The Consequences Of The Kitchen Sink

It's becoming increasingly evident that Hillary Clinton's strategy to raise doubts about Barack Obama's candidacy is backfiring. Yesterday, the latest NBC/WSJ poll showed that while Obama's positive/negative rating has dropped a bit recently, from 51-28 earlier this month to 49-32, Clinton's has absolutely plummeted from 45-43 to 37-48 today. Who would have thought that during a period that involved the Wright controversy that it would be Clinton's approval that would be the one to dip.

We're also seeing Hillary Clinton's popularity drop in what her campaign considers Clinton country and one of the key pillars of their big state argument: California. A new PPIC poll of CA shows Clinton with a net negative favorable rating of 45-52, while Barack Obama enjoys a very high favorability rating of 61-34. The net effect: she polls worse against McCain in a general election match-up than Obama does. While Obama beats McCain 49-40, Clinton's margin of victory is within the MOE at 46-43. I have to agree with Frank Russo at CA Progress Report:

The findings in this poll show, that for the largest state in the nation with 55 Electoral College Votes (20% of those needed to be elected President), Obama is much better positioned to win in November--and why. It calls into question one of the central arguments of a Clinton candidacy--that she can win the big states in the fall--and that there is a correlation between Democratic primary results and performance in November.

This disapproval at Clinton's recent tactics is carrying over to the all important superdelegates as well, some of whom are expressing their concerns outwardly that Clinton is doing more harm than good to herself and the party.

At a time when Sen. Hillary Clinton is increasingly relying on superdelegates to vault her to the Democratic Party's nomination, a handful of undecided and pledged superdelegates are coming forward to say her campaign's tactics in recent weeks are doing more harm than good. [...]

"In looking at the manner in which the candidates are campaigning, I think it would be best they focused their attention on the presumptive nominee and showed our party which one is better in campaigning against McCain," said Garry Shay, a California superdelegate, who announced his support for Clinton. [...]

But one undeclared delegate, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the recent tactics are turning her and other superdelegates off.

"I don't think anybody's saying 'step aside,' but 'stop with the garbage' is what people want to say," the delegate said. "Just chill a little bit." [...]

"We like the fact that there is a candidate that has won so many states overwhelmingly," the delegate said. "We're feeling her advisors are leading her in a path that diminishes her as well as him." [...]

The final straw, though, were Clinton's comments Tuesday, when she said the Rev. Jeremiah Wright "would not have been my pastor." Several superdelegates saw it as a direct, personal attack on Obama.

"I think it's very dangerous for any candidate to constantly thrum on what they perceive as sensational criticisms of their opponent," said Debra Kozikowski, an uncommitted superdelegate from Massachusetts. "I would be more likely to respond positively to discussions of issues that effect Americans versus what might be perceived as character flaws."

While it may be too soon to tell, it certainly appears as though the Clinton team may be shifting away from the sort of tactics that are turning people off. Today, in response to Obama's economic speech, Hillary Clinton returned to the "real solutions" vs. "just words" frame to criticize Obama, an attack I think all would agree is fair game. Clinton also stepped up her criticism of John McCain in a speech in North Carolina.

Sometimes the phone rings at 3am in the White House and it's an economic crisis. And we need a president who is ready and willing to answer that call. But I read Senator McCain's plan which does virtually nothing to ease the credit crisis or the housing crisis. The phone is ringing and he would just let it ring and ring.

Senator McCain is a friend of mine but he said himself, "The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should." He'd rather ignore the credit crisis and mortgage crisis -- or blame middle class families instead of offering solutions on their behalf.

We've had enough of a president who didn't know enough about economics, and didn't do enough for the middle class. I don't think we can afford four more years. I believe we have to answer the call and act aggressively to deal with the housing and credit crises. That's the kind of president we need after eight years of George Bush.

More of this, please, Senator.

Tags: 2008 Presidential election, Barack Obama, Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton, John McCain (all tags)

Comments

211 Comments

Good for Garry Shay

I know Garry Shay.  I like Garry Shay.  We email back and forth pretty frequently.  But I think what Garry Shay might have actually meant is:

"Hey, Hillary--stop campaigning for McCain and start campaigning against him."

by hekebolos 2008-03-27 01:34PM | 0 recs
The Media has declared WAR on Clinton

it is amazing that she hasn't been assasinated at the rate they are going.

by squid 2008-03-27 01:45PM | 0 recs
Re: The Media has declared WAR on Clinton

Clinton is almost entirely reponsible for her decline in the polls.

What are the stories on HRC in the last 10 days?
Slamming Obama
Shopping the wright video
calling Obama's speech on the economy "just words"
The Bosnia dream sequence
Having her "Lieberman" funders threaten Pelosie
Saying "isn't it nice that at least she and McCain love America"

I think the desperation to hurt Obama enough to push herself over the top, has hurt her. Thats what it looks like to me.

Oh well one thing that wasnt from the Clinton campaign, their friend Bill Richardson endorsed Obama because he was tired of the tactics of the Clinton camp.

by inexile 2008-03-27 02:02PM | 0 recs
Doubts that are being raised aren't about Hillary.

This stuff is becoming so lame and so predictable..

It makes us all realize just how HIGH the stakes are for our country and our people, that unnamed evil people would put SO much energy into manipulating it.

by architek 2008-03-27 05:10PM | 0 recs
Re: The Media has declared WAR on Clinton

Isn't managing the relationship with the media the major duty of the candidate and her campaign?

If the Democrats have a choice between a candidate who won't get a fair shake in the media and a candidate that gets the benefit of the doubt, why should Democrats nominate the candidate who the media is biased against?

Let's assume that HRC is the victim of mistreatment at the hands of the media: for what reason should Democrats nominate a candidate who is disliked by the media? What do the interest groups who are part of the Dem coalition get out of nominating a candidate who will get unfairly treated by the media?

by Carl Nyberg 2008-03-27 02:45PM | 0 recs
Substance-wise, they get a more leftist candidate

On domestic, especially economic, policy (which is what really matters to the media owners): mortgage relief, health care, and social security, for example.

They also have a President who was elected despite the opposition of the corporate media, and who therefore is not beholden to the owners of the media for getting elected. Do you want a President who will privately be thanking Jack Welch for his networks' essential, beyond the pale propaganda services? Who knows, maybe such a President will reverse the media monopolization trend?

The 'Democratic Party Coalition' also will have put the corporate media in its place and on the defensive, which will help liberal movements and causes generally.

by fairleft 2008-03-27 02:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Substance-wise, they get a more leftist candid

Let me see if I understand your point of view.

You believe the following facts:

1. The media is biased against Hillary Rodham Clinton.
2. Clinton is better on the issues than Obama because she is further to the Left.

From these two beliefs, you further believe that the positive (Clinton being better on issues) outweighs the negative (Clinton being a weaker candidate in the media).

Do I understand your perspective correctly?

On what issues is Clinton different and better than Obama?

by Carl Nyberg 2008-03-27 03:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Substance-wise, they get a more leftist candid

"mortgage relief, health care, and social security, for example."

Health care: she's for a universal coverage.

Social Security: she's said it is not in crisis, he's said 'everything on the table'.

Mortgage relief: it's widely agreed, I think, that her subprime and other mortgage relief plan is bigger and more aggressive than Obama's.

by fairleft 2008-03-27 03:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Substance-wise, they get a more leftist candid

It's easy to promise stuff on the campaign trail.

What has she accomplished in her career for the Left?

In the Senate, what Left cause has HRC taken a risk on?

by Carl Nyberg 2008-03-27 03:27PM | 0 recs
She tried to get universal health care passed

in '93. That would've been nice. The Dem Congressman leading the fight against her is now Obama's health care advisor.

by fairleft 2008-03-27 03:31PM | 0 recs
Re: She tried to get universal health care passed

So, HRC's greatest accomplishment for the Left was a failure?

Pardon me if I'm less than enthused.

by Carl Nyberg 2008-03-27 03:44PM | 0 recs
Healthcare costs are bankrupting millions of Ameri

Healthcare costs are bankrupting millions of American families. When Jim Cooper, Obama's healthcare point man, was a Congressman from Tennessee in 1993, he was steadfastly opposed to universal health care and he put forward a plan that was supported strongly by the health insurance industry and a number of conservative Democrats. Their plan, which was called "Clinton-Lite" was widely seen as being nowhere near as comprehensive as the Clinton healthcare plan. However, it was liked by the corporate world because it shifted costs off of them and onto the consumers and employees. It also was not a step on the path to single payer, which is how they saw the Clinton plan.

There's a good article here on the whole debacle..

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1 282/is_n4_v46/ai_14885300/print

I think its interesting that even the National Review acknowledged that the Clinton plan would work and that the Cooper plan had a lot of holes in it but satisfied ideological requirements of the main corporate backers..

The failure of the Clinton plan was due not to its own failings, but instead, it was due to the huge weight of a formidable coalition of business groups against it. We see that same coalition fkexing its hidden muscles today in their backing of Obama.

:o

by architek 2008-03-27 05:28PM | 0 recs
Re: She tried to get universal health care passed

While Obama's greatest accomplishment in the Illinois State Senate was responding to a great effort to get universal health care in the state by delaying it and committeeing it to death.

by fairleft 2008-03-28 03:00PM | 0 recs
Re: The Consequences Of The Kitchen Sink
What about the consequences of the kitchen sink strategy for the Democratic Party?

Is all we cared about was Hillary, we might only want to consider the counter-productive strategy of her campaign (amateur hour, anyone?).

But when we have a dairy on the Consequences of the Kitchen Sink on MyDD, you'd think the dairy would be focused on the negative consequence for the Democratic Party and for the level of political discourse in our country in general.
by xtrarich 2008-03-27 02:05PM | 0 recs
Re: The Consequences Of The Kitchen Sink

Actually it IS about the Democratic party because it is the Democratic Party members that are demonstrating how we don't like what is going on one bit.

And the Democratic Party through the members are very concerned about the negative effect this is having on a Democratic Party's nomination process and that this type of campaign may well keep going to not good consequences in the GE come November which is why those numbers are now tanking.

If the past holds true, these changes will be temporary though.

This is but the latest one we'll wait and see what the next move will be from the Clinton camp.

by Wary 2008-03-27 02:20PM | 0 recs
Re: The Consequences Of The Kitchen Sink

The kitchen sink was the only chance she had left.  Clearly the voting public is not going to stand for it.  This should be over now.

by lockewasright 2008-03-27 01:34PM | 0 recs
GET THESE TROLLS OUT OF HERE.

please

by squid 2008-03-27 01:46PM | 0 recs
Re: GET THESE TROLLS OUT OF HERE.

That's rich coming from someone who was following me around troll rating me after accusing me and other of being sockpuppets paid by the Obama campaign.

There is a troll here, but it's not who you think it is.

by bawbie 2008-03-27 01:49PM | 0 recs
Re: GET THESE TROLLS OUT OF HERE.

Is it me?

:D

by LandStander 2008-03-27 02:25PM | 0 recs
Re: GET THESE TROLLS OUT OF HERE.

This squid dude has been here for all of two days and he's calling long time users trolls.  He should've waited at least a few days before abusing the TR.  Sad.

by NewOaklandDem 2008-03-27 02:27PM | 0 recs
Re: GET THESE TROLLS OUT OF HERE.

This is a website for democrats, hence the name, and progressives should be allowed to post here to talk about the candidate they support if its not your favorite candidate Hillary.

If all you want is Pro-Hillary posts then go to her campaign website.

Thats not what this site is for.  It not entitled Hillary for President website its called MyDD.

Get a grip and stop your whining, its rather immature, like ur candidate.

by gabbie 2008-03-27 06:53PM | 0 recs
Re: The Consequences Of The Kitchen Sink

Way to buy into the media narrative Todd.

Other polls coompletly disagre, but hey, if its on MSNBC, its gotta be right, right?

by John Wesley Hardin was a Friend to the Poor 2008-03-27 01:35PM | 0 recs
what other polls?

sources please?

by kindthoughts 2008-03-27 01:36PM | 0 recs
Re: what other polls?

I just ran across this new Pew Poll which is not favorable to Clinton in anyway:

Obama leads Clinton nationally

THE NUMBERS

Barack Obama, 49 percent

Hillary Rodham Clinton, 39 percent

OF INTEREST:

The two rivals' standings in the Pew Research Center poll have changed little from late February, the latest indication that so far Obama has weathered the controversy over provocative sermons by his longtime pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080327/ap_o n_el_pr/poll2008_national

So, in this poll he hasn't lost any standing at all, despite the Wright controversy, very interesting.

by Wary 2008-03-27 02:44PM | 0 recs
Re: what other polls?

Those polls taken many weeks apart don't show what actually happened with Obama and Clinton's standing. Obama's went down significantly, then went back up after the (hillary-hating) media climaxed over his Philly speech. Go here and scroll down a little:

http://pollingreport.com/wh08dem.htm

by fairleft 2008-03-27 03:09PM | 0 recs
Gallup sex Obama & Clinton basically tied

Nobody knows, though, really. Below are the Gallup tracking polls since March 7. The yellow highlighted days are the only statistically significant (margin of error of 3%) days:

Photobucket

http://pollingreport.com/wh08dem.htm

by fairleft 2008-03-27 03:04PM | 0 recs
What's a gallup sex?

It sounds fun...

by David in AK 2008-03-27 03:29PM | 0 recs
Re: The Consequences Of The Kitchen Sink

That wasn't even about that. It was an even-handed and thoughtful post, one that actually spoke well about the party instead of a candidate.

You, sir, are a troll of the worst magnitude.

by vcalzone 2008-03-27 01:38PM | 0 recs
Re: The Consequences Of The Kitchen Sink

You are 100% correct.  I'm surprised this wasn't written in all caps, as usual.

by Cycloptichorn 2008-03-27 01:44PM | 0 recs
Re: The Consequences Of The Kitchen Sink

Why are we siting MSNBC opinion pieces and polls as fact when other opinion pieces and polls diff wildly?

I expected better from you, Todd. Stop buying into the MSM narrative.

by americanincanada 2008-03-27 02:20PM | 0 recs
Re: The Consequences Of The Kitchen Sink

"Why are we siting MSNBC opinion pieces and polls as fact when other opinion pieces and polls diff wildly?"

Current ones? Do share.

by rhetoricus 2008-03-27 02:51PM | 0 recs
Re: The Consequences Of The Kitchen Sink

Gallup's daily tracking polls, See my post above.

by fairleft 2008-03-27 03:06PM | 0 recs
Re: The Consequences Of The Kitchen Sink

Yeah - especially when other polls say the opposite - like this:

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2008/ 03/25/polls-show-obama-damaged-by-revere nd-wright.html

Add that to the fact that MSNBC ha to explain that they OVERSAMPLED AA's in the poll - you know, the people least likely to be affected by the Wright comments and probably the most likely to like Obama's speech and support him anyways?

by cmugirl90 2008-03-27 02:25PM | 0 recs
Re: The Consequences Of The Kitchen Sink

Once again, oversampling is done to provide statistically significant results on certain sub-groups. The overall results are weighted by the general population, so it has no impact on the top-lines of the poll.

by thinman 2008-03-27 03:03PM | 0 recs
Re: The Consequences Of The Kitchen Sink

Over samples but not over represented. There is a difference. This is called stratified sampling. It's a good thing to know when you're looking at polls.

by Glic 2008-03-27 03:04PM | 0 recs
Re: The Consequences Of The Kitchen Sink

Oversampling does not mean what you think it means.

by Brannon 2008-03-27 03:29PM | 0 recs
Re: The Consequences Of The Kitchen Sink

Get your facts straight. They oversample smaller populations so the accuracy of the statistical sample equals the larger groups. They then ADJUST before including them in the full poll results so they are not over represented. NBC confirmed that is in fact what they did.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2 008/03/27/827746.aspx

by hankg 2008-03-27 04:25PM | 0 recs
please explain

not sure how combining the opinions of 100 more AA's into the 77 and adding that result, esp. considering it's got an MOE of over 7%, gives any better result than adding the 177. And how is the higher MOE factored in?

by desert dawg 2008-03-27 05:37PM | 0 recs
Re: please explain

When pollsters poll a population, they don't poll exactly 13% AAs, 11% caucasian Hispanics, 53% women, etc., etc.  They poll who they get to a significant sample size, then weight the responses so that the answers they DID get are proportionally represented in the final number.

In this case, they wanted to know what AAs thought in particular, and they needed some minimum number of them to get a number with statistical significance.  So they surveyed more of them ON PURPOSE and weighted them less.  The adjustment ss the same thing that happens in every poll randomly, it was just forced into the effect.

by Rorgg 2008-03-27 08:33PM | 0 recs
Re: please explain

and the higher MOE?

by desert dawg 2008-03-28 05:48AM | 0 recs
Re: please explain

Not sure what you're asking here -- yes, the smaller sample size has a bigger MoE than the group as a whole, but lower than it would if it were a proportional percentage... which is the whole point of oversampling: to reduce the MoE on your subset.

by Rorgg 2008-03-29 05:12AM | 0 recs
Re: please explain

If your going to troll rate my comment in a different diary, you could at least give an explanation. Nothing I said was inflammatory. Defend yourself if you will.

by zep93 2008-04-03 01:50PM | 0 recs
Re: The Consequences Of The Kitchen Sink

You know it is really a bizarre world we live in , She can have the Kitchen sink thrown at her by the Obama campaign and she gets the blame for it anyway.

The whole Kitchen sink stuff is just a bunch of crap , what exactly has she said to criticize Obama anyway.

The woman barely mentions his name.

Yet there is some kind of myth out there that she is throwing the Kitchen sink at him.

The last time I checked it was his campaign that has been viciously calling her a liar etc

I would be curious to know what exactly this kitchen sink is , outside of media crap.

by lori 2008-03-27 01:35PM | 0 recs
erm,

His campaign? or his random supporters? sources please?

by kindthoughts 2008-03-27 01:37PM | 0 recs
Surely you jest

Ever since they hired Greg Craig as a spokesman, he has been litigating this campaign.  Picking at and criticizing every single thing she says and replaying it in the worst sort of light imaginable.  Every morning the daily Obama memo drips with anti-Clinton bile.  Several national commentators, and I'm not talking about the usual pro-Clinton suspects but people like Mark Halperin and Mark Armbinder, have noted how extremely vicious and personal the Obama campaign has been lately.

by Trickster 2008-03-27 02:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Surely you jest

Do you have links to any of these items from the Obama campaign?  I'm honestly interested in reading them, because I haven't seen much negative coming from Obama recently that I can remember.

by ChrisKaty 2008-03-27 02:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Surely you jest - linky....

...To the Obama campaign calling her a liar as you attest?

by Glic 2008-03-27 03:05PM | 0 recs
OK

The Obama campaign excreted this vileness last Friday.

But, better than any one thing, and without forcing me to open your eyes to reality, I suggest you bookmark, or otherwise keep an eye on, Mark Halperin's The Page for time.com.  Every morning Halperin gives you the material from the two campaigns' morning conference calls, unfiltered.

I believe he has archives, so you can go back and check it out on a day-by-day basis.  They were pretty bad right straight along, but the Obama camp has been quite odious since Wright came out.

by Trickster 2008-03-27 04:28PM | 0 recs
I am sorry

are we not allowed to question her experience?

If I recall correctly she started the whole "he is not qualified to be C-in-C"

by kindthoughts 2008-03-27 05:04PM | 0 recs
Experience?

That's a whole long page of "she's a big liar."  And most of it extremely argumentative and relying on unknowledgeable sources.

by Trickster 2008-03-27 05:10PM | 0 recs
how is this different

then talking points by Clinton campaign about his "not being vetted", his "lack of experience", his not readiness, his this or his that?

If you read an email from Hillary about that, you would be like, well this are good points she raising how will she answer that.

Obama's campaign basically made an argument that her experience as a first lady does not equate to actual executive experience. Then instead of being vague they detailed their concerns.

You are free to disprove them, to point out inconsistencies and such.

by kindthoughts 2008-03-27 05:19PM | 0 recs
correction

typo: how will HE'll answer that.

by kindthoughts 2008-03-27 05:19PM | 0 recs
You're missing my point

And the memo's point as well.

That memo is NOT about experience.  It's a thinly disguised accusation that she is a big liar.  She's accused of lying--on quite thin evidence--in each of those points.

The conclusion is what, that Obama's experienced?  Of course not, it's:

And Barack Obama does not use false charges and exaggerated claims to play politics with national security.

by Trickster 2008-03-27 05:25PM | 0 recs
so hold on a sec

How does one question the validity of someones statements then?

I mean if I say I helped bring about end of WWII by donating my salary to the war effort, does that qualify as doing as the generals who planned Normandie.

I mean look at this statement from the memo:

Point by point:

  • She did not sit in on National Security Council meetings.

  • She did not have a security clearance.

  • She did not attend meetings in the Situation Room.

  • She did not manage any part of the national security bureaucracy, nor did she have her own national security staff.

  • She did not do any heavy-lifting with foreign governments, whether they were friendly or not.

  • She never managed a foreign policy crisis, and there is no evidence to suggest that she participated in the decision-making that occurred in connection with any such crisis.
  • These are true.

    by kindthoughts 2008-03-27 05:46PM | 0 recs
    Re: Surely you jest

    And Clinton's Wolfson and Penn and Singer don't?

    PLEASE.

    by gabbie 2008-03-27 06:59PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Consequences Of The Kitchen Sink

    She has thrown very little at him HERSELF.  Her rep's on the other hand have thrown everything they could get their hands on.

    by lqbruin 2008-03-27 01:38PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Consequences Of The Kitchen Sink

    So the Obama surrogates haven't done the same thing to her ?

    Its just weird the way things work.

    Fact #3: In recent days, the Obama campaign has used e-mails and conference calls to engage in its most negative and personal assaults on Clinton since the campaign began.

    http://thepage.time.com/halperins-take-i f-obama-has-the-nomination-wrapped-up-wh y-is-his-campaign-going-after-clinton-so -hard/

    by lori 2008-03-27 01:42PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Consequences Of The Kitchen Sink

    I don't know what you are talking about.  But, assuming it is true, Obama's team is doing the throwing in a way that looks more civilized.  I know  this point seems unfair, but those are the results.  Her side looks petty and mean.  His side looks like they are above it all.  I would rather neither side threw anything underhanded, but if they must, at least they make it look like something else.

    by lqbruin 2008-03-27 01:47PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Consequences Of The Kitchen Sink

    Yes you would have to actually click on the link to know what (s)he is talking about. So you must plead ignorance ....

    by redwagon 2008-03-27 02:09PM | 0 recs
    Actually, *you* should click the link

    The link only speculates about why Obama's campaign might be attacking Clinton, it provides no substantiation that it actually is attacking Clinton.

    by David in AK 2008-03-27 05:06PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Consequences Of The Kitchen Sink

    When one throws the 'kitchen sink" as the Clinton campaign honchos said they had to do a time back, then it's fair game to fight back,

    AND to NOT fight back is an unreasonable expectation as the Clinton campaign has attempted to portray the Obama campaign--

    Clinton camp, supporters attacks Obama, then when he responds they begin with 'hey we thought you were for a POSITIVE campaign and yet here you are attacking us'--

    now note that it's just NOT supporters here, but these polls demonstrate that many other Democrats are seeing the very same thing and they don't like it either.

    Also on issues, such as NAFTA when Clinton has made claims that she ALWAYS opposed it, well, that issue became fair game, as it is noted in the diary that her attacking Obama on 'just words', etc, so when Obama pulled up actual 'words' of hers from the past in SUPPORT of NAFTA she claimed 'foul'--sorry that's not 'negative' since it was the truth.

    If things are fair on one side, then they are on the other side as well.

    by Wary 2008-03-27 02:35PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Consequences Of The Kitchen Sink

    It seems as that, when one Clinton supporter used the "kitchen sink" phrase back in February, for the first time in this campaign, somebody in the Clinton camp was actually taken at his word.  Taken as an absolute article of faith, too, because I see that quoted all the time and pretty much inevitably without any substance at all to back it up.  Just "she's throwing the kitchen sink" or "Clinton's kitchen sink strategy," but never never any examples of what the speaker means by the reference.

    In fact, Clinton has been running a relatively gentle campaign.  Obamaphiles just love to cite the thing she said about Obama and McCain and the CIC test, and you know what, I agree that she went a step too far with that, but she said it ONE TIME and if you guys really thought it would damage Obama so badly in the general then maybe you shouldn't keep coming back with it in every other breath.

    Then she made some measured comments about Wright, in response to an interview question.  Again, a one-time thing, and I don't know why she did it, but I have heard the suggestion that after seeing the polling on Wright she was told it was imperative that she get on the record because her silence was lumping her in with Wright and Obama.  And really, that's all she has done: get on the record with a measured response to a question.  She hasn't pushed the story at all.

    So really, what is it that Obama is "fighting back" against that makes his top media guys want to viciously attack Hillary's character day after day after day?  Give me some specifics, please, because I really don't know.

    by Trickster 2008-03-27 04:36PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Consequences Of The Kitchen Sink

    In case anyone is wondering. The link presents absolutely no evidence of Obama launching negative attacks on Hillary. It's just a list of reasons why Obama's campaign might want to launch such attacks even while ahead--along with a vague disturbing photoshop job of Obama as Sammy Davis Jr. in an old ratpack photo.

    by Brannon 2008-03-27 03:33PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Consequences Of The Kitchen Sink

    Yeah, the new politics is to not say anything and let your campaign run your propaganda through back-channel maneuvering. So honestly, it could be coming from either Hillary OR the GOP.

    by vcalzone 2008-03-27 01:41PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Consequences Of The Kitchen Sink

    Oprah can throw a kitchen sink but she can get away with it, cause she is likeable. Obama is a steel fist in a velvet glove but he is very likeable.
    He can get away with it. Al Gore and Kerry can't cause they're not likeable.

    Hillary on the oher hand. There is something about her i just don't like. Same feeling i had with Richard Nixon.

    by KathyM 2008-03-27 01:42PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Consequences Of The Kitchen Sink

    It is very odd. Hillary's supporters think she is wonderful and they think Obama is very unlikeable - arrogant and posturing, to say nothing of being lazy and inexperienced. That's why more of them won't vote for him if he is the candidate. It is strange how blind some of you are.

    by georgiast 2008-03-27 02:19PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Consequences Of The Kitchen Sink

    You're calling Barack Obama lazy? Really? Do you have any evidence for that?

    The only explanation I can think of for why someone would believe that is not the sort of thing one mentions in polite company.

    by seand 2008-03-27 02:41PM | 0 recs
    Lazy? - those are fighting words

    Well I'll reply to it, polite company or no.
    Given the grueling campaign schedules both candidates keep, don't see how anyone can call either lazy.

    Given the well-oiled campaign Obama has run - don't know how anyone can call him disorganized.

    "Lazy" is a euphemism for "shiftless, lazy...negro".  Heard it for years, down South. While the "lazy negros" picked bales of cotton, built roads and bridges, and were worked  to death.

    Let's just call a spade a spade shall we.  
    I'm sick and tired of reading these low down, rotten back-stabbing type of not so subtle attacks from Democrats.  Save all your venom for McCain please.  Or keep your mouth shut.
    Or better yet, get the hell out of a Democratic forum, because only a troll could possibly use those words to critique Barack Obama (I hope)

    by NeciVelez 2008-03-27 02:57PM | 0 recs
    Re: Lazy? - those are fighting words

    you said it alot better than I could have and I thank you for it.

    by Tunk 2008-03-27 06:38PM | 0 recs
    Please stop with the stereotypes
    I think Obama has plenty of charisma which Hillary lacks, I don't think he's arrogant at all, but I do think he's inexperienced.
    But I will vote for him if he wins the nomination.
    Will you be voting for Hillary if she wins?
    by skohayes 2008-03-27 02:47PM | 0 recs
    Dog Whistle Phrasing

    "Arrogant" = "uppity negro"

    "Lazy" = "Well, you know how all THOSE people are."

    Seriously. Arrogant? Lazy? Got a SINGLE example to back these up? Obama is polite, self-effacing, and conciliatory to a huge fault--so much so that Edwards feared he wouldn't be enough of a "fighter." His phrasing of "we" is drastic against Clinton's relentless "I." "Arrogant" and "Lazy"-- are ridiculous, clearly racist characterizations. They are just as bad as the GOP calling Hillary "the bitch," "ambitious," "frigid," "ballbusting," etc. Enough with the gender/race BS.

    Why can't Clinton's camp criticize Obama's proposed policies, or his record in the Senate, or things he actually says he believes (not things his minister has said that Obama has disavowed). Really, Clinton has a stronger health care program. Some of her economic solutions are more specific. THESE are the things grow-ups campaign about.

    by rhetoricus 2008-03-27 03:03PM | 0 recs
    Obama does NOTHING but posture and wiggle his way

    to the top.

    The laziness and inexperience assertion comes form having his bills assigned to him when others have done the work (see his Illinois Senate work, particularly what Rick Hendon said about that "landmark" bill re: videotaping), popping up at the last minute to a good thing and then wanting full-on credit for them (see Chris Dodd about this one) and his wanting to be the head of the Senate Committee and then doing absolutely NOTHING on it because he was "too busy campaigning for President".  Claiming he passed things when he didn't (see that bill re: Exelon and what he told Iowa voters to get their vote) is another thing we hate about him.

    So yep--he's damned lazy.  I dno't give a crap what color he is.  If he were white or Hispanic or Martian, he'd still be a lazy, arrogant, ambitious self-centered a-hole.

    by BrandingIron17 2008-03-27 04:31PM | 0 recs
    Re: Obama does NOTHING but posture and wiggle his

    Inexperience, yes.  But sorry, the laziness meme does not pass the laugh test.

    by David in AK 2008-03-27 05:15PM | 0 recs
    Inexperience

    Exactly. As opposed to, say, all that experience Bill Clinton had when he was running for president.

    And I do look forward to examples of Hillary's vaunted experience that aren't, you know, made up, or things Laura Bush couldn't as easily claim.

    by rhetoricus 2008-03-27 05:47PM | 0 recs
    posture and wiggle indeed

    Credible links, anyone?

    Granted, Obama wasn't dodging sniper fire in Bosnia like Hillary, or "deeply involved in the Irish peace process" or granting war powers without consulting WMD evidence, or being "top advisor" in the pardoning of criminals, or being the "top advisor" in shipping thousands of American jobs overseas and then lying--sorry--"misspeaking"--about championing it, but at least Obama actually HAD experience running for state Senate and serving there, after serving the poor in the streets of Chicago, rather than riding a spouse's coattails into the Senate.

    All that said, I'd NEVER say I "hate" Hillary, or that she's an "a**hole," despite the fact that I am disappointed she hired Monsanto-boy Mark Penn to be her attack dog, or got in bed with Richard Mellon "Clintons murdered vince Foster" Scaife, of all people, to barrage Obama (really, how low can you go?)

    And I would never vote McCain to spite her. But then, I'm a true Democrat. And, you know, not a bigot.

    by rhetoricus 2008-03-27 05:43PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Consequences Of The Kitchen Sink

    Hillary is a liar. What else would you call someone who lies? about things that don't need to be exaggerated.

    but in any regards, it looks as if you ask for specific instances in where Hillary herself attacks Obama but you attack Obama's entire campaign team for "viciously" calling her a liar.

    keeping things apples to apples and not apples to oranges might be a good approach to this topic.

    by alex100 2008-03-27 01:45PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Consequences Of The Kitchen Sink

    I might as well call Obama a liar for saying he didn't know his pastor of 20 years was saying those hate filled words .

    However that would make me look like a delinquent juvenile.

    by lori 2008-03-27 01:53PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Consequences Of The Kitchen Sink

    I take it you still haven't seen those clips in context?  There was no hate there.

    by Whash 2008-03-27 02:01PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Consequences Of The Kitchen Sink

    call him what you want.

    I'm not going to get into a he said, she said dumb-fest.

    by alex100 2008-03-27 02:04PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Consequences Of The Kitchen Sink

    Um, yeah, he said he wasn't present for the particular speech 2003 that's been run on an endless loop, and his absence has been proven.

    He did say he'd heard Rev. Wright say controversial and angry things. I am white and I heard no hate.

    Black people don't have the institutional power to disenfranchise white people en mass like the other way around, so inflammatory speech has VERY different consequences, depending on where you hail from. Anti-black racist speech has the power of the bully behind it, while angry speech toward whites is pointing at institutional injustices. Qualitatively different things. Calling it all "hate speech" is really a misrepresentation.

    by rhetoricus 2008-03-27 03:14PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Consequences Of The Kitchen Sink

    The fact that the Rev's tirade was all true never hurts, either.

    by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-03-28 04:14AM | 0 recs
    Re: The Consequences Of The Kitchen Sink

    No kidding, right?  I don't know why the media narrative is that Hillary's at fault for being negative against Obama, yet what the Hell has she done this past week except work the Bosnia junk thrown at her?  When Wright is brought up by OTHER to her, she responds appropriately.  She isn't doing anything.  What kind of world is this?
    by BrandingIron17 2008-03-27 04:24PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Consequences Of The Kitchen Sink

    what the Hell has she done this past week except work the Bosnia junk thrown at her?
    Well, she's the one that threw it--that one's a self-inflicted wound.

    by David in AK 2008-03-27 05:12PM | 0 recs
    I really have

    the feeling is that Penn simply does not know what to do.

    I still think that if Hillary run her own campaign rather then have Penn and others take it over, should would have fared better.

    just my 2 cents.

    by kindthoughts 2008-03-27 01:36PM | 0 recs
    Re: I really have

    She was reportedly going to fire him after Iowa, but backed off after NH.  Horrible mistake.  

    And I still don't get the lack of reporting on the ties between Penn and the McCain campaign....  You'd think this is the kind of thing her supporters would be upset about.

    by Whash 2008-03-27 01:42PM | 0 recs
    Re: I really have

    she really should have won this thing.

    All she needed was someone to tell her to contest every state and this thing really would have been over on Feb 4th.

    by alex100 2008-03-27 01:49PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Consequences Of The Kitchen Sink

    Definitely. We need to understand exactly who we're running against. If both candidates stop fighting with each other and speak about each other positively, we will see positive results.

    Imagine how lovely it would be to spend the months leading up to the Democratic convention with both our nominees competing to see who can do the best job of knocking down John McCain! They can beat the hell out of one of them, but they can't beat the hell out of both of them. Not yet. Let's focus on that.

    by vcalzone 2008-03-27 01:37PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Consequences Of The Kitchen Sink

    That squid troll is getting very annoying.

    by NewOaklandDem 2008-03-27 02:15PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Consequences Of The Kitchen Sink

    What her highly paid campaign staff don't understand is that Obama is very likeable. That means no matter what you do, things will no stick to him. He can easily deflect it.
    He is as nice as Reagan was. I like both of them.

    Hillary reminds me of that man Nixon.  

    by KathyM 2008-03-27 01:38PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Consequences Of The Kitchen Sink

    How many times are your going to repeat that HRC reminds you of Nixon in this thread.

    We heard you the first time-- Geez.

    by bellarose 2008-03-27 01:46PM | 0 recs
    Reagan was evil.

    He did so much bad.  Bush is the continuation of Reagan.

    And you like Reagan?  

    Scary.

    by TomP 2008-03-27 02:15PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Consequences Of The Kitchen Sink

    You're right. And another thing her highly paid campaign staff did not understand is that against a very likeable opponent she looks horrible on top of the fact she unliked from the start

    by Tunk 2008-03-27 06:54PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Consequences Of The Kitchen Sink

    If this is what President Clinton meant when talked about "putting on the pads," then I'm all for it.  Keep it tough, but CLEAN.  Alas, I am sure he was also saying that a few illegal hits here and there were okay.  That is the problem.  We need to take the high road.  All in America besides the dittoheads want that.

    by lqbruin 2008-03-27 01:41PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Consequences Of The Kitchen Sink

    MSNBC and fellow MSMers are hell-bent-for-heaven to get her out of the race.

    Not going to happen.

    The lying pollsters--from New Hampshire to California to Texas--are no longer believed, by anybody except those in Obama World.  And of course, their fellow Clinton-hating bloggers.  At this point, the pollsters have nothing left to do but lie.  Obama is their man and he's not making the sale.

    She's going to do brilliantly in Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Kentucky.

    Obama will be the candidate largely of Red State America.

    Now there's a nominee the Democratic base--Blue State America--can rally around!

    by lambros 2008-03-27 01:41PM | 0 recs
    there are no

    blue states and red states. There is only United States!!

    by kindthoughts 2008-03-27 01:43PM | 0 recs
    Re: there are no

    LOL
    by BrandingIron17 2008-03-27 04:33PM | 0 recs
    I was serious.

    by kindthoughts 2008-03-27 05:01PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Consequences Of The Kitchen Sink

    What pollsters are lying, and what have they lied about?

    by Whash 2008-03-27 01:44PM | 0 recs
    She'll be out after North Carolina, at the latest

    I'm laying down my marker. You can bookmark this and come back and dump on me if I'm wrong, but I'm not.

    by Travis Stark 2008-03-27 01:44PM | 0 recs
    I think you missed

    the last week and a half when HRC supporters were using them to say she is winning.

    by kindthoughts 2008-03-27 01:46PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Consequences Of The Kitchen Sink

    If polls lied, wouldn't there be a pattern of Clinton over performing the polls?  I haven't seen any evidence of that happening in general.

    by thezzyzx 2008-03-27 01:56PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Consequences Of The Kitchen Sink

    Didn't the GOP carry WV and KY in both 2000 and 2004? Are these the Blue states that prove HRC should be the nominee?

    Or are Red states only important when your candidate wins there?

    by Carl Nyberg 2008-03-27 02:59PM | 0 recs
    Bill Clinton won KY and WV in 1992 and 1996

    by bluestatedude 2008-03-27 07:12PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Consequences Of The Kitchen Sink

    Todd,

    Have you heard anything about the WSJ poll being skewed?  AAs are apparently over-represented for reasons I don't yet understand.  

    Can you explain?

    by bellarose 2008-03-27 01:43PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Consequences Of The Kitchen Sink

    They were over-sampled. Which means that they knew they weren't going to hit many AAs randomly, so they kept polling them even after they hit their target number. But since including that many would skew the polls, they averaged them out back in proportion to the REAL sample size.

    by vcalzone 2008-03-27 01:48PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Consequences Of The Kitchen Sink

    It's like in school, where you might have 13 homework assignments, but they drop the lowest 3. Except without the "lowest" part. :-)

    by vcalzone 2008-03-27 01:51PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Consequences Of The Kitchen Sink

    They weren't over-represented. They were oversampled to control what would otherwise be a very high margin of error on the AA group. Once the data was taken, they weighted the results so that the AAs would be represented in their normal numbers.

    by tessellated 2008-03-27 01:49PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Consequences Of The Kitchen Sink

    Quick idea of why they "oversample"....in a sample size of 700 the overall MoE was a little over 3%. With only 77 blacks, the MoE for blacks would have been over 11%. This way it was 7.x%. I think my numbers are right, doing this from memory, but I hope that gives an idea of why they oversample subgroups - it's called stratified samplings.

    by Glic 2008-03-27 03:22PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Consequences Of The Kitchen Sink

    That was misunderstood.

    They did sample more AA's in order to get fine gradation on some AA specific questions, but for general questions, they discounted that portion of the sample down to achieve neutrality.

    So the results aren't distorted.

    by wrb 2008-03-27 01:51PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Consequences Of The Kitchen Sink

    OK, but please point me to where is tells me that in the poll data? i dont want to go digging through 15 pages of pdf to verify that. thanks.

    by the Walrus 2008-03-27 02:07PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Consequences Of The Kitchen Sink

    They weren't over represented, they were oversampled purposefully.  The results were then re-weighted to get rid of the bias introduced by oversampling them so that the representation at the end wasn't too high.

    Basically they polled extra black people because their responses were extremely skewed in one direction (probably something like 100% of their respondents were saying Obama).  When one group is skewed that far and is a relatively small population group, it can be hard to pick out any differences (ie. the ~10% or so that choose Clinton), so they poll extra people in that group, and then re-weight the poll afterwards so that that over sampling doesn't skew the whole poll.

    Say you poll 700 people, 70 of them were Black.  The MoE from just 70 people (in this case Blacks) is extremely high, so they poll extra Blacks to get a more accurate number (lower MoE), and then re-weight it so that the extra Blacks aren't throwing off the numbers of the whole poll.

    This is a very common technique in polling, used frequently with minorities, and especially Blacks because we tend to vote so strongly as a block.  

    by Whash 2008-03-27 01:55PM | 0 recs
    Or.....

    they do it until they get the result they want or think is correct.

    by georgiast 2008-03-27 02:31PM | 0 recs
    Re: Or.....

    That's what they say on RedState. However, once a pollsters credibility is shot they can't sell their stuff - and the results will typically bear out who was the most accurate.

    by Glic 2008-03-27 03:23PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Consequences Of The Kitchen Sink
    They were oversampled to get a more accurate sense of what Wright's impact was. They were not over-represented, however, and the math is the math. This is not a knock of you in the slightest, but I've read some people here arguing that certain polls are "biased." Look at the margin of error - the math is the math. These aren't "skewed" towards Obama or Clinton.
    by Pat Flatley 2008-03-27 02:05PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Consequences Of The Kitchen Sink

    He is going to win the traditional Blue states.  There are no doubts about that.

    by lqbruin 2008-03-27 01:43PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Consequences Of The Kitchen Sink

    Be careful, Jerome's not going to let you post anymore if you keep writing even handed diaries like this.  Aren't you aware of the "all diaries must reiterate HRC talking points" policy on this site?

    by caprog 2008-03-27 01:44PM | 0 recs
    Its sad

    What about the obama tactics of lying about Bill Clintons wordds and saying he was being a modern day Mccarthy, when any bug with half a brain who listened to his actual words would know he wasnt even talking about Obama.

    Or how about the repeated charges of Hillary is "A DECEITFUL, LIAR" being driven foorweeks  now by the obama campaign?

    Any complaint from the "fairness" refs at MSNBC about that?

    Its sad to watch Dems buy into MSM narratives.  Its sad, so very sad.

    by John Wesley Hardin was a Friend to the Poor 2008-03-27 01:45PM | 0 recs
    Re: Its sad

    Yes it IS sad. Particularly sad to see that the media's efforts to get the candidates to start sniping at each other have paid off so well.

    by vcalzone 2008-03-27 01:54PM | 0 recs
    Re: Its sad

    Why is it that discredited politicians and their supporters always blame the media when shit goes the wrong way. She LIED. Get over it. Misspeaking is a Clintonian word for LYING.

    All too often you conflate overzealous Obama supoprters with his actual campaign.

    Do you not see that you paint your fellow Dems as dim-witted idiots when you say they are duped by the media as if they can't make up their own mind. Consider that if Dems had bought in to an MSM narrative Hillary would have been the nominee before the first ballots were cast in Iowa.

    She has been beaten by a better campaigner, who raised more $$$ and ran a more efficient campaign. Pure and simple. The sooner you realize that the better.

    by AHunch 2008-03-27 02:15PM | 0 recs
    Re: Its sad

    Ok, let's change the verbiage. HRC has been known to 'mispeak' on multiple occasions. Is that better?

    Different words, same end result. She has verifiably made stuff up in order to augment her experience argument (Bosnia) or misrepresented her previous position (NAFTA).

    by tysonpublic 2008-03-28 02:42AM | 0 recs
    I dunno

    I'm as anxious as the next Obama supporter for this primary to be over, but this is just one poll. You can find some corroborating evidence in state primary polls, but that's not enough to declare a trend.

    I really am dreading a brokered convention. What an awful, ugly mess that would be.

    by tessellated 2008-03-27 01:47PM | 0 recs
    Re: I dunno

    Two polls actually.  The Pew poll backed this up.

    by thezzyzx 2008-03-27 01:58PM | 0 recs
    Re: I dunno

    the pew poll looks legit. this one does not.

    by the Walrus 2008-03-27 02:03PM | 0 recs
    Re: I dunno

    Does the Pew poll speak to Hillary's favorability rating amongst democrats tanking like the MSNBC poll does?

    by tessellated 2008-03-27 02:06PM | 0 recs
    Re: I dunno

    Some of them, yes.  43% of WHITE Democrats call her hard to like, and 30% call her phony.

    by thezzyzx 2008-03-27 02:58PM | 0 recs
    Re: I dunno

    Those numbers can't be good news to her campaign. Thanks for the follow up.

    by tessellated 2008-04-03 08:55PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Consequences Of The Kitchen Sink

    It is impossible for Hillary to make headway in an environment where the media calls foul every single time she tries to draw a distinction with Obama.  Whatever she says, the punditocracy immediately declares it a low blow - but you can say literally ANYTHING about Hillary Clinton and the response will be a collective shrug.

    How many pundits have pointed out how offensive it is to compare Hillary to Tonya Harding?  How many Obama supporters have you seen denounce the comparison?

    It's very difficult for me, as a Democrat, to see the media decide our nominee by pushing the same sort of hateful narrative they used to defeat Al Gore in 2000.

    by Steve M 2008-03-27 01:49PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Consequences Of The Kitchen Sink

    She just can't catch a break , can she ?

    I would be interested to know if Todd can point out exactly what Kitchen sink she has thrown at him , outside of media propaganda.

    Rather it is his camp that actually attacks her viciously in e-mails and memos.

    The guys in her camp , in terms of howard wolfson etc , I don't think I have ever heard them attack him the way she has been attacked personally by the obama camp.

    by lori 2008-03-27 02:07PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Consequences Of The Kitchen Sink

    Well, these have always been the Clinton Rules.  Heck, if someone told me she was unelectable in November because the media is guaranteed to savage her like this every step of the way, it wouldn't be very fair but I'm not sure I could prove them wrong.

    Of course, around here you'll find all sorts of people who think the reason Hillary gets portrayed as the Wicked Witch of the West is that it's true.  Not much to do but ignore these people.

    She made an extremely innocuous comment about Wright - "he wouldn't have been my pastor" - and there's an instant media frenzy about how horrible it is that she decided to reignite the Wright controversy.  You never heard from these media members the fact that Obama himself brought up Wright earlier in the day.  The discussion is entirely about how mean Hillary is.

    And I can't say I have ever seen a feeding frenzy on a typical political exaggeration like I have seen on this Bosnia thing.  Who would be President if they had scrutinized Bush's National Guard service this way?  Where would we be on Iraq if they directed the same ridicule at politicians like McCain who walk around Baghdad under heavy military escort and then try to tell you it's as safe as Indiana in the summertime?

    It can be very difficult to see the world as it is when everyone else insists on seeing it differently.  The absurd media narrative of this campaign is a classic example.

    by Steve M 2008-03-27 02:20PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Consequences Of The Kitchen Sink

    I agree with this post, Clinton is trashed most severely and Obama is given a pat on the back no matter what he does, he is their chosen ONE.  the problem with it is that can change, they can just as easily begin to savage Obama if they are rewarded with the destruction of Clinton.  fortunately, the base of the democratic party doesn't seem to be voting that way at all.

    by democrat voter 2008-03-27 03:30PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Consequences Of The Kitchen Sink

    Let's assume your accurate and that the media is biased against Clinton.

    What do the members of the Dem coalition get out of nominating a candidate who is perceived negatively by the media?

    by Carl Nyberg 2008-03-27 02:49PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Consequences Of The Kitchen Sink

    With a different set of candidates I'm sure you'd understand how pernicious it is to let the media choose our nominee.

    by Steve M 2008-03-27 03:06PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Consequences Of The Kitchen Sink

    Have you considered the possibility that HRC and her campaign have failed to work the media to their advantage?

    I don't see any issue where HRC is appreciably better than Obama. I see issues where he is better than her.

    To me the message I've gotten from HRC is that she's basically the same as Obama on Iraq. And I don't see her being any better on domestic issues.

    In a choice between two candidates who are basically close on the issues, I'll go with the one who works the media better.

    by Carl Nyberg 2008-03-27 03:23PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Consequences Of The Kitchen Sink

    Have you considered the possibility that the Obama campaign has worked the media more effectively than the Clinton campaign?

    If you look at the difference this way, how does it make sense to nominate the candidate who is less effective at media relations.

    by Carl Nyberg 2008-03-27 03:25PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Consequences Of The Kitchen Sink

    Yet another Hillary, drop out drumbeat diary.  Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.  

    Hillary decisively wins a huge state like California by nearly 10%, and the alphas STILL find a way to twist it around.  I've never seen anything like it.

    Selectively quoting polls.  Selectively presenting only one side of a story and not the other.  Selectively quoting one person being negative but not the other.

    You know, I'm not ready to say "uncle" yet - but I sure am experiencing battle fatigue about now.  The fact that Hillary is still standing tall makes me just respect her all the more.

    by Larissa 2008-03-27 01:54PM | 0 recs
    The MEDIA is picking the president

    Anybody up for a demonstration.  I mean a MASS MARCH through Manhattan telling the media to fuck out of this election?

    by squid 2008-03-27 01:56PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Consequences Of The Kitchen Sink

    The fact that Hillary keeps pressing on proves to me that she's the better candidate and will be the President to make the REAL changes in this country.

    I agree with your post.

    Hillary '08!

    by stefystef 2008-03-27 01:58PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Consequences Of The Kitchen Sink
    There are arguments for HRC, but "pressing" is not one. George W. Bush is "pressing" in Iraq.
    by Pat Flatley 2008-03-27 02:26PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Consequences Of The Kitchen Sink

    Well, in order to be the president to make changes, she first has to beat Obama, which isn't going to happen.

    I think that we should try to figure out what the best role for HRC is going forward. I think that maybe the Senate Majority Leader would be a wonderful step. Having both the Majority leader and the Speaker of the House be women would be FANTASTIC.

    by Darknesse 2008-03-27 08:26PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Consequences Of The Kitchen Sink

    Alphas?

    by Whash 2008-03-27 01:59PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Consequences Of The Kitchen Sink

    = people in power

    by Larissa 2008-03-27 02:18PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Consequences Of The Kitchen Sink

    Bill Clinton is right, this is an ELECTION!  Saddle up and start competing.  Some Americans are becoming a bunch of wimps.  

    Come on people, this election is the best thing that has happened in this country for 8 years.  People are finally ALIVE!  Hillary should stay in because there's nothing to say that she can't win, except the Obama shills who use Rovean tactics of repetitive phrases that become "true" because it's said so much.

    Obama's camp figures if they keep saying "Hillary can't win", "Hillary can't get the delegates", "Hillary is throwing the kitchen sink", then it will really stick.

    You know what???  Stop whining!!!!  What?  Are you scared a 5'3" woman can kick your ass???

    What wimps?

    by stefystef 2008-03-27 01:56PM | 0 recs
    There is a reason that 5,000 Obama a*holes
    have converged on this blog.
    This is one HUGE LAST DITCH EFFORT to get that idiot nominated.
    by squid 2008-03-27 01:57PM | 0 recs
    Would you rather have one giant echo chamber?

    What needs to be done is rein in the overly zealous supporters on both sides who resort to personal attacks.

    by Student Guy 2008-03-27 02:04PM | 0 recs
    There is a DIFFERENCE between
    blog discourse and Troll infiltration.
    Obamites have FLOOEDED OUT the democratic blogs with IDENTICAL talking points chatter that they are given by the home office.
    They are HIRED.
    They are not interested in conversation, they are blathering mindlessly.
    by squid 2008-03-27 02:11PM | 0 recs
    Re: There is a DIFFERENCE between

    You are completely off the mark on that one. Why would you think that the only reason people would be passionate about a political campaign would be because they get paid? More likely that not only do they not get paid, they've actually given money to the campaign.

    There are trolls, but thinking someone is a troll just because they say the same thing (which is often in response to nearly the exact same argument) is kinda silly.

    by vcalzone 2008-03-27 02:17PM | 0 recs
    Passionate dittoheads

    Who happen to repeated the same mantra last week, another mantra yesterday, and now today's mantra.  All in unison.  Just like when George Bush stole the election from Al Gore. "Americans just want to move on."  And now "Hillary is ruining the party by staying in the race. "

    by squid 2008-03-27 02:22PM | 0 recs
    Re: Passionate dittoheads

    I still wouldn't call that trolling, because even if it's not factual, it's still understandable why someone would think that way without taking a huge leap of logic.

    by vcalzone 2008-03-27 02:27PM | 0 recs
    Re: There is a DIFFERENCE between
    I'm a Democrat who supports Barack Obama. I'd love a decent, intellectually honest discourse. I frankly abhor what HRC has done with her campaign, but I'd much prefer her to McCain (obviously) and would campaign vigorously for her should she somehow win (granted, at this point, it would take Obama being struck by lightning or something comparable).
    by Pat Flatley 2008-03-27 02:20PM | 0 recs
    Re: Would you rather have one giant echo chamber?

    We should stop feeding the squid troll.  Jeeze.

    by NewOaklandDem 2008-03-27 02:17PM | 0 recs
    Disapproval by WHO, Todd?

    The Obama propaganda machine?

    by squid 2008-03-27 01:59PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Consequences Of The Kitchen Sink

    "
    Interviews: 800 total interviews
    Crossection of 700 registered voters
    Oversample of 100 African American voters
    Total of 177 African American voters)
    Dates: March 24-25, 2008"
    http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/d ocuments/WSJ-20080326-poll.pdf

    That is about 25% of those polled were african american.
    this is supposed to be a national poll. In 1999 the black populationj in the us was 13%
    http://www.census.gov/prod/2000pubs/p20- 530.pdf

    i know obama backers wont stop feeling good about this poll because of the internal skew. its too easy to look past.
    But why is General Electric/Rupert Murdoch running skewed polls in our nomination contest?

    (also, im not big on math. if my numbers are wrong i'll admit it. trust but verify)

    by the Walrus 2008-03-27 02:02PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Consequences Of The Kitchen Sink

    This is simple.

    They wanted the questions asked to AA voters to be statistically significant so they talked to more AA voters than usual.

    Then they weighted those voters down to their normal size.

    Pollsters do this all the time.  It makes the poll more reliable, especially the questions asked just to blacks.

    by bawbie 2008-03-27 02:07PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Consequences Of The Kitchen Sink

    Read the explanations above.  But short answer, over-sampling isn't the same as over-representation.  

    by Whash 2008-03-27 02:08PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Consequences Of The Kitchen Sink

    Hey Walrus,

    You aren't the only with this question. A lot of people have asked it. The oversampling of the AA population was done on purpose to keep the margin of error low on what otherwise would have been a small sample of people. Before they incorporated the results of the AA population with the rest of the poll, they weighted the results so that AA weren't over-represented.

    by tessellated 2008-03-27 02:11PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Consequences Of The Kitchen Sink

    if that is correct that is fine, but no one has shown that data from the pollster.
    i guess i m asking for what the bible thumpers call a "cite"

    that is a link.

    by the Walrus 2008-03-27 02:13PM | 0 recs
    by tessellated 2008-03-27 02:18PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Consequences Of The Kitchen Sink

    Gracias.

    by the Walrus 2008-03-27 02:21PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Consequences Of The Kitchen Sink

    Your first link references your second link and neither really make me feel very comfortable. NBC making excuses and trying to explain NBC seems a bit...unclean.

    Why is this the only poll that has used this technic? Should I be surprised that it was NBC who commissioned it? Why is it so different than other polls?

    Also, the Wright effect won't be seen in primary polls but in head to head polls with McCain. How is Obama doing there?

    by americanincanada 2008-03-27 02:23PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Consequences Of The Kitchen Sink

    I kept the TPM link because I thought Walrus might want some of the backstory that others in the blogosphere were aware of this and had similar concerns voiced by commenters. If you don't like NBC's explanation of how they ran their own poll then I refer you to the that very TPM link which has another TPM link in it where Josh gives his explanation:

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/18 5845.php

    Lots and lots of polls use oversampling. Anytime you are dealing with minorities or sub-populations that are numerical small relative to the overall sample size you have to or the margin of error for that sub group skyrockets.

    It's just one poll. I said earlier in this comment thread it's too soon to call it a trend. You seem predisposed to dismiss and that's perfectly fine, but there isn't any reason to do that on methodological grounds.

    by tessellated 2008-03-27 02:30PM | 0 recs
    stratified sampling

    Subgroups are "oversampled" all the time to bring down what would otherwise be a HUGE margin of error.

    In this case, the sample size was around 700 and the number of AA was 77, which would give a MoE o over 11%. This way it brings the MoE down to around 7%.

    "Oversampling" is NOT the same as "overrepresented" and it is not unusual. It's mathematical.  

    by Glic 2008-03-27 03:33PM | 0 recs
    Here's a thought.

    Maybe the reason Clinton's poll numbers have dropped, if indeed they have (I kind of doubt it myself), is because the Obama campaign and the media have been attacking her relentlessly?

    You know, the continual outbursts from them about how she'll do anything to win, and how she's always lying, and how she secretly wants McCain to win so that she can bet him in 2012?

    I mean, the whole Obama pastor thing explodes, she stays quiet for a week and a half, makes one comment when asked about it, and of course, she's throwing a low blow. Meanwhile Obama's camp keeps slandering her about a Drudge photo and 60 Minutes and nobody bats an eye.

    Give me a break. Every day she stays in this campaign is a day that all the cool kids are telling her that she's too selfish, that she should step aside, that she's hurting the party, etc. And when all of that starts having an effect, well, that's her fault too. Basically, the rule is this. Anything Hillary Clinton does is bad. Everything that happens is her fault.

    All of these folks can stuff it. When they come asking me for money and donations for the great progressive cause, as they seem to do just about every day, I'll tell them exactly what they can expect from me.

    by OrangeFur 2008-03-27 02:11PM | 0 recs
    Re: Here's a thought.

    It's true.  I can only imagine the reaction if Hillary had made a false claim about Obama comparable to his claim on the stump in Mississippi that she had pushed the turban photo.  When Hillary attacks she's a bitch, when Obama attacks he's just truthfully pointing out what a bitch she is.

    by Steve M 2008-03-27 02:22PM | 0 recs
    Re: Here's a thought.

    And the fact that the Pew Poll also pointed out that Hillary has barely been in the news for the last week and Obama has gotten 70% of the coverage:

    "Throughout the first three months of the year, Obama and Clinton have been far more visible than the other president candidates, and this overwhelming focus on the Democratic contest continues. In the current poll, Obama is by far the candidate that the public has been hearing the most about in the news. Fully, 70% have heard more about Obama in the last week than any other candidate. This is consistent with the balance of the press coverage, according to the Campaign Coverage Index conducted by the Project for Excellent in Journalism. Last week, Obama was the featured news maker in 72% of all campaign news stories, his highest coverage level this year.

    Figure
    Only 15% said that Sen. Clinton was the candidate they have been hearing the most about. The gap between Obama's and Clinton's visibility has grown substantially over the last two weeks from roughly equal visibility in early March, when 38% had been hearing most about Obama, 37% about Clinton. The drop in Clinton's public visibility is also consistent with the amount of coverage her campaign received in recent weeks. The share of campaign coverage in which Clinton was the featured candidate fell from 60% three weeks ago to 51% in the following week and down to 30% this past week, according to the Campaign Coverage Index conducted by the Project for Excellent in Journalism.

    Though John McCain has sewn up the Republican nomination, he continues to lag far behind Obama and Clinton in public visibility. Only 3% of the public named John McCain as the candidate they heard most about in the news recently. This too is consistent with the findings of the Campaign Coverage Index, which found just 17% of campaign news stories giving a substantial amount of coverage to McCain, compared with 30% for Clinton and 72% for Obama."

    http://people-press.org/reports/display. php3?ReportID=406

    by cmugirl90 2008-03-27 02:29PM | 0 recs
    Re: Here's a thought.

    I don't think any of the MSM has called Hillary the B word.  Hillary being Hillary is the problem.  She can't help who she is.  She has been married to Bill forever, and some of his bad traits have rubbed off on her.

    by Spanky 2008-03-27 02:29PM | 0 recs
    Re: Here's a thought.

    No, they didn't literally use that word, at least not on camera.  They just said she was pimping out her daughter, so I guess you have a point.

    by Steve M 2008-03-27 02:39PM | 0 recs
    Re: Here's a thought.

    The reason Democrats (and others) have been turned off by HRC's attacks is not that she's "a bitch" but that the attacks have been racially divisive and implied McCain is more patriotic and more qualified than Obama.

    by Carl Nyberg 2008-03-27 02:53PM | 0 recs
    Re: Here's a thought.

    It sounds like we'll never agree on who's been the racially divisive one in this primary. But we should both be aware that other people see it differently.

    by OrangeFur 2008-03-27 02:56PM | 0 recs
    Re: Here's a thought.

    Why would Obama try to polarize the Dem voters by ethnic identity?

    by Carl Nyberg 2008-03-27 03:00PM | 0 recs
    Re: Here's a thought.

    Because African Americans make up a quarter of the Democratic electorate, and a large fraction of the remaining voters aren't very fond of people who are appealing to racism?

    by OrangeFur 2008-03-27 03:24PM | 0 recs
    Re: Here's a thought.

    I'm not receptive to the idea that the attacks on Hillary are fine because they're true, but I'm sure you'll find lots and lots of takers in the blogosphere.

    The narrative that Hillary has been race-baiting is extremely offensive to me, but whatever, I'm sure continuing to push that narrative helps the cause of party unity somehow.

    by Steve M 2008-03-27 03:04PM | 0 recs
    Re: Here's a thought.

    Hypothetical question: if HRC could get "White" voters to move from Obama to her by being subtly racially polarizing, would this improve her performance in elections?

    by Carl Nyberg 2008-03-27 03:12PM | 0 recs
    Re: Here's a thought.

    So, Hillary is so sweet, and Obama is the bad guy.  That is starting to get old.  You are playing an old song, that has been heard over and over.  The Clintons themselves are the problem.  They can't be anybody but who they are, and since the campaign has gone on so long, everybody is getting a chance to see the real Clintons in action, and it ain't all pretty.

    by Spanky 2008-03-27 02:26PM | 0 recs
    Re: Here's a thought.

    That's a good point. Folks are really getting to know Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton for the first time. It's not like they've ever been in the national spotlight before.

    by OrangeFur 2008-03-27 02:41PM | 0 recs
    Re: Here's a thought.

    "the cool kids," not sure what that means.  Hillary is no one's victim and I think she would hate to hear herself described that way.

    by mady 2008-03-27 02:27PM | 0 recs
    Re: Here's a thought.

    The A-list bloggers, the calbe TV pundits, Maureen Dowd, etc.

    Don't worry. Hillary Clinton doesn't think of herself as a victim. But that doesn't mean we can't be annoyed on her behalf.

    by OrangeFur 2008-03-27 02:42PM | 0 recs
    Re: Here's a thought.

    I agree.  Have the same fits when stuff gets flung at Obama, and in 2004, worst of all, what happened to Kerry. To channel Kermit, it's not easy being partisan.

    by mady 2008-03-27 02:54PM | 0 recs
    Re: Here's a thought.

    you are 100% right obama lied in his so called great speech and the media isn't ashamed to call it a great speech  and if hillary misspoke the media dosent stop talking about it why do they forgive this to politichans they like

    by awayer 2008-03-27 02:46PM | 0 recs
    & the 'Obama sez MI/FL can't vote'

    non-story. That was the major Obama story of the past couple weeks. Amazing it got no coverage, just because Obama campaign and the MSM wanted Clinton misremembering something from 12 years ago to be the story.

    by fairleft 2008-03-27 03:37PM | 0 recs
    Re: & the 'Obama sez MI/FL can't vote'

    It got plenty of coverage - problem is most people just see HRC's hypocrisy on this issue, and aren't inclined to support her argument.  As a side issue, I was a Clinton supporter early on, started wavering as I saw more of Obama, but her flipflop on MI/FL was one of two issues that put me firmly in the Obama camp.  I was particularly incensed because I had spent a lot of energy with friends that were earlier Obama supporters, explaining how she would never go back on her word on this.  

    by interestedbystander 2008-03-28 06:23AM | 0 recs
    Re: the 'Obama sez MI/FL can't vote'

    Because I'm a democrat as well as a Democrat I care very much that the Democrats of Florida and Michigan have a voice in who the Dem nominee is. Clinton was for giving them that voice, and Obama was against. It's very small potatoes what both said back in January to pander to Iowa/NH voters.

    by fairleft 2008-03-28 02:56PM | 0 recs
    & the 'Obama sez MI/FL can't vote'

    non-story. That was the major Obama story of the past couple weeks. Amazing it got no coverage, just because Obama campaign and the MSM wanted Clinton misremembering something from 12 years ago to be the story.

    by fairleft 2008-03-27 03:37PM | 0 recs
    Re: & the 'Obama sez MI/FL can't vote'

    Do you know what the sticking point was?

    Obama wanted every Democrat to be able to revote in MI (a place where he would likely win against HRC). A number of Dems switched sides to go mess with the Repubs, since they knew their votes didn't matter. Since the MI state laws won't let you vote in both primaries (as most don't) it would have effectively disenfranchised the voters by taking away their real choice.

    Had they allowed the registered Dems to all vote, he wouldn't have had a problem, since he would have increased his lead further.

    by Darknesse 2008-03-27 08:34PM | 0 recs
    Re: & the 'Obama sez MI/FL can't vote'

    Oh, and before you say that "HRC supporters did it too" remember that she was on the ballot (pretty much uncontested, Castro-Style), and the other major candidates weren't, meaning that their supporters had nothing better to do than go screw the repubs.

    by Darknesse 2008-03-27 08:36PM | 0 recs
    Todd, are you purpsefully trying to push poll like

    NBC?

    Come on, I know you have to be aware that the poll is not accurate and does not reflect the actual voters.

    "

    NBC said its pollsters oversampled African-Americans to get a more
    reliable cross tabulation on questions regarding Obama's speech on race."

    And really, come on with that lame reasoning.  If they really wanted to see if Obama was hurt, they would have MADE SURE THEY HAD A MORE VOTER REFLECTIVE RESULT.

    So, were you truly unaware, or are you intentional perpetuating a false story, otherwise know has push polling?

    by LindaSFNM 2008-03-27 02:17PM | 0 recs
    Re: Todd, are you purpsefully trying to push poll
    This has been pointed out numerous times, but the fact is that African Americans were oversampled in order to get a more accurate view of the impact of Wright. They were not overrepresented in the sample. This is pretty basic stuff, and quite frankly you would either have to be 1) disingenuous or 2) slow on the uptake not to grasp this.
    by Pat Flatley 2008-03-27 02:23PM | 0 recs
    Re: Todd, are you purpsefully trying to push poll

    Dear, your sarcasm aside, I think you must be slow, I posted the exact wording for the poll above.  They specificall said....or do you need me to type  s l o w e r .

    "NBC said its pollsters oversampled African-Americans to get a more
    reliable cross tabulation on questions regarding Obama's speech on race."

    That means, they took an oversample, one might say, LARGER sample African Americans in the poll.  Hellllooo?

    by LindaSFNM 2008-03-27 03:30PM | 0 recs
    hello right back

    Basic polling. This is stratified sampling and is done all the time with subgroups. This poll size was around 700, of which, 77 were AA. The MoE on proportionately small subgroups is unacceptably high (in this case, without oversampling, over 11%). Oversampling is NOT the same as "overrepresented" and was NOT done to skew the results. It's done to bring down the MoE for more accurate results.

    by Glic 2008-03-27 03:37PM | 0 recs
    Re: Todd, are you purpsefully trying to push poll

    Oversampling does not mean what you think it means. If you can acknowledge that there are things in this world which you don't understand, then there are a number of explanations of oversampling in this thread already.

    Here's one more:

    Crudely, you take twice as many samples for a minority and then divide all those results in half. This is done because otherwise you wouldn't have enough samples of the minority to accurately represent the range of opinions.

    by Brannon 2008-03-27 03:53PM | 0 recs
    Re: Todd, are you purpsefully trying to push poll

    Are you kidding? I think someone heard you the first time and offered the information you needed, then you just repost the same exact thing?

    by LandStander 2008-03-27 03:55PM | 0 recs
    Re: Todd, are you purpsefully ...

    A gentle request.  Please read the posts above about oversampling vs. overrepresentation.

    They are not the same thing.

    by Fluffy Puff Marshmallow 2008-03-27 02:24PM | 0 recs
    Re: Todd, are you purpsefully trying to push poll

    Why don't they JUST LET THE PEOPLE VOTE!!!!!!!!!!

    by Larissa 2008-03-27 02:24PM | 0 recs
    Re: Todd, are you purpsefully trying to push poll
    Agreed. The notion that elected delegates can be overturned is beyond ridiculous and totally contrary to democracy.
    by Pat Flatley 2008-03-27 02:27PM | 0 recs
    Re: Todd, are you purpsefully trying to push poll

    Very little about this primary process is democratic.

    by Larissa 2008-03-27 03:29PM | 0 recs
    Re: Todd, are you purpsefully trying to push poll

    While anyone is qualified to cite a poll, many here are obviously not knowledgeable enough to question them.

    by Kobi 2008-03-27 03:11PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Consequences Of The Kitchen Sink

    Will Hillary be able to return to a successful senate career after the campaign she has run?

    I know she may not want to - her objective for some time has been the presidency and her senate career was a path - but if she does want to return and be successful in the senate, I don't know if she can. At this moment, at the nadir (let's hope for her sake) of her popularity and approval, it is hard to see her regaining respect among her colleagues.

    I guess that is why she is willing to be so scorched-earth. She is all-in. It is the presidency or retirement.

    by Mojo Risen 2008-03-27 02:19PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Consequences Of The Kitchen Sink
    I was thinking about the same thing too.
    I would feel embrassed about returning to a clubby chamber like that when everyone has seen everything about you.
    by KathyM 2008-03-27 02:29PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Consequences Of The Kitchen Sink

    I don't think so.  If she does not get the nomination, she now becomes one of the most powerful members of the Senate.  And if Obama should actually win the election, any legislation he wants to go through Congress will have to go through her because  you know the media will always be looking for her opinion on matter(especially health care). She's also got enough support that she can pull it off.  She won't have to be Majority Leader, but she'll have a lot of power.

    by cmugirl90 2008-03-27 02:33PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Consequences Of The Kitchen Sink

    I think it's too early to say. I know there are a lot of hard feelings right now, but I suspect a lot of that would evaporate quite quickly if this primary ended amicably.

    by tessellated 2008-03-27 02:34PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Consequences Of The Kitchen Sink

    Don't worry about it. This stuff is a pillow fight compared with what the general election will be like. Everyone will go back to being friends--or rather, as cordial as they were beforehand.

    by OrangeFur 2008-03-27 02:44PM | 0 recs
    Obama back to on well on top in Gallup Daily . .
    . . . tracking poll.
    This is the latest. The short lived attempt to sand bag Obama with clips from his pastor has failed and its time to move on. BTW I have been a mydd'er since 1847. November. I was a strong Edwardian progressive, until he had the sense and civility to resign when he saw he wasnt going to make it. Respect for the voters.

    http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/032708DailyUpdateGraph1.gif">
    by inexile 2008-03-27 02:20PM | 0 recs
    Not so fast, here comes Rasmussen


    The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday continues to show a very close competition in the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination. It's Clinton 46%, Obama 44%. Since Obama's speech on race and national unity, Obama's support has been within two percentage points of 45% every day. Clinton's support has been within two percentage points of 44% every day (see recent daily results). New polling data released today shows that Sixty-two percent (62%) of Democrats aren't ready for either candidate to drop out of the race.

    On March 14, Obama led Hillary by 8 points (50 to 42). Today he lags by 2 points. While Hillary has gained 4 points, Obama has lost 6 points.

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c ontent/politics/election_20082/2008_pres idential_election/daily_presidential_tra cking_poll

    Even more interesting is Obama's net favorability rating. It has gone from 56%-41% in February to 46%-52% now. A negative swing of 21 points in one month.

    The evidence calls into question your analysis. The Wright matter has clearly hurt Obama. On the other hand, if you want to continue to believe that the Wright issue is a non-story and hasn't hurt Obama, as a Hillary supporter, I am not going to stop you.

    And one more fact for you. Hillary is staying in this race because she has won the big state primaries, won a majority of the Democrats, and is the strongest candidate against McCain. The media elite and the Democratic party elite have zero influence on her because she is supported by millions of voters around the country. 62% of the Democrats want her to stay in the race. You are in the minority.

    by BigB 2008-03-27 09:47PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Consequences Of The Kitchen Sink

    no surprise its the effect of the campaign of the unitor "obama" he is showing his so called new policies with the help of the media  we just have to hope that in the end of the day people will start thinking who could be trusted this country an experienced person or a wright admirer

    by awayer 2008-03-27 02:36PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Consequences Of The Kitchen Sink

    While it may be too soon to tell, it certainly appears as though the Clinton team may be shifting away from the sort of tactics that are turning people off.

    While anything is an improvement over The Clintons' recent scorched earth camapign, it has to be asked how many times Hillary can change her tactics and temperment without seeming inexcusably false and baseless.

    by Kobi 2008-03-27 03:07PM | 0 recs
    Both sides of the anti-Gore MSM narrative

    repeated in your little comment about Hillary. She will, he would, do anything horribly scorched-earth to get elected. She is, he was, constantly trying to change into a new person throughout the campaign.

    We Democrats should be battling each other on substance, not one side as a surrogate of the MSM's hatred of Hillary.

    by fairleft 2008-03-27 03:12PM | 0 recs
    Re: Both sides of the anti-Gore MSM narrative

    I voted for Gore and hoped he would run in 2004 and 2008.

    But the fact is, Gore was terrible candidate in 2000 -- and he didn't re-do himself one tenth as many times as Hillary already has.

    by Kobi 2008-03-27 03:16PM | 0 recs
    A not surprisingly one-sided post

    So skewed polls and skewed media stories are evidence that all the negativity is coming only from Hillary?

    To provide balance some history is in order:

    Obama's campaign circulated the Hilalry Clinton (D, Punjab) memo last fall attacking Indian Americans.

    Last fall, an unnamed Obama campaign aide suggested to Marc Ambinder to look into President Clinton's personal life and finances?

    Obama has consistently attacked Hillary's character.

    In the October debate in Philadelphia with the media's encouragement Obama attacked Hillary negatively.

    Obama's campaign orchestrated the effort to paint Hillary and Bill Clinton as racists.

    Obama stood silently on the podium when his surrogate Tony McPeak attacked President Clinton as "McCarthyite."

    Mark Halperin asked today:

    The New Negative

    Thursday, March 27th, 2008

    Fact #3: In recent days, the Obama campaign has used e-mails and conference calls to engage in its most negative and personal assaults on Clinton since the campaign began.

    HALPERIN'S TAKE: If Obama has the nomination wrapped up, why is his campaign going after Clinton so hard?

    And, Todd Beeton blames Hillary for all the negativity.

    Well, let us see what happens in Pennsylvania. Why don't we wait for real polls instead of focusing on skewed made-up polls like the NBC/WSJ poll which over-sampled the AA voters by its own admission?

    by BigB 2008-03-27 03:17PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Consequences Of The Kitchen Sink

    I agree totally with this last post.  I find Obama's personal destruction type of campaigning to be very destructive.  Not only of the democratic party but for Obama himself.  

    I cannot really find this new kind of politics that Obama claims to be doing.  It is really based on the old politics that republicans have been engaged in for years.  Now the O supporters are constantly doing the same thing, and for me, it is a real turn off.

    I have become less and less able to over look these personal insults that Obama and his supporters hurl at Clinton and then they have the gall to accuse her of throwing the kitchen sink.  What sink is that?  She rarely does that at all, but Obama does it consistently.  It is Obama who will say and do anything to win this nomination, but in doing that, he is damaging himself because Clinton supporters will remember his tactics.

     These accusations against Clinton are based on such flimsy evidence, taking what she has said and twisting it to mean something not said or even implied.  The result of this is that the other half of this party, you know the half that is supporting Clinton, are finding these personal insults to be much worse than anything that O is accusing her of.  Perhaps his insults and those of the scum sucking dogs in the media are having an effect on Clinton's personal numbers, after all these are personal insults, but in the end, these kind of things are not what people vote on.  People will vote their own personal interests.  If the Clinton supporters find that it is not in their own personal interest to vote for Obama they just might not.  What Obama has done so far in this campaign is rely on this kind of personal insulting to get by.  He is getting away with this because the national media is already in the tank for him.  

    And still, even with all this viciousness against Clinton she is managing to get half the democrats to continue to vote for her.  so if your poll carried any weight as far as voting goes, then she would not be getting those voters.  something tells me that we have not seen the end result of Obama's hate fest, these down scale democrats that Obama must have if he hopes to actually be president, he may be losing for good.  These voters seem to continue to vote for Clinton in the face of this kind of relentless personal attacks toward Clinton. I wonder if there are people out there who don't care about this slanted poll, your hatred of Clinton or anything the press dogs say?  I wonder if there are people who are actually voting for Clinton because they genuinely think that she would make the best president.  All this other garbage may just not matter all that much.

    by democrat voter 2008-03-27 03:59PM | 0 recs
    Did you knonw Oprah belonged to the same church?

    From an Obama friendly commentator and Michael Dukakis's Campaign Manager:

    "What will the people who brought you the Swift Boats and Willie Horton do with Reverend Wright. I can just see the commercial: Opening up with the Reverend and his G-D America rant, then going to the announcer explaining how it was that Oprah quit the Church because she wanted no part of such attitudes, and Rev. Wright attacked her for it, then maybe a picture of Wright with Farrakhan and Qaddafi, then maybe Wright with the Obamas on their wedding day, and closing with something like, "It's not a question of free speech. It's not about religious freedom. It's about judgment, and whose you trust your future to....."

    Obama is losing to McCain in Ohio by 7pts, Hillary beats McCain there by 6pts. But what's really surprising is how much worse Obama is doing than Hillary versus McCain in red states. I think the SD's in those states who endorsed Obama might want to rethink their endorsements because of the damage an Obama candidacy would do to the down-ticket races.

    You know some devastateing ads will be coming from the Republicans in a few months and Obama is toast in the red states. His loss will be devastating to the party.

    He can be VP, then president. But he cannot win the presidency at the top of the ticket. Will the grown-ups of the party please talk to the man and ask him to do the right thing?

    by mmorang 2008-03-27 04:08PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Consequences Of The Kitchen Sink

    Nice analysis.  I do think the "solutions vs just words" argument is fair game, but unfortunately it is a distortion.  Obama has very detailed plans on a whole host of issues and has a history of actions...i think her argument would be better if she simply outlined the solutions she has for our country.  "just words" is so easy because it is vague...we all can agree that Obama is a great orator, but being a good orator doesn't by necessity make him a light weight.  be specific as to where Obama hasn't gone far enough, and what her  plan would be in place.  I have seen Obama's plans and they are highly highly detailed.

    My point is, it may score political points for those still wanting to listen but it is still a distortion and so easy a target, even if it is "fair game.

    by petercjack 2008-03-27 04:35PM | 0 recs
    NBC Memes at MyDD

    It's unfortunate to see NBC memes perpetuated here at MyDD.  

    Blech!

    by BigBoyBlue 2008-03-27 05:47PM | 0 recs

    Diaries

    Advertise Blogads


    ----------- myDD - skin -----------