you mentioned - assuming no funky evoting machines or foul plays.

It's absolutely hysterical to me that the bloggers keep discounting the Florida vote...especially now, after Pennsylvania. It's true that neither candidate campaigned, and STILL over 2.1 million of us voted: for HILLARY. And if by outspending Senator Clinton by more than 2:1 couldn't topple her in Pennsylvania, you think it would have made any difference in Florida, you are clearly out of your mind.

The worse the economy gets, the stronger the vote for Hillary is going to be. We've already had one President who told us one thing while campaigning and then did the opposite when he got into (stole) the White House...we are not ready to be fooled again. You twenty-somethings think you know so much...the rest of us remember the 90's as a time of peace and prosperity under the Clintons despite the constant ridiculous attacks of the GOP. Now you attack them yourselves by spewing the same filth that the Republicans did against then for all those many years. Grow up and get over it. You accuse the Clintons of playing the race card when it is you and your ilk who do it. Obama is a politician: just like all the other politicians. At least with the Clintons, we know what we're getting.

Florida and Michigan Dems knew full well going in that their votes were meaningless...

...But still, they voted! Good on YOU! How very engaged you are!

...but that doesn't change the fact that your state party, kneeling down before the Repugnicons' wishes, broke the rules and pissed on your flaming pyre of meaningless, fluttering, butterfly ballots...how many elections can you florida crackers f-up?

...they still don't count. Grow up and get over it, indeed!

Don't worry, you'll be seated at the convention...perhaps sitting on your hands, but there, nonetheless.

-T

HRC just needs more PAC and lobbyist money and she can match Barack one to one. She has not sold out enough.

Barack is up by about 20% in NC, if she wears down that lead to 10% the M$M would say she broke his momentum and beat him up, odd the same thing doesn't apply to Barack in PA?

Maybe Barack should refuse the million or so small donors so Hillary has a better shot? Maybe since she is in the hole Barack should lend her some cash to even things up?

It is just not fair that more people give their support to Barack by voting, caucusing and donating more money to him. What are they thinking?

It is too obvious, if Hillary just had better name recognition or maybe some connections to inside the beltway money and political machine, then she would have more money and more votes and more delegates. If she had all of that she would be kickin’ butt and Barack would be just an “also-ran” but now with all his votes and stuff he is really messing thing up, eh?

I think the best evidence that the media seem to be tilting towards Clinton is that they all seem to be buying her somewhat illogical argument that just because all these people in large industrial states voted for her in the primaries, Obama is somehow "unelectable." That he hasn't "closed the deal" with them.

These results do say that those voters preferred her over him in a primary, but that doesn't necessarily mean that all those voters would abandon the Democratic candidate in November and either vote for McCain or not vote at all.

The large percentage of undecided voters who make up their minds on the day of the primary would seem to indicate -- to me at least, but apparently not to the media -- that these undecided voters consider both Senators almost equally attractive as candidates, and that given the choice between Obama and McCain, there's no doubt who'd they vote for.

To paraphrase Hillary in an earlier debate, why don't the media focus their attention on why *she* can't close the deal with the 46% who voted for someone else in Pennsylvania and who seem to be a little more firm in their conviction that Obama will definitely be the better candidate in November.

(And don't get me started about her argument that if you include Florida and Michigan she's received more votes than Obama. There was no campaigning in Florida, and Obama's name did not appear on the Michigan ballot. This sort of spin is infuriating.)

~~~~~~

Obama chose to pull his name off the ballot in Mi so the voters shouldn't be blamed for his stupidity.

Fl had the largest turnout in history and chose Hillary- who cares if the campaigned or not. Obama spent 3 times more money in Pa and all that campaiging didn't help him.

You guys can't win without Fl so your just shooting yourself in the foot for this blunder~~

Hey Hajji,

Nice work on that fellow Dem poster~~

Just what the other sides was hoping for ~ a civil war~

Ya, a real civil war not a made up one like in Iraq made up by lefties~~

Yeeee Ha~ got ta love it!

I'm sure glad to hear she collected $10 million this week. Now she's just broke but not in the hole.

So Obama lost PA. He still has more delegates and more votes and more money. Nothing the GOP an do to nominate her will change that.

On another topic, the press is talking yesterday about the building the Israelis took out ten months ago in Syria. The Bush Lie machine now wants us to know that the satellite photos show North Koreans building a nuclear facility in the desert.

So how can the satellites know they are North Koreans? And isn't a technological marvel to know that they can cool a reactor in sand?

Obama really is Dick Cheney's Cousin!

By Pejman Yousefzadeh

Look who continues to take in oil money--past denials notwithstanding:

Sen. Barack Obama continued accepting donations from oil company executives and employees last month even as he aired ads in which he stated he took no oil company money, his campaign finance reports show.

Obama has taken at least $263,000 from oil company executives, family members and employees since entering the presidential race last year, including $46,000 last month. At least $140,000 has come in chunks of between $1,000 and $2,300, the maximum permitted under federal law.

Texas oil executive Robert L. Cavnar of Milagro Exploration and his wife, Gracie, have helped the Illinois Democrat raise at least another $50,000 by helping host a fundraiser earlier in the campaign.

Other oil industry donors have included Sinclair Oil President Ross Matthews of Texas and John B. Hess, chairman of Hess Corp., a New York-based oil producer and retailer with operations worldwide. Hess, who has given to other presidential candidates, including Sen. John McCain, gave $2,300 to Obama last year, as did his wife, Susan. Hess gave $14,000 to Obama's Senate run in 2003. The oil executives did not return phone calls.

In the weeks leading up to the Pennsylvania primary, Obama aired a campaign spot in Indiana and Pennsylvania that sought to reinforce his theme that he would change the Washington culture, while also tapping into voter distress about the high price of gasoline. In the ad, he called for a windfall profits "penalty."

"Since the gas lines of the '70s, Democrats and Republicans have talked about energy independence but nothing's changed -- except now Exxon's making $40 billion a year and we're paying $3.50 for gas. I'm Barack Obama. I don't take money from oil companies or Washington lobbyists, and I won't let them block change anymore," says the spot, which aired as recently as April 8.

Obama's ad is factually correct. He does not take money from oil companies. A 1907 federal law bars all corporations from giving money to political candidates. However, oil company employees can make donations.

U.S. military deaths below 26-year average

Annual toll in Bush years down despite 4,000 fatalities in Iraq

WASHINGTON – Despite suffering 4,000 deaths in Iraq, annual U.S. military casualties overall during the first six years of the Bush administration are well below the average for the 26-year period beginning in 1980, a WND investigation has revealed.

Even in 2005, the deadliest year of the Iraq campaign, U.S. troop fatalities around the world, including Afghanistan, were lower than the first nine years of the study – when the Cold War was still raging in a time of relative peace.

In 2005, a total of 1,942 U.S. military personnel were killed in all causes, including accidents, hostile action, homicides, illnesses, suicides, etc. That compares to 2,392 in 1980, the last year of President Jimmy Carter's administration. In fact, twice as many U.S. military personnel were killed in accidents in that one year than were killed in hostile actions in any year of the Bush administration.

The analysis of statistics compiled by the Department of Defense also shows, despite a major increase in deaths due to hostile actions beginning in 2003 with the advent of the Iraq war, the annual toll on U.S. troops did not skyrocket above peacetime norms as many might expect. For instance, in 1993, the first year of the peacetime Clinton administration, 1,293 U.S. servicemen lost their lives – just 649 fewer than in 2005, the hottest year of the Iraq war.

As of yesterday, a total of 4,044 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003.

The British military has reported 176 deaths; Italy, 33; Ukraine, 18; Poland, 21; Bulgaria, 13; Spain, 11; Denmark, seven; El Salvador, five; Slovakia, four; Latvia, three; Estonia, Netherlands, Thailand, Romania, two each; and Australia, Hungary, Kazakhstan, South Korea, one death each.

Drop Out, Obama

By Chris Wilson

Even as Hillary Clinton trails Barack Obama in pledged delegates, the popular vote, and number of states won, she has made it clear that she plans to stay in the race for the nomination. All of which brings me to this logical conclusion: It is time for Barack Obama to drop out.

If Clinton had the good of the Democratic Party in mind, she would have given up her bid the day after the Mississippi primary, which Obama won by 25 points. The delegate math was as dismal for her campaign then as it is now, even after Pennsylvania, and she was facing down a six-week gulf before the next election.

But Hillary Clinton isn’t going to drop out. There simply isn’t a function in her assembly code for throwing in the towel.

Obama, on the other hand, is fully capable of it. And if he’s really serious about representing a new kind of politics, now is the time for him to prove it in the only meaningful way left.

I feel so guilty...of something...lock me up and throw away the key! Put me in prison with Timothy McVeigh!

From NBC's Chuck Todd

One of the things that both Dem campaigns are always nervous about is defectors. In particular, Clinton is more vulnerable to this problem since she's the candidate that is trailing. Well, NBC News has learned that a major fundraiser for Hillary Clinton, former Amb. to Chile Gabriel Guerra-Mondragon is leaving the campaign to join up Barack Obama's campaign. Officially dubbed a "Hillraiser," Guerra-Mondragon raised nearly $500,000 for Clinton's campaign, according to some estimates. He has been informing people inside Clintonworld this week in what's been described as some tough conversations. A formal announcement of a role for Guerra-Mondragon on Obama's national finance committee will be made next week. Guerra-Mondragon was appointed Amb. to Chile by Pres. Clinton in '94 and served until '98.

Among the reasons for Guerra-Mondragon to defect, according to one informed source, was he was uneasy with the tone of the Clinton campaign and was beginning to worry about what this would mean for the general election.

It's unclear if this defection will lead to others; the Clinton camp has been particularly effective at getting folks to keep their powder dry. For Obama, this comes at a time when his campaign is trying to re-convince insiders that the math indicates he has the nomination virtually wrapped up. In addition, Guerra-Mondragon's defection could serve as a tipping point with some key Hispanic Democratic leaders that Obama is ready to start making a bigger effort to court Hispanics.

It occurred to me a couple weeks ago, when Bill started going to rallies and telling Democrats that Obama couldn't beat McCain in the general election (even though Hillary has since been forced to state the opposite) that the Clinton strategy has indeed shifted and they're completely aware Hillary isn't going to get enough delegates to win.

They're no longer campaigning for the 2008 election.

Hillary is now campaigning for the 2012 election.

The strategy now is to stay in the primary race and constantly attack Obama, often with the cheap attacks you've outlined in your pieces, David, and generally do whatever they can - while claiming the high ground - to ensure a McCain victory in November. While this would give the Republicans at least four more years in the White House, it would also give Hillary bragging rights: "See? You should have nominated ME!" Sitting her pretty for a run against President McCain in 2012 - and as much as possible ensuring no other Democrat will seriously enter the race, to avoid the infighting and divisiveness that cost the Dems the White House in 2008. There's some risk in the strategy, sure, but the calculation is likely that McCain, now devotee of the war, social and economic policies that have driven Bush's approval ratings into the ground, will only make things worse (or, tops, no better) which will give Hillary additional bragging rights in the general election: "See? If I had run against McCain, the country wouldn't be in this mess now!"

If Obama is elected, all that's out the door. Either he makes things better and there won't be any ostensible logic to becoming the loyal Democratic counter-candidate in 2012, or or makes things worse (or the same) and the public will be eager to try a Republican in the Oval Office again. which would leave 2016 her best option - if President Obama's willing to forget 2008 and name her heir apparent.

Suddenly her current behavior makes perfect sense, no?

(Yes, I am kidding on this. At least a little.)

April 10, 1992

THE 1992 CAMPAIGN: The Front-Runner; Like Voters, Superdelegates Have Doubts About Clinton

By R. W. APPLE JR.,

Even though Bill Clinton won four primaries on Tuesday, even though Paul E. Tsongas announced today that he would not re-enter the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination, even though many of them concede there is probably no stopping Mr. Clinton now, dozens of Democratic senators and representatives remain reluctant to endorse him.

http://tinyurl.com/6g82yf

I feel so guilty...of something...lock me up and throw away the key! Put me in prison with Timothy McVeigh!
~~~~~~~~~~~

Dude,

It's way more fun watching you trolls kill off each other!!

Top House Democrat denounces Clinton campaign tactics

WASHINGTON - “Scurrilous” and “disingenuous” were among the words a top Democrat in the U.S. House of Representatives used on Thursday to describe Hillary Clinton’s campaign tactics in her bid to defeat Barack Obama for their party’s presidential nomination.

House Democratic Whip James Clyburn, of South Carolina and the highest ranking black in Congress, also said he has heard speculation that Clinton is staying in the race only to try to derail Obama and pave the way for her to make another White House run in 2012.

http://blogs.reuters.com/trail08/2008/04/24/top-house-democrat-denounces-clinton-campaign-tactics/

*****

I don't think NRC is half kidding.

Um, HRC not NRC - you know.

Jon Stewart Rips Into McCain, Stephanopoulos: Sweet Talk Express

Jon Stewart turned his attention from the Democratic primary to analyze George Stephanopoulos' interview of John McCain. Stewart hits McCain -- and the media generally -- for the huge discrepancy between questions asked to Obama a week ago and questions asked to McCain this weekend.

The whole thing is worth a watch. If you weren't impressed by Stephanopoulos after his debate performance last week, this probably isn't going to bring you closer to him:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/25/jon-stewart-rips-into-mcc_n_98640.html

*****

too funny

The math tells me that people who vote for HRC are voting to destroy the democratic party. Is that the plan?? Well, is it? She can't win people!! You fell in love at the start now it's time to fall in line!! Obama can win if we get together.

Together we stand, divided we fall. Hillary knows this, knows the math, yet she is still seeking to divide us.

If somehow HRC convinces the Supers to overturn the will of the people I'm going to tear up my voter registration card and send it to her and then I"m moving to Canada because I just can't take the ugliness anymore! Barack is the best thing that has come along in decades and if we destroy his chance from within it will be the kind of shame that damages lives for several generations.

http://www.electoral-vote.com

(Be sure to click through the trial heats between Obama vs. McCain and Clinton vs. McCain)

If the few remaining Supers vote to make HRC the candidate, it will be because the popular vote is still a virtual tie (as it is now), the voter preference among Democrats reflected in the latest polls is still a statistical tie (as it is now), and their analysis of the Electoral College "math" clearly demonstrates that she'll be the stronger candidate in November (as it does now).

If young voters tear up their new registration cards in a fit of pique, so what? Ever since they first got the vote back in the seventies, they always find some reason or other not to vote. There's nothing new there. And if they're the foundation of Barack's candidacy, then he's truly building his castle on sand.

Obama's already given away the store on health care reform (attacking universal coverage as if he were a Republican)...

His supposed promises on NAFTA and the war have been undermined by candid statements by his own advisers...

He's now lost the confidence of his long-time pastor (Wright: "He's just a politician..."), the pastor whose words he cribbed for the title of his book...

A 1% lead in the popular vote? Huge caucus victories in red states that haven't given Democrats an Electoral College vote in generations? I'm sorry, but that's just not the kind of decisive victory that we should all bow down to and call "inevitable."

I know you all think he has magic powers, but the fact is, he's a very weak prospect for the November election.

Give em hell Diff!!!!!

The Democrats have lots of inherent advantages in this election... The unpopularity of the war, the dismal state of the economy... A highly energized voter base...

But what extra advantage does Obama bring now? His "magic" has peaked. And the fact that he is weak among "Reagan Democrats" (the deciding voters in the last six Presidential elections) is a very dangerous weakness.

As for negative campaigning, Hillary's campaign may have been more negative than Obama's at the top, but down amongst the rank and file, I've never heard as many utterly nasty and personal attacks on Hillary as I've heard over the last four months from Obama supporters. Name one Hillary supporter who's said anything about Obama as nearly blatantly offensive as Randi Rhodes...

Florida was the deciding state in 2000; Ohio, in 2004. If you don't understand that Hillary Clinton's decisive victories in those states are important, then you're really just an amateur at this game.

This divisive race is actually quite reflective of the "two Americas" that John Edwards talked about. Both halves of income-disparity-America are reflected in the Democratic Party's diverse patchwork...

Obama's money-raising advantage simply means he's preferred by those who can afford to sit at their computers and "click" off a quick $25, $50, $100 every couple of weeks...

For me, the Democratic party is supposed to fight for those who can't afford such luxuries...

In past elections, Republicans have often dominated fund-raising at the $25, $50, $100 levels....i.e. upper-middle-class folks who can afford to contribute to political campaigns.... The Republicans also liked to call it the "grass roots."

In this round, it's Obama who's won the hearts of the Democrat's "haves."

One last note: There was interesting article about the Edwards' a few weeks back. They haven't endorsed Obama primarily because Mrs. Edwards feels so strongly that Obama's health care reform proposals fall so far short. (The Edwards' plan, of course, was virtually identical to Hillary's).

In 2006, McCain was one of only three Republican senators to vote against defining marriage between one man and one woman. Why? McCain said: "I think that gay marriage should be allowed if there's a ceremony kind of thing, if you wanna call it that, I don't have any problem with that." No wonder Dr. James Dobson replied: "Speaking as a private individual, I would not vote for John McCain under any circumstances."

McCain will be caught in a pander dance between John Hagee and the Christian nationalists of the wider Religious Right on one hand; reassuring moderate Republicans that he and his advisors are not tools of the Religious Right on the other; and he will have Alan Keyes rallying the farther precincts of the Religious Right against him.

James Dobson has already told The Wall Street Journal:

"I have seen no evidence that Sen. McCain is successfully unifying the Republican Party or drawing conservatives into his fold," he said in a written statement, reflecting his personal views. "To the contrary, he seems intent on driving them away."

(Talk to Action)

*****

"Pander dance" that will be a youtube video soon.

DOBBS: A room full of construction workers gave Senator John McCain a little straight talk of their own yesterday. And it was almost more than he could bear. The AFL-CIO's construction and building trades booed Senator McCain when he said illegal aliens fill jobs that Americans won't do.

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: Now, my friends, I'll offer anybody here $50 an hour if you'll go pick lettuce in Yuma this season and pick for the whole season. So -- OK? Sign up. OK.

You sign up. You sign up, and you'll be there for the whole season, the whole season. OK? Not just one day. Because you can't do it, my friend.

Know Your Audience, Know Your Economy ...

Following up on the post from earlier this morning about Sen. McCain's claim that you can't find Americans willing to do hard manual labor for $50 an hour, this from the TPM mailbag ...

My name is Kevin Flynn, I am the legislative/political director for the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers. Our union is an affiliate of the BCTD. I was at the legislative conference when McCain lost his cool and began this tirade. Your readers are correct, his assertion was that no American would be willing to do this work for $50.00 an hour. There are those who will argue that offering such a wage to American workers would not be adequate incentive, but clearly to an audience of construction workers this is not the case. Our president was behind him on stage when he made this asinine comment in response to the public outcry he received because of his very vocal support of comprehensive immigration reform, Our president(and myself since I worked in the field as well) was struck dumb because our members(not unlike those of the other trades represented in the crowd) work 8-12 hours each day in the heat throughout the country bending over and laying 80 lb concrete blocks, heavy stone & marble, brick, and working in hellish conditions worse than the Arizona summer.
Your original point was correct, John McCain is clueless when it comes to the economy or the experiences of ordinary people who work for a living. His only working experiences were as a pilot in the Navy and as a member of the House of Representatives and the Senate. It should be very apparent from this ludicrous offer he made to people doing similar work and in a fair number of states for less. If you have any questions, please feel free to email or call me.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/191401.php

*****

McSame is as feckless as Crusader Bunnypants or worse . . . .

Barack Obama has been better organized, raised more money, won more states, gained more delegates and had a better strategy than Clinton from the start.

On the other side, Mark Penn is gone as the chief "strategist" of the Clinton campaign and Patti Solis Doyle is long gone as campaign manager. Through it all, Clinton continues to run on the idea that she is ready "day one" to be President, when she wasn't ready on day one for a rookie like Obama.

If she had been, she wouldn't be in the rabbit hole she's in now. She would have put Obama away the way the front-loaded, Super Tuesday system was designed for her to put everybody away early. She is supposed to be the one with the great sweeping plan for America, and she didn't have one for Obama. Now she is where she is and so is her campaign.

This race is split down the middle because of demography--Income, education, age, gender, race. Despite all other "reasons," that is the immovable fact.

Working class people want a fighter who will fight for them.

Comfortable upper-income Democrats (who aren't desperate for health insurance) just want a handsome symbol who will make them feel good.

For Hillary's demographic, "bitch" is a compliment...For Obama's it's an insult.

"I don't know what it means to be a ********. All I know is that's what I'm called whenever I do anything that differentiates me from a doormat."

Hillary Clinton quotes and her definition of who decides the election.

When she was the frontrunner: “Ultimately you have to be humble because it’s up to the voters. The voters get to decide” “Look I trust voters. Voters decide on whatever basis is important to them.”

After she lost the first state caucuses: “You know my sense of caucus states they are primarily dominated by activists; they don’t represent the electorate.”

After she lost unimportant African-American states like South Carolina and Louisiana: “In the case of Louisiana, you know, a very strong and very proud African-American electorate which I totally understand”

After she lost Iowa, Wisconsin, Alabama, South Carolina, Vermont, Washington, Virginia: “I have won the big states. I’ve won the states a democrat has to win.”

When she fell far behind in the popular vote, her attention turned to the super delegates: “We do a great disservice to those who have a record of service, who have independent experience with candidates. People with those kinds of personal experiences which voters don’t have. They see us from a far, they come to a speech, they watch us on television and they vote. And that is part if the process, an important part."

Then hypothetically if a state where Obama was not even on the ballot was counted: “If you actually counted the votes that have been cast then more people have actually voted for me.”

Then if the Democratic party could change THEIR rules to fit the Clinton agenda: “If we had the same system of the republicans, I would already be the nominee.”

There you have it, when she was the frontrunner it was the will of the people. As the voters spoke and she lost, the rules changed at every turn. Now she wants the same system as the REPUBLICAN party. Enough is enough. Perhaps Hillary should run as a republican. Her “kitchen sink” tactics are straight out of the Atwater/Rove book.

The time has come for Democrats to end this vicious cycle and the MSM to report the words of this candidate. Look at these statements, she doesn’t care about the American people or the Democratic party. She cares about Hillary Clinton. It is time to cut bait and fish with the Clintons who believe they are owned the throne.

In satellite interviews with television stations in Indiana and Kentucky, Clinton three times sidestepped questions about whether she would remain in the race if she lost Indiana's May 6 primary.

"We have a long way to go," Clinton told a Louisville station when asked if she would campaign in Kentucky if she lost Indiana. "I'm looking forward to coming up to Kentucky." The Bluegrass State holds a primary on May 20.

Pressed on the question, she said, "Well, I don't make any predictions or speculate on things that haven't happened yet."

Asked a similar question by a station in Evansville, Ind., she hewed to her message and avoided future commitments. "I'm thinking about how I'm going to do well in Indiana," she said.

*****

HRC will be in the race no matter what. She will still be running strong at Barack's inauguration.

HRC is running because Barack could be eaten by a bear between now and the general election.

I wonder if HRC will crash the McSame/Obama debates?

Campaign finance records released this week show that a growing number of Clinton's early supporters migrated to Obama in March, after he achieved 11 straight victories. Of those who had previously made maximum contributions to Clinton, 73 wrote their first checks to Obama in March. The reverse was not true: Of those who had made large contributions to Obama last year, none wrote checks to Clinton in March.

"I think she is destroying the Democratic Party," said New York lawyer Daniel Berger, who had backed Clinton with the maximum allowable donation of $2,300. "That there's no way for her to win this election except by destroying [Obama], I just don't like it. So in my own little way, I'm trying to send her a message."

The message came in the form of a $2,300 contribution to Obama.

(kos)

The Obama converts include William Louis-Dreyfus. The billionaire New York financier said he had been impressed by Clinton's performance in the Senate and distressed by eight years of the Bush administration when he donated the maximum to her campaign last August. Then, he said, he began watching more closely.

"However much one might have supported the Clintons, or one might support the usual suspects in the Democratic Party, I began to believe Obama represents a new approach. He gives off such a sense of relevance that he's sort of irresistible," Louis-Dreyfus said.

He also expressed, as did other big givers who crossed to Obama, exasperation about the tone of the Clinton campaign and frustration with the candidate herself.

"At the end of the day, all she had to do was open her mouth for me not to believe her," Louis-Dreyfus said.

(kos)

*****

I understand why HRC is having money problems.

On the campaign trail yesterday, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said he’ll “do everything” in his power and bring “every pressure to bear” in order to stop the North Carolina Republican party from running an attack ad featuring Sen. Barack Obama’s pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. But the chairwoman of the North Carolina GOP, Linda Daves, told NPR yesterday that McCain has not done all he could. According to Daves, she hasn’t even spoken to McCain:

BLOCK: Linda Daves, have you had a conversation with John McCain about this?

DAVES: Oh, no, I have not. I have spoken with his campaign staff, however. And — but I did get an e-mail letter from them on his behalf.

"They're not listening to me because they're out of touch with reality and the Republican Party. We are the party of Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan and this kind of campaigning is unacceptable," McCain told NBC's "Today" Show.

"I've done everything that I can to repudiate and to see that this kind of campaigning does not continue," he added.

Asked if the state party's unwillingness to heed his call raised questions about his leadership, McCain replied: "I don't know exactly how to respond to that."

Worst Campaign Idea Ever?

Hoosier congressional candidate speaks at birthday party for Hitler, in Chicago

CROWN POINT, Ind. - If fans of Hitler held a party, and a candidate for federal office attended, would anybody notice?

Apparently, yes.

U.S. Congressional candidate Tony Zirkle is facing criticism from one of his primary opponents, and a host of people on the Internet, for speaking at an event over the weekend that celebrated Adolf Hitler's birthday.

http://tinyurl.com/4ezt69

*****

The Reich-wingnut party shows its true colors.

"What are you gonna do about voters like these? "

Uh -- have some respect because they are VOTERS? Christ All Mighty, Corn is one arrogant cat.

Corn's arrogant, yeah...and he can't spot scarcasm from a mile away, either! Really, he can't!

:-)

"...I began to believe Obama represents a new approach. He gives off such a sense of relevance that he's sort of irresistible..." (Louis-Dreyfus)

Some people have more money than sense.

**

Some Democrats (50%) seem susceptible to the "magic." Others (50%, incl. me) seem to be immune.... I wish I could catch it... I really do...

He just seems like a lightweight to me, a little too nimble-footed on the issues... He started out running to the right, with triangulators like Goolsbee writing his vague and warmed-over-DLC-"centrist" trade and health care proposals....

Then when he realized he was picking up the leftie bloggos...That content vanished... Now there's no actual substance at all (I just picked up a brochure of his this morning in a coffee shop)...

His basic message now is... my stands on the issues are identical to Hillary's...just vote for me on personality! And on how you think I'll look loping down the steps of Air Force One in my aviator glasses [Maureen Dowd]...

And on the sound of my delicious voice!

(P. S. his Senate voting record on the war is IDENTICAL to Hillary's...He's voted for every cent of war spending. And his kowtowing to the Israel lobby is also pretty much perfect too....)

Hillary kicks his butt on the issues, and she'll annihilate McCain on them too.

McCain vs. Obama... It'll be all-culture, all-personality, all-wedge-issues-all-the-time...

McCain vs. Hillary... They'll look like androgynous clones of one another.... Except Hillary will clean his clock on the issues... She's a better issues debater than both of them put together.

That's MY demographic.

Only 43 to go . . . .

Obama needs only 43 more unpledged superdelegates to clinch the nomination. That's right. Not 100, not 60. Just 43. At 43 more currently-named, unpledged superdelegates, Obama and his supporters can claim that Hillary Clinton cannot win.

Here's why:

If you've played strategic boardgames, you know that the cardinal rule is that you declare victory and stop playing when your win is possible and your opponent's is not. At that point, your opponent becomes irrelevant. Remember McCain vs. Huckabee?
305 UNPLEDGED SUPERDELEGATES IS A MYTH. Please repeat this over and over. There are only 240 undeclared Superdelegates, because 65 are Add-Ons, and their selection process is not arbitrary.
When Obama wins another 43 superdelegates, although he has not yet reached 2024 delegates, his supporters will be able to argue tat as a matter of practicality, Hillary Clinton no longer has a viable path to 2024 delegates.

(kos)

Plouffe: McCain has the racist vote anyway

David Plouffe tells Linda Douglass that real racists are probably voting Republican in any case:

"[T]he vast, vast majority of voters who would not vote for Barack Obama in November based on race are probably firmly in John McCain's camp already," he says.

Plouffe also made a four-pronged case for Obama's electability. One, primary-focused, is that Clinton has big problems too.

He also pointed out that Obama's actually been winning white men and younger white voters.

And looking ahead, he pointed to the issues: "They won't agree with John McCain on issues like the economy and health care. And so I think that we are going to get the vast, vast majority of Democratic voters," he said.

Finally, the Obama campaign is counting on its ability to change the electorate -- a powerful argument, if one with real limits.

"If Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee, I think turnout amongst African-Americans, turnout amongst all voters under 40, and our ability to register new voters is going to be a very important piece of the puzzle," he said.

*****

Goes without sayin'

Helen Thomas: The President has said publicly several times, in two consecutive news conferences a few months ago, and you have said over and over again, we do not torture. Now he has admitted that he did sign off on torture, he did know about it. So how do you reconcile this credibility gap?

MS. PERINO: Helen, you're taking liberties with what the President said. The United States has not, is not torturing any detainees in the global war on terror. And General Hayden, amongst others, has spoken on Capitol Hill fully in this regard, and it is -- I'll leave it where it is. The President is accurate in saying what he said.

...Helen Thomas: You're denying, in this room, that we torture and we have tortured?

MS. PERINO: Yes, I am denying that.

Helen then turned in her seat, looked at her colleagues, shook her head in disgust, and asked sadly: "Where is everybody? For God's sakes!"

*****

Can Helen shame the WH press corps into asking for the truth? Too easy to ignore her.

From Bubba to Flubba: Slew of gaffes makes pals wonder why Bill is losing it

[...]

"It is possible that Bill Clinton's recent gaffes are a result of his bypass operation," said Dr. Marc Siegel, an NYU associate professor who has interviewed Clinton's heart surgeon.

Siegel was referring to a personality-change phenomenon sometimes seen in bypass patients.

Whatever the cause, the 42nd President has become a chronic headache for Hillary.

http://tinyurl.com/6msf8y

*****

The problem is neurocognitive disorders are seldom understood by those that have them. Bill may not think anything is wrong, he feels fine.

Sad to think of an ex-president as a liability.

What's with all the 'gas tax' nonsense?

Here in NM the gas tax is $.18 per gallon or about $2.88 per tank - it costs about $50.00 per tank.

This will save the failed energy policies that promote oil company profits - how?

Seems more a tacit admission that Busheney are unable (or unwilling) to reduce the cost at the pump by way of presssure on the oil companies.

Just another cop-out.

[...]

when asked which aspect of each candidate may affect their electability, the following is found to make them less likely to get a vote:

Obama's Race: 3%
Clinton's Gender: 5%
McCain's Age: 22% Overall, 7% among GOP, 30% Dem, 26% Indy.

Obviously among their own party's voters, McCain's Age seems to be the biggest obstacle.

I find it revealing that the poll is nearly totally about Obama, with a few token questions about McCain's age and Hillary's gender. There is even a question about whether Obama grew up in a wealth family (17% say yes) and if Obama is a Muslim (13% say yes). Newsweek spent alot of time polling about Obama specifically; I guess they believe he's the Nominee.

(kos)

I just saw the rerun of the red carpet entrance at the white house correspondent’s dinner on C-Span (my band really needs a gig on a Saturday night). Wow! Where else can you see the corporate propaganda elite (Wolf Blitzer, Larry King, Richard Wolf, David Corn (Corn was only shown briefly sucking down what looked to be a whiskey in the shadows). Common Hollywood whores (Pamela Anderson, Ashlee Simpson, The Jonas brothers?) and everyday run of the mill war criminals (Henry Kissinger, Michael Chertoff, Zbigniew Brzezinski). Unfucking believable, if there was ever any question that maybe we don’t get the truth in this country, just watch the show. It is painfully obvious.

Arizona Superdelegate Charlene Fernandez Endorses Barack Obama for President

PHOENIX, AZ — Today newly elected Arizona Democratic Party First Vice Chairwoman and Superdelegate Charlene Fernandez endorsed Senator Barack Obama for president.

“Senator Barack Obama is strengthening the Democratic Party by bringing in new voters, young and old, into the process. I believe Senator Obama has the best ability to win the White House in November and lead this country forward.”

Fernandez, who was elected as first vice chairwoman of the Arizona Democratic Party today, is Senator Obama’s 241st Superdelegate endorsement. Senator Obama is now 290 delegates away from winning the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination.

*****

Drip, drip, drip. Nothing will change the fact that Barack is the nominee.

Time to move forward.

Of course he'll be the nominee. It's been rigged ever since Tom Daschle told Obama he had to marginalize Bill Clinton's presidency and track every comment to twist into racism.

Obama might have been able to pull this off if he hadn't shot himself in the foot with Wright and his "cling to God & guns" stupidity. Doesn't matter how true any of it is. It's damn stupid political speech. And we have now lost the Presidency.

The Queen of Pork

Nobody doles out taxpayer money like Hillary Clinton — or rakes in as much campaign cash from the companies she does favors for

[...]

All politicians buy and sell favors, and presidential candidates are worse than most. In this race, none of the three remaining candidates are exactly squeaky clean when it comes to the doling out of federal budgetary largess. Even John McCain, who boasts that he doesn't request "earmarks," as pork-barrel spending is known on the Hill, actually has at least one to his name. And Barack Obama has not been shy about steering taxpayer dollars to people who might be able to help his presidential bid.

But of the three candidates, no one can touch Hillary Clinton for her expertise in dispensing federal pork. She is fast becoming a sort of Heavyweight Earmark Champion of the Beltway — one think-tank analyst has even dubbed her the "Queen of Pork" — who excels as a favor trader not only in sheer quantity but in brazenness as well. A recent examination of this year's earmark requests shows her solidifying her champion status more and more with each passing year, even under the ostensibly bright lights of a presidential campaign.

*****

Good thin HRC was challenged, she would have been the nominee without BHO. That could have been a huge mistake.

It is only money after all, eh?

A certain style, 'messiness' follow Clinton

Analysts suggest flaws in campaign may be repeated if she captures the White House

WASHINGTON — Despite Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's big win in Pennsylvania last week, the story of her campaign is often one of mismanagement and missed opportunities, and it raises questions about how she'd organize and run the White House.

"There's a certain style to the campaign, and it shows what we might expect in a Clinton presidency: a lot of viewpoints and a messiness," said James McCann, a political science professor at Purdue University in Indiana.

Whether that's a good or bad trait is in the eye of the analyst. McCann called it "policymaking through trial and error," similar to how Bill Clinton ran his administration, which to many was a big success.

But her campaign tumbled from riches to rags to rebounds. It wasn't supposed to be that way.

A few months ago, Clinton was the front-runner, with a 30-point lead in national polls, $118 million raised in 2007 and the backing of most Democratic power brokers.

Today she trails Illinois Sen. Barack Obama in convention delegates, campaign cash and the popular vote.

How'd that happen?

*****

If a person can't manage a campaign how can they manage a country?

[...]

Hillary is nasty, but she is not tough. In fact, Hillary is a classic whiner. She and Bill whine about everything that doesn't go well for them. Unlike Harry Truman, who also said, "the buck stops here," she and Bill accept responsibility for nothing and blame others, especially the media, when things go wrong or their deceptions are exposed.ﾠ

Hillary and Bill whine about Democratic Party activists, young voters, running as a female, the media in general, the media catching her fabricating her history (bringing peace to Ireland, opposing NAFTA, facing sniper fire in Bosnia, etc.), the appeal of hope, Obama's eloquence, money, donors, Democratic Party rules. Last week, Hillary blamed the "activist base" of the Democratic Party -- and MoveOn, in particular -- for many of her electoral defeats, claiming, without a shred of evidence, that activists had "flooded" state caucuses and "intimidated" her supporters. Rather than accept responsibility for her campaign's well-documented failure adequately to plan for the caucus states, and despite her repeated claim she is the candidate "ready on Day One," she attacked core Democratic Party supporters. Rather than take responsibility for her inability to inspire the activist base with her ideas, she whined about their support of a more thoughtful, inspirational candidate. Candidates normally celebrate high levels of voter activism in the primaries, knowing these activists will work for the party's nominee in the general election, but Hillary is willing to burn the peasants in order to win the village for herself.
ﾠ
Hillary and Bill whine about young voters. Last week, Bill said in Pennsylvania that young voters are easily fooled and older voters are wiser -- too wise to be fooled by Obama's inspiring rhetoric. Of course, he forgot to mention that the most well-educated voters -- young and old -- heavily favor Obama over Hillary. Most candidates, and both political parties, yearn for support from young voters because young voters represent not just the present, but also the future. And, certainly if young voters were supporting Hillary, she wouldn't be whining about them. But since she is not very good at inspiring young voters, she chooses to whine about them. Thankfully, she has not yet proposed raising the voting age to 60, but that could be next.
ﾠ
Hillary whines about being a female candidate, as though it's harder to be female in America than black. Said Hillary, "It's hard. It's hard being a woman out there." [Add some tears and the picture is complete] Her surrogate, Geraldine Ferraro, even made the wholly implausible claim that the only reason Obama was succeeding was his race -- a claim Hillary never repudiated. Of course, at the same time the Clintons whine about misogyny, they argue to super-delegates that Obama is not electable because he is black and that, as a woman, she is the electable candidate. Neither Bill nor Hill can explain why all the white male Democratic Presidential candidates are out of the race. Could it be that Obama has demonstrated qualities to voters that the others lacked? Could it be that Obama has come from more than 20 points behind in just a few months because he offers qualities, such as hope and honesty, which voters, by large pluralities, think Hillary lacks?

(huffpo)

Like school thugs on the playground or a neighborhood Street Gang, the Clintons think that by bullying and hurling insults, they will taunt Barack into another trap -- debate! Why should Barack engage in a barroom-brawl like debate to make himself look less Presidential? Besides Douglass and Lincoln were gentlemen with ethics and morals -- something sorely lacking in the Clintons!

The questions that would be asked of Barack as President are not the same kind of personal attacks he would get at another debate, he is wise to decline! And, by continuing to say NO, he is showing that he is not going to be Bullied into debating for another show based on sensationalism rather than real issues and problems facing the American people today, and we really do have a myriad of problems to solve, and which must be solved! And, because Barack was Wise enough and is wise enough to point out how unfair and uneven the questions were directed at him at the last debate, they label him a "whiner" instead of someone who, and rightly so, is defending himself from a "hit job". But, if he does this, this might expose the ones who are directing the barbs and hits and their Purpose, so they distort the truth (he's whining) with a multitude of voices, all saying the same thing to give it power (brainwashing)! Most of the corporate media: cable news, ABC, NBC :are owned and Republican controled. They tell us what they want us to Hear, not what we need to Know to truly inform us as a society, which would "expose{ their deeds, give us power and aid in their demise! The Clintons and the Republican Spin Machine are all aligned against Barack! Both are fabricators, distorters, engage in fear and smear... there is no truth from either of the Giants only domination for their own selfish gain and not for the good of "all ... they have even colloborated together for greater strength, then one will overthrow the other if they get what they want! They, the Republicans, know the Clintons have ailenated African-Americans so they are now actively courting their support while trying to elevate Hillary and deflate Barack. They MSM are not asking Hillary any of the pertinent questions, not on Iran, not on Mark Penn, although he is still on conference calls to this day, not on a pending lawsuit in California or anything elese that might damage her candidacy in the eyes of the people. They don't ask her why, if Rev. Wright would have not been her pastor, why during Bill's Impeachment trial, they turned to Rev. Wright for prayer and strength? Because the Republicans have an "arsenal" of ammunition they Plan and have Planned for years to use against the Clintons if Hillary somehow becomes the Democratic nominee! Then they belittle Barack's achievement in Pennsylvania -- to close the enormous gap between him and Clintons was a monumental success and not given any credit by the Republican talking-points media. Instead they ask, "do we really know who Barack is?" -- They slyly ask, "why can't he close the deal?" This after showing him bowling over and over again and stating how he cannot relate to blue-collar workers with such a low bowling score or showing skits from Saturday Night Light which casts him a poor light, along with continuing whipping of Rev. Wrght and his comments on bitter. They do not report the news anymore, they do not inform us of the true conditions in Iraq or other pertinent news but rather pass on Gossip, fit for the Enquirer Magazine or Entertainment Tonight, so far we have fallen!

And to Maureen Dowd -- It is always "Darkest before the Dawn!"

Investigators: Millions in Iraq contracts never finished
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080427/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/iraq_reconstruction

The special IG's review of 47,321 reconstruction projects worth billions of dollars found that at least 855 contracts were terminated by U.S. officials before their completion, primarily because of unforeseen factors such as violence and excessive costs. About 112 of those agreements were ended specifically because of the contractors' actual or anticipated poor performance.

In addition, the audit said many reconstruction projects were being described as complete or otherwise successful when they were not. In one case, the U.S. Agency for International Development contracted with Bechtel Corp. in 2004 to construct a $50 million children's hospital in Basra, only to "essentially terminate" the project in 2006 because of monthslong delays.

But rather than terminate the project, U.S. officials modified the contract to change the scope of the work. As a result, a U.S. database of Iraq reconstruction contracts shows the project as complete "when in fact the hospital was only 35 percent complete when work was stopped," said investigators in describing the practice of "descoping" as frequent.

"The American people did not support the goals of nation-building, peacemaking, law and order and certainly not warlord funding. For us to get into nation-building, law and order, etc, I think is a tragic and terrible mistake. But the argument that somehow the United States would suffer a loss to our prestige and our viability, as far as the No. 1 superpower in the world, I think, is baloney. The fact is, what can hurt our prestige, Mr. President, I'll tell you what can hurt our viability, as the world's superpower, and that is, if we enmesh ourselves in a drawn-out situation, which entails the loss of American lives, more debacles like the one we saw with the failed mission to capture Aidid's lieutenants, using American forces, and that then will be what hurts our prestige."

---McCain in 1993

"The right course of action is to make preparations as quickly as possible to bring our people home. It does not mean as soon as order is restored to Haiti, it doesn't mean as soon as Democracy is flourishing in Haiti, it doesn't mean as soon as we've established a viable nation in Haiti. As soon as possible means as soon as we can get out of Haiti without losing any American lives.

"Now there may be different interpretations of this Resolution on the other side, but it is my view---and I want to make it clear and I think the majority of the American people's view---that as soon as possible means as soon as possible. Exactly what those words state."

---McCain in 1994

Why don't you stop this childish whining, David?

The American people are riveted by this primary. No one cares about YOUR selfish angst.

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com

I swear, somewhere on Isikoff's computer there's a file called "KeepRoveOutOfThePokey.dot." It reads something like this:

A source familiar with [insert name of witness against Rove in the current scandal]'s testimony (who asked not to be identified talking about sensitive matters) said that [insert summary of witness testimony]. [insert all details described in any legal documents; when possible, quote the pertinent phrases verbatim]. [insert clear description of whether or not witness has any direct evidence that implicates Rove].

I mean, Isikoff must have a template for this stuff, right? Otherwise, how would he be able to replicate these helpful leaks so precisely time and time again?

http://tinyurl.com/6r7oks

Leave the 20-somethings alone!!!

Oh, I remember the 90s as well. We did have for the first time in my now, 40 something; life that I saw and actually lived what the “American Dream” was about. Unfortunately, we didn’t do anything to preserve it including the Clintons. This is our fault! Don’t live in the past!!! If you remember the good you also have to remember the bad. How the Republican Party impeached President Clinton for lying about his extra marital affair. How the world was exposed to the “blue dress”. I don’t care to relive any of that particular time in his presidency. President Clinton and Mrs. Clinton were caught up in many scandals which wasted a lot of our time and resources. Unfortunately, this is what the republicans choose to remember about the 90’s… the corrupt Clintons. The republicans will drudge all this back up and more if Hillary is the nominee. WE cannot afford to go backwards.

What is wrong with the Democrat Party? The republicans are right we are “Spineless”. We let the Republican Party muddy the waters for all of us. We are “One Nation” and at this point we have been labeled with the stench of this administration. Like it or not. We let Bush and Chaney into the White House without doing anything about. Not only did they cheat once, but we let them get away with it twice. They lied repeatedly on the war. We have let this administration destroy our security, health system and economy. Not to mention, the United States education system "The No Child Left Behind" joke. We basically, screwed the future of our children and grandchildren. We have not made this Bush Administration accountable for anything!!! Why Not??? I’m glad the 20 something generation is paying attention!!! We haven’t earned the right to dictate what their 2008 Presidential choice should be.

Do not compare Obama to Bush!!! Barrack Obama is not a George W. Bush politician. For just one of MANY reasons, he is a highly educated man and got his education the old fashion way… by studying and working hard. He went to college on student loans and working crappy jobs to just achieve the American Dream of a college education…just like most of us did. Unfortunately, the Republican Party is seeing to it that the next generation doesn’t have this advantage either. The 20 something voters are like the majority of the voters who believe there can be a better choice than the status quo. Do not preach to the 20 something voters about their choice in this election. I guarantee most of them our more educated about this election then any of us. They stand to lose the most!!! The 20 something voters are our FUTURE!!

Don't forget all the dittoheads that are registering as Democrats to vote for Hillary. Rush and his ilk are already warming up the Clinton scandals for the 21st century. They can't wait. The Oregon primary is on May 20 and I know a lot of Independents (myself included) who have re-registered to vote for Obama. If Hillary is the nominee I'll be sitting this election out. I WILL NOT VOTE FOR THAT WOMAN.