Obama gets snarky, and hits it outta the park.

This was sent out by Team Obama communications dept. This is the best answer to this crappy Clinton memo.

From: Bill Burton
Sent: Wed 3/12/2008 6:36 PM
To: Bill Burton
Subject: FW: The Clinton Memo... as annotated by the Obama communicationsdepartment

To: Interested Parties

From: Clinton Campaign

Date: Wednesday, March 12, 2008

Re: Keystone Test: Obama Losing Ground [Get ready for a good one.]

The path to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue goes through Pennsylvania so if Barack Obama can't win there, how will he win the general election?

[Answer: I suppose by holding obviously Democratic states like California and New York, and beating McCain in swing states like Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Virginia and Wisconsin where Clinton lost to Obama by mostly crushing margins. But good question.]

After setbacks in Ohio and Texas, Barack Obama needs to demonstrate that he can win the state of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania is the last state with more than 15 electoral votes on the primary calendar and Barack Obama has lost six of the seven other largest states so far - every state except his home state of Illinois.

[If you define "setback" as netting enough delegates out of our 20-plus-point wins in Mississippi and Wyoming to completely erase any delegate advantage the Clinton campaign earned out of March 4th, then yeah, we feel pretty setback.]

Pennsylvania is of particular importance, along with Ohio, Florida and Michigan, because it is dominated by the swing voters who are critical to a Democratic victory in November. No Democrat has won the presidency without winning Pennsylvania since 1948. And no candidate has won the Democratic nomination without winning Pennsylvania since 1972.

[What the Clinton campaign secretly means: PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT WE'VE LOST 14 OF THE LAST 17 CONTESTS AND SAID THAT MICHIGAN AND FLORIDA WOULDN'T COUNT FOR ANYTHING. Also, we're still trying to wrap our minds around the amazing coincidence that the only "important" states in the nominating process are the ones that Clinton won.]

But the Obama campaign has just announced that it is turning its attention away from Pennsylvania.

[Huh?]

This is not a strategy that can beat John McCain in November.

[I don't think Clinton's strategy of losing in state after state after promising more of the same politics is working all that well either.]

In the last two weeks, Barack Obama has lost ground among men, women, Democrats, independents and Republicans - all of which point to a candidacy past its prime.

["A candidacy past its prime." These guys kill me.]

For example, just a few weeks ago, Barack Obama won 68% of men in Virginia, 67% in Wisconsin and 62% in Maryland. He won 60% of Virginia women and 55% of Maryland women. He won 62% of independents in Maryland, 64% in Wisconsin and 69% in Virginia. Obama won 59% of Democrats in Maryland, 53% in Wisconsin and 62% in Virginia. And among Republicans, Obama won 72% in both Virginia and Wisconsin.

But now Obama's support has dropped among all these groups.

[That's true, if you don't count all the winning we've been up to. As it turns out, it's difficult to maintain 40-point demographic advantages, even over Clinton]

In Mississippi, he won only 25% of Republicans and barely half of independents. In Ohio, he won only 48% of men, 41% of women and 42% of Democrats. In Texas, he won only 49% of independents and 46% of Democrats. And in Rhode Island, Obama won just 33% of women and 37% of Democrats.

[I'm sympathetic to their attempt to parse crushing defeats. And I'm sure Rush Limbaugh's full-throated endorsement of Clinton didn't make any difference. Right]

Why are so many voters turning away from Barack Obama in state after state?

[You mean besides the fact that we're ahead in votes, states won and delegates?]

In the last few weeks, questions have arisen about Obama's readiness to be president. In Virginia, 56% of Democratic primary voters said Obama was most qualified to be commander-in-chief. That number fell to 37% in Ohio, 35% in Rhode Island and 39% in Texas.

[Only the Clinton campaign could cherry pick states like this. But in contrast to their logic, in the most recent contest of Mississippi, voters said that Obama was more qualified to be commander in chief than Clinton by a margin of 55-42.]

So the late deciders - those making up their minds in the last days before the election - have been shifting to Hillary Clinton. Among those who made their decision in the last three days, Obama won 55% in Virginia and 53% in Wisconsin, but only 43% in Mississippi, 40% in Ohio, 39% in Texas and 37% in Rhode Island.

[If only there were enough late deciders for the Clinton campaign to actually be ahead, they would really be on to something.]

If Barack Obama cannot reverse his downward spiral with a big win in Pennsylvania, he cannot possibly be competitive against John McCain in November.

[If they are defining downward spiral as a series of events in which the Clinton campaign has lost more votes, lost more contests and lost more delegates to us - I guess we will have to suffer this horribly painful slide all the way to the nomination and then on to the White House.]

[Thanks for the laughs guys. This was great.]

There's more...

Plouffe Lays the Smackdown

David Plouffe, Obama's manager, sent out this memo that goes right to the point. I thought it was great and wanted to sare it with the folks here.

      ---------------------------------------- -----------

When we won Iowa, the Clinton campaign said it's not the number of states you win, it's "a contest for delegates."

When we won a significant lead in delegates, they said it's really about which states you win.

When we won South Carolina, they discounted the votes of African-Americans.

When we won predominantly white, rural states like Idaho, Utah, and Nebraska, they said those didn't count because they won't be competitive in the general election.

When we won in Washington State, Wisconsin, and Missouri -- general election battlegrounds where polls show Barack is a stronger candidate against John McCain -- the Clinton campaign attacked those voters as "latte-sipping" elitists.

And now that we've won more than twice as many states, the Clinton spin is that only certain states really count.

But the facts are clear.

For all their attempts to discount, distract, and distort, we have won more delegates, more states, and more votes.

Meanwhile, more than half of the votes that Senator Clinton has won so far have come from just five states. And in four of these five states, polls show that Barack would be a stronger general election candidate against McCain than Clinton.

  ---------------------------------------- ------------------

Clinton cannot mathematically win this primary either by pledged delegates, nor by popular vote. The only way she can get the Nom is to steal it. She has become nothing more than a surrogate for McCain, and its time for her to step down.

You can crow about PA as much as you want, but you know Obama can only close that gap in the 6 weeks we have to campaign there.

There's more...

HRC Visits the 700 Club.

Hillary Clinton visits the American Taliban, apparently in search of votes.

You can watch here:

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/328569.aspx

As a proud atheist, I find it all pretty funny.

What do you think?

There's more...

Sirota takes Clinton to the mat on NAFTA

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/2008 0222_a_trade_transformation/

David Sirota nails Hillary on her shifting positions on NAFTA.

Anyone who has lost a manufacturing job in the last 12 years has the Clintons to thank, and no amount of spinning can make that go away.

Obama called her on it last night, and that was a good move.

From the Article:

" When it came to sex, Bill Clinton made us debate the definition of "is." Now, when it comes to economics, Hillary Clinton wants to debate the definition of "long," claiming this week in Ohio that "I've long been a critic of the shortcomings of NAFTA."

True, Clinton has recently criticized NAFTA--the 1993 trade policy whose lack of labor and environmental protections encourages companies to move American jobs overseas. But cheap campaign rhetoric over a few months does not make one a longtime critic--especially considering the record.

During Clinton's 1996 visit to Texas, United Press International reported that she "touted the president's support for NAFTA." In her memoir, Clinton trumpeted her husband's "successes on the budget, the Brady bill and NAFTA." The Buffalo News reports that in 1998 she "praised corporations for mounting `a very effective business effort in the U.S. on behalf of NAFTA.'" And last year, her lead Wall Street fundraiser told reporters that Clinton remains "committed" to NAFTA's "free" trade structure.

Clinton's attempt to hide this history emulates a principle pioneered by George W. Bush in this, the age of stenographic journalism. As he made his unsubstantiated case for war, Bush proved that the media are willing to present politicians' lies as fact. Clinton simply figures that if she says she has "long been a critic" of NAFTA, then the assertion will be transcribed as truth.

That said, her U-turn is about more than dishonesty--it is about the public will.

Back when Clinton was the Democrats' presumptive nominee, she wasn't saying much about trade. And in amassing her much-vaunted "experience" in Congress, she never led a fight to reform NAFTA. But now that she is in a competitive nomination contest, Clinton has to try to make her record palatable to voters rather than to corporate lobbyists--and that means reflecting America's understandable anger.

A September NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found 59 percent of the country believes existing trade policy "has been bad for the U.S. economy." In January, Fortune magazine found 68 percent believes other countries "are benefiting the most from free trade, not the U.S." Exit polls in 2004 showed 70 percent of Ohio Democratic voters blamed trade policies for job losses, and those numbers could be even higher in the state's March 4 primary. "

Nails in the coffin.

Read the rest of the article, its great.

There's more...

Obama Leads Clinton by 10 pts in National Poll


    The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows Barack Obama opening a double-digit lead over Hillary Clinton in the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination. Today's results show Obama earning support from 49% of Likely Democratic Primary Voters while Clinton attracts 37% (see recent daily numbers). Perhaps the most stunning aspect of the Obama surge is that he now leads 46% to 41% among women. Clinton retains a lead among the narrower subset of white women, but her lead in that vital demographic is down to just three percentage points.

   Obama now leads 47% to 44% among white voters and 69% to 10% among African-American voters.

Clinton's base seems to now be white women 50 and up.

Good thing the states that Obama won don't matter!

There's more...

Diaries

Advertise Blogads