I'm assuming her comments were in reaction to race, as she lumped Ferraro and Clinton together.
I can recall a time when I heard her berating Condolezza rice for studying Russian history instead of Black American History. Those comments came off, at least to me, as completely racist and I haven't listened to her since.
1. Obama can campaign will people who disagree with him on any issue. What gays take issue with is the fact the McClurkin is a self-described "ex-gay," which is both highly offensive to the gay community and highly laughable to most others. McClurkin then advocated this position at the concert.
2. Obama is not trying to bring Black Christians into the party -- they are already here. He is trying to get them to vote for him over Hillary Clinton in the primary. They vote Democratic in the general. Of course being from South Carolina -- a solid Republican state -- Obama will not give two hoots about them next November if he is the nominee.
I know that we didn't think Allen would be vulnerable at this point in the last cycle, however, I don't see Susan Collins having a "macaca" type moment on the campaign trail.
Allen needs to kick it up a notch or two and fast. This is one of those races where some early spending on tv can pay dividends down the line.
I'm glad Markos did this poll. I don't know about anyone else, but as someone with about $500 to give over the course of the cycle, polls like this help me give my dollars to candidates who both need it the most and have a good chance of winning. I'm keeping my $$ in the Mark Udall column for now.
I fail to comprehend how Obama cuts across racial and partisan lines more than Clinton seeing as Clinton leads Obama among all racial groups and Clinton is the only candidate with a track record of winning over Republican voters.
There are actually about 4 reasons stated here to oppose Hillary Clinton:
1. Dynasty. That implies that Hillary was born into the privalege of wealth and power and that she is somehow unqualified. She grew up solidly middle class (and Bill grew up poort) and with or without Bill, I believe she would be standing here today as front-runner for the Democratic nomination for President.
2. She is calculated. I don't believe she is -- I just think she is disciplined. Being disciplined is a value that we all learn as kids and a characteristic that we should want in a President.
3. She voted for the war. So did all of the other candidates. Even Obama who says he was against it said in an article later that he couldn't say how he would have voted if he had been in the Senate. I am more concerned about the future of Iraq and I like that this is where she is focused.
4. She is too polarizing. Hillary Clinton has been the number one target of the right wing machine for the last 15 years and is still standing. The Rethuglicans will tear apart whoever the nominee and vice versa. With Hillary, its all been aired and no one is interested.
Nancy Pelosi does not owe anyone an explanation for inviting a former Democratic Treasury Secretary as the only guest speaker before the caucus. I think there are many other topics that could use the energy of the progressive movement -- this is not one of them.
Survey USA's methodology is questionnable, but take a look at their final polls just before election -- they were pretty damn close. Right now though, these polls are mostly name i.d and soft favorables. Clearly there are 10 states that Clinton, or almost any Democrat, are not going to win. But because these polls show Clinton beating the no-namers, it shows that the anti-Hillary vote is not as the convention wisdom would dictate. I was surprised to see Hillary winning Arkansas against McCain and Guiliani. Apparently they still like her there.
I don't see what Lieberman has do with using their scorecards. It doesn't change the fact that Murtha voted for the federal marriage amendment, for restricting contraception, and for endangering the life of teenage girls by restricting their access to safe abortions.
Regardless of what these groups did in CT-SEN, I think most of us would be in agreement with them as far as the legislation that their scorecards are based on.
Hillary campaign heavily for Kirsten Gillibrand throught the election cycle. I am not sure how much involvement she had with the other candidates, though I do know that she did some campaigning with Arcuri and Hall.
If someone is to blame for lack of state legislature pick-ups it is Spitzer. It seems like Hillary did her job with the House candidates and it was Spitzers job to do more the state house candidates.
I wanted to know both candidates posistions on abortion, gay rights, and the enviornment before making up my mind and here is what I found out from the NARAL, League of Conservation Voters (LCV), and Human Rights Campaign (HRC) scorecards:
HRC NARAL LCV
Murtha 63% 0% 58%
Hoyer 88% 100% 100%
To be more clear, this means that Murtha voted against allowing military servicewoman to obtain abortions at overseas military hospitals -- even if they pay for it with their own money and he voted to cut contraception from the list of services offered to poor women overseas.
I guess based on issues that I would support Hoyer, though not enthusiastically.