Clinton Bashing Has Hurt Obama As Well

By Scott Cavanagh
The razor-thin margin of victory in yesterday's Indiana Primary more than likely sealed the fate of Hillary Clinton's presidential aspirations. I believe today, as I have all along, that Senator Clinton and her supporters will now begin to wind down their activities in the remaining undecided states and try to begin the process of uniting the party in time for the August convention.

These developments however, will not change the facts that Clinton has won virtually every vital battleground state in play this November, would have had the right to contest the nomination if she had so chosen to due to Obama's inability to close the deal, and would be conceding without any representation from two huge, vital states that could swing the nomination to her.

The attitude from Obama supporters that the Clinton people's arguments lack logic--while they pretend the rules regarding super delegates don't exist--and find no need to fix the Florida and Michigan mess--is just so frustrating. The attitude TOTALLY smacks of every stereotype the GOP has about the pompous left.

Is it illogical to think that a candidate whose opponent cannot lock up the nomination in the traditional way, might take advantage of established rules to garner the nomination rather than concede to someone she sees as a loser in the general? Is it illogical to think that it might be in the best interests of my party and my country to have a full accounting of the wishes of two large key general election swing states before conceding the nomination to a candidate that has lost all of the others?

Let me state a couple of things emphatically. I am not now, and have never been, a lackey for Hillary Clinton. I supported Joe Biden at the beginning of this process and leaned towards Edwards after that. I came to her when left with the two candidates we have now. I firmly believe that the rise of Obama, coinciding with the rise of McCain, is the GOP's dream scenario--and I've been saying so for months. The moment all the racial crap started in South Carolina everything changed. Obama was turned overnight from the candidate of everyone (which I truly believe he was) to the candidate of black people and the far left. While at the same time, Hillary Clinton--our frontrunner and the candidate with the greatest African-American poll numbers in history (to go along with enormous popularity with working people and seniors) --was turned into the candidate of the right wing of our party. That worked great for Barack in the immediately approaching southern primaries--where the Democratic primary voting populations are more than 60% black--and carried on through a couple of other smaller states, but what did it produce for our general election chances in November?

When that smoke cleared, the GOP must have felt they had all died and were Raptured to Heaven. The Clinton Coalition--the strongest Democratic voting conglomeration since FDR--had been severed and destroyed forever. Win or lose, blacks and many on the left will never embrace the Clintons as they once did. Combine that with the idiocy in Florida and Michigan and it's like Republicans wrote the script. All that's left is to gin-up some fear mongering for a foreign-born black guy with a Muslim name, friendships with Farrakhan, the PLO and American terrorists (no matter how slim), a loose cannon wife, and a family preacher (the guy married him and baptized their children) that says 9/11 was an inside job and the US government created AIDS. They didn't even have to worry about Hillary making a Clintonesque comeback for the nomination, because the left wing of the party and the press put a public relations pooh-pooh on a totally legal super delegate fight and revotes in Florida and Michigan months ago.

Anything Hillary did from that point on (other than simply quit) was portrayed as "hurting the party" or some kind of underhanded Clinton scheme--which of course only plays that much more into the hands of the GOP--which desperately needs to paint as bad a picture of the Clinton years as possible. Our ONLY successfully completed Democratic presidency of the past 50 years belonged to Bill Clinton. Playing along with the "the Clintons are lying, manipulators that are no different from the other corporatists" crap, as the left has done, is just idiotic. (Claiming, after reading that last sentence, that she was "just the First Lady" and had nothing to do with policy--when you know she was her husband's top advisor for 35 years--is also totally disingenuous--but if you must make it, than all the bashing over NAFTA and Health Care should cease.)

No eight years of Clinton peace and prosperity for McCain to fight against. No "Here's what we did, here's what you did" comparisons between the Clinton years and McCain's voting record. Nope, it will simply be the maverick, All-American, POW war hero against the black Muslim friend of Farrakhan and Qaddafi (their words and images, not mine), whose entire national stage experience consists of one senate term - half of which was spent running for President.

I understand full-well that Obama is most likely going to be the nominee, I hate however, the fact that his people have, for quite some time, tried to lay down this preventive strike against Hillary going to the super delegates by insinuating that it would somehow be cheating or trying to twist the rules. That is not the case at all. If it went to the supers, it would do so for only two reasons--because we did not count the votes in Florida and Michigan and he cannot close the deal and get the 2,025 he needs to win. If you are Hillary Clinton and you believe, as I do, that Obama is going to be a very weak McGovern-ish character in the fall, and you do not fight for the nomination to try and prevent four-eight more years of these horrible Bush policies--you should be ashamed of yourself.

We (Dems) are being set-up like Andruw Jones with a 0-2 count. Do you think the GOP does not have many Reverend Wright-ish dudes out there just waiting to be trucked out to the public? Are you not worried that he cannot close the deal (with Dems for crying out loud) when ALL of the left is on his side? Were you comfortable with what happened to this guy's poll numbers and popularity the minute even these minor attacks started? Do you honestly think its just coincidence that the Right has not been tearing Obama to bits? They are just waiting for the left to kill Hillary. Then they will pounce and it will be ugly.

Does none of this scare you? Only four years ago, we ran a three-time Purple Heart winner against the worst president in modern times and lost. The key states in the past two elections (and virtually everyone since 1964) were Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Michigan and Florida--states Obama has either lost to Hillary or we are not counting (and pissing off). The GOP's case in '04 against Kerry? He was not a brave enough hero and was out-of-touch with regular people. Obama is not only going to win this nomination, he is going to win it (thanks to all the Hillary bashing by the left) as the undisputed candidate of the left wing of the left party (a traditional prescription for disaster in itself), which will only add to his, albeit undeserved, reputation as an elitist. He will be treated as the candidate of minorities and people too liberal for the Clintons.

I hope Senator Obama can overcome smallmindedness and fear mongering this November. I don't think he has shown, thus far, that he can. One commercial--just one--featuring Michelle Obama talking about her views on America and the irrefutable fact that an American terrorist bomber held a fundraiser for Rev. Wright's best buddy--and we are done--TOAST. Two more Scalias, here we come. Sorry if that upsets me.
END OF POST
Leave a Comment

Read More......

On Health Care and the Economy...

A Japanese doctor said, "Medicine in my country is so advanced that we can take a kidney out of one man, put it in another, and have him looking for work in six weeks."

A German doctor said, "That's nothing, we can take a lung out of one person, put it in another, and have him looking for work in four weeks."

A British doctor said,"In my country, medicine is so advanced that we can take half of a heart out of one person, put it in another, and have them both looking for work in two weeks."

A Texas doctor, not to be outdone said, "You guys are way behind. We took a man with no brains out of Texas, put him in the White House and now half the country is looking for work."

END OF POST

Read More......

Democrats' Two-State Two-Step Continues...

Posted by Scott Cavanagh
What, exactly, do Obama supporters propose everyone "move on" to--Hillary simply quitting and handing the nomination to an opponent that cannot mathematically lock it up himself, trails in super delegates, has not won a single large or battleground state other than his own and just got clobbered in both Ohio and Pennsylvania? That request would not be surprising however; they've been begging their opponent to either play nice or quit for months now.

If those continued surrender requests were not strange enough, they want her to do so with two of the four most populous and important states in the union having no say whatsoever. I find this attitude particularly odd coming from fellow progressives who traditionally scream (appropriately) from the rooftops when it appears some small precinct or group of voters (usually in states just like Florida and Michigan) has been disenfranchised as the result of local, state or national party mandates or decisions. Now disenfranchising the entire Democratic voting populations of two all-important battleground states is just fine.

If the Obama camp's case against the revotes is simply and understandably the fact that taking those states out of play favors them and they are not about to slit their own throats--that's fine, but to disingenuously pretend that some flimsy decision by the DNC (a group the two major candidates otherwise ignore) binds them and ties their hands from changing things, is a far worse fib than anything dealing with a Bosnian tarmac.

Who cares whose fault it is that all of the Democrats in Michigan and Florida will have no say in the closest and most historic presidential race in history? Are you honestly trying to tell me that the Obama people could not easily dump a few of their $220 million into a fund matched by the Clinton people to pay for revotes in those two all-important contests?

Do the Obama people truly expect us to believe that their justification for not wanting to actually hear from the voters of Florida or Michigan is a decision by the DNC prompted by the greedy and egotistical actions of some state party bosses? Wow, some kind a "new politics" there.

The Obama campaign has been quick to question Hillary's sincerity on a number of issues. Let's talk about sincerity here. They don't want revotes because they are petrified of them. While neither of the candidates campaigned in Florida, both were on the ballot in the original vote, and Clinton won by a landslide. It is the state with the largest senior voter base--her strongest voting block. Michigan is a snapshot of both Ohio and Pennsylvania--both big Hillary wins.

Once again, it comes down to what happens in November--that is all that should matter to Dems and Progressives. I ask you again, without Florida and Michigan, what large electoral count, in-play, battleground states has Senator Obama won? How well has Obama and his popularity fared after just the smallest of controversies over speeches by an old preacher and just one little misstatement about religion and guns? Remember, the GOP has not even begun to unleash the hounds on this guy. What do you think Karl Rove and Co. will do with Rev. Wright's speeches and the fact that a convicted American terrorist bomber held a fundraiser for Barack--mention it in a speech like Hillary? They'll turn the GOP campaign into their own little YouTube of Wright, The Weathermen, and bullshit "He's a Muslim" stories--24/7. If he can't take what Hillary is dishing out without calling on her to quit, what does that tell us about his chances against the inevitable Republican blitzkrieg attacks? Hillary has taken everything the Right has thrown at her for 17 years--from total dissections of her political decisions and the most intimate details of her personal life, to being called everything from a radical and a carpetbagger to a drug dealer and a murderer--and she has bounced back and come out on top time and time again.

Obama has said it himself--Indiana should be the key indicator of who will get the nomination. If he wins there, the combination of a strong showing in North Carolina would probably stem any momentum Hillary has recently gained and force her out. If she wins however, and carries that momentum to victories in West Virginia, Kentucky and Puerto Rico (63 delegates and polling 2-1 in her favor), she would have every reason and right to think that she would be the stronger general election candidate and fight for the nomination.

The only way for this to be avoided, other than asking the first viable female candidate in history to just quit a race in which her opponent cannot mathematically put her away or beat her in the most vital states, is to have campaign-funded revotes in Florida and Michigan. Both candidates would have the opportunity to make their cases regarding the importance of each and every vote. If Obama were to win even one of the two, he would have an insurmountable lead in the popular vote and sit on the cusp of clinching the delegate count. If Hillary were to sweep both, she would still need a strong showing everywhere else to take the nomination, but if she pulled it off, she would have accomplished it fair and square. Either outcome would be fairer, more transparent, less divisive and a better reflection of the voters' wishes than any other foreseeable conclusion.
END OF POST
Leave a Comment

Read More......

Not So Fast With Those Revotes...

Posted by Ken Hart
Sigh, this again? If Hillary were really interested in acting according to party rules, she would've abided by the decision to penalize Michigan and Florida. Oh wait, I forgot -- she did sign off on that decision. She just changed her mind once she started losing.

Nice use of caveats here, too: "...when he has no legitimate lead in the popular vote and has lost the majority of major states?" Actually, he does still lead in the popular vote. And if you count Florida, he still leads in the popular vote. If you count Florida and Michigan, Clinton takes the lead ... only because Obama wasn't on the ballot in Michigan. That's because he, like Edwards, stuck to his agreement. If you count the people who voted "Uncommitted" in Michigan, he retains his lead in the popular vote. And that's not counting the states to come.

This talk of "overriding the will of the people" ignores the fact that the state legislators themselves are responsible for this mess, not the DNC and not any of the candidates. (And don't forget that the GOP also punished states, though not as harshly.) If the DNC hadn't punished those states, do you think Iowa or New Hampshire would hesitate to move their primaries up to December? It would be a mess.

Michigan has already ruled out a new primary, and Florida seems willing to do it ... only if someone else picks up the tab for their own screwup.

After three months of this, let's move on.
END OF POST
Leave a Comment

Read More......

Obama Needs to Support FLA/MI Revotes

By Scott Cavanagh
For months now, the political airwaves, editorial pages and blogs of this nation have been overflowing with the opinions of concerned pundits languishing with worry over what (Oh, my God—Its TEARING US APART!!) a protracted battle for the Democratic presidential nomination might produce this November.

The main concern, particularly among supporters of Senator Barack Obama, is that a brokered convention fight—particularly one ending in a Clinton victory via a super delegate advantage—would be a horrible example of old school inside political gamesmanship overriding the will of the people—and would turn off all of the wonderfully righteous flock that have only come into the political process because they want change.

Once again, I find the gall and chutzpah of the Obama Camp (and I count the editorial boards of the NY Times, The Nation, Huffington Post and Rolling Stone among them) just amazing. They complain endlessly of Hillary playing dirty, when Obama surrogates continually hold press conferences and send mailings that disparage her in ways much more personal than anything she has said about Obama. When asked about it, Obama simply says it did not come from him—yeah, and the Swift Boaters had nothing to do with Bush. Don’t get me wrong—banging on your opponent is okay, its part of the game—crying foul every time your opponent fires back is not. It's a sign of weakness—one the GOP will jump on faster than a missing flag pin.

If crying every time they took a shot were not bad enough, the continual calls for their opponent to drop out of a race in which she trails by the slimmest of margins and has won virtually every major battleground state vital to a November victory, borders on comical. This is particularly galling when you consider that the only reason the Obama people have any lead at all is because of petty, inside political games.

Michigan and Florida are two of the largest and most important swing states in the union. One is the picture postcard of the economic disaster that is Reagan-Bush economics, the other the most-hotly contested and important state (along with Ohio) of the past two presidential elections. Both also happen to be Hillary strongholds (Florida has the highest percentage of senior voters in the country, while Michigan is almost identical in demographics to both Ohio and Pennsylvania—both won big by Hillary).

Because of petty party politics, egos and inside squabbles, neither of these two ultra-important states will seat any delegates, nor have any say in who the Democratic nominee will be.

How in the world can the Obama people cry foul over Hillary fighting for her legal right to the nomination--by established party rules--when he has no legitimate lead in the popular vote and has lost the majority of major states? Does he have a legitimate case to be the nominee? Of course he does, but so does she, and unless the problem of Michigan and Florida is solved, he and his supporters had better get used to the idea that this might come down to the supers—and if it does there is nothing “wrong” or “shady” about it.

If Obama wins Indiana next week, this may turn out to be a mute point, but with Hillary leading in all the polls there, it looks as if the race will be even tighter the next day. The only way to avoid the brokered convention that everyone says is such a prescription for disaster, is to have revotes in both Michigan and Florida. If Obama were to win those states, the nomination would be his—guaranteed. If Hillary were to win, she would have the lead in both popular vote, super delegates and major states—case closed. What would be the argument--from either side—with such a plan?

The Clinton camp has proposed such an idea and the early reaction from the Obama people is that the Florida and Michigan decisions have already been made and that is simply that. They also claim that the costs would be prohibitive and would not be picked up by the party. For the Obama campaign that claims to represent “new politics” and has by most accounts over $220 million in the coffers, to take the position that the party bosses made their decisions to move their primaries up and got what was coming to them—voters be damned (and by the way, we can’t afford it)—is not only hypocritical, its irresponsible.

Without Florida and Michigan, what real claim will Obama have to the nomination? That he won a bunch of southern and western states that are traditionally dominated by the GOP? Democrats need to think about November. Another GOP win and that Supreme Court will be stacked for the next half-century. The four most important states in the union, as far as 2008 are concerned, are Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Florida. Hillary has won two of them. As it stands now, only the Obama people stand in the way of finding out who would win the other two.
END OF POST

Leave a Comment

Read More......

Clinton Wins--But Does It Change Anything?

Posted by Scott Cavanagh
Hillary Clinton got her desperately needed victory in Pennsylvania yesterday--besting rival Barack Obama in the last large battleground state primary and keeping alive her slim hopes of overtaking him for the Democratic presidential nomination.

The win itself may not have been as important to the former First Lady as the margin of victory. The New York Senator's 55%-45% triumph not only produced needed delegates, it should also produce a vital influx of both energy and cash into a campaign in continuing need of both.

Meanwhile, Obama and his staff know that time and hard numbers are on their side. They simply need to play smart and protect their lead, but as countless fourth quarter comebacks have proven--the prevent defense often prevents nothing but victory.
END OF POST
Post a Comment

Read More......

Judgment Day in PA--Dems Finally Hit Polls

Posted by Scott Cavanagh
All the talk of salty Reverends and Bosnian tarmacs gets put on the back burner today, as Democratic voters in the Keystone State finally get their say in determining whether the contentious race for their party's presidential nomination will continue straight through to a convention floor battle.

Anything less than a convincing win by Senator Hillary Clinton in this last major electoral battleground will likely create a wave of popular sentiment (even among some of her most ardent supporters) for her to drop out of the race and unite the party against the increasingly confident campaign of GOP nominee John McCain.

A big Clinton victory (eight percentage points or more) however, will almost certainly guarantee that the fight will go on full-bore through the May 6 primary battles in Indiana and North Carolina. Even wins in both Pennsylvania and Indiana will do Clinton little good without surprise showings in at least two states that now lean heavily toward Obama. Her dream scenario is a big win tonight, followed by two more wins in Indiana and West Virginia and better-than-respectable results in North Carolina and Kentucky. Those are some big hypotheticals for a campaign currently hanging on by a thread again--at least for a few more hours.
END OF POST
Post a Comment

Read More......