Hillary Clinton for President - 2008

kickycan wrote:

Uma Stalker Guilty! I'm glad you posted that; I'd missed it.

People though McCain was toast...hey, guess who will be the Repub nominee.

I actually saw Uma Thurman yesterday morning on my way to work. She was filming a scene in Soho. Weird coincidence, huh.

Brand X wrote:

People though McCain was toast...hey, guess who will be the Repub nominee.

Just because he's the Repub nominee doesn't mean he's not toast.

2. She didn't master the rules
Clinton picked people for her team primarily for their loyalty to her, instead of their mastery of the game. That became abundantly clear in a strategy session last year, according to two people who were there. As aides looked over the campaign calendar, chief strategist Mark Penn confidently predicted that an early win in California would put her over the top because she would pick up all the state's 370 delegates. It sounded smart, but as every high school civics student now knows, Penn was wrong: Democrats, unlike the Republicans, apportion their delegates according to vote totals, rather than allowing any state to award them winner-take-all. And yet the strategy remained the same, with the campaign making its bet on big-state victories. Even now, it can seem as if they don't get it. Both Bill and Hillary have noted plaintively that if Democrats had the same winner-take-all rules as Republicans, she'd be the nominee.

Hollywood Clinton backer said to threaten Pelosi with cutting off donations
By David Edwards Harvey Weinstein, the prominent movie producer and Democratic fundraiser, unleashed his legendary temper in a tirade aimed at House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Weinstein, who's backing Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, threatened to cut off the cash flow to Democratic congressional candidates if Pelosi does not get behind a proposal to fund do-over primaries in Michigan and Florida, CNN reports. Clinton's diminishing chances to snag the Democratic nomination are essentially dependent on seating delegates from those states at this summer's convention.

"CNN has learned that this is an explosive conversation," CNN's Ed Henry reported Thursday morning. "Three officials say that Havery Weinstein appeared determined to try and buy Hillary Clinton more time in her battle with Barack Obama."

Weinstein also pressed Pelosi to stop telling Democratic superdelegates that they should support whoever leads in the delegate count once the primaries are over in June.

"Otherwise," Henry reports, "Weinstein says he would help cut off money to House Democrats, in particular."

Weinstein's outburst is just the latest effort from Hollywood heavy hitters backing Clinton to pressure Pelosi on her superdelegate stand. In March, 20 Clinton fundraisers sent Pelosi a scathing letter urging her to repudiate her view on superdelegates. Signers of that letter, who did not include Weinstein, donated $24 million to Democratic causes, according to the Center for Responsive politics.

The Miramax founder who went on to form The Weinstein Co. has donated $400,000 to Democrats and allied causes since 1990, according to a database search.

Pelosi's and Weinstein's offices confirmed to CNN that the two had a conversation, but neither would characterize its tone. Henrys' sources told him that Pelosi was not cowed by the bombastic figure.

"Don't ever threaten me again," she reportedly said.

This video is from CNN's American Morning, broadcast May 8, 2008.

blueflame1 wrote:

Hollywood Clinton backer said to threaten Pelosi with cutting off donations
By David Edwards Harvey Weinstein, the prominent movie producer and Democratic fundraiser, unleashed his legendary temper in a tirade aimed at House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Weinstein, who's backing Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, threatened to cut off the cash flow to Democratic congressional candidates if Pelosi does not get behind a proposal to fund do-over primaries in Michigan and Florida, CNN reports. Clinton's diminishing chances to snag the Democratic nomination are essentially dependent on seating delegates from those states at this summer's convention.

"CNN has learned that this is an explosive conversation," CNN's Ed Henry reported Thursday morning. "Three officials say that Havery Weinstein appeared determined to try and buy Hillary Clinton more time in her battle with Barack Obama."

Weinstein also pressed Pelosi to stop telling Democratic superdelegates that they should support whoever leads in the delegate count once the primaries are over in June.

"Otherwise," Henry reports, "Weinstein says he would help cut off money to House Democrats, in particular."

Weinstein's outburst is just the latest effort from Hollywood heavy hitters backing Clinton to pressure Pelosi on her superdelegate stand. In March, 20 Clinton fundraisers sent Pelosi a scathing letter urging her to repudiate her view on superdelegates. Signers of that letter, who did not include Weinstein, donated $24 million to Democratic causes, according to the Center for Responsive politics.

The Miramax founder who went on to form The Weinstein Co. has donated $400,000 to Democrats and allied causes since 1990, according to a database search.

Pelosi's and Weinstein's offices confirmed to CNN that the two had a conversation, but neither would characterize its tone. Henrys' sources told him that Pelosi was not cowed by the bombastic figure.

"Don't ever threaten me again," she reportedly said.

This video is from CNN's American Morning, broadcast May 8, 2008.

I love it.

After Tuesday's split decisions in Indiana and North Carolina, Clinton, the Yankee Clipperette, can, and hence eventually will, creatively argue that she is really ahead of Barack Obama, or at any rate she is sort of tied, mathematically or morally or something, in popular votes, or delegates, or some combination of the two, as determined by Fermat's Last Theorem, or something, in states whose names begin with vowels, or maybe consonants, or perhaps some mixture of the two as determined by listening to a recording of the Beach Boys' "Help Me, Rhonda" played backward, or whatever other formula is most helpful to her, and counting the votes she received in Michigan, where hers was the only contending name on the ballot (her chief rivals, quaintly obeying their party's rules, boycotted the state, which had violated the party's rules for scheduling primaries), and counting the votes she received in Florida, which, like Michigan, was a scofflaw and where no one campaigned, and dividing Obama's delegate advantage in caucus states by pi multiplied by the square root of Yankee Stadium's Zip code.

"We," says Geoff Garin, a Clinton strategist who possesses the audacity of hopelessness required in that role, "don't think this is just going to be about some numerical metric." Mere numbers? Heaven forfend. That is how people speak when numerical metrics -- numbers of popular votes and delegates -- are inconvenient.

McCain's problem might turn out to be the fact that Obama is the Democrats' Reagan. Obama's rhetorical cotton candy lacks Reagan's ideological nourishment, but he is Reaganesque in two important senses: People like listening to him, and his manner lulls his adversaries into underestimating his sheer toughness -- the tempered steel beneath the sleek suits.

Feinstein to ask Clinton for her primary game plan

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), one of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-N.Y.) most prominent Senate supporters, said Wednesday that she will ask the former first lady to detail her plans for the rest of the Democratic primary.

"I, as you know, have great fondness and great respect for Sen. Clinton and I'm very loyal to her," Feinstein said. "Having said that, I'd like to talk with her and [get] her view on the rest of the race and what the strategy is."

Clinton, who eked out a win in Indiana Tuesday night but lost big to front-runner Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) in North Carolina, has not responded to Feinstein's phone call, the California senator said.

"I think the race is reaching the point now where there are negative dividends from it, in terms of strife within the party," Feinstein said. "I think we need to prevent that as much as we can."

Tuesday night's results are widely viewed as a blow to Clinton's hopes after she failed to deliver a "game-changing" performance. Instead, Obama extended his leads among delegates and popular votes.

Feinstein stressed that Clinton is not an "also-run candidate," but added that there is a question "as to whether she can get the delegates that she needs. I'd like to see what the strategy is and then we can talk further."

Hillary Rodham Clinton vowed Wednesday to continue her quest for the Democratic nomination, arguing she would be the stronger nominee [..].

"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

"There's a pattern emerging here," she said.

Somebody ought to call Hillary Clinton a racist. But it's not going to be Bill O'Reilly, or Rush Limbaugh, or Fox News -- not enough unemployed, lazy blacks in their demographics. So who's it going to be? Are these "remarks about race" best "described" by USA Today as "blunt?" Are they positively not "unifying?" Or... might we simply describe them as crude racial pandering?

Enough with the delicacy! [..] Just say it with me: "Hillary is trying racism in a last-ditch attempt to scare Democratic superdelegates away from Obama." Just saying this won't turn you into "The Nation." You can be... like... "The New York Times With Jon Stewart!" It'll be awesome.

There seem to be two issues here: First, her implication that blacks are not hardworking Americans. I agree that this was inadvertent, but no less damning for that. It most likely means that when she pictures "hardworking American" she pictures someone who is white. Not that she consciously believes that blacks aren't hardworking, just that they fall into some category that is not tagged by "American" or "hardworking". This tacit assumption that "white" is the default "American" condition is, I think, behind a lot of the remaining racism today. That said, you'd probably want more than a single slip of the tongue before calling someone a racist. She should just apologize for poor wording and we should all move on.

The second issue is whether white Americans will vote for Obama in sufficient numbers. There's nothing wrong with bringing this up. It should have been brought up ages ago. Also one should consider the question of whether sufficiently many Americans will vote for a woman. Most likely the answer to both questions is "In general, no, but this year the war and the economy will trump all other issues." In any case, it's too late to bring up the question now. Doesn't she realize that she would need to convince about 80% of the remaining superdelegates?

This isn't newsy, I just found it entertaining:

George Will wrote:

After Tuesday's split decisions in Indiana and North Carolina, Clinton, the Yankee Clipperette, can, and hence eventually will, creatively argue that she is really ahead of Barack Obama, or at any rate she is sort of tied, mathematically or morally or something, in popular votes, or delegates, or some combination of the two, as determined by Fermat's Last Theorem, or something, in states whose names begin with vowels, or maybe consonants, or perhaps some mixture of the two as determined by listening to a recording of the Beach Boys' "Help Me, Rhonda" played backward, or whatever other formula is most helpful to her, [..] and dividing Obama's delegate advantage in caucus states by pi multiplied by the square root of Yankee Stadium's Zip code.

Voices in Her Head
Inside Hillaryland's fatal psychodrama.

The New Republic
by Michelle Cottle

Get A Faster Plane
Cogitamus

Hillary is back to slamming Obama for not getting the vote of "hard-working Americans" -- cause you know, all those blacks and higher-educated folk dont count as such, apparently.

Link:

Quote:

Hillary Rodham Clinton vowed Wednesday to continue her quest for the Democratic nomination, arguing she would be the stronger nominee [..].

"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

Rangel critical of Clinton's 'white Americans' remark

One of Hillary Rodham Clinton's most important supporters, Charles Rangel, repudiated her claims she has broader support among "white Americans," calling the comments "the dumbest thing she could ever have said."

The Harlem congressman's criticism of Clinton came as rival Barack Obama Saturday took the lead among superdelegates, the group that will decide the Democratic Party's presidential nomination.

Speaking to reporters before introducing Clinton at a Manhattan fundraiser Saturday, Rangel chastised the remarks as "very poorly worded."

He was referring to comments Clinton made in an interview last week with USA Today in which she touted her electability. Clinton said Obama's support among "working, hard-working Americans, white Americans" was weak in comparison to her own. [..]

Rangel went on to acknowledge candidates had their respective strengths and weaknesses. "In any campaign, there are groups of people that you know that you have and groups of people that you don't," he said. "And I don't care what it is. White, black, Catholic, Protestant -- pollsters and newspaper reporters, that's all they know, and so they keep asking the same question over and over. I mean, this happens in campaigns."

Nevertheless, he said "anyone with common sense or reason" would conclude Obama had already shown he could win over white voters.

In denouncing how Clinton appealed to white voters, Rangel's criticism was both political and historical. The dean of the state's congressional delegation was the first local politician to approach Clinton about a Senate run in 2000 -- and was one of a handful of prominent African-American politicians to stump for her during the critical South Carolina primary in January.

Privately, Clinton supporters and staffers have questioned Obama's electability, particularly after the re-emergence of his firebrand former pastor the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. But on Friday, Clinton strategist Geoff Garin stepped back from Clinton's comments, saying no one in the campaign was suggesting the Illinois senator couldn't win the White House.

Rangel's frustration with Clinton's comments didn't stop him from introducing her at the fundraiser where he told the crowd of 1,100 that talk of Clinton leaving the race was nonsense.

"When in the world did a winner ever quit?" Rangel said. "We know Hillary Clinton. We have worked with Hillary Clinton, and we need Hillary Clinton now more than ever," he said. [..]

It's a commentary (a sad, infuriating goddam one, at that) about what is generally considered as unacceptably foul for a public pronouncement and what is considered fair political maneuvering, that demands aren't being made that she apologize for this very insulting "choice of words". Hell, Obama nearly had to publicly chop off a pound of flesh for saying people cling to religion and guns.