Scuse me while I flag my latest pretty table and maps on the Polls etc thread here:
nimh wrote:On a state-by-state level, Hillary more electable than Obama, polls suggest
There has been a lot of discussion about who is the more "electable" Democratic candidate. Hillary, Obama and Edwards all have claimed or suggested that they were the most electable candidate, using different arguments: experience, cross-over appeal and occasionally, how they are polling.
In blogs and the like, discussions about how the polls show that this or that candidate is the more electable are more explicit. We've had them here too. But usually, the only references are to national match-up polls. There is little reference to how the candidates' appeal against possible Republican contenders plays out region by region, state by state. How does Hillary do, in relative terms, out West? How does Obama do in the South? When you dig into the state-by-state polling that's been done, it looks like Hillary might, surprisingly, be the more electable candidate.
Read on...
Krugman's blog this morning.... to filed under 'lest we forget'
January 9, 2008, 8:14 am
Nobody knows anything
But to be more specific, the prediction markets ?- which you see, again and again, touted as having some mystical power to aggregate information, know no more than the conventional wisdom. Here's the Intrade price for "Clinton wins the Democratic nomination" over the past month:
From inevitability to pitiful failure to front-runner again in just a few days. There's no hint that the market saw either Iowa or New Hampshire coming, or knew anything beyond the bloviations of the talking heads.
Wingnut denial at its most florid.. Michelle Malkin on Clinton's NH win:
Quote:Clinton's Campaign Remains in a Tailspin
Don't let the "Comeback Gal" spin fool you. Despite the unexpectedly close finish in New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton's campaign remains in a tailspin. [..]
Watching the Clinton "crack-up" before the vote was less like watching glass shatter upon sudden impact and more like watching wax melt under slow, steady heat.
It took a lifetime of lies, deception, hypocrisy and hardball power grabs before Hillary and Bill's political façades disintegrated. But now, finally, the empty dummy molds underneath have been laid bare completely. [..] Bill Clinton's diarrhea of the mouth didn't help.
This is kind of a cool video actually:
TPMtv: Five Days in New Hampshire
All Hillary - the highlights of how Hillary went from Iowa defeat to New Hampshire victory. And, apart from the "tearful" moment (which looks blatantly fake to me), it doesnt look too bad at all!
nimh
How familiar are you with David Gergen? I first became familiar with him about two decades ago when he was a friday regular on the PBS Newshour where he sat, speaking for the right, with Mark Shields, speaking for the left (he was later replaced by Paul Gigot, now editor at the WSJ, who was replaced by David Brooks who fills the role now.
Here's his web page (more at wikipedia too)
http://www.davidgergen.com/
Gergen, to me, represents something like the ideal political commentator where his integrity towards the truth of things trumps any partisan leanings. He's very bright and knowledgeable and careful in speech. Whenever Gergen is discussing some matter, I pay acute attention.
On this matter your speak of above, he said on one show that this episode with Hillary was entirely consistent with his own experiences working with her over many years. What was inconsistent was her public display. Not its sincerity either in terms of emotion or goals.
Quote:"I hate her. I hate her. All that she stands for."
-- Matthews to an MSNBC colleague, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer magazine in 2001
Chris Matthews
noted at mediamatters.org
And it shows, in each night's iteration of Hardball.
blatham wrote:How familiar are you with David Gergen?
Not familiar. I'll look up more about him...
blatham wrote:On this matter your speak of above, he said on one show that this episode with Hillary was entirely consistent with his own experiences working with her over many years. What was inconsistent was her public display. Not its sincerity either in terms of emotion or goals.
Hm. Well, colour me sceptical. I'm sure Hillary has many friends and (current or former) colleagues who will vouch for her character. And I do believe that she honestly wants to change the world for the better, as well as just become President out of ambition.
But - well, look at it this way - I'm hardly a fan of Hillary as you well know, but when I was watching that video compilation of the highlights of how the NH campaign went for her, I gradually became genuinely enthused. When you just watch her speak, not in unflattering contrast to how Obama or Edwards speak but just listen to only her part, she comes off a lot better. Makes you realise that even while she's clearly the less persuasive speaker among the three, she's still pretty good - and can come across as genuinely sympathetic.
But even as I found myself unusually friendly disposed to her during the video, my BS meter immediately shot up during the brief footage of her tearful moment. It just seemed blatantly fake to me.
What doesnt help impressions, of course, is today's follow-up:
Quote:See, I didn't believe any of those people who accused Clinton of crying on purpose - but I just saw her do it again (on CNN), while talking to some 65-year-old lady in Reno who was losing her home. Wiped her eyes, got the little catch in her throat
Susie Madrak at Suburban Guerrilla
35 years of experience, Hillary has, as we are often reminded. Do you remember a single time in all those years that she did this? And now that it's generally described as having won her NH, she does it for a second time in a week?
Meh. Not that this matters a whit substantively re her presidential qualifications, but since you're commenting on my take of it, this sure seem to validate my scepticism..
I can't believe she did it again. So soon? Does she really see the public as such boneheads to buy it twice?
Her pandering knows no shame.
I wonder if her husband took her aside and told her to dust off that old trick that he used. He polished the skill of biting his lip, and all the rest. And of course, there was the Ron Brown funeral where he was caught yukking it up, but when he saw the camera about to focus, he instantly changed his act to the grieving look and started tearing up. Of course, Bill is almost pathological, but I think he may have told her to try it, after all, it worked for him.
The pathetic part that bothers me about Hillary partially choking a bit while talking about things slipping away, it had nothing to do with the country, it was about her dreams of being president slipping away. It was a mini-tantrum. After all, her candidacy is not about policy, although she is a liberal feminist, her candidacy is all about her becoming president, thats it.
This is hilarious. And childish by the way.
http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/13/clinton-obama-rhetoric-heats-up-in-controversy-over-mlks-role-in-race-rights/
And by the way, how come Democrats get away with campaigning in churches all the time? What is the tax status of these churches? I thought churches could not be used for campaigning or they would lose their classification as tax exempt religious organization? Here we go again with these demagogues again. I was hoping we would not have to endure this again after listening to Gore shout from the pulpits.
January 14, 2008
Check Point
In Defending War Vote, Clintons Contradict Record
By ERIC LIPTON
WASHINGTON ?- Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton have repeatedly invoked the name of Senator Chuck Hagel, a longtime critic of the Iraq war, as they defend Mrs. Clinton's 2002 vote to authorize the war.
In interviews and at a recent campaign event, they have said that Mr. Hagel, Republican of Nebraska, helped draft the resolution, which they said was proof that the measure was more about urging Saddam Hussein to comply with weapons inspections, instead of authorizing combat.
Mrs. Clinton repeated the claim Sunday during an interview on "Meet the Press," saying "Chuck Hagel, who helped to draft the resolution, said it was not a vote for war."
"It was a vote to use the threat of force against Saddam Hussein, who never did anything without being made to do so," Mrs. Clinton said.
But the talking point appears to misconstrue the facts.
In October 2002, Mr. Hagel had in fact been working with Senators Joseph R. Biden Jr., Democrat of Delaware, and Richard G. Lugar, Republican of Indiana, on drafting a resolution that would have authorized the war.
But while those negotiations were under way, to the disappointment of some Congressional Democrats, the Bush administration circumvented their effort and reached a separate agreement with Representative Richard A. Gephardt, Democrat of Missouri, then the House minority leader.
That agreement resulted in a bill, sponsored in the Senate by Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, now an independent, which was slightly less restrictive than the proposal that Mr. Hagel had been helping to develop.
In the original proposal Mr. Hagel had backed, force was authorized only to secure the destruction of Iraq's unconventional weapons, not to enforce "all relevant" United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, which was the language in the version that ultimately passed.
It was the White House proposal, not Mr. Hagel's, that Mrs. Clinton supported, explaining in an Oct. 10, 2002, speech on the Senate floor that it was time to tell Saddam Hussein that "this is your last chance ?- disarm or be disarmed."
The repeated references to Mr. Hagel by the Clintons make it clear that they are trying to distance her from the Bush administration's handling of Iraq, by associating her with a persistent critic of the war.
Bill Clinton has raised the claim at least twice, including in an April 2007 interview on "Larry King Live" and, most recently, at a campaign event in New Hampshire just before the Democratic primary there.
"Chuck Hagel was one of the co-authors of that resolution, the only Republican Senator that always opposed the war, every day, from the get-go," Mr. Clinton said on Jan. 7. "He authored the resolution to say that Bush could go to war only if they didn't cooperate with the inspectors."
A spokesman for Mr. Hagel declined on Sunday to comment about the matter.
In an interview published in GQ magazine in January 2007, Mr. Hagel said that he helped shape the course of the debate ?- even if it was not his resolution that ultimately passed. He said he helped convince the White House to narrow its request for authorization to go to war just to Iraq. Initially, the administration wanted Congress to approve a broad measure that would not have necessarily specified Iraq as the only target, potentially allowing action elsewhere in the Middle East.
Phil Singer, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton, said Sunday that the statements by the senator and Mr. Clinton accurately reflected the role that Mr. Hagel played in the overall negotiations, even if it was not his bill that Congress voted on.
"Senator Hagel not only played a key role in drafting the 2002 authorization," Mr. Singer said, "but has spoken about those efforts at length."
Breaking News: Judge says MSNBC debate
must include Kucinich
-from the Los Angeles Times:
A judge in Nevada has just ordered MSNBC to include Rep. Dennis Kucinich in Tuesday's Democratic Party presidential debate in Las Vegas or he will cancel the forum.
Senior Clark County District Court Judge Charles Thompson vowed to issue an injunction halting the nationally televised debate if MSNBC failed to comply. Kucinich had filed a lawsuit seeking to be included just this morning.
The judge ruled it was a matter of fairness and Nevada voters would benefit from hearing from more than just Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama. Kucinich had been invited to participate in the 6 p.m. Pacific debate Tuesday, but that invitation was rescinded last week ... So set up a fourth podium.
Andrew Malcolm, correspondent - The Los Angeles Times
More insights to the latest Clinton Campaign attack on Obama'a voting record on Iraq.
The original source is the GOP. The article gives a convoluted timeline on all the democratic candidates and their record of support/opposition of the Iraq war. It can be found here:
http://www.gop.com/News/NewsRead.aspx?Guid=03b2d032-4ce1-4ee8-adb7-f24bc56a7f2b
The Clinton Campaign then created a Press Release quoting only the Obama portion of the RNC's timeline. You'll find that here:
http://thepage.time.com/clinton-release-on-obamas-iraq-record/
PolitiFact.com rebuts the RNC article here on behalf of both Obama and Clinton:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2007/aug/30/rnc-goes-after-clinton-obama-iraq/
The Chris Willis article cited in the RNC article and copied into the Clinton Press Release seems to have been deleted from the internet. Can't find it anywhere using several methods of search. Typical politics as usual to cite a news report that can't be found anywhere to read the quote in context.
It is very insulting that the Clinton campaign would then directly copy and paste that RNC article into their press release about Obama's record on Iraq, thereby continuing the politics as usual and making use of the RNC's playbook while masquerading Hillary as a concerned Democrat focused on Democratic party unity to oppose Republicans in the General Election.
pssst....
The rationale of 'truce' applies here as well.
(solidarity lesson number one)
ps
If paying attention, you folks will have noticed a growing sentiment (voiced by media people) in the direction of an Obama/Hillary or Hillary/Obama ticket. Don't discount it. Consider, aside from all else, the positives that can accrue from such a formidable pooling of talents.
blatham wrote:pssst....
The rationale of 'truce' applies here as well.
(solidarity lesson number one)
Don't forget this, though, Blatham:
Quote:Still, Obama said he would respond if he feels he is unfairly attacked.
"If the facts as presented aren't accurate, I'm going to try to correct the record," he said. "But what I want to avoid doing is dividing the party or in some way impugn the motives of the other candidates."
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/01/obama_seeks_to_lower_temperatu.html
blatham wrote:ps
If paying attention, you folks will have noticed a growing sentiment (voiced by media people) in the direction of an Obama/Hillary or Hillary/Obama ticket. Don't discount it. Consider, aside from all else, the positives that can accrue from such a formidable pooling of talents.
I've noticed. But I think this sentiment resides mostly in the realm of the media muckrackers, and reflects little if at all on the real potential for either Obama or Clinton to play second fiddle to the other.
blatham wrote:pssst....
The rationale of 'truce' applies here as well.
(solidarity lesson number one)
<looks up post from a few days ago... here it is:>
nimh wrote:Finn dAbuzz wrote:No one needs to fear that they will sink their candidates chance at the presidency by writing some unflattering comment about them. Believe me, if you can think of it, so can your candidate's opponents.
Finally something we agree on. I never got the argument about withholding all too sharp criticisms of one's 'own' side because you shouldnt provide the enemy with ammunition. Smacks like self-overestimation to me.
Nothing any one of us says here is going to have some deciding effect on the outcomes of the elections. There are hundreds of political sites with blogs and forums around, where you got thousands of random opinions like ours every day, and anything we could come up with has already been said a dozen times elsewhere. We're on A2K, not on the editorial pages of the
New York Times. Anything we post here will be inconsequential, so feel free to talk freely already.
blatham wrote:pssst....
The rationale of 'truce' applies here as well.
(solidarity lesson number one)
Blatham, you've spent the last year acting as traffic cop, devil's advocate and nanny anytime someone expresses opinions about Hillary's character and tactics. You usually frame your argument around the perceived brainwashing job done on us by the media.
In the above post I made there is some clear evidence of exactly what people are talking about regarding Hillary's campaign tactics and it comes directly from Hillary's campaign and not filtered through any media spin.
Have you looked at the Hillary campaign website lately to see all the attacks on Obama's record there? She doesn't allow comments or feedback on her website the way Obama does so the only method of response/rebuttal is by not being mute and fighting back. Is this what Democratic unity looks like to you?
