• Or if they had been held after the last Wright flap.  She ran much better the past month than at any other time in the primary season, I think a combination of both his troubles and her shaping her message better.

  • on a comment on South Dakota Primary over 6 years ago

    Typical internet Obama "supporter", repercussions if you are right, none if you are wrong.  You are wrong once again, sir.

  • Approximately the same as Clinton.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ 2008/president/california.html

  • "Even if elements of Obama's campaign did play up the RFK story as it broke, you had both Obama and Axelrod on the Sunday talk shows effectively killing it."-ChrisKaty

    But then, Stephanopoulos also got it right when he challenged Obama chief strategist David Axelrod. He began with a question about Hillary's Clinton's recent reference to Robert Kennedy. Axelrod didn't quite answer:

    STEPHANOPOULOS: The Clinton campaign clearly thinks that the Obama campaign are part of that group that is deliberately misinterpreting her statements. And in fact, your campaign's original statement on Friday afternoon said that Senator Clinton made an unfortunate statement that has no place in this campaign. Do you think it would have been better to give her the benefit of the doubt?

    AXELROD: Well, in fact, she--a few minutes after we issued that statement seemed to say she herself felt it was unfortunate and was misinterpreted. We accepted that, as Senator Obama said yesterday. She said, you know, that's not what she meant, and we take her at her word and, you know, it's--we're beyond that issue now, so certainly we're not trying to stir the issue up.

    Hmmm--that's wasn't quite an answer. So Stephanopoulos tried again, two more times:

    STEPHANOPOULOS (continuing directly): Senator Obama did say that we should move on. You say you're not trying to stir the issue up. But a member of your press staff yesterday was sending around to an entire press list, I have the e-mail here. Keith Olbermann's searing commentary against Hillary Clinton. So that is stirring this up, isn't it?

    AXELROD: Well, Mr Olbermann did his commentary and he had his opinion. But as far as we're concerned--

    STEPHANOPOULOS: But your campaign was sending it around.

    AXELROD: As far as we're concerned, George, as far as we're concerned, this issue is done. It was an unfortunate statement, as we said. As she's acknowledged. She has apologized. The apology, you know, is accepted. Let's move forward.

    He even tried a different fourth question. No direct answer there, either:

    STEPHANOPOULOS (continuing directly): So your campaign won't be sending around any more commentaries like that?

    AXELROD: As I said, as far as we're concerned this is--this issue is done. There's so many important things going on in this country right now, George, that people are interested in that we're not going to spend days dwelling on this.

    Should Obama's campaign have done what it did? Different people will have different views. But Axelrod never quite answered that original question. Stephanopoulos was right to keep asking.

    In modern, chummy press corps culture, moderators routinely accept non-answers; in each of these cases, Stephanopoulos persisted, doing his job correctly. Meanwhile: Was something wrong with Axelrod's answers? Did Obama's campaign do something wrong? Those are matters of judgment--though it seems clear that Obama's campaign helped initiate the press corps' reaction. (There's nothing automatically wrong with that.)

    http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh052708.shtm l

  • on a comment on Post PR delegate update over 6 years ago

    "every time I've seen Dee Dee this year, she was supporting Clinton"-Al Rodgers

    Are you Chris Matthews?  Every time she has appeared on Hardball in the past 18 months, Matthews identifies her as a Clinton, supporter, and every time she corrects him and states she is uncommitted.

  • comment on a post Puerto Rico Results Thread over 6 years ago

    However, turnout for other election events held in Puerto Rico has been smaller than in general elections and status plebiscites. The 2003 and 2008 PPD and PNP local primaries had combined turnout rates of 37.6% and 44.4% of registered voters, while the 2005 unicameralism referendum had a turnout of only 22.6% of registered voters.

    http://electionresources.org/panorama/2008/05/puerto-ricos-2008-democratic.html

    Registered voters 2.44 million

    http://welcome.topuertorico.org/government.shtml

    384k voted in PR Dem. Primary

    http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#val=PR

    15.7%

    Texas 12.75 million registered voters

    http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/historical/70-92.shtml

    Approx. 1.85 million voted in Texas Dem. Primary

    http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#val=TX

    14.5%

    As I understand it, Puerto Rico has never had a Dem. Presidential primary before.

  • on a comment on Live thread at the RBC over 6 years ago

    Are you really as dense as your post?  The Republicans could run ads in the Fall about the Dems not supporting a paper trail.  

    "State Sen. Smith claims to be for voter audits, but he voted against this bill creating a paper trail."

    This a complex issue and you treat other posters as simpletons not aware of all the ramifications.

  • on a comment on Missed opportunity by Obama over 6 years ago

    Do you mean the way Obama stepped up when the New York Times did a front page "story" on the Clinton's marriage that was nothing except innuendo and rumor devoid of actual reporting, or the Washington Post criticized Clinton for wearing outfits that hinted at cleavage, not to mention the Obama camp fanning the RFK comments?

    I love the lectures and comments on double standards from Obama supporters.  Please sir, may I have another?

  • on a comment on Missed opportunity by Obama over 6 years ago

    "nipped the RFK comment story in the bud in one news cycle"-Reeves

    Huh?

    SEELYE (5/26/08): Shortly after Mrs. Clinton spoke on Friday, the Obama campaign jumped on the story, sending an e-mail message to reporters saying her comment had no place in a presidential campaign. It linked to a online report in The New York Post that said Mrs. Clinton was ''making an odd comparison between the dead candidate and Robert Kennedy--a phrase the newspaper later dropped.!

    http://dailyhowler.com/index.shtml

    But then, Stephanopoulos also got it right when he challenged Obama chief strategist David Axelrod. He began with a question about Hillary's Clinton's recent reference to Robert Kennedy. Axelrod didn't quite answer:

    STEPHANOPOULOS: The Clinton campaign clearly thinks that the Obama campaign are part of that group that is deliberately misinterpreting her statements. And in fact, your campaign's original statement on Friday afternoon said that Senator Clinton made an unfortunate statement that has no place in this campaign. Do you think it would have been better to give her the benefit of the doubt?

    AXELROD: Well, in fact, she--a few minutes after we issued that statement seemed to say she herself felt it was unfortunate and was misinterpreted. We accepted that, as Senator Obama said yesterday. She said, you know, that's not what she meant, and we take her at her word and, you know, it's--we're beyond that issue now, so certainly we're not trying to stir the issue up.

    Hmmm--that's wasn't quite an answer. So Stephanopoulos tried again, two more times:

    STEPHANOPOULOS (continuing directly): Senator Obama did say that we should move on. You say you're not trying to stir the issue up. But a member of your press staff yesterday was sending around to an entire press list, I have the e-mail here. Keith Olbermann's searing commentary against Hillary Clinton. So that is stirring this up, isn't it?

    AXELROD: Well, Mr Olbermann did his commentary and he had his opinion. But as far as we're concerned--

    STEPHANOPOULOS: But your campaign was sending it around.

    AXELROD: As far as we're concerned, George, as far as we're concerned, this issue is done. It was an unfortunate statement, as we said. As she's acknowledged. She has apologized. The apology, you know, is accepted. Let's move forward.

    He even tried a different fourth question. No direct answer there, either:

    STEPHANOPOULOS (continuing directly): So your campaign won't be sending around any more commentaries like that?

    AXELROD: As I said, as far as we're concerned this is--this issue is done. There's so many important things going on in this country right now, George, that people are interested in that we're not going to spend days dwelling on this.

    Should Obama's campaign have done what it did? Different people will have different views. But Axelrod never quite answered that original question. Stephanopoulos was right to keep asking.

    http://dailyhowler.com/dh052708.shtml

  • Obama took his name off the ballot in Michigan, because he thought he would not do well, as did Edwards.  It was his own choice, the DNC did not make him do it.  Both Edwards and Obama encouraged their voters to vote in both Michigan and Florida.  Try and stick to the facts and not some alternate fantasy that casts Obama as some sort of helpless victim.  

    The only helpless victim in this was the Florida democratic voters, being held hostage by the Republican legislature.  The Michigan voters did nothing wrong, but it was a Dem. legislature and governor that pushed the primary up, when they knew the DNC wouldn't allow it.

  • Does someone calling himself "LordMike" really want to get into an elitist argument?

  • Democrats are not Republicans, we don't get behind someone automatically like the Stepford Wife Party.  We argue and debate and then feel better when the process is complete.  We don't like to Rush to judgements like going to war in Iraq, or Kerry in 2004.

    Where exactly am I bashing Obama?  You know I read tons of Obama supporters calling Clinton a bi*%&, a liar, etc. If a non-Obama supporter states, "uh, Obama has some electoral problems" then he/she is a troll, Republican, ass----, etc.  It is really getting tiring.  Obama's biggest problem has always been his supporters on the internet.  I have always wondered how many of the the strident ones are real and how many are trolls, because they sound just like freepers.

  • "She doesn't outdo him in Michigan or New Hampshire."

    Uh?

    Rasmussen 05/21 - 05/21 500 LV 41 51 Clinton +10.0

    Rasmussen 05/21 - 05/21 500 LV 43 48 Obama +5.0

    There was one tracking poll before and one during the Wright Nat. Press Q & A, both had McCain beat both candidates by approx. the same numbers.

    In terms of Michigan that is only true if you count the polls before Wright, after Wright, Clinton has done better and sometimes has small leads, but Obama has not lead in Michigan since Wright.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/latestpolls/index.html

  • Can you explain how offensive it exactly was?  Jesse Jackson was a respected and well liked democratic politician in the 1980s creating powerful coalitions in 1984 and especially 1988.  It was only the racist media and Obama supporters that turned it into something vile and offensive, that only people with a mental health problem or trying to play the victim card would do.  

  • No its not.  Unless you think WV, KY, NC, NH, MI, Ark, and Fl are equal to CO and VA.  They both could pick up a few more states than the other, but she is leading in many more that delegate rich.

Diaries

Advertise Blogads