White House Papers Expose Lies of Clinton, Emanuel & Gergen On NAFTA
By David Sirota
Credo Action, 3/20/08
Finally, the dishonesty is being unmasked. Finally, we see just how much we're being lied to when it comes to economic policy. Finally, we see it hasn't just been Hillary Clinton lying about her role in championing NAFTA, but we see it is the entire Clinton machine.
For the last few weeks, Hillary Clinton has been claiming that she never supported the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). She has explicitly claimed "I have been a critic of NAFTA from the very beginning."
Clinton's record of speeches over the last decade, of course, tells a much different story. In 1996, she toured Texas to promote NAFTA. In 1998, she visited Davos, Switzerland to thank corporations for mounting "a very effective business effort in the U.S. on behalf of NAFTA." In her memoir a few years ago, she touted NAFTA as one of her husband's big successes. In 2004, she told reporters that "NAFTA has been good for New York and America."
And yet, despite all of this evidence, Clinton has worked to confuse voters by insisting that she has always been fighting against NAFTA. As I've written in another post, it is a tactic reminiscent of Joe Lieberman denying he supported the Iraq War in the lead up to his 2006 election contest with Ned Lamont. And it is a tactic that Establishment shills have tried to embolden. As just one example, the esteemed David Gergen has used his television platform to back up Clinton's historical revisionism - and Gergen has been cited by others as "proof" Clinton's claims are true - despite, of course, her very own words.
But now with the release of Clinton's White House schedules, the veneer has been torn off, and the brazen dishonesty is finally on display for everyone to see. As Reuters reports:
"Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton now argues that the North American Free Trade Agreement needs to be renegotiated, but newly released records showed on Wednesday she promoted its passage...Among the thousands of details of daily life for Clinton, there was a November 10, 1993, entry -- a 'NAFTA Briefing drop-by,' in Room 450 of the executive office building next door to the White House, closed to the news media. Approximately 120 people were expected to attend the briefing, and Clinton was to be introduced by White House aide Alexis Herman for brief remarks concluding the program."
ABC's Jake Tapper digs even deeper, noting that at one of the meetings, Gergen "served as a sort of master of ceremonies as various women members of the Cabinet talked up NAFTA." In other words, Gergen has been on television deliberately lying for the Clinton campaign, as he was actually running these NAFTA-promoting events with Clinton. Tapper goes on to interview people who were in the room.
This revelation comes just as the other appendages of the Clinton machine attempts to revise history even further. This week, Rahm Emanuel - the chief White House lobbyist who rammed NAFTA through Congress - authored a Wall Street Journal op-ed praising candidates for indicting NAFTA and claiming "I share their concern for Americans who have lost their jobs to global competition." To quote my book Hostile Takeover, this is "the same Rahm Emanuel who penned an op-ed in the conservative Wall Street Journal pressuring Democrats to capitulate and pass the 2000 China trade deal - a move perfectly timed to help secure the critical votes that ultimately passed the deal."
The facts are clear: The Clinton machine joined with K Street to manufacture the very international economic policies that are destroying the economy. And yet, this same machine now claims to have had nothing to do with those economic policies - at the very moment, the machine is pushing a NAFTA-style Colombia Free Trade Agreement in Congress. We are, in short, experiencing the renaissance of "Clintonism" - an ideology that treats Americans like we are stupid and treats basic undebatable facts as commodities to be manipulated and perverted for personal gain. And that renaissance should make everyone question all the recent promises by Clinton about changing NAFTA.
Had she simply acknowledged she was for NAFTA and that now she's not for NAFTA, that might give her some credibility. But, then, this is a candidate who just a few months ago laughed at a serious question about NAFTA, claiming "all I can remember are a bunch of charts." In other words, this is a candidate and a campaign machine that is absolutely uninterested in how these policies have devastated the middle class - and hostile to an honest discussion about those policies. So the question now is simple: Can a Wall-Street backed candidate who denies the undeniable past be trusted with the future?
--
--------------------Pre-order David Sirota's upcoming book The Uprising: An Unauthorized Tour of the Populist Revolt Scaring Wall Street & Washington. The book will be released in June of 2008. A logical follow-up to his 2006 New York Times bestseller Hostile Takeover, Sirota's new book uses firsthand, on-the-ground reporting far away from the national media spotlight to explore the most intense and successful organizing at the edges of American politics. To pre-order the book, go to Amazon, Barnes & Noble or Powell's Bookstore. To subscribe to Sirota's regular newsletter, go to www.davidsirota.com and sign up on the left hand side.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Sunday, March 16, 2008
The Bottom Line: 7 Mistakes Doomed the Clinton Campaign
The verdict is in and only the paperwork remains to be completed. Hillary mismanaged her campaign and blew It, Barack ran a brilliant campaign and snatched it; and Rendell, Onorato and Ravenstahl missed it!
The Democrat presidential endorsement is won by who gets the most delegate votes. The pledged delegates represent the millions of voters who cast their ballots in primaries and caucuses. The 795 super delegates are the members of congress, local elected officials and party officers. To win a candidate needs 2025 delegates.
Currently Obama leads in total delegates with 1628 delegates to 1493; and 1415 to 1245 when only pledged delegates are considered.
Since delegates are won on a proportional basis in each state, no winner take all, it is estimated that Clinton would have to win more than 65% of the vote in all of the remaining 10 states to even catch Obama. A feat that virtually all of the experts agree is impossible.
Clinton’s campaign has been fatally flawed from the beginning. Seven mistakes doomed her candidacy
1. Assuming that the voters would not be tired of the 20 years of Bush/Clinton/Bush occupancy of the White House
2. Assuming that Bill Clinton was a net plus for her campaign
3. Assuming that experience would be the deciding narrative of this election for voters; instead change was
4. Assuming that not many voters would not see how flimsy her claim of 35 years of experience really was
5. Assuming with a stunning arrogance that the February 5th Super Tuesday primaries and caucuses would decide the contest and not planning or preparing for any campaigns after that date
6. Assuming that they could run a ‘fat’ campaign never dreaming that they would not raise the most money and would run out of money right when they needed it most- after Super Tuesday
7. Assuming that Black voters, and independents would overwhelmingly support her when instead; Blacks shifted their support and independents have nearly always greatly favored Obama
So why do some in the main stream media and in the political establishment continue to think Clinton is the best candidate when it is clear that she failed to
· Provide strategic leadership
· Exercise competent executive management to her campaign
· Build a competent campaign organization
· Develop a compelling rationale for her candidacy other than gender
· Develop an effective strategy for victory
· Adjust quickly and effectively when it became clear the initial strategy was not working
Conversely Obama
· Assembled a first rate campaign team
· Crafted a winning strategy
· Presented a compelling rationale for his campaign other than race
· Found the proper balance between the campaign on the ground and the virtual or Internet campaign
· Built an unprecedented enthusiastic grassroots movement of supporters
· Raised by far the most money without being beholding to the usual fat cats
· Demonstrated that he could win the support of the young, independents and Republicans
Pennsylvania is decidedly old school, having one of the oldest populations in the country with the exception of the retirement capitol Florida. The Keystone state is also one of a dwindling number of states where there is still traditional Democrat party machines operating. Governor Rendell, County Chief Executive Onorato and Pittsburgh Mayor Ravenstahl have unsurprisingly played it safe by endorsing Clinton. These elected officials may win the battle (the Pa. Primary) only to lose the war in the future (future races for Governor and Mayor) when the supporters of Obama reflect on this behavior. For example Obama supporter Pittsburgh City Controller Michael Lamb is looking good as a future challenger of Mayor Ravenstahl, and perhaps Obama supporter Congressman Chaka Fattah will fare better against Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter next time.
Bottom line is that Clinton cannot win it as the rules are set. Only by dirty tricks and an undemocratic stampede of super delegates who ignore the rules and the will of the voters can she succeed.
WARNING: turn off the young voters, the independent voters, and the African American voters and the Democrats lose the White House in November.
Some people think that the Black vote has nowhere to go but the facts say otherwise. The percentage of registered African American voters in Pennsylvania is 9%. The percentage of the Black votes cast as a percentage of the total Pennsylvania vote in the last three presidential elections was 9% in 1996, 7% in 2000 and 13% in 2004. Blacks cast 90% of their votes for Gore vs. 7% for Bush in 2000, and 83% for Kerry vs. 16% for Bush in 2004.
Kerry won the Keystone state in 2004 with 2,938,095 to 2,793,847 for Bush a difference of only 144,248 votes or 2.5%! In 2004 Blacks cast 745,000 ballots (13%) in Pennsylvania.
A fall off of only 20% of the Black vote in Pennsylvania would have given Kerry 149,000 less votes and moved the state into the Republican column. Unlikely you say? Well the 20% fall off does not have to be comprised of only Black voters, a disaffected young and independent electorate coupled with a disenchanted Black community can easily translate into a drop off of 20% of the turnout.
This calculus can be even more devastating in the 11 states that had African American voter turnout percentages of 13% or more in 2004. As the young people might say- the Democrats better recognize!
The Democrat presidential endorsement is won by who gets the most delegate votes. The pledged delegates represent the millions of voters who cast their ballots in primaries and caucuses. The 795 super delegates are the members of congress, local elected officials and party officers. To win a candidate needs 2025 delegates.
Currently Obama leads in total delegates with 1628 delegates to 1493; and 1415 to 1245 when only pledged delegates are considered.
Since delegates are won on a proportional basis in each state, no winner take all, it is estimated that Clinton would have to win more than 65% of the vote in all of the remaining 10 states to even catch Obama. A feat that virtually all of the experts agree is impossible.
Clinton’s campaign has been fatally flawed from the beginning. Seven mistakes doomed her candidacy
1. Assuming that the voters would not be tired of the 20 years of Bush/Clinton/Bush occupancy of the White House
2. Assuming that Bill Clinton was a net plus for her campaign
3. Assuming that experience would be the deciding narrative of this election for voters; instead change was
4. Assuming that not many voters would not see how flimsy her claim of 35 years of experience really was
5. Assuming with a stunning arrogance that the February 5th Super Tuesday primaries and caucuses would decide the contest and not planning or preparing for any campaigns after that date
6. Assuming that they could run a ‘fat’ campaign never dreaming that they would not raise the most money and would run out of money right when they needed it most- after Super Tuesday
7. Assuming that Black voters, and independents would overwhelmingly support her when instead; Blacks shifted their support and independents have nearly always greatly favored Obama
So why do some in the main stream media and in the political establishment continue to think Clinton is the best candidate when it is clear that she failed to
· Provide strategic leadership
· Exercise competent executive management to her campaign
· Build a competent campaign organization
· Develop a compelling rationale for her candidacy other than gender
· Develop an effective strategy for victory
· Adjust quickly and effectively when it became clear the initial strategy was not working
Conversely Obama
· Assembled a first rate campaign team
· Crafted a winning strategy
· Presented a compelling rationale for his campaign other than race
· Found the proper balance between the campaign on the ground and the virtual or Internet campaign
· Built an unprecedented enthusiastic grassroots movement of supporters
· Raised by far the most money without being beholding to the usual fat cats
· Demonstrated that he could win the support of the young, independents and Republicans
Pennsylvania is decidedly old school, having one of the oldest populations in the country with the exception of the retirement capitol Florida. The Keystone state is also one of a dwindling number of states where there is still traditional Democrat party machines operating. Governor Rendell, County Chief Executive Onorato and Pittsburgh Mayor Ravenstahl have unsurprisingly played it safe by endorsing Clinton. These elected officials may win the battle (the Pa. Primary) only to lose the war in the future (future races for Governor and Mayor) when the supporters of Obama reflect on this behavior. For example Obama supporter Pittsburgh City Controller Michael Lamb is looking good as a future challenger of Mayor Ravenstahl, and perhaps Obama supporter Congressman Chaka Fattah will fare better against Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter next time.
Bottom line is that Clinton cannot win it as the rules are set. Only by dirty tricks and an undemocratic stampede of super delegates who ignore the rules and the will of the voters can she succeed.
WARNING: turn off the young voters, the independent voters, and the African American voters and the Democrats lose the White House in November.
Some people think that the Black vote has nowhere to go but the facts say otherwise. The percentage of registered African American voters in Pennsylvania is 9%. The percentage of the Black votes cast as a percentage of the total Pennsylvania vote in the last three presidential elections was 9% in 1996, 7% in 2000 and 13% in 2004. Blacks cast 90% of their votes for Gore vs. 7% for Bush in 2000, and 83% for Kerry vs. 16% for Bush in 2004.
Kerry won the Keystone state in 2004 with 2,938,095 to 2,793,847 for Bush a difference of only 144,248 votes or 2.5%! In 2004 Blacks cast 745,000 ballots (13%) in Pennsylvania.
A fall off of only 20% of the Black vote in Pennsylvania would have given Kerry 149,000 less votes and moved the state into the Republican column. Unlikely you say? Well the 20% fall off does not have to be comprised of only Black voters, a disaffected young and independent electorate coupled with a disenchanted Black community can easily translate into a drop off of 20% of the turnout.
This calculus can be even more devastating in the 11 states that had African American voter turnout percentages of 13% or more in 2004. As the young people might say- the Democrats better recognize!
Saturday, March 15, 2008
The Wright Stuff
THE WRIGHT STUFF ...Sermons of Rev. Jeremiah Wright of Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ, otherwise known as Barack Obama's pastor, are circulating wildly around the internet the last 24 hours. They show Wright passionately denouncing racism against blacks in America, in sometimes sharp language, and pointing out the ills of American foreign policy pre-9/11. Fox News and the right-wing blogosphere are outraged, the mainstream media is eagerly amplifying the selected sermons and the Clinton campaign is delighting that Obama's Chicago ties are receiving serious scrutiny.
Before delving into the specifics, there's a bit of irony here. Democrats have been told over and over that they need to get religion. And then when a candidate like Obama comes around--who regularly attends church and speaks about his faith in an inclusive, authentic way--he's attacked for which church he attends. It's a lose-lose situation! Before the primary Obama was accused of not being black enough. Now he's too black. To the right-wing and much of the media, Rev. Wright is just the latest evidence of Obama's radical black nationalist past. (See my latest Nation article, "Smearing Obama," for an anatomy of the smear campaign hatched against Obama.)
Wright has always been an outspoken maverick and some of his words will likely turn some voters off, although these are probably people who would never vote for a Democrat anyway. You'd expect that, in the heat of an election, he'd be a little bit more tactful about what he says, though he did retire last month. Yes, Obama borrowed the title of one of Wright's sermons, "The Audacity of Hope," for his most recent book. But Wright's words, by and large, are not Obama's.
Their connection is a personal one, not political.
And, by the way, how come righteous Republicans are rarely asked about the views of their spiritual advisers? Or why wasn't George W. Bush (and the presidents preceding him) forced to distance himself from the anti-semitic comments of Billy Graham?
Over at TPM Cafe, MJ Rosenberg of the Israel Policy Forum makes a great point about the separation that should exist between congregation and congregant:
I've been a member of a conservative Jewish congregation for 25 years. I love the rabbi but not his sermons on Israel and the Palestinians. He is a total Israel hawk. To put it mildly, I am not. I am all about the two-state solution (the so-called Clinton plan).
Even worse, the congregation has become the favorite of Washington's neocons including the worst warmonger of all: Douglas Feith. The idea of communing with God together with a thug like Feith is sickening to me. Then there is Charles Krauthammer who, in 2001, disrupted Yom Kippur services by bellowing at the rabbi for expressing, in the most general terms, the desire for Middle East peace. The worst moment I've ever had at my congregation was when a visiting rabbi from Europe (he comes every year for the High Holy Days) devoted an entire sermon to the value of hate. "To everything there is a season. This is a season for hate." He was talking about the Palestinians. I almost puked.
And yet I am a member of this congregation and will remain one. Why? As I said, I like the rabbi (the regular one, not the annual visitor) despite disagreeing strongly with many of his views. More important, this is the congregation that my kids grew up in. This is where their Bar Mitzvahs took place. The people there (not the war criminals though) are kind of like family. It's home. Probably how Obama feels about his church.
The bottom line is that I am not discredited as a strong supporter of a Palestinian state and the end of the occupation because my rabbi has a different view. Pro-peace Israelis, Palestinians, and other Arabs do not refuse to work with me because I go to the "neocon" synagogue. My writings on Israel/Palestine are not disregarded because my rabbi is a Likud guy.
Of course, not. My rabbi's views are his views. He is my spiritual adviser not my political adviser.
What Wright is saying, moreover, is not particularly radical. The legacy of racism in America--and its existence today--can't simply be ignored or washed away. As one of Wright's church members says of his sermons near the end of a highly skewed ABC News "investigation" into Obama's Chicago church, "I wouldn't call it radical. I'd call it being black in America." Amen.
Posted by Ari Berman at 03/14/2008 @ 2:45pm Email This Post
Before delving into the specifics, there's a bit of irony here. Democrats have been told over and over that they need to get religion. And then when a candidate like Obama comes around--who regularly attends church and speaks about his faith in an inclusive, authentic way--he's attacked for which church he attends. It's a lose-lose situation! Before the primary Obama was accused of not being black enough. Now he's too black. To the right-wing and much of the media, Rev. Wright is just the latest evidence of Obama's radical black nationalist past. (See my latest Nation article, "Smearing Obama," for an anatomy of the smear campaign hatched against Obama.)
Wright has always been an outspoken maverick and some of his words will likely turn some voters off, although these are probably people who would never vote for a Democrat anyway. You'd expect that, in the heat of an election, he'd be a little bit more tactful about what he says, though he did retire last month. Yes, Obama borrowed the title of one of Wright's sermons, "The Audacity of Hope," for his most recent book. But Wright's words, by and large, are not Obama's.
Their connection is a personal one, not political.
And, by the way, how come righteous Republicans are rarely asked about the views of their spiritual advisers? Or why wasn't George W. Bush (and the presidents preceding him) forced to distance himself from the anti-semitic comments of Billy Graham?
Over at TPM Cafe, MJ Rosenberg of the Israel Policy Forum makes a great point about the separation that should exist between congregation and congregant:
I've been a member of a conservative Jewish congregation for 25 years. I love the rabbi but not his sermons on Israel and the Palestinians. He is a total Israel hawk. To put it mildly, I am not. I am all about the two-state solution (the so-called Clinton plan).
Even worse, the congregation has become the favorite of Washington's neocons including the worst warmonger of all: Douglas Feith. The idea of communing with God together with a thug like Feith is sickening to me. Then there is Charles Krauthammer who, in 2001, disrupted Yom Kippur services by bellowing at the rabbi for expressing, in the most general terms, the desire for Middle East peace. The worst moment I've ever had at my congregation was when a visiting rabbi from Europe (he comes every year for the High Holy Days) devoted an entire sermon to the value of hate. "To everything there is a season. This is a season for hate." He was talking about the Palestinians. I almost puked.
And yet I am a member of this congregation and will remain one. Why? As I said, I like the rabbi (the regular one, not the annual visitor) despite disagreeing strongly with many of his views. More important, this is the congregation that my kids grew up in. This is where their Bar Mitzvahs took place. The people there (not the war criminals though) are kind of like family. It's home. Probably how Obama feels about his church.
The bottom line is that I am not discredited as a strong supporter of a Palestinian state and the end of the occupation because my rabbi has a different view. Pro-peace Israelis, Palestinians, and other Arabs do not refuse to work with me because I go to the "neocon" synagogue. My writings on Israel/Palestine are not disregarded because my rabbi is a Likud guy.
Of course, not. My rabbi's views are his views. He is my spiritual adviser not my political adviser.
What Wright is saying, moreover, is not particularly radical. The legacy of racism in America--and its existence today--can't simply be ignored or washed away. As one of Wright's church members says of his sermons near the end of a highly skewed ABC News "investigation" into Obama's Chicago church, "I wouldn't call it radical. I'd call it being black in America." Amen.
Posted by Ari Berman at 03/14/2008 @ 2:45pm Email This Post
Friday, March 14, 2008
HILLARY'S NEW MATH PROBLEM
Hillary’s New Math Problem
Tuesday's big wins? The delegate calculus just got worse.
Jonathan Alter
Newsweek Web Exclusive
Updated: 6:48 PM ET Mar 5, 2008
Hillary Clinton won big victories Tuesday night in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island. But she's now even further behind in the race for the Democratic nomination. How could that be? Math. It's relentless.
To beat Barack Obama among pledged delegates, Clinton now needs even bigger margins in the 12 remaining primaries than she needed when I ran the numbers on Monday--an average of 23 points, which is more than double what she received in Ohio.
Superdelegates won't help Clinton if she cannot erase Obama's lead among pledged delegates, which now stands at roughly 134. Caucus results from Texas aren't complete, but Clinton will probably net about 10 delegates out of March 4. That's 10 down, 134 to go. Good luck.
I've asked several prominent uncommitted superdelegates if there's any chance they would reverse the will of Democratic voters. They all say no. It would shatter young people and destroy the party.
Hillary's only hope lies in the popular vote-a yardstick on which she now trails Obama by about 600,000 votes. Should she end the primary season in June with a lead in popular votes, she could get a hearing from uncommitted superdelegates for all the other arguments that she would make a stronger nominee. (Wins the big states, etc.). If she loses both the pledged delegate count and the popular vote, no argument will cause the superdelegates to disenfranchise millions of Democratic voters. It will be over.
Projecting popular votes precisely is impossible because there's no way to calculate turnout. But Clinton would likely need do-overs in Michigan and Florida (whose January primaries didn't count because they broke Democratic Party rules). But even this probably wouldn't give her the necessary popular vote margins.
Remember, Obama's name wasn't even on the Michigan ballot when voters there went to the polls. Even if he's trounced there (and Michigan, won by Jesse Jackson in 1988, has a large African-American vote in its primary), Obama would still win hundreds of thousands of popular votes. This is also an argument for why Obama may end up preferring a primary to a caucus in Michigan. (Obama has done better in caucuses).
Florida, with its heavy population of elderly and Jewish voters, might be a better place for Hillary to close the popular vote gap. But even if you assume she does five points better than her double-digit win there in the meaningless February primary (where no one campaigned), she would still fall short.
I'm no good at math, but with the help of "Slate’s Delegate Calculator" I've once again scoped out the rest of the primaries. In order to show how deep a hole she's in, I've given her the benefit of the doubt every week. That's 12 victories in a row, bigger in total than Obama's run of 11 straight. And this time I've assigned her even larger margins than I did before in Wyoming, North Carolina, Indiana and Kentucky.
So here we go again:
Let's assume that on Saturday in Wyoming, Hillary's March 4 momentum gives her an Ohio-style 10-point win, confounding every expectation. Next Tuesday in Mississippi, where African-Americans play a big role in the Democratic primary, she shocks the political world by again winning 55-45.
Then on April 22, the big one-Pennsylvania-and it's a Hillary blow-out: 60-40, with Clinton picking up a whopping 32 delegates. She wins both of Guam's two delegates on May 3 and Indiana's proximity to Illinois does Obama no good on May 6. The Hoosiers go for Hillary 55-45 and the same day brings another huge upset in a heavily African-American state. Enough blacks desert Obama to give North Carolina to Hillary in another big win, 55-45, netting her seven more delegates.
May 13 in West Virginia is no kinder to Obama, and he loses by double digits, netting Clinton two delegates. Another 60-40 landslide on May 20 in Kentucky nets her 11 more. The same day brings Oregon, a classic Obama state. Ooops! He loses there 52-48. Hillary wins by 10 in Montana and South Dakota on June 3 and the scheduled primary season ends on June 7 in Puerto Rico with another big Viva Clinton! Hillary pulls off a 60-40 landslide, giving her another 11 delegates.
Given that I've put not a thumb but my whole fist on the scale, this fanciful calculation gives Hillary the lead, right? Actually, it makes the score 1,625 to 1,584 for Obama. A margin of 41 pledged delegates may not seem like much, but remember, the chances of Obama losing state after state by 20-point margins are slim to none.
So no matter how you cut it, Obama will almost certainly end the primaries with a pledged delegate lead, courtesy of all those landslides in February. What happens then? Will Democrats come together before the Denver Convention opens in late August?
We know that Hillary is unlikely to quit. This will leave it up to the superdelegates to figure out how to settle on a nominee. With 205 already committed to Obama, he would need another 200 uncommitted superdelegates to get to the magic number of 2025 delegates needed to nominate. But that's only under my crazy pro-Hillary projections. More likely, Obama would need about 50-100 of the approximately 500 uncommitted superdelegates, which shouldn't be too difficult.
But let's say all the weeks of negative feeling have taken a toll. Let's say that Clinton supporters are feeling embittered and inclined to sit on their hands. It's not too hard to imagine prominent superdelegates asking Obama to consider putting Hillary on the ticket.
This might be the wrong move for him. A national security choice like Sen. Jim Webb, former Sen. Sam Nunn or retired Gen. Anthony Zinni could make more sense. But if Obama did ask Clinton, don't assume she would say no just because she has, well, already served as de facto vice president for eight years under her husband. (Sorry, Al).
In fact, she would probably say yes. When there's a good chance to win, almost no one has ever said no. (Colin Powell is the exception). In 1960, when the vice-presidency was worth a lot less, Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson gave up his powerful position to run with John F. Kennedy.
How about Clinton-Obama? Nope. The Clintonites can spin to their heart's content about how big March 4 was for them. How close the race is. How they've got the Big Mo now. Tell it to Slate's Delegate Calculator. Again.
URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/119010
Tuesday's big wins? The delegate calculus just got worse.
Jonathan Alter
Newsweek Web Exclusive
Updated: 6:48 PM ET Mar 5, 2008
Hillary Clinton won big victories Tuesday night in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island. But she's now even further behind in the race for the Democratic nomination. How could that be? Math. It's relentless.
To beat Barack Obama among pledged delegates, Clinton now needs even bigger margins in the 12 remaining primaries than she needed when I ran the numbers on Monday--an average of 23 points, which is more than double what she received in Ohio.
Superdelegates won't help Clinton if she cannot erase Obama's lead among pledged delegates, which now stands at roughly 134. Caucus results from Texas aren't complete, but Clinton will probably net about 10 delegates out of March 4. That's 10 down, 134 to go. Good luck.
I've asked several prominent uncommitted superdelegates if there's any chance they would reverse the will of Democratic voters. They all say no. It would shatter young people and destroy the party.
Hillary's only hope lies in the popular vote-a yardstick on which she now trails Obama by about 600,000 votes. Should she end the primary season in June with a lead in popular votes, she could get a hearing from uncommitted superdelegates for all the other arguments that she would make a stronger nominee. (Wins the big states, etc.). If she loses both the pledged delegate count and the popular vote, no argument will cause the superdelegates to disenfranchise millions of Democratic voters. It will be over.
Projecting popular votes precisely is impossible because there's no way to calculate turnout. But Clinton would likely need do-overs in Michigan and Florida (whose January primaries didn't count because they broke Democratic Party rules). But even this probably wouldn't give her the necessary popular vote margins.
Remember, Obama's name wasn't even on the Michigan ballot when voters there went to the polls. Even if he's trounced there (and Michigan, won by Jesse Jackson in 1988, has a large African-American vote in its primary), Obama would still win hundreds of thousands of popular votes. This is also an argument for why Obama may end up preferring a primary to a caucus in Michigan. (Obama has done better in caucuses).
Florida, with its heavy population of elderly and Jewish voters, might be a better place for Hillary to close the popular vote gap. But even if you assume she does five points better than her double-digit win there in the meaningless February primary (where no one campaigned), she would still fall short.
I'm no good at math, but with the help of "Slate’s Delegate Calculator" I've once again scoped out the rest of the primaries. In order to show how deep a hole she's in, I've given her the benefit of the doubt every week. That's 12 victories in a row, bigger in total than Obama's run of 11 straight. And this time I've assigned her even larger margins than I did before in Wyoming, North Carolina, Indiana and Kentucky.
So here we go again:
Let's assume that on Saturday in Wyoming, Hillary's March 4 momentum gives her an Ohio-style 10-point win, confounding every expectation. Next Tuesday in Mississippi, where African-Americans play a big role in the Democratic primary, she shocks the political world by again winning 55-45.
Then on April 22, the big one-Pennsylvania-and it's a Hillary blow-out: 60-40, with Clinton picking up a whopping 32 delegates. She wins both of Guam's two delegates on May 3 and Indiana's proximity to Illinois does Obama no good on May 6. The Hoosiers go for Hillary 55-45 and the same day brings another huge upset in a heavily African-American state. Enough blacks desert Obama to give North Carolina to Hillary in another big win, 55-45, netting her seven more delegates.
May 13 in West Virginia is no kinder to Obama, and he loses by double digits, netting Clinton two delegates. Another 60-40 landslide on May 20 in Kentucky nets her 11 more. The same day brings Oregon, a classic Obama state. Ooops! He loses there 52-48. Hillary wins by 10 in Montana and South Dakota on June 3 and the scheduled primary season ends on June 7 in Puerto Rico with another big Viva Clinton! Hillary pulls off a 60-40 landslide, giving her another 11 delegates.
Given that I've put not a thumb but my whole fist on the scale, this fanciful calculation gives Hillary the lead, right? Actually, it makes the score 1,625 to 1,584 for Obama. A margin of 41 pledged delegates may not seem like much, but remember, the chances of Obama losing state after state by 20-point margins are slim to none.
So no matter how you cut it, Obama will almost certainly end the primaries with a pledged delegate lead, courtesy of all those landslides in February. What happens then? Will Democrats come together before the Denver Convention opens in late August?
We know that Hillary is unlikely to quit. This will leave it up to the superdelegates to figure out how to settle on a nominee. With 205 already committed to Obama, he would need another 200 uncommitted superdelegates to get to the magic number of 2025 delegates needed to nominate. But that's only under my crazy pro-Hillary projections. More likely, Obama would need about 50-100 of the approximately 500 uncommitted superdelegates, which shouldn't be too difficult.
But let's say all the weeks of negative feeling have taken a toll. Let's say that Clinton supporters are feeling embittered and inclined to sit on their hands. It's not too hard to imagine prominent superdelegates asking Obama to consider putting Hillary on the ticket.
This might be the wrong move for him. A national security choice like Sen. Jim Webb, former Sen. Sam Nunn or retired Gen. Anthony Zinni could make more sense. But if Obama did ask Clinton, don't assume she would say no just because she has, well, already served as de facto vice president for eight years under her husband. (Sorry, Al).
In fact, she would probably say yes. When there's a good chance to win, almost no one has ever said no. (Colin Powell is the exception). In 1960, when the vice-presidency was worth a lot less, Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson gave up his powerful position to run with John F. Kennedy.
How about Clinton-Obama? Nope. The Clintonites can spin to their heart's content about how big March 4 was for them. How close the race is. How they've got the Big Mo now. Tell it to Slate's Delegate Calculator. Again.
URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/119010
WILL THE RIGHT-WING ATTACK MACHINE WAKE THE BLACK CHURCH?
By
RANDALL TAYLOR
The Right-Wing attack squad, is desperately searching for a stick to beat Sen. Barack Obama with. They believe
they have found one in the Pastor of the church in which Obama is a member, Rev.Jeremiah Wright. The facts are that Rev. Wright has made strong, and controversial, political statements The Right-Wing strategy is:Does Obama believe those statements? Why does he belong to a church where the leader has made anti-White and Anti-American statements? Why did Obama give 22,000 in donations to the church over the years? Why does he not quit his church? Many prominent Republicans have called their own party the” Stupid Party”, now we know why? These ridiculous attacks should not only enrage the Black Christians of America, you might even see a reaction from White Christians.
The Rev. Jeremiah Wright is said, by some, to be one of the ten most influential Black pastors in America. He has spoken in countless churches across America. The Trinity United Church Christ started at 87 members when he assumed its leadership, now it boasts a membership of over 8,500 including Obama, Oprah Winfrey, and the visionary Rapper Common. Its motto is“Unashamedly Black, Unapologetically Christian”. Rev. Wright has indeed been unashamedly, and unapologetically, Black. He has espoused Black pride, nationalism, and re-connection to Africa. He also not has spared America for its treatment, past and present, of its Black citizens. Rev, Wright is quoted as saying ”The Government gives them drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three strikes than asks us to sing ‘God Bless America’ No, No, No, That’s in the Bible for killing innocent people” he said in a 2003 sermon. God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme. He is also quoted on the weekend after 9/11 as saying “We bombed Hiroshima, We bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye.”Also ”We have supported state sponsored terrorism against the Palestinians and Black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought back to our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost”. These statements, and others, are being used by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and other apparatchiks of the right-wing attack machine to attack Barack Obama.
It is grotesquely hypocritical for right-wingers to attempt to hold Obama responsible, or force him to take a position on each and every opinion, action or tenet of his church’s beliefs or leadership. If every Church goer must agree with everything their pastor and/or church believes, our churches would be empty.
The hypocrisy is: What about Mitt Romney and the Mormon Church, with its racist past, no one called him to explain or choose. What about the followers of Jerry Falwell when he said 9/11 was a judgment on America for homosexuality. Pat Robertson said recently Hugo Chavez should be assassinated. Bob Jones, and Bob Jones University, mandated no inter-racial dating. Oral Roberts said give me money or I’ll die. John Hagee and anti-Catholic and Jewish statements. Finally, what about the Holy Roman Church’s views on no female priests, contraception, and its cover-up of child abuse.
We do not hold individual members responsible for the positions of their church. We do not, and should, expect people to leave their church. Most people know that the Pastor, Priest, or Imam is there to lead people on their spiritual, not political, journey.
The vast right-wing conspiracy may be playing with fire by messing with Rev. Jeremiah Wright. They could be running the risk of awaking the sleeping giant in Black Ministers and the Black Church. If these actions by the Right-wing are seen as an attack on the Black Church, Watch Out. Just imagine these churches mobilizing, and raising money, on behalf of Barack Obama, it would be unprecedented. This 2008 Presidential Race continues to amaze.
RANDALL TAYLOR
The Right-Wing attack squad, is desperately searching for a stick to beat Sen. Barack Obama with. They believe
they have found one in the Pastor of the church in which Obama is a member, Rev.Jeremiah Wright. The facts are that Rev. Wright has made strong, and controversial, political statements The Right-Wing strategy is:Does Obama believe those statements? Why does he belong to a church where the leader has made anti-White and Anti-American statements? Why did Obama give 22,000 in donations to the church over the years? Why does he not quit his church? Many prominent Republicans have called their own party the” Stupid Party”, now we know why? These ridiculous attacks should not only enrage the Black Christians of America, you might even see a reaction from White Christians.
The Rev. Jeremiah Wright is said, by some, to be one of the ten most influential Black pastors in America. He has spoken in countless churches across America. The Trinity United Church Christ started at 87 members when he assumed its leadership, now it boasts a membership of over 8,500 including Obama, Oprah Winfrey, and the visionary Rapper Common. Its motto is“Unashamedly Black, Unapologetically Christian”. Rev. Wright has indeed been unashamedly, and unapologetically, Black. He has espoused Black pride, nationalism, and re-connection to Africa. He also not has spared America for its treatment, past and present, of its Black citizens. Rev, Wright is quoted as saying ”The Government gives them drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three strikes than asks us to sing ‘God Bless America’ No, No, No, That’s in the Bible for killing innocent people” he said in a 2003 sermon. God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme. He is also quoted on the weekend after 9/11 as saying “We bombed Hiroshima, We bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye.”Also ”We have supported state sponsored terrorism against the Palestinians and Black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought back to our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost”. These statements, and others, are being used by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and other apparatchiks of the right-wing attack machine to attack Barack Obama.
It is grotesquely hypocritical for right-wingers to attempt to hold Obama responsible, or force him to take a position on each and every opinion, action or tenet of his church’s beliefs or leadership. If every Church goer must agree with everything their pastor and/or church believes, our churches would be empty.
The hypocrisy is: What about Mitt Romney and the Mormon Church, with its racist past, no one called him to explain or choose. What about the followers of Jerry Falwell when he said 9/11 was a judgment on America for homosexuality. Pat Robertson said recently Hugo Chavez should be assassinated. Bob Jones, and Bob Jones University, mandated no inter-racial dating. Oral Roberts said give me money or I’ll die. John Hagee and anti-Catholic and Jewish statements. Finally, what about the Holy Roman Church’s views on no female priests, contraception, and its cover-up of child abuse.
We do not hold individual members responsible for the positions of their church. We do not, and should, expect people to leave their church. Most people know that the Pastor, Priest, or Imam is there to lead people on their spiritual, not political, journey.
The vast right-wing conspiracy may be playing with fire by messing with Rev. Jeremiah Wright. They could be running the risk of awaking the sleeping giant in Black Ministers and the Black Church. If these actions by the Right-wing are seen as an attack on the Black Church, Watch Out. Just imagine these churches mobilizing, and raising money, on behalf of Barack Obama, it would be unprecedented. This 2008 Presidential Race continues to amaze.
Playing by Obama's Rules
March 14, 2008
Playing by Obama's RulesBy Patrick Buchanan
To observe Democrats this week, savaging one of their heroines, is to understand why the party is unready to rule.
Consider: At the 1984 Democratic convention in San Francisco, an unknown member of Congress was vaulted into history by being chosen the first woman ever to run on a national party ticket.
Geraldine Ferraro became a household name. And though the Mondale-Ferraro ticket went down to a 49-state defeat, "Gerry" became an icon to Democratic women.
This week, however, after being subjected for 48 hours to accusations of divisiveness by Barack Obama, and racism by his agents and auxiliaries in the media, Ferraro resigned from Clinton's campaign. What had she said to send the Obamaites into paroxysms of rage?
She stated an obvious truth: Had Barack not been a black male, he probably would not be the front-runner for the nomination.
Here are the words that sent her to the scaffold.
"If Obama was a white man he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up with the concept."
Note that Ferraro did not say race was the only reason Barack was succeeding. She simply said that being an African-American has been as indispensable to his success as her being a woman was to her success in 1984. Had my name been "Gerald" rather than Geraldine, I would not have been on the '84 ticket, Ferraro conceded.
In calling her comments racist, Barack's retinue is asserting that his race has nothing to do with his success, even implying that it is racist to suggest it. This is preposterous.
What Geraldine Ferraro said is palpably true, and everyone knows it.
Was the fact that Barack is black irrelevant to the party's decision to give a state senator the keynote address at the 2004 convention? Did Barack's being African-American have nothing to do with his running up 91 percent of the black vote in Mississippi on Tuesday?
Did Barack's being black have nothing to do with the decision of civil rights legend John Lewis to dump Hillary and endorse him, though Lewis talks of how his constituents do not want to lose this first great opportunity to have an African-American president?
Can political analysts explain why Barack will sweep Philly in the Pennsylvania primary, though Hillary has the backing of the African-American mayor and Gov. Ed Rendell, without referring to Barack's ethnic appeal to black voters?
What else explains why the mainstream media are going so ga-ga over Obama they are being satirized on "Saturday Night Live"?
Barack Obama has a chance of being the first black president. And holding out that special hope has been crucial to his candidacy. To deny this is self-delusion -- or deceit.
Nor is this unusual. John F. Kennedy would not have gotten 78 percent of the Catholic vote had he not been Catholic. Hillary would not have rolled up those margins among white women in New Hampshire had she not been a sister in trouble. Mitt Romney would not have swept Utah and flamed out in Dixie were he not a Mormon. Mike Huckabee would not have marched triumphantly through the Bible Belt were he not a Baptist preacher and evangelical Christian. All politics is tribal.
The first campaign this writer ever covered was the New York mayoral race of 1961. Republicans stitched together the legendary ticket of Lefkowitz, Fino and Gilhooley, to touch three ethnic bases. Folks laughed. No one would have professed moral outrage had anyone suggested they were appealing to, or even pandering to, the Jewish, Italian and Irish voters of New York. People were more honest then.
Obama's agents suggest that Ferraro deliberately injected race into the campaign. But this, too, is ridiculous. Her quote came in an interview with the Daily Breeze of Torrance, Calif., not "Meet the Press."
The attack on Ferraro comes out of a conscious strategy of the Obama campaign -- to seek immunity from attack by smearing any and all attackers as having racist motives. When Bill Clinton dismissed Obama's claim to have been consistently antiwar as a "fairy tale," and twinned Obama's victory in South Carolina with Jesse Jackson's, his statements were described as tinged with racism.
Early this week, Harvard Professor Orlando Patterson's sensitive nostrils sniffed out racism in Hillary's Red Phone ad, as there were no blacks in it. Patterson said it reminded him of D.W. Griffith's pro-KKK "Birth of a Nation," a 1915 film.
What Barack's allies seem to be demanding is immunity, a special exemption from political attack, because he is African-American. And those who go after him are to be brought up on charges of racism, as has Bill Clinton, Ed Rendell and now Geraldine Ferraro.
Hillary, hoping to appease Barack's constituency, is ceding the point. Will the Republican Party and the right do the same? Play by Obama rules, and you lose to Obama.
Copyright 2008, Creators Syndicate Inc
Playing by Obama's RulesBy Patrick Buchanan
To observe Democrats this week, savaging one of their heroines, is to understand why the party is unready to rule.
Consider: At the 1984 Democratic convention in San Francisco, an unknown member of Congress was vaulted into history by being chosen the first woman ever to run on a national party ticket.
Geraldine Ferraro became a household name. And though the Mondale-Ferraro ticket went down to a 49-state defeat, "Gerry" became an icon to Democratic women.
This week, however, after being subjected for 48 hours to accusations of divisiveness by Barack Obama, and racism by his agents and auxiliaries in the media, Ferraro resigned from Clinton's campaign. What had she said to send the Obamaites into paroxysms of rage?
She stated an obvious truth: Had Barack not been a black male, he probably would not be the front-runner for the nomination.
Here are the words that sent her to the scaffold.
"If Obama was a white man he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up with the concept."
Note that Ferraro did not say race was the only reason Barack was succeeding. She simply said that being an African-American has been as indispensable to his success as her being a woman was to her success in 1984. Had my name been "Gerald" rather than Geraldine, I would not have been on the '84 ticket, Ferraro conceded.
In calling her comments racist, Barack's retinue is asserting that his race has nothing to do with his success, even implying that it is racist to suggest it. This is preposterous.
What Geraldine Ferraro said is palpably true, and everyone knows it.
Was the fact that Barack is black irrelevant to the party's decision to give a state senator the keynote address at the 2004 convention? Did Barack's being African-American have nothing to do with his running up 91 percent of the black vote in Mississippi on Tuesday?
Did Barack's being black have nothing to do with the decision of civil rights legend John Lewis to dump Hillary and endorse him, though Lewis talks of how his constituents do not want to lose this first great opportunity to have an African-American president?
Can political analysts explain why Barack will sweep Philly in the Pennsylvania primary, though Hillary has the backing of the African-American mayor and Gov. Ed Rendell, without referring to Barack's ethnic appeal to black voters?
What else explains why the mainstream media are going so ga-ga over Obama they are being satirized on "Saturday Night Live"?
Barack Obama has a chance of being the first black president. And holding out that special hope has been crucial to his candidacy. To deny this is self-delusion -- or deceit.
Nor is this unusual. John F. Kennedy would not have gotten 78 percent of the Catholic vote had he not been Catholic. Hillary would not have rolled up those margins among white women in New Hampshire had she not been a sister in trouble. Mitt Romney would not have swept Utah and flamed out in Dixie were he not a Mormon. Mike Huckabee would not have marched triumphantly through the Bible Belt were he not a Baptist preacher and evangelical Christian. All politics is tribal.
The first campaign this writer ever covered was the New York mayoral race of 1961. Republicans stitched together the legendary ticket of Lefkowitz, Fino and Gilhooley, to touch three ethnic bases. Folks laughed. No one would have professed moral outrage had anyone suggested they were appealing to, or even pandering to, the Jewish, Italian and Irish voters of New York. People were more honest then.
Obama's agents suggest that Ferraro deliberately injected race into the campaign. But this, too, is ridiculous. Her quote came in an interview with the Daily Breeze of Torrance, Calif., not "Meet the Press."
The attack on Ferraro comes out of a conscious strategy of the Obama campaign -- to seek immunity from attack by smearing any and all attackers as having racist motives. When Bill Clinton dismissed Obama's claim to have been consistently antiwar as a "fairy tale," and twinned Obama's victory in South Carolina with Jesse Jackson's, his statements were described as tinged with racism.
Early this week, Harvard Professor Orlando Patterson's sensitive nostrils sniffed out racism in Hillary's Red Phone ad, as there were no blacks in it. Patterson said it reminded him of D.W. Griffith's pro-KKK "Birth of a Nation," a 1915 film.
What Barack's allies seem to be demanding is immunity, a special exemption from political attack, because he is African-American. And those who go after him are to be brought up on charges of racism, as has Bill Clinton, Ed Rendell and now Geraldine Ferraro.
Hillary, hoping to appease Barack's constituency, is ceding the point. Will the Republican Party and the right do the same? Play by Obama rules, and you lose to Obama.
Copyright 2008, Creators Syndicate Inc
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Ferraro's Slur: Clinton should have been more upset about remarks
Ferraro's slur: Clinton should have been more upset about remarks
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Remarks by former Democratic vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro to the effect that Democratic candidate Sen. Barack Obama is benefiting from some sort of affirmative action effect are near the bottom of the barrel in terms of trashy campaigning.
Ms. Ferraro was a part of Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign team when she made the remarks, although she is no longer. What she said was that Mr. Obama would not be where he is in popularity if he were white or a woman. (Last time we checked he didn't decide his race or his gender.) While she said she did not agree with the statements, Mrs. Clinton did not disown Ms. Ferraro's remarks or offload her from her campaign, the minimum necessary to make clear that she did not agree with Ms. Ferraro's sentiments. Instead, Ms. Ferraro stepped down yesterday on her own initiative.
What Ms. Ferraro said is a racial slur against Mr. Obama. It is necessary only to look at the fate of previous African-American presidential candidates -- the Revs. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson as examples -- to see that Mr. Obama's appeal is not because he is black. It is because he is able and has a message that is forward-looking and appeals to the American people in these difficult times.
A question that has to be asked is the degree to which Ms. Ferraro's remarks are in response to advice Mrs. Clinton may be receiving from some of Pennsylvania's professional politicians to the effect that people here might be susceptible in advance of the April primary to the sort of argument she is peddling.
If that is what they are telling her, they are wrong in telling her that Pennsylvanians will respond favorably to a racist pitch. We are not like that. As we make this important choice for ourselves and for the country, we will not consider a candidate's race or gender as the principal factor in the choice we make. Mrs. Clinton should give Pennsylvanians credit for sound judgment, not appeal to what she might believe are our prejudices.
If Mrs. Clinton would like to provide us with useful information, it would be interesting to see as soon as possible three important missing pieces of her background. The first is her 2006 tax return. The second is a list of donors and the amounts each contributed to her husband's presidential library in Little Rock. The third is her unedited schedule for her time as first lady, in order to make possible evaluation of her claim of relevant experience based on that period.
Mrs. Clinton should have fired Ms. Ferraro immediately. What Ms. Ferraro said simply validated all the claims that the Clinton campaign constitutes a return to the dirty-tricks politics of the past.
First published on March 13, 2008 at 12:00 am
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Remarks by former Democratic vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro to the effect that Democratic candidate Sen. Barack Obama is benefiting from some sort of affirmative action effect are near the bottom of the barrel in terms of trashy campaigning.
Ms. Ferraro was a part of Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign team when she made the remarks, although she is no longer. What she said was that Mr. Obama would not be where he is in popularity if he were white or a woman. (Last time we checked he didn't decide his race or his gender.) While she said she did not agree with the statements, Mrs. Clinton did not disown Ms. Ferraro's remarks or offload her from her campaign, the minimum necessary to make clear that she did not agree with Ms. Ferraro's sentiments. Instead, Ms. Ferraro stepped down yesterday on her own initiative.
What Ms. Ferraro said is a racial slur against Mr. Obama. It is necessary only to look at the fate of previous African-American presidential candidates -- the Revs. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson as examples -- to see that Mr. Obama's appeal is not because he is black. It is because he is able and has a message that is forward-looking and appeals to the American people in these difficult times.
A question that has to be asked is the degree to which Ms. Ferraro's remarks are in response to advice Mrs. Clinton may be receiving from some of Pennsylvania's professional politicians to the effect that people here might be susceptible in advance of the April primary to the sort of argument she is peddling.
If that is what they are telling her, they are wrong in telling her that Pennsylvanians will respond favorably to a racist pitch. We are not like that. As we make this important choice for ourselves and for the country, we will not consider a candidate's race or gender as the principal factor in the choice we make. Mrs. Clinton should give Pennsylvanians credit for sound judgment, not appeal to what she might believe are our prejudices.
If Mrs. Clinton would like to provide us with useful information, it would be interesting to see as soon as possible three important missing pieces of her background. The first is her 2006 tax return. The second is a list of donors and the amounts each contributed to her husband's presidential library in Little Rock. The third is her unedited schedule for her time as first lady, in order to make possible evaluation of her claim of relevant experience based on that period.
Mrs. Clinton should have fired Ms. Ferraro immediately. What Ms. Ferraro said simply validated all the claims that the Clinton campaign constitutes a return to the dirty-tricks politics of the past.
First published on March 13, 2008 at 12:00 am
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
WHY THIS RACE IS OVER, AND WHY THE MEDIA DON'T SEE IT
WHY THIS RACE IS OVER,
AND WHY THE PRESS CAN’T SEE IT.
By
RANDALL TAYLOR
The American Media, lead by the punditry, will not declare the 2008 Democratic Nomination Race over, because they do not want it to be. The story line that Hillary Clinton has made a comeback or that the race is tied is a fantasy. The Fall of 2007 saw Sen. Clinton universally cast as the all but assured Democratic nominee. She held commanding leads in the polls, in endorsements, in assumptions that she could out fundraise any other candidates by hope crushing amounts, in the support of the Democratic” Establishment”, and had the incredibly popular Bill Clinton waiting in the wings. It was, to even a cursory observer, a for sure sure thing.
Sen. Clinton victories, by 8% in Ohio and 2% in Texas, were seen as a comeback, re-starting her campaign, people taking another look at Barack Obama, a sign of her resiliency, and it’s a brand new race. Yet, Sen. Clinton, after her dramatic victory in New Hampshire, lead Sen. Obama both of these states by any average of 25% in Texas and 30% in Ohio. How does a candidate who lost massive support in both those states become the new”Comeback Kid”? The trend of Obama narrowing leads dramatically, has taken place in EVERY contest. This trend has happened in California, New Hampshire, Nevada, Missouri, and now Pennsylvania. Yet, nowhere has this been the opposite, where Sen. Clinton has reversed a wide Obama lead in the polls and defeated him. It does not exist. Therefore, if one candidate continues to grow support while the other loses support or stagnates, how is this tie? Hillary Clinton’s campaign has demonstrated the ability to lose large swaths of support from voters who six months ago supported her, yet has not gained them back, nor forged new supporters, this is a comeback kid?
I believe most knowledgble and independent observers would agree that a Joe Biden campaign, Chris Dodd candidacy, or any Presidential aspirations would have died after the 11 straight Obama victories, the record-shattering fundraising, and the second place finisher having to place 5 million of their own money in their flagging campaign, the mathematical impossibility of taking the lead in delegates, and equal difficulty in taking the lead in popular votes would have been put out of misery. If this happened to anyone but a Clinton the Press would have declared that candidacy no longer viable. The Media do not want this race to be over, why?
If the truth about this race were accepted the fun, excitement, and even greater historic dimensions of this race would end. The media, print and electronic outlets are abuzz with talk of super delegates, dramatic Al Gore entrances to the race, Michigan/Florida do-overs, will the Clintons play the race card again, will Obama go negative, all leading to more TV show appearances, travel, excitement, but it is not real, it is manufactured. Can the media’s role in keeping this race alive impact the race? Absolutely, which makes it even more fascinating to them. I am a saying it is a conspiracy? Of course not. It is more akin to mass hypnosis. Yet, it does not change the fact that the only way Obama loses is a major mistake or scandal on his part, or Bill and Hillary Clinton blow-up the Democratic party, alienating many in the party, to”gain”the nomination. The facts say this race is over, and I thought the media only reported the facts
AND WHY THE PRESS CAN’T SEE IT.
By
RANDALL TAYLOR
The American Media, lead by the punditry, will not declare the 2008 Democratic Nomination Race over, because they do not want it to be. The story line that Hillary Clinton has made a comeback or that the race is tied is a fantasy. The Fall of 2007 saw Sen. Clinton universally cast as the all but assured Democratic nominee. She held commanding leads in the polls, in endorsements, in assumptions that she could out fundraise any other candidates by hope crushing amounts, in the support of the Democratic” Establishment”, and had the incredibly popular Bill Clinton waiting in the wings. It was, to even a cursory observer, a for sure sure thing.
Sen. Clinton victories, by 8% in Ohio and 2% in Texas, were seen as a comeback, re-starting her campaign, people taking another look at Barack Obama, a sign of her resiliency, and it’s a brand new race. Yet, Sen. Clinton, after her dramatic victory in New Hampshire, lead Sen. Obama both of these states by any average of 25% in Texas and 30% in Ohio. How does a candidate who lost massive support in both those states become the new”Comeback Kid”? The trend of Obama narrowing leads dramatically, has taken place in EVERY contest. This trend has happened in California, New Hampshire, Nevada, Missouri, and now Pennsylvania. Yet, nowhere has this been the opposite, where Sen. Clinton has reversed a wide Obama lead in the polls and defeated him. It does not exist. Therefore, if one candidate continues to grow support while the other loses support or stagnates, how is this tie? Hillary Clinton’s campaign has demonstrated the ability to lose large swaths of support from voters who six months ago supported her, yet has not gained them back, nor forged new supporters, this is a comeback kid?
I believe most knowledgble and independent observers would agree that a Joe Biden campaign, Chris Dodd candidacy, or any Presidential aspirations would have died after the 11 straight Obama victories, the record-shattering fundraising, and the second place finisher having to place 5 million of their own money in their flagging campaign, the mathematical impossibility of taking the lead in delegates, and equal difficulty in taking the lead in popular votes would have been put out of misery. If this happened to anyone but a Clinton the Press would have declared that candidacy no longer viable. The Media do not want this race to be over, why?
If the truth about this race were accepted the fun, excitement, and even greater historic dimensions of this race would end. The media, print and electronic outlets are abuzz with talk of super delegates, dramatic Al Gore entrances to the race, Michigan/Florida do-overs, will the Clintons play the race card again, will Obama go negative, all leading to more TV show appearances, travel, excitement, but it is not real, it is manufactured. Can the media’s role in keeping this race alive impact the race? Absolutely, which makes it even more fascinating to them. I am a saying it is a conspiracy? Of course not. It is more akin to mass hypnosis. Yet, it does not change the fact that the only way Obama loses is a major mistake or scandal on his part, or Bill and Hillary Clinton blow-up the Democratic party, alienating many in the party, to”gain”the nomination. The facts say this race is over, and I thought the media only reported the facts
Hillary Reject and Denounce Now!
Shame on You Hillary!
You need to fire Gerry Ferraro immediately or you are a hypocrite! Reject and renounce now. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
You are losing your soul to blind ambition!
At this rate I will not vote for you if you were to become the Democrat nominee.
You need to fire Gerry Ferraro immediately or you are a hypocrite! Reject and renounce now. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
You are losing your soul to blind ambition!
At this rate I will not vote for you if you were to become the Democrat nominee.
Geraldine Get Real!
51% of the country is female. Since the founding of the republic 240 women have served in the US Congress; 155 Dems and 85 Reps in the House and 28 in the US Senate 17 Dems and 11 Reps.
African Americans who have served in the US Congress number 121; and only 5 (2 in the 1800’s) in the US Senate (4 Dems and 1 Rep)
The position that seems to be the best launching pad for the the presidency-governor- has seen 29 female governors 18 Dems and 11 Reps—-African American Governors have numbered 2! both elected in the last 20 years!
Today there are 8 female governors and only 1 Black governor; there are 16 female US senators and only 1 Black; there are 71 females in the US House and 43 Blacks
In fact when Dr King gave his ‘I have a dream’ speech in 1963 there 18 women in the US congress but only 4 Blacks and only a total of 7 had served since 1900!
So let’s see- just about every white US president had a white woman sharing their bed and there have been how many Black US Presidents– male or female? How many Black first Ladies?
SO OBAMA IS FAVORED BECAUSE HE IS BLACK-ROTFLOL
So let’s get real I believe it is a more radical achievement to have an African American elected from the long oppressed 12% minority than to have a female elected from a 51% majority!
Oh yeah, Geraldine Ferraro got on the ticket in 1984 as vice president because of her background and experience- And George W Bush will go down in history for his erudite speaking ability!
And don’t get it twisted I support(ed) ERA, Abortion Rights, equal Pay, childcare leave, and the right of women to ’smoke’ abusive husbands as an act of self defense etc
African Americans who have served in the US Congress number 121; and only 5 (2 in the 1800’s) in the US Senate (4 Dems and 1 Rep)
The position that seems to be the best launching pad for the the presidency-governor- has seen 29 female governors 18 Dems and 11 Reps—-African American Governors have numbered 2! both elected in the last 20 years!
Today there are 8 female governors and only 1 Black governor; there are 16 female US senators and only 1 Black; there are 71 females in the US House and 43 Blacks
In fact when Dr King gave his ‘I have a dream’ speech in 1963 there 18 women in the US congress but only 4 Blacks and only a total of 7 had served since 1900!
So let’s see- just about every white US president had a white woman sharing their bed and there have been how many Black US Presidents– male or female? How many Black first Ladies?
SO OBAMA IS FAVORED BECAUSE HE IS BLACK-ROTFLOL
So let’s get real I believe it is a more radical achievement to have an African American elected from the long oppressed 12% minority than to have a female elected from a 51% majority!
Oh yeah, Geraldine Ferraro got on the ticket in 1984 as vice president because of her background and experience- And George W Bush will go down in history for his erudite speaking ability!
And don’t get it twisted I support(ed) ERA, Abortion Rights, equal Pay, childcare leave, and the right of women to ’smoke’ abusive husbands as an act of self defense etc
Let’s Tell the Truth and Cut the Bull!
How come Hillary can claim 35 years of experience and not tell us what it is? She started at 25 years of age getting presidential experience? Well if that is an acceptable yardstick then Obama starting at 25 years of age has 21 years of presidential experience! Also how comes no one talks about his experience in elected office and in a legislature with Obama having served 8 years in the Illinois Senate and now the US Senate for 3 years. (Total elected service 11 years) Hillary’s so-called big advantage -elected Nov 7, 2000 and in the US Senate for 7 years (Total elected service 7 years)
Hillary has the experience to be commander in chief? WHAT SPECIFICALLY IS IT? -8 years wife of the president?
Hillary has the experience to be commander in chief? WHAT SPECIFICALLY IS IT? -8 years wife of the president?
Ok McCain- Repudiate and Denounce Steve King
Blacks (Candidates) Only?
Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, speaking to a local Iowa radio
King’s Quote
“I don’t want to disparage anyone because of their, their race, their ethnicity, their name - whatever their religion their father, father might have been,” King said just before doing just that.
“I’ll just say this that when you think about the optics of a Barack Obama potentially getting elected President of the United States — and I mean, what does this look like to the rest of the world? What does it look like to the world of Islam?
“And I will tell you that, if he is elected president, then the, the radical Islamists, the, the al-Qaida, and the radical Islamists and their supporters, will be dancing in the streets in greater numbers than they did on September 11….
“It does matter, his middle name does matter. It matters because they read a meaning into that in the rest of the world, it has a special meaning to them. They will be dancing in the streets because of his middle name. They will be dancing in the streets because of who his father was and because of his posture that says: Pull out of the Middle East and pull out of this conflict."
I hope that the only people who have to 'renounce and reject’ are not just Black candidates!
Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, speaking to a local Iowa radio
King’s Quote
“I don’t want to disparage anyone because of their, their race, their ethnicity, their name - whatever their religion their father, father might have been,” King said just before doing just that.
“I’ll just say this that when you think about the optics of a Barack Obama potentially getting elected President of the United States — and I mean, what does this look like to the rest of the world? What does it look like to the world of Islam?
“And I will tell you that, if he is elected president, then the, the radical Islamists, the, the al-Qaida, and the radical Islamists and their supporters, will be dancing in the streets in greater numbers than they did on September 11….
“It does matter, his middle name does matter. It matters because they read a meaning into that in the rest of the world, it has a special meaning to them. They will be dancing in the streets because of his middle name. They will be dancing in the streets because of who his father was and because of his posture that says: Pull out of the Middle East and pull out of this conflict."
I hope that the only people who have to 'renounce and reject’ are not just Black candidates!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
