Minus one week and two days, to be precise. Next Wednesday our time, North Carolina Democrats will elect 115 delegates, 77 by district-level proportional representation and 38 by statewide PR*. Indiana will elect 72 delegates, 47 by district-level and 25 statewide. Both are primaries, which have been doing better for Hillary Clinton that caucuses. However, the polls have Barack Obama ahead in both states – commandingly so in North Carolina (51.3 per cent to 35.8 per cent, according to Real Clear Politics’ fortnight average), narrowly in Indiana (46.3 per cent to 43.3 per cent). North Carolina will have a “modified” primary open to independents and registered Democrats; Indiana will have an open primary, meaning all voters can participate. And let us not forget Thursday’s caucuses for the Pacific island of Guam, at which three delegates will be selected by a closed caucus.
* Correct me if I’m wrong here (or anywhere else), somebody.
The Bus Man
He knew, he knew. and lied and lied and lied. Pre-Philly Mark 1, Philly Mark 1 and Philly Mark 2.
The truth ia now out. So much for the “New Style” politic. He is a fraud, a phoney, a packaged product, practicing the “Old Style” politic of “at all costs”. he threw his grandma under the bus, now he threw his uncle under the bus. The Pastor made what Obama is today. Then Obama sold his soul to the dirty world of chicago politic operatives and marketing, to satisfy his own naked ambition. [promoting black candidates with white voters] – the old Maxwell Smart trick of appealing to the “white men guilt”. It works everytime.
Rightfully, the Pastor feels that Obama has betrayed him and his congregation. Like I said, the problem is not the Pastor, because he stays true, the problem is Obama, he becomes phoney. I just wonder will he throw his wife under the bus as well if Michelegate becomes like the Pastorgate.
[As for Wright, he saw a cascade of perceived slights coming from a bright young follower whose political ambitions were tugging him away from Trinity United Church of Christ. He saw the church he had founded coming under pressure, forced to hire security guards and a public relations firm. And he made no secret of whom he blamed: Obama’s political adviser, David Axelrod, a white Chicago political operative.]
[Then came Obama’s announcement in early 2007 that he would be running for president. Obama had invited Wright to deliver the invocation at the event in Springfield, Ill. But the evening before, Wright answered his cell phone and heard an apologetic, soon-to-be candidate. It turned out that a magazine just had released some controversial quotes that, it claimed, were delivered by Wright.
“You can get kind of rough in the sermons,” Wright said Obama told him. “Rather than have you out front, we thought it would be best to not have you do the invocation.”
Wright still went to Springfield, praying with the Obama family privately before the event. Weeks later, Wright said the blame belonged not to Obama but to his advisers. He repeatedly mentioned Axelrod, Obama’s chief strategist, saying that while he was expert at promoting black candidates with white voters, he did not know much about relating to the black community.
“They’re spiriting him away from people in the African-American community,” Wright said. “David doesn’t know the African-American church scene.”]
http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stories/2008/05/01/obamawright_0501.html
The Finnigans at 701
When Obama gets the nomination, who are you backing?
Obama or McCain?
Whatever impact Wright’s comments have (and the empirical data so far seems to indicate that they may not be much of an issue), the saga is too late to save Hillary.
Will be interesting to see if it helps McCain against Obama.
Top of the mornin’ to you, Bludgers.
Thurs May 1: It’s only words, and words are all they have, to take your brain away-ay-ay-ay.
http://news.yahoo.com/edcartoons/tomtoles;_ylt=AgZTVAMLa7X8m7YJi7b5PbwXvTYC
“Day by day and almost minute by minute the past was brought up to date. In this way every prediction made by the Party could be shown by documentary evidence to have been correct; nor was any item of news, or any expression of opinion, which conflicted with the needs of the moment, ever allowed to remain on record. All history was a palimpsest, scraped clean and reinscribed exactly as often as was necessary.” —pg 36 1984.
#702 – Are you the parrot’s reincarnation?
I let you in for a secret. It wont matter because there will be a dream ticket of Hillary-Obama. Obama will take it because he is no more no less a politician, they cant resist POWER.
The Finnigans at 705
Just for the record, are you saying that Obama will take the VP position with Hillary on top?
The sinking ship:
28/04/08 – Nat’l RCP Average Obama +10.3
29/04/08 – Nat’l RCP Average Obama +7.3
30/05/08 – Nat’l RCP Average Obama +3.0
01/05/08 – Nat’l RCP Average Obama +1.6
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
Finns –
Have you read Joe Andrew’s (SD) letter?- link on #697.
obama’s response.
he has just gone up further in my estimation as a man of principle and depth.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/04/obamas_press_conference_on_wri.html
Rain @ 691
‘If the Super-Dels let Obama steal the nomination’ Ah, so it’s the old ownership problem, eh?
Finns @ pick a # there is no bus just lots of conductors, try here polly…
Obama and Wright: On Being On, Off, and Under the Bus
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/carpenter/060
The zimmer’s running mate?
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/84139/
So Finns- are you seriously saying that if Obama gets the SD nominations that he has stolen them??
better rethink that one or you sound like Ron.
If either Hillary or Obama win the nomination it is because they rightfully won the SD votes but some of us are going to be unhappy, whatever the outcome.
Catrina at 702, you should know by know that trying to get a straight answer out of Finns (Obama v McCain) only leads to being called a parrot and a stalker. The answer is obviously McCain but the Finns is either too gutless to say so, or in so much denial about a Hillary victory that they cant ponder the question
Ah, Rain, back with another beauty!
I know! That’s why they are Senators, and elder statesmen of the party whose votes were so courted by Clinton (like Richardson’s) before they went the other way and became irrelevant and ‘disliked’. Please.
And since then, all he has done is reform the Party, take back Congress, and have the Democrats on the cusp of the Whitehouse. Of course he failed to dance to the Clinton tune and let them usurp the nomination process undemocratically, and has cut off the Republicanesque DNC machine at the knees. So I guess Clintonites who feel enraged at Obama ‘stealing the nomination’ by getting more votes and delegates than their gal are disappointed. And, as you say, are having a bit of a dummy spit now, along the lines of – ‘Its not fair! I’m gonna vote for the other guy!’ In the immortal words of Walter Sobchek, ‘f@#$ing babies’.
704
Enemy Combatant
And top of the mornin’ to you too Ecky.
I hate to break the sad news, but Ecky’s been thumped, or rather gazumped, because the inimitable Growler posted that very cartoon just yesterday!
It’s a hard blow to take Ecky, and we all comiserate etc etc, but this time, GG has hit the button before you. Go to Gitmo, do not pass go-go girls on the way, and do not collect two hundred north american pesos!
And in SD endorsements, Obama 5-4 Clinton yesterday. And Clinton’s count of +4 overall included the 4 add ons for NY, which were always going to her. Worth keeping in mind that these will be squared with Illinois:
“Illinois will name it’s add-ons on Monday. Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley, Illinois House Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie and Cook County Board President Todd Stroger are slated to fill the spots. All three have endorsed Obama.”
http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/
FG – I think you asked above that if Obama’s gaffes were rated 5 and 6 in that poll, how come he was down in the polls? Obviously they are playing a part, but also Clinton’s win in PA is as well and the narrative she has run from there. My point is that these all important ‘gates’ in the eyes (or should I say eye?) of the Clintonites is not that important, and will not be over a longer period. And, while Obama is down in the polls, after the hammering he has been copping, he is still ahead.
On the back of the illegal robocalling, the Clintons are now deeper in the muck. And you know what, it exactly mirrors what Clintonites are posting here! You ain’t on a save ‘Hillary from the nasty Barack with right wing smears’ lists are you fellas? Hahahaha. What desperate stuff. Go Democrat!:
‘Former journalist Sidney Blumenthal has been widely credited with coining the term “vast right-wing conspiracy” used by Hillary Clinton in 1998 to describe the alliance of conservative media, think tanks, and political operatives that sought to destroy the Clinton White House where he worked as a high-level aide. A decade later, and now acting as a senior campaign advisor to Senator Clinton, Blumenthal is exploiting that same right-wing network to attack and discredit Barack Obama. And he’s not hesitating to use the same sort of guilt-by-association tactics that have been the hallmark of the political right dating back to the McCarthy era.
Almost every day over the past six months, I have been the recipient of an email that attacks Obama’s character, political views, electability, and real or manufactured associations. The original source of many of these hit pieces are virulent and sometimes extreme right-wing websites, bloggers, and publications. But they aren’t being emailed out from some fringe right-wing group that somehow managed to get my email address. Instead, it is Sidney Blumenthal who, on a regular basis, methodically dispatches these email mudballs
…a staggering number of the anti-Obama attacks he circulates derive from highly-ideological and militant right-wing sources such as the misnamed Accuracy in Media (AIM), The Weekly Standard, City Journal, The American Conservative, and The National Review.’
from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-dreier/sidney-blumenthal-uses-fo_b_99695.html.
713
Pancho
In all fairness Pancho, Deval Patrick brings even the reputation of politicians into disrepute! And that surely takes some doing.
But conflating Patrick with Obama is once again, the kind of pointless exercise that we’ve been having a lot of lately.
OK, they are both black and both are Democrats. The similarity ends about there. By that reckoning GW Bush and Bill Clinton are both southern Presidents.
Althought there is a good point about HRC winning Massachusetts, but both Dems are polling well ahead of McCain there, with HRC ahead 19% and Obama 11%. I would not call that making it a marginal Dem state, would you?
I think there’s a few personal or family issues mixed in with the facts, but hey, that’s politics.
KR, perhaps, but Kennedy and Kerry can’t be dismissed so lightly.
Pancho at 717. The article says it all. If the SDs needed any final reason to go for Obama, surely this is it
716
Pancho
It’s quite depressing seeing someone who you’ve admired as a writer for the left, suddenly turn into a Clinton Raptor!
Blumenthal’s stuff in Salon was always a treat, well written and cogently argued critiques of everything vile and stupid in the Bush administration.
Filthy lucre or perverse fealty? Who knows, but he’s probably burnt a lot of bridges with this one.
719
Pancho
Which is why I didn’t mention them. Too complex for a few paragraphs (even with punctuation, spelling and syntax! LOL), but Patrick is a complete tool of the first order.
There’s a real divide in the Dems, a working class high school educated group, and the liberal educated group. Clinton and Obama appeal to quite seperate demographics and therein lies the big problem for the party.
Obama has to connect with the lunch bucket brigade and Clinton has to convince the educated that she’s not just pandering to the lowest common denominator.
It’s a truly fascinating process, and by all reckoning Obama should not even be where he is, and yet that’s what makes him so compelling. Clinton is sinking into her own popularism and more vulgar political instincts which makes her a turn off for more of her peers (Supers) and the less rusted on supporters.
Pass the popcorn…
As someone who was initially a Hillary fan, I agree KR. I have found her tactics a complete turnoff. And although Obama is not squeaky clean, and his promises of a new style a bit idealistic/unrealistic, I think he has by far conducted himself better than Hillary
Ecky, speaking of Gitmo, they’ve just released, after 6 years, an al Jazeera camerman:
“Sami is a poster child for everything that is wrong about Guantanamo Bay: no charges, no trial, constantly shifting allegations, brutal treatment, no visits with family, not even a phone call home,” Katznelson said Thursday.
“Sami was never alleged to have hurt a soul, and was never proven to have committed any crimes. Yet, he had fewer rights than convicted mass murderers or rapists. What has happened to American justice?”
http://www.salon.com/wires/ap/world/2008/05/01/D90D5IKG0_guantanamo_journalist_freed/index.html
…this appalling travesty, no, this crime of imprisoning people without trial and continual abusive treatment is EXACTLY what is wrong with America. This is the ‘dark side’ that Darth Cheney promised, this is the ‘rights and freedoms’ that ‘they hate us for’ and all the cant and jingoism of a nation so perverted by executive power that it is sickening.
The Finns diatribe at 701 illustrates the point perfectly: attack the man rather than the issues. Reminds me so much of the tactics used (unsuccessfully) against Rudd although this is worse because he is a fellow Democrat and it may harm him against McCain
Here’s an argument:
“We believe that the presidency requires leadership. There are times when a president will take a position that a broad consensus of quote unquote experts will agree with, and there are times when a president will do something that the group of experts quote unquote does not agree with.”
Now, if you think that applied to GWBush and his (mis)adventure in Mesopotamia, then you’d correctly spot the flaw in the argument. It’s the “I don’t know much about it, but I know what I want to do” position. Whip up some hysteria and then invade a country, wow, is that good for your ratings? Just ask George. Oh, only until it turns into sh!t in a bucket of course, but that’s the problem with ‘slam dunks’ that slam back.
But no, this argument has just been trotted out by Clinton’s chief advisor Wolfson to buttress her fuel tax holiday plan that she shares with John McCain!
So, just like GWBush, who dismissed all those ‘experts’ who gave him advice on Iraq he didn’t want to hear, Hillary Clinton is dismissing all the economic experts who say it is a bad idea that will not work. Boost demand (by lowering price) without also increasing supply, and the price will just rise to meet it. And the whole idea was to ‘reduce’ oil imports, NOT increase them!
There are lots more nuanced arguments, but the overwhelming concensus is that this is simply a polly trying to buy votes at the country’s expence (like the US government can afford to forgo any more income????). Just put it on the credit card for the children to pay off, if it buys me a few more votes their sacrifice will be worth it.
Onya Hill, true grit in the face of ‘expert’ sniper fire!
Is Obama kosher?
According to this lot he is:
A group of Obama’s J3wish supporters are raising money for a supportive ad in The New York Times, according to a copy of an email from an Obama backer, Chicago lawyer Jack Levin.
“A group of J3wish Americans all across the U.S. believe Barack Obama would make the best president and hence are in the process of preparing a full-page New York Times ad — to be signed by all of us who would like to be included — showing the U.S. J3wish community’s widespread support for Barack,” Levin writes, adding that the ad’s sponsors will be known as “American J3wish Patriots.”
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0508/Jewish_supporters_buying_ad_for_Obama.html
KR, I respect Hillary’s right to come up with any policy she pleases. Its not just the domain of the right to go for populist policies after all! If her team talked more about policy rather than hammering Obama, she may not have gotten into the position she now finds herself in
You have to feel for Hillary.
Very good day for her SD wise. Four add-ons in NY became official delegates, and they all endorsed her. Plus another DNC bigwig jumped on. +5 Clinton.
Obama picked up one SD – another DNC bigwig. +1 Obama.
And then what happens? An SD who formally supported Clinton now jumps ship, citing a need for the party to come together etc etc.
Which means we end the day with Clinton netting 4, Obama netting 2. Still a win for the lady mind you. Except that come tomorrow, Maryland releases its add-on delegates – both tipped to support Obama. Illinois comes next week with 3 more… and so forth. The SD battle will be tied within a fortnight IMO. Feel free to quote that.
Then there is the maths problem. Totals right now are 1733-1602. There are 404 pledged delegates to go. Pretty much everybody agrees they are more or less going to break even.
In a months time therefore, the total will be around 1937-1806.
By the end of June, another 56 or so addons will have been decided. Let’s also assume that another 14 currently uncommitted SD’s pick a side in that month as well. Finally, assume they break even (personally I don’t think they will, but for the sake of peace…)
This brings us to totals of 1972-1831 with around 215 SD’s to go (Edwards still has 19 up his sleeve remember)
*shrugs*
Maths can be a b-tch.
DISCLAIMER (since it is apparently needed these days): All of the above is pure assumption, based on recent trends, simply maths and my gut feeling.
728
Andrew
You call that ‘policy’? LOL
If only!
When Clinton is shadowing McCain on bombing Iran and give aways you know she’s NOT running on policy.
It has been noted often enough that Clinton and Obama are very close on policy, but at least Obama is not running around out-bidding McCain with his policies.
Anyway, the whole thing is going nowhere a Pelosi has come out on Obama’s side of the argument. That’s it, it will not pass the House and Clinton is whistling pixies.
Max at 728 you just dont get it. Hillary HAS to win, she WILL win, this nomination is HERS, she is more ELECTABLE etc etc…. (dont worry about the maths)
exactly Andrew: she’a a CLINTON!!!!
(read- entitled.)
731
Andrew Says: “Max at 728 you just dont get it. Hillary HAS to win, she WILL win, this nomination is HERS, she is more ELECTABLE etc etc…. (dont worry about the maths)”
Actually I think it’s more like. She has to win because we know McCain doesn’t have a snowballs chance against Obama. Our only hope is for the democrats to implode by going against the people’s wishes and going with the most divisive candidate.
A whole bunch of rush Limbaugh lites.
Well well, her I was thinking that the three stooges were fans of Flux News and it turns out they are Sidney Blumenthal fans.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-dreier/sidney-blumenthal-uses-fo_b_99695.html
Sorry Pancho, I didn’t read back far enough before reposting your link @ 717. 🙂
Rain, are these emails the Clinton dirt sheets you paste into here for us to read?
doug at 733 youre exactly right- how the conservatives would love Clinton to get up. Her negative ratings would be a boon for them
I actually can’t think of anything that would get the Repubs out in force more effectively. They do love to hate Hill.
I don’t think she deserves it mind, but she certainly has an ability to inspire dislike.
Andrew @ 736
I tried asking this yesterday but was largely ignored – i think i came on too strong and was deemed an Obamafishbotite….what is the nature of these ‘negative ratings’? Have you got any links?
I mean, if these numbers are so strong, and what people bandy about, it seems as though they may be, why have her polling numbers in these primaries been improving? Or is that just me? I’m not just wrong often, but often dangerously.
I guess what i’m asking is, if these numbers are so strong, why is she still in the race? Are the dissenters made up of repugs? If so, is this such a massive drama?
Yohoho, an overview of a few bits and pieces in this article: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10010.html
It’s the flipside of the ‘What Hillary wishes she could say’ piece from a few weeks ago.
Ta Pancho.
I’ll read both and try to be ‘objective’.
A white southerner expresses her views on Hillary Clinton.
I find this video fascinating. Love the comprehensive tagging on the right.
In the words of Joyce – “Here comes everybody.”
Yo ho ho at 738
The only reason she is still in the race is to do with the pledged delegate count.
The delegate numbers are rock solid so long as one candidate can reach the magic 2025 pledged delegates (accrued though primaries and caucuses). If neither candidate can achieve 2025 then the super delegates come into play – and technically speaking they can vote for whoever they want. Since Maine, the Clinton Campaign have been promoting the notion that popular vote and electability are the deciding factors in such an environment. It is a valid legal argument but goes against the intent of the rules and such a scenario would in the opinion of many be highly destructive to the party. What we are witnessing at the moment is the slow and painful elimination of that technicality. As each of the super delegates declare their respective positions – soon or later you end up in a situation where the technicality is no longer achievable and then *bingo* you have your nomination without a fight at the convention. However, Hillary Clinton has made it plain that she is comfortable to turn the nomination process into a fight to the bitter end – and within that fight she is more than ready to damage the party and other Democratic candidates in the process. While this reinforces the notion of Hillary the Battler, it also establish the notion that Hillary is only doing this for Hillary (as opposed to the Party or the country).
From that platform you can add the Bosnia stuff up which goes to the heart of her personal integrity and you end up with a lot of negative aura.
Catrina
What happens if the closing gap in national polls causes the SDs to stop moving towards to Obama side? Is this a likely occurance?
Can anyone here explain what the implications for the Democratic race would be if Clinton won in NC?
I know the expectations are that she’ll lose (and I still think she’ll lose), but there has been a definite narrowing in Obama’s lead over her in NC over the past week. You would think that such a victory would deliver her enormous momentum and may stem the flow of SDs to Obama and perhaps starting swinging them to her…
Hilary still likely to seat the Michigan & Florida delegates?
Yo ho ho 743
I don’t think so – most of the contests are done and dusted and its widely expected that the national popularity of the Democratic candidate will take a jump once the nomination is concluded.
Keep in mind that the remaining races only really enabling the following:
1. opportunities to engage more voters in the process
2. triggers for superdelegates to make announcements
3. closure of the public side of the process
In effect this story is already over – already the DNC is working with Obama on the National campaign, the Clinton campaign is losing steam, public support is drifting away in big numbers. Not a lot of this gets reported (I guess because its to much of a media cash-cow) but the reality is that most of the superdelegates have made up their minds for a while now – and are just in the background waiting for item 3 to get out of the way.
I find this article interesting. This guy has a bit to answer for. Edwards should have at least waited until after Super Tuesday and the California debate.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/01/joe-trippi-i-should-have_n_99716.html
Im just wondering as he is from North Carolina, I have heard in the United States that people can write names on the ballots and they will be counted. Is that in all states or just some?
Latest Board odds:
SportingBet;
Sen. Barack Obama – DEM 1.90
Sen. John McCain – REP 2.40
Sen. Hillary Clinton – DEM 6.00
Al Gore DEM 21.00
USA Democratic Candidate 2008 03 May 2008 22:00 Straight
Sen. Barack Obama 1.20
Sen. Hillary Clinton 4.25
Sen Al Gore 15.00
——————–
Centrebet:
OBAMA, Barack 2.10
MCCAIN, John 2.70
CLINTON, Hillary 4.25
—————————
Iasbet:
2008 Democratic Candidate ? 2008 US Presidential Election 9:00PM GMT +10:00
Selection Win
B Obama 1.28
H Clinton 3.50
2008 Winning Party ? 2008 US Presidential Election 9:00PM GMT +10:00
Selection Win
Democratic Party 1.57
Republican Party 2.40
Quite a variance in the odds quoted by CBet and SptBet for Pres. Someone’s been having a nibble at Duck Slayer. Best value for Brutusina fanciers is the $6 at SptBet, best for The Kid. $2.10 at Cbet, tenkewveddymuch!
——————-
Kirri at 724: “…this appalling travesty, no, this crime of imprisoning people without trial and continual abusive treatment is EXACTLY what is wrong with America.”
Couldn’t agree more. It’s the fly in their apple pie, the turd in their club sandwich, the metal tacks in their Big Macs.
“Sir, would you like a serve of Freedom Fries with that?!”
New Zogby – Obama up 16 in NC, all tied in Indiana. If $4 is still around for Obama in Indiana, get on.
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1495
Just a quick note about some updates on DCW. Hillary Clinton count just increased by 1 super as a result of the DCW receiving formal confirmation of an endorsement made by DNC Herman Farrell Jr. (NY) back in late February.
This brings the super delegate count to 22 advantage Clinton.
Obama: 244
Clinton: 266
There is also an update to the Pelosi Club (super delegates committed to supporting the candidate with the most pledged delegates) with the addition of the Former President Jimmy Carter, bringing the balance of 6 for Obama and -1 for Clinton.
Obama: 250
Clinton: 265
That puts the difference at 15 advantage Clinton.