Hillary bombs again with her denounce vs reject comment. Obama facials her. He said he rejects and denounces. Peace Bitch.
It doesn't really matter who wins what caucus. No Democrat is winning the election this year. I'm sorry, the country demographic just isn't on the left. I mean hell even when a democrat does win they aren't elected! Hi, Al! Both Hilary and Obama are going to fight a hard fought, meaningless battle and then get the train run on them by the American people.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GMJigga @ Feb 26 2008, 10:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>It doesn't really matter who wins what caucus. No Democrat is winning the election this year. I'm sorry, the country demographic just isn't on the left. I mean hell even when a democrat does win they aren't elected! Hi, Al! Both Hilary and Obama are going to fight a hard fought, meaningless battle and then get the train run on them by the American people.</div> First, I don't understand your reasoning, Kerry appears to be a weaker candidate that let the Vietnam hit job slide, and he still almost won. And most polls don't favor McCain, the ones that do can easily flip flop, nothing is a lock.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Feb 26 2008, 10:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GMJigga @ Feb 26 2008, 10:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>It doesn't really matter who wins what caucus. No Democrat is winning the election this year. I'm sorry, the country demographic just isn't on the left. I mean hell even when a democrat does win they aren't elected! Hi, Al! Both Hilary and Obama are going to fight a hard fought, meaningless battle and then get the train run on them by the American people.</div> First, I don't understand your reasoning, Kerry appears to be a weaker candidate that let the Vietnam hit job slide, and he still almost won. And most polls don't favor McCain, the ones that do can easily flip flop, nothing is a lock. </div> Almost doesn't win you the seat, unless you're a republican
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MikeDC @ Mar 5 2008, 11:49 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>In light of last night, I've got a question for folks about Obama.</div> When did he say he would junk Nafta? They're both only looking to reform it, tweak it, whatever you want to call it. Your theory makes no sense. As of right now, Obama lost a grand total of 12 delegates last night. Wow... Yeah right.
It makes no sense to you because you've already cast your lot with Obama no matter what. He could publicly club and then eat a baby seal and you'd still vote for him
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MikeDC @ Mar 5 2008, 02:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>It makes no sense to you because you've already cast your lot with Obama no matter what. He could publicly club and then eat a baby seal and you'd still vote for him </div> How could that have hurt Obama, when Clinton was saying she hated Nafta from debate one up until now? What is your point? People are freaking out, but there is no plan in place for her to win. Florida or not.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MikeDC @ Mar 5 2008, 02:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>It makes no sense to you because you've already cast your lot with Obama no matter what. He could publicly club and then eat a baby seal and you'd still vote for him </div> I believe that would actually cause me to vote for him.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MikeDC @ Mar 5 2008, 11:49 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>In light of last night, I've got a question for folks about Obama.</div> Mike, you make good points as always. First off, I feel the need to debunk your comments about the Obama meeting with Canada (since no one in the MSM is bothering to this): http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/5/112...0842/300/469572 CBC, the Canadian public television station, did some investing: <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>This piece details the sordid affair, that begins not with Obama contacting Canada, but nervous Canadians contacting the campaigns. Austan Goolsbee agreed to accept an invitation from Canadians, who pressed him for answers about protectionist sentiments emerging in the US Presidential election. He tried to reassure them that Obama did not want to do away with the agreement, but wanted to add labor and environmental protections. Someone in the Harper government - Prime Minister of Canada and a member of their Conservative Party - apparently decided to leak a sensational lie that bears a very loose resemblance of the truth. A source leaked to CTV that the Obama campaign had called Michael Wilson, Canadian Ambassador to the US, and warned them that Obama was going to talk tough on NAFTA, but it would be just talk. According to CBC, all the details were wrong. Canada contacted the campaigns. Michael Wilson was not involved. And, most damning, they are now admitting that the memo at the heart of the controversy "may not accurately reflect what they were told".</div> Obviously it wasn't true in the first place -- straight up political suicide. And if you wonder why the media isn't concerned with getting to the bottom of this: I have seen a real ground shift against Obama over the last couple of weeks. I think there is definitely a connection to ratings. If you're a news station, this election has been liquid gold. In the end though I'm still confident in Obama winning the nominee. The math is just about impossible: she only picked up around 9 delegates last night after the dust settled, and the remaining races heavily favor Obama. But more than that, the media over the next month and a half is going to flip on Clinton like no one's business. It's really almost a setup job. Stories like these are going to be all over the place: As to your other question though, you raise a good point. Obama has been incredibly consistent during his political career about being a unison candidate. And, how is this going to hold up in the general, when he is going to have to include attacks? I'm not sure. In his favor, he's going up against the weakest Republican candidates since Bob Dole. And in addition to the problems McCain will face with backlash to the Bush administration, he is in an incredibly tough spot in terms of fund raising. The Republicans for better and worse have aligned themselves with the Christian Right over the past two decades. This worked great in the pre-internet world because it offered the party a financial and organizational base. But in this new electronic age, fund raising is all about the internet. Now the Republicans have nominated a candidate who is the only one moderate enough to win the primary, but because of his unyielding base, he likely will never be able to raise enough to compete. 17 Million in the bank for McCain last month. 87 million in the bank for Clinton and Obama. Will this be enough -- purely outspending his opponent -- to carry the race against a candidate who really cannot go negative? I have some concerns.
SST, FWIW, GW Bush raised huge amounts of cash in small amounts from millions of donors in 2000 and 2004. http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/su...sp?ID=N00008072 $271,814,020 (2004) from individual contributions. http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/cam...sh.asp?cycle=04 $194,400,915 of that was amounts over $200. http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/bush/bushfin.html On Aug. 12, 2004 the campaign announced that it had received its two millionth contribution. June Monthly Report (May 2004): On May 20 the campaign announced it had "made history by becoming the first campaign to have the support of more than one million contributors."
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02...ion-donor-mark/ February 27, 2008, 1:05 pm Obama Reaches 1 Million Donor Mark
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Mar 5 2008, 03:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MikeDC @ Mar 5 2008, 02:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>It makes no sense to you because you've already cast your lot with Obama no matter what. He could publicly club and then eat a baby seal and you'd still vote for him </div> I believe that would actually cause me to vote for him. </div> Not if he poaches the seal. I hate poachers. And anyway, everyone knows the only way to have baby seal is boiled in its own blubber. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (such sweet thunder @ Mar 5 2008, 07:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MikeDC @ Mar 5 2008, 11:49 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>In light of last night, I've got a question for folks about Obama.</div> Mike, you make good points as always. First off, I feel the need to debunk your comments about the Obama meeting with Canada (since no one in the MSM is bothering to this):</div> I'm not sure I'm buying into that yet. Reading through the actual CBC article is pretty different than the Kos report. But my larger point is just that Obama has been misleading in giving the impression to the anti-trade crowd he'd do something serious with NAFTA when at absolute most he'd tinker around the edges. That's the jist of the report from the Canadian side and I have no doubt that it's the truth. It's all that's been said here. So the salient question to me is what happens when folks realize he was mostly or totally bluster on the issue? And yeah, I still think it's reasonable to conclude he's blustered about it, just as Hillary. Talking about renegotiating it at all, to a crowd of out-of-work laborers, gives that impression no matter what. You can argue the finer points with me, but just by arguing the finer points with them you'd piss 'em off. Now as to the media, I agree that Clinton got an undeserved free pass, because she's said all the same stupid shit and you know damn good in well she's not going to do anything about it either (as well she shouldn't). But at the same time, Clinton wasn't the one who sent her economic advisor to open his mouth in the first place. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>As to your other question though, you raise a good point. Obama has been incredibly consistent during his political career about being a unison candidate. And, how is this going to hold up in the general, when he is going to have to include attacks? I'm not sure.</div> I don't think going negative will be his problem, within reason. He's certainly attacked Hillary (although there's so much to attack there it's probably possible to do so without trying much). Again, I suppose "change" is in the eye of the beholder. To me, I hope when he's talking about change it's something along the lines of "we'll put every issue on the table, find people on the other side we can work with, and hammer something out" rather than the typical lines of the last 16 years, which were usually "If I've got the votes, I'll cram it down your throat".
http://berniehund.com/2008/03/04/obama-rez...mccain-keating/ Obama-Rezko, Clinton-Hsu, McCain-Keating Whoever among you is without sin, let him cast the first stone. Well, pardon the Biblical reference, but today’s headlines have been filled with Tony Rezko and Barack Obama. One would Rezkothink they were bosom buddies and they may be. I don’t know. But, those among the candidates who have something to say should look in their closet for skeletons before they say too much. Tony Rezko’s name first surfaced during a debate when Hillary Clinton hurled it at Barack Obama as one of his associates. Apparently, and much has been written about it, Rezko’s wife bought the vacant lot adjacent to the Obama home. It was a purchase that was contingent on both the house and vacant lot being sold at the same time. Whether Mrs. Rezko bought the lot to assist the Obama’s in closing the deal on their home is up for question. But, since that time it seems that Mr. Rezko has made donations to the Obama campaigns. According the the Obama camp and as a matter of record, Senator Obama has donated all the Rezko contributions to charity. But…. while Hillary was hurling Rezko at Obama, how does she explain the picture of President and First Lady Clinton with the same man?Clinton/Rezko That is Tony Rezko, isn’t it? And, that’s Hillary and Bill? Why, yes…. It looks as if Hill and Bill had a relationship with Mr. Rezko. Of course, while Tony Rezko is going on trial in one place, it seems that another of the Clinton’s friends and notable fundraiser, Norman Hsu is facing criminal charges and legal problems as well. Does anyone remember Norman Hsu? He was what is called a bundler among fundraisers. The role of bundler is to call upon friends (with money) and get them to make contributions for a candidate. And, in doing so, most often the bundlers usually get some sort of political notice… on down the line. Except in this case, it turns out that Norman Hsu was more of a bungler than a bundler. From an article written in September of 2007: Before his forced resignation last week, Norman Yuan Yuen Hsu (pictured with Hillary) sat on the board of trustees of the liberal New School university in New York with former Loral Corp. head Bernard L. Schwartz, who was allowed to transfer restricted satellite and missile technology to a People’s Liberation Army front after contributing a record amount of cash to President Clinton’s 1996 campaign. Last November, Schwartz and Hsu chaired a New School banquet at the Mandarin Oriental in New York which featured Sen. Clinton as keynote speaker. Clinton steered a $1 million federal grant to the college. So much for the deep poop on the Dems. Let’s not forget John McCain. His hands are not sterile either. Just refer back to the Keating 5.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Mar 5 2008, 10:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Abramoff is a scandal. Democrats skate when their donors are indicted.</div> I don't even know what some of Hillary's dubious connections are since she won't release her tax returns. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Hillary's Unreleased Tax Returns Now Make Her Riskiest Candidate for November Posted February 28, 2008 | 11:46 AM (EST) Read More: Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Tax Returns, Breaking Politics News Bill Clinton is fond of injecting doubt about Barack Obama's ability to weather radical right wing attacks in the general election. After all, his argument goes, Hillary has been completely vetted, and is still standing. Why then, he continues, take the risk of an Obama candidacy? Obama's victories suggest that Bill Clinton's arguments have not been widely embraced. For one thing Bill Clinton is not exactly the perfect vehicle for delivering that message, having shown himself to be a risk to her campaign by his own misstatements. The last debate, however, pointed to a risk of a Clinton candidacy even larger than Bill himself. Asked whether she would release her tax returns, Hillary waffled, finally agreeing to do so prior to the nomination, but not before Ohio/Texas primary day. Her excuse: she is too busy on the campaign trail to collect all those documents. Huh? Her tax returns are already done and submitted to the IRS. She does not have to collect papers. All she need do is leave her accountant a voice mail (about 15 seconds), and have him hit the "send" button on his computer that stores her returns. If she can watch Saturday Night Live and MSNBC (she referred to her having watched them during the debate), then she certainly has 15 seconds to provide her accountant instructions to send out her tax returns. Then, today, we are told by the campaign that there will be no tax returns released until after she secures the nomination. Let us agree with Hillary that the American people care about their jobs, their children's education, the Iraq War, healthcare, and other issues that directly impact them, and not candidates' tax returns. Nonetheless, it is hard to listen to the waffling, and then the redrawn line-in-the-sand, without assuming that there must be some very embarrassing information in those returns that would turn off voters. Why else would she just not release them, and remove doubt? If this information were minor embarrassments, she would have released the returns months ago when she was still the overwhelming frontrunner, let the news cycle a few days, and then die a death of boredom. It cannot be embarrassment at their wealth or income, because that is obvious -- one does not loan a campaign their last $5 million. Thus, the Clintons are asking voters -- most immediately in Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island and Vermont -- to take the risk that tax returns that they are keeping secret, seemingly at all costs, do not trip them up miserably in a general election. Waffle, promise and then withdrawal of that promise... it is not the press, not the Obama campaign, not even the radical rightwing, but the Clinton campaign, in another tactical blunder, that has succeeded in raising the stakes on this matter. Is Hillary, as she claims, completely vetted? Not, anymore, without release of those tax returns.</div> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-abrams/...as_b_88915.html
The major major major shift since 2004 is with the McCain-Feingold act, which limits political contributions to 2,100 per person -- single handedly perhaps giving away the fund raising war to the Democrats; a war the Republicans have almost always won. Donors can still give in an unlimited fashion to PACs, but for whatever reason, not that many are: probably because of the egregious attacks with which PACs are so often associated. It's somewhat ironic, but McCain's most daring legislative accomplishment -- which is fundamentally changing the election process -- may also be his downfall. There are also issues at play. GWB was able to keep his base in line, something McCain has not been able to do. Immigration has become so divisive for Republicans and for the general electorate at large. GWB was able to push a liberal immigration policy and draw the strongly emerging latino vote and still pull in the dollars. I'm not sure McCain can push that line this election without undercutting his contributions. I think the gay issue has also shifted amongst another core of the party. It's still part of the platform, certainly, but I don't think it inspires donors like it once did. Lastly, I think Roe has something to do with this. The decision was a great mobilizer for the party when there was no chance that it was going to be overturned. The ultimate symbol of judicial activism undercutting the will of the people. But now that it's actually in play -- it looks to me like it's cutting in both directions, and causing Pro-Choice republicans to think twice when they open their pocketbooks. And, in the end, the fund raising brilliance of Ron Paul, who was the only anti-war republican, would lead me to believe that the war is also holding back a lot of the isolationist-leaning donors. It's a shifting party, with a candidate who is able to bridge many of the divides. Will he be able to appease his constituency in a way that he can draw enough money while at the same time remaining viable in the election? The attacks during general election will certainly help, but I have my doubts.
The Democratic race has been 2-person for the most part since the first couple of primaries, while the Republican side has had a number of guys to split the funds available to be raised. Rudy may not have done well, but I'm sure he raised plenty of cash. I don't think that the money is going to be a factor, in terms of there being a huge difference. If republicans are the party of the rich (they're not, but that aside), they should raise more money at max $2100 per person than the Dems do from 10x as many donors at $210 per. My thinking is those same people who donated to Bush are still going to donate to McCain. Regardless of the public opinion polls, Bush is still hugely popular with 75% of republicans and he's demonstrated (see above) his prowess at raising money. He'll be doing that for McCain until the end. Ron Paul's appeal wasn't to main-stream party voters, so I don't think his fundraising ability matters in this discussion. The big question, to me, is this. You stand up McCain next to Obama or Hillary. McCain may be liberal for a republican, but he's still well to the right of the other two. The choice/contrast is significant enough that republicans' choice is to concede the election to the democrats/left or to vote for the more conservative of the candidates.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Mar 5 2008, 11:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Ron Paul's appeal wasn't to main-stream party voters, so I don't think his fundraising ability matters in this discussion.</div> That's my point though. The Democrats have always been a fractured party. I don't think the concerns of labor and liberals have ever really lined up. Now, at least during this election cycle, the Republicans are fracturing as well. Between the Rush Limbaugh crew and the isolationists, the fiscal conservatives and the evangelicals, the Latinos and the immigration warriors -- it's not all lining up. It's really a question of whether the inevitable attacks on McCain will bring the party together: not only for voting, but that added step of donating. I think the jury is out.
