Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Obama & Clinton in Full 'Outrage' Mode

UPDATE, 2:45 p.m. ET: The Clinton campaign is now up with a new ad in Pennsylvania that seeks to directly rebut the Obama ad on health care that began running yesterday in the state.

Here's the ad:

On a conference call this afternoon, Clinton policy director Neera Tanden described Obama's commercial as a "false, negative attack ad" and called it a "betrayal of universal health care."

Obama's campaign, meanwhile, is up in arms over a new Clinton ad that seeks to paint Obama as someone who says one thing and does another when it comes to accepting money from lobbyists.

Obama is now up with a response spot, casting the Clinton ad as more of the "old politics" with which people have grown tired in this election.

The new ads appear just as a new MSNBC/McClatchy poll released this morning shows Clinton leading Obama in the state 48 percent to 43 percent.

ORIGINAL POST

The final days before any contested primary are filled with charges and counter-charges as each campaign (and their allies) throw everything against the wall in hopes that something will stick and affect the outcome of the vote.

With just 48 hours left before Pennsylvania's primary on Tuesday, both Barack Obama (Ill.) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) are in full outrage mode.

The latest point of contention is an ad being run in the Keystone State by Obama's campaign.

Here's the spot:

"Hillary Clinton's attacking ," says the ad's narrator. "But what she's not telling you about her health care plan? It forces everyone to buy insurance even if you can't afford it."

The Obama campaign said the decision to air the ad was made after another commercial, funded by the pro-Clinton 527 American Leadership Project, attacked Obama.

"The Obama ad is responding to a flurry of negative attacks from the Clinton campaign and their well-financed allies," said spokesman Hari Sevugan. Given that they have been engaging in a self-professed 'kitchen sink' strategy that Senator Clinton describes as 'the fun part,' their charges today are laughable."

Clinton responded to the ad during an appearance in Pennsylvania. She called Obama's ad "kind of curious," adding: "Now, instead of attacking the problem, he chooses to attack my solution. I don't think that we can just make speeches about this -- we have to have a plan that we can actually implement that will provide quality affordable health care."

Here's the video of Clinton making her remarks:

What's the end result of all of this sound and fury? Probably nothing when it comes to the average voter, who likely spent his or her Saturday taking the kids to soccer (or field hockey) practice, shopping for groceries and -- maybe -- catching a bit of the back and forth on the local news or via an ad that ran some time last night.

So why spend the time battling it out? Because neither Clinton nor Obama is willing to take the risk of leaving an attack unanswered. While many people have downplayed the competitiveness of Pennsylvania's primary, the minute-to-minute engagement by the two campaigns shows how much both sides believe is at stake on Tuesday.

By Chris Cillizza  |  April 20, 2008; 6:00 AM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Special Weekend Wag the Blog: Debating the Debate
Next: Week in Preview: PA Primary Edition

Comments

Hillary did win in the last primary but
she still has a long way to go and hope-
fully she will realize that she will not
win at the end. America will never change
from the white black thing and it is a
shame because everything is based on that
from the news media to the people on the
streets. Served faithfully defending
america for 22yrs in the military but am
so glad I no longer live there as america
has done nothing for me and still does
nothing for me now that I am a veteran, as
I get more benefits being retired overseas
than in my own country.

Posted by: mack7 | April 23, 2008 10:02 PM | Report abuse


I have been watching the on and on and ongoing Democratic primaries! The press coverage of the weapons and guns comment by Obama, is not as offensive as the statement that I just heard by Clinton when she commented about the nomination process for the democratic party being different from the republican party, stating that if things were ran the same as the Republican process that she would already be the nominee! What exactly does that say about the American Democrats "on the ground" that vote? If it were up to American votes to win the nomination, "Obama" would be the nominee. She has shown me today that the opinion of the American voters actually don't really matter that much to her and she is once again saying whatever it takes to further her agenda just like when she voted "yes" to the war in Iraq, then took it back...or did she "misspeak" again?

Thanks for keeping us informed!
Renee

Posted by: RMC | April 23, 2008 3:58 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is what Penn. has been wanting and needing-a gutsy,smart,work for the real people, kind of person. She is probably the best informed candidate that has ever run for president, and she knows how to get
things done. I have been waiting with great anticipation for the right woman to come along to run for President, and she is
finally here. We won't see another, this well prepared to be president, in, certainly, my life time. All of the gnashing of teeth and repetitions of old
Clinton history shows how really afraid so
many are of a strong woman who has the ability to run the
USA with strength, poise, intelligence, and
yes, toughness. All we have to look at is the grueling months of the campaign to see how tough and focused and determined she remains. She not only appears to thrive but get stronger and more motivated as it goes on. That's because she cares about the everyday men and women she meets and they know this. People respond to her because they know she will indeed work for them every single day, and that she shares the roots of those of us who inhabit the middle class, who have strong family and work ethics, and even though we occasionally fall on hard times, we keep going, and striving, and being good citizens.
Unlike Obama, whose whiny, sissified, demeanor is wearing thin for many people, and who can't stand up and take the flack from questions fairly asked, and gets angry
and defensive over things many of his followers should be asking themselves. He sends others to do his fighting for him, while he poses, postures, and tries to look victimized. WHAT AN ACT.

I believe Hillary will not only win Penn. by double digits, but by high double digit
margins. Pennsylvanians have got your back Hillary.

Posted by: Kavanaughl | April 21, 2008 9:16 PM | Report abuse

carol said The Clinton posters seen to have so much hate,

Where is tat coming from and do you think that somehow throwing that word out will intimidate us or censor pur voices?

Csrol for 3 days someone who indicated they support Sen Obama have posted ugly racial slurs here and have signed in my name and several otjer Hc supporters names in to stir up racial divisions and mske them appesr as being my post. Don t lecture us about hate or hateful tactics.
Is it hateful Csrol for me to say I habe read Sen Obsma s book and healthcare plan and listened to hos local speeches in person and don t want him as my Pres. Are we somehow obligated to either support Sen Obama or told we must otherise lesve the Dem party? I am waiting for you to say that is hateful or how dare I question or challenge Sen Obama;unfortnately those are the sentiments coming from your campaign.Certainly not inspirational or hopeful.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 7:03 PM | Report abuse

sounds like there is some anger from the obama supporters
hmm sounds like they are worried about tomorrow.
You use SNL as an example of whining? You do understand that its sort of a comedy show I presume you knew that.
My point about objecting about George S as a moderator are from the posts here which I have said we never trusted George then why didn t Axelrod raise that objection when negotiating the choice of moderators when they could have prevented him from being the moderator that was my point. Also no one heard a wimper when Russert piled on Hillary other than way to go Tim.

As for Fla and Mich I never used the word disenfranchised I just warned Sen Obama will reap what he has sewn in Fla which right now is a 15 point deficit in Fla.
So if that is your answer to 2 mill. Floridians don t be surprised at all in Nov if that is what Fla tells Sen Obam in Nov if after tomorrow he is the still the nominee. Think about tht when you slam Fl voters and brashly say the heck with them which was your message.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 21, 2008 6:46 PM | Report abuse

The fact is neither health care plan will work. Universal health care is government run health care and you know an organization that cannot balance a budget cannot run any business. Look at the losses of the Post Office,Amtrak, etc, etc and expect more deficit spending, no competition to lower costs and eventual rationing, long waiting lines and the disappearance of medical professional. A vote for either of these charlatans is a vote for socialism and its attending socialized medicine. This approach has failed world wide and yet these two are pretending it didn't happen. Those who are enabling this pretense need to learn from history or it will be from a "bitter " experience.

Posted by: Dale Netherton | April 21, 2008 6:00 PM | Report abuse

The Clinton posters seen to have so much hate, what does this stem from? Seeing that both candidates are essentially the same candidate as far as issues go except for a few variables where is it coming from?Posted by: jeff | April 20, 2008 10:20 AM******** It's amazing that you see hate in Clinton ads but not in bamaracist's ads or supporters' words. bama is for privatizing & if you can't afford it too bad! Read his proposed budget, it will put the deficit way over what Bush's is now~.... Stop listening to this liar's words & research what he really means to do~

Posted by: CarolTate2 | April 21, 2008 5:19 PM | Report abuse

Lichtman said:

"Is it hate jeff to point out Obama contradictions and shortcomings with his healthcare plan, to ask why Sen Obama's capaign did not complain about the debate moderators before the debate and have chosen instead to play the victim card, or to point out Sen Obama's contradictions about his stand regarding gun control such as"


Wait a second. Who played the "victim" card first? Do you suffer from memory loss? Wasn't it HIllary Clinton who ran to SNL crying about how the media was "in the tank" for Obama? Is that NOT whining? Didn't Hillary complain DURING THE DEBATE about getting asked the first question all the time? Aren't female advocates around the country complaining that Hillary is being mistreated because she is a woman? Didn't Hillary complain that all the "boys" were "ganging up" on her during the New Hampshire debate????

You say Obama should have complained about the moderators before the debate...how? How did he know they were going to ask unfair questions before the questions were asked? Or are you admitting that Stephanopolous is biased due to the fact that he "owes" his current position to what the Clinton's bestowed upon him in the 90's...I suppose he had to be harder on Obama lest he be labeled a "judas" like other former Clinton staffers who fail to heed their beck and call.

But while we're on the subject of registering an objection before the contest, you and HIllary constantly whine about Florida and Michigan votes not counting. Using your own standard, shouldn't Clinton have complained about the possibility of these votes not counting BEFORE THEY HELD THE ELECTIONS IN MICHIGAN AND FLORIDA????? Why did she go ON RECORD as admitting that the results "would not count for anything"? And now she's trying to blame Obama for "disenfranchsing" voters in those states? Is this NOT whining?

Are you saying these are not facts? Are you denying this happened?????

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 5:06 PM | Report abuse

If 90% of woman vote for Hillary, will we be saying they voted for her just because she is a woman. Golly, that would not be acceptable, would it? How unfair that would be to Obama - right?

I mean we are all voting for Obama for his many accomplishments and vast experience, right?

And than there is the subject of change. We are voting for Obama because he will bring us universal health care, an end to wars, an attack on golbal warming. I mean he is cut right out of the mold of Nadar, right?

It is comforting to know that many of you are voting for Obama because you are reasoned, fair and analytical.

Thank you for the gift you are about to give America.

Posted by: Al Kuhn | April 21, 2008 3:22 PM | Report abuse

Serious Budget DEFICIT problems?

I Got the Answer!!!

Posted by: Vince | April 21, 2008 2:20 PM | Report abuse

48,000,000 Americans with no health insurance?

Simple,

Cut Taxes!

Posted by: Vince | April 21, 2008 2:16 PM | Report abuse

health care problem?

I have the answer!

Posted by: Vince | April 21, 2008 2:14 PM | Report abuse

answer?

Cut Taxes.

Posted by: Vince | April 21, 2008 2:02 PM | Report abuse

I have the answer to the Iraq problem...

Posted by: Vince | April 21, 2008 2:01 PM | Report abuse

from JD: "There are some good reasons to be against the war..."

What are they, JD?

Posted by: Metternich | April 21, 2008 2:00 PM | Report abuse

Where the votes are coming from [Area] will be important in getting an idea as well as the % of the win. Each side will "Spin" no matter the result. I think anything over a 6% margin for Hillary will be BIG, considering the Repub change of Registration [Close to 300,000 from reports] to vote for Obama in an attempt to stop Hillary. This has been my numbers for many months and we will see tomorrow night.

Posted by: lylepink | April 21, 2008 1:34 PM | Report abuse

So much sound and fury and you and your media colleagues just LOVE it. If you want to hear real sound and fury actually talk to voters and/or potential voters who are just sick and tired of the back and forth bickering. It is a real turnoff and frankly, I think people will be so sick of it that they will stay homne in November. Then you and the rest of the bloviators can sit there and wring their hands and elf flagglelate. That is, until the next election where the whole "gotcha", stir up the conflict journalism will start up again. When are you guys going to get a life and realize that our country is in big trouble with no leadership and all you can discuss is who said what in paid TV ads. Disgusting!!!!

Posted by: natalkstlmo | April 21, 2008 1:23 PM | Report abuse

"I like being far smarter" sounds like the attitude of another typical Obama supporter.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 21, 2008 1:22 PM | Report abuse

peg covering children is nothing new, Kerry proposed that precise plan 2 years ago shortly agter his presidential loss. We don't have kids as do many of our friends so I guess we are just out of luck as far as Sen Obama is concerned. Do you understand the conecpt of AntiSelection and how that effects premiums. That is the Obama plan. It leaves huge gaps in coverage, favors young children and GenY voters who are his most vocal supporetrs and who are allowed to opt out until they need it, and provides zero coverage for millions of boomers. All hat no cattle. Hope your kids appreciate their coverage.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 21, 2008 1:15 PM | Report abuse

JD, no matter what anyone says, that was NOT a boring insult.

Posted by: bsimon | April 21, 2008 1:15 PM | Report abuse

"let me educate you", is that your humility post or should we just presume you are another I know everything poster, JD?

Posted by: Leichtman | April 21, 2008 12:54 PM


Leichtman, you think I like being far smarter than those who I converse with? You think that's fun for me?

No, I do it because I feel a sense of responsibility, a mission to coach. The way some people are driven to work with children, or convicts, or the homeless. Or the mentally retarded.

Posted by: JD | April 21, 2008 1:09 PM | Report abuse

GET REAL! If any of you, including Elizabeth Edwards, thinks either of these candidate's health care plans will be implemented in their entirety....they have to be smokin' something! The Senate and Congress will ultimately CHANGE these proposed programs before they are ever, if ever passed by a majority.

So voting for one or the other based on their health plans is fruitless. In fact, it is probably better to vote for Obama as he stands a better chance of bring the parties together to agree on, at least, a partial universal health care plan that covers all children. It can then, be extended to cover all adults (if it is successful) at a later time. Hillary's plan will fail miserably as she "will not settle" for anything other than what she wants....(sound familiar).....that's why it never got off the ground in the 90's and, the fighter that she is supposed to be, didn't even attempt to try a slightly different, more appealing to "all" plan.

Don't be stupid and vote for her just because of her health plan....she'll never get it passed anyway.

Posted by: Peg | April 21, 2008 1:03 PM | Report abuse

"bsimon your insults are boring."

Perhaps. I though it was an unusual combination of JD's use of the 'talking to a wall' cliche, with the 'pounding one's head into a wall' cliche, thus offering a new take on the same old thing. Maybe its not a particularly clever twist of cliches, but hopefully not boring.

Boring would be posting the same thing over and over again.

Posted by: bsimon | April 21, 2008 1:01 PM | Report abuse

bsimon your insults are boring. the predictions of an Obama win tomorrow came from Mr. Caps, bonjedi, and other Obama supporters. Would be glad to repost them for you since you are in fantasy land about tomorrow. scrivner even went so far as to misrepresent a Sun zogby poll thinking no one would bother to go to zogby's actual site or listen to zogby on potus. But I will go along with these predictions of an Obama win. and from Phillly talk show host.

How about responding to polling showing Sen Obama losing 9-11% nationally according to McClatchy in head to head with HC rather than just throwing out vapid insults, your typical responses?

"let me educate you", is that your humility post or should we just presume you are another I know everything poster, JD?

Posted by: Leichtman | April 21, 2008 12:54 PM | Report abuse

Flag lapel pins? What's all this fuss lapel pins? So Obama doesn't wear a lapel pin. He doesn't wear a fish pin either, but he's still a Christian. I didn't see anyone at the debate wearing a lapel pin --flag or fish. Not Hillary, not George, not Charles. Neither do I. But I'm as patriotic as any lapel-pin-wearing flag waver. That's why we must have a positive change, not another Bush or Clinton dynasty.

Posted by: Virginia Independent | April 21, 2008 12:37 PM | Report abuse

Hello Meet, let me educate you a bit.

You seem to claim that the budget is unbalanceable, given the $12b/month in war costs? OK, some thoughts:

- Those costs aren't going down very much, in the near term (next 4 yrs), no matter who wins
- $12b, or $144b/yr, is practically a rounding error on a $3T budget (and a $13T economy)
- There are some good reasons to be against the war, at least the one in Iraq, if you're so inclined. But the money isn't one of them, you might think of another one if you want people to take you seriously.

Posted by: JD | April 21, 2008 12:31 PM | Report abuse

JD writes
"Leichtman, where did I ever predict anything? It's like I'm talking to a wall here - are you insane?"

Head, meet wall. Repeat.

Posted by: bsimon | April 21, 2008 12:27 PM | Report abuse

OK Leicht, last try, then I give up, figuring you're untrainable.

I DON'T CARE WHO WINS TOMORROW. IT DOESN'T MATTER TO ME.

Read this

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/pa/pennsylvania_democratic_primary-240.html

The bumper sticker: HRC is up by 5 and a half points.

You claim Obama will win (by 2%?). OK, fine. You presumably have some evidence for that?

I feel like I'm trying to talk to a 3 yr old.

Posted by: JD | April 21, 2008 12:25 PM | Report abuse

"McCain's plan doesn't address the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which now total more than $12 billion a month.

Ultimately, said Stan Collender, a former analyst for the House and Senate budget committees, it would take substantial cuts to Medicare and Social Security to balance the budget with the tax cuts McCain is proposing."

So McCain simply pretends that the cost of the wars he intends to continue fighting for another generation simply don't exist [sound familiar?} and he intends to pay for more fat tax cuts for the rich and corporations by cutting by stealing the retirement and health care funds of the Baby Boom generation."

JD -- HOW CAN MCCAIN BALANCE THE BUDGET WHEN HE'S PRETENDING THAT THE **$12 BILLION*** a month we are spending on war doesn't exist?

Posted by: MEET THE NEW WORST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY | April 21, 2008 12:05 PM | Report abuse

"I merely sent you the latest polls, which don't necessarily jibe with your version of reality."

interesting JD. Scrivner posted that zogby is saying that Obama has closed to within 3% in Pa. I the posted from zogby's actual site which says:

Newsmax/Zogby 'Poll: Clinton Edge Continues to Expand in PA
UTICA, New York--The final weekend before tomorrow's important primary election in Pennsylvania was good for New York's Hillary Clinton, as she made a definitive move toward victory over rival Illinois' Barack Obama, a fresh Newsmax/Zogby daily telephone tracking poll shows.
She gained two points over the past 24 hours as Obama lost one point, and she now leads 48% to 42%, the latest polling shows.'

bonjedi has predicted for weeks that Obama will win Pa tomorrow and I said I certainly agree that her prediction is accurate and after spending $10 million plus in Pa over the last 30 days that Sen Obama should now be the prohibitive favorite btomorrow.

I also pointed out that he should win tomorrow in spite of losing 9-11% points nationally in a week to HC according to the latest McClatchy poll. That is truly amazing after his sterling performance at last week's debate which at least jac13 understands didn't happen.

Exactly which of those polling numbers would you JD like to scream at and what parallel universe are you quoting from?

Posted by: Leichtman | April 21, 2008 11:59 AM | Report abuse

voodoo, I couldn't agree more. Good posting. McCain has clearly changed his tax-cut story in a (successful) effort to win the GOP nod.

Speaking as a small government, libertarian economist: I really hope that McCain *eliminates* the deficit before cutting taxes. That will only happen if and when he gets entitlements under control (like repealing the awful Med Part D, increasing the payroll tax cap and reducing SS benefits).

Otherwise, there isn't enough money in the non-entitlement, non-defense budget to get healthy, deficit-wise.

Posted by: JD | April 21, 2008 11:48 AM | Report abuse

Leichtman, where did I ever predict anything? It's like I'm talking to a wall here - are you insane?

I have no idea how tomorrow will turn out. I merely sent you the latest polls, which don't necessarily jibe with your version of reality.

Posted by: JD | April 21, 2008 11:43 AM | Report abuse

I'm just glad there are only 6 more weeks of this. Then all eyes, and daggers, can go at John McNasty, as the article on his temper called him.

Posted by: Patrick NYC | April 21, 2008 11:43 AM | Report abuse

Grow up people ! Both of you should stop this pettiness and name-calling and get on with an actual collegial discussion of the issues without the "sound bites" and sheer poltical pettiness ! I am disgusted with the low level of debate between contenders for what is arguably the most important position/job in the world. Who cares about the choice of the word "bitter" ! Who cares about the husband's egotistical rantings ?
We're choosing leaders here ! This has denigrated into a popularity contest to see who is going to to be President of the Student Council not the President of the United States !
The level of debate is disappointing and embarassing !!!!!!

Posted by: AJR | April 21, 2008 11:38 AM | Report abuse

What do they call the last two weeks of television advertisments in PA?

"Obama ad nauseum."


It looks like the Romney late-primary strategy...outspend your competition by at least a 3-fold margin to see if you can stop the hemorrhaging.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 21, 2008 11:36 AM | Report abuse

April 18 (Bloomberg) -- John McCain's plan to cut taxes and balance the budget wins praise from fellow Republicans. Economists and nonpartisan analysts say his numbers don't add up.

McCain's proposal, outlined April 15, would extend President George W. Bush's tax cuts, reduce the top corporate rate, repeal the alternative minimum tax and double exemptions for dependents. Price: $3.3 trillion by the end of a President McCain's second term in 2017, according to figures from his campaign and the Treasury.

The Arizona senator said that would be offset by eliminating pork-barrel spending, freezing a portion of the budget, and saving from Medicare spending. He could cut the budget by $100 billion a year ``in a New York minute,'' he said in a Bloomberg Television interview yesterday.

Robert Bixby, executive director of the Washington-based Concord Coalition, a nonpartisan group that advocates budget restraint, said ``the huge imbalance'' in McCain's plan ``is that the tax cuts are specific and large and the spending cuts are small and vague.''

Once, McCain was a deficit hawk, Bixby said, but ``strange things happen when people run for president.''

Posted by: McCain's voodoo economic | April 21, 2008 11:31 AM | Report abuse

JD and bonjedi I expect your predictions of an Obama win by 2% points tomorrow or at least within 2% points(51-49%) for Obama, to be right on the mark. You do recall that prediction by you bonjedi 2 weeks ago, right? It looks like you were absolutely right and that Pa is now sharply breaking in your favor which should absolutely thrill you. You were right again.

Curious though bonjedi why McClathcy had Obama ahead by 11% points a week ago and today either down 1 to HC or up 2% ponts nationally, a 9-11% point swing in a week. I guess that was because of his great performance in the debate and their finally started to poll the bitter voters.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 21, 2008 11:10 AM | Report abuse

bsimon:

Scrivener is a non-smoker.

Go back and read some Joe Klein. His "Primary Colors" told the true story about the Clintons. He's the only mainstream media reporter who's raised the specter of Gore as the reasonable endgame for the supers.

By the way... when Obama today talks about Hillary throwing the china at him, you do know he's cleverly referencing reports from the Clinton security detail that Hillary hurled lamps and other objects at Bill while they were in the White House.... pretty sly...

Posted by: scrivener | April 21, 2008 11:04 AM | Report abuse

Scrivener, are you sitting in a smoky room? I'm wondering what kind of smoke it is - you might consider putting down the pipe & opening a window.

Posted by: bsimon | April 21, 2008 10:51 AM | Report abuse

bsimon - "At this point, Tuesday is close enough that I can patiently await the results."

Me too. It will be interesting to see how much Obama's money helps him. It was visible with Obama signs all over the place (in the Philly and Pittsburgh burbs). The number of Clinton signs I have seen in PA over the last week I can literally count on one hand. I actually can say I saw the same number of Ron Paul signs as I did Clinton signs. I did not get any chance to watch TV while I was there this weekend but in Pitt last week it was Obama ad after Obama ad nauseum.

Posted by: Dave! | April 21, 2008 10:49 AM | Report abuse

BARACK CAN'T CLOSE THE DEAL

Here in SE Penna., it appears that Hillary will hold onto her lead and win the PA primary, but not by a margin sufficient to convince the supers that she's the right nominee for the general.

Obama once again will fail to close the deal. He will lose by a hair, or win by close margin, and the race will go on.

HILL'S A LOSER IN THE FALL. VOTE FOR HILL TOMORROW.

I hope a Hillary victory convinces Obama to finally unite the party by tossing his delegates to Gore and continuing to campaign as Gore's presumptive VP. This is the only path to a Dem victory in the fall.

Hillary has alienated the party elite as well as the party left (Moveon.org.). Go to her rallies and see who's there: mostly older women and gays. You see few who would fall into the "regular guy" category. Hers is a fringe candidacy that cannot capture the center in the general.

OBAMA CAN EMERGE THE VICTOR -- BY ANOINTING AL GORE (WHO HAS EARNED A RESURRECTION)

Yet if Obama cannot seal the deal with a convincing win -- 10 points or more -- he must bring the party together by tossing to Gore. As Maureen Dowd correctly opined, Obama has failed to mount an effective defense against doubts about his personal associations and his ability to withstand the coming GOP mud-slinging.

"THE POWERS THAT BE" STILL ARE

And as mentioned here before, Obama has failed to win over the military and the intelligence community, rendering his ability to command the nation problematical at best.

OBAMA AS KINGMAKER

But Obama can overcome doubts about his lack of experience and his personal associations by letting the nation really get to know him as its VP. He's run an outstanding campaign. He's revolutionized campaign financing. He's the quintessential inspirational candidate. But at the top of the ticket, he cannot win.

So Scrivener once again urges PA Dems to help convince Obama to toss to Gore by voting for Hillary.

A HILLARY WIN PROVES NOTHING FOR THE GENERAL

But if and when Hillary wins by a narrow margin, don't buy into the argument that it will prove she can win the big states in the fall. She cannot. Obama cannot.

Gore can, and will, with Obama as his VP.

Posted by: Scrivener | April 21, 2008 10:40 AM | Report abuse

jac13 writes
"OK, so now amid all the polls showing the race stabilizing, with the undecideds breaking for Clinton, and about an average 6- or 7-point lead for her, in drops this PPP poll showing OBAMA up by 3!!"

Who knows? Polls had Obama up in NH, and Clinton being competitive in WI. They were wrong in both cases. At this point, Tuesday is close enough that I can patiently await the results.

Posted by: bsimon | April 21, 2008 10:40 AM | Report abuse

So Chris how is your campaign to become that Leftist Liberal Pathological Liar and
Cocaine Addict and Crack Salesman,Chicago
Political Loser,Phony Barack Hussein Obama
Presidential Press Secretary by now? Since
the way keep trying spin everything into
a Hit Piece on Hillary Clinton and Turn
Barack Hussein Obama into the New Messiah
and God,daily you must be like MSNBC's
Village Idiot Chris Matthews and get the
same kind of gurlyman chills running up
your leg at the very mention of Obama's
name,don't you Chris? NO Obama in 2008!

Posted by: Claudine | April 21, 2008 10:34 AM | Report abuse

Looks like some of us had a pleasant weekend, and it looks like others, like Leichtman and VAMMAP, took advantage of the absence of the adults and came to play in the sandbox, with their drivel alternating between absurd and racist. Caw caw caw caw caw!

Posted by: bondjedi | April 21, 2008 10:33 AM | Report abuse

Pennsylvania Governor Edward Rendell is absolutely right. Hillary Clinton, together with her de facto running mate, husband Bill, is a formidable fighter.

Recall how she retained a private detective to dig up dirt on the women seduced by Bill (so much for her feminism); how she fired long-standing employees in the White House travel office to give the jobs to her supporters; how she put Marines in their place by making them serve as waiters and busboys; how she browbeat and cussed out her staff; how she rebuked any underling who dared to make eye contact with her; how she and Bill ordered IRS audits on their critics; how they backstabbed and betrayed fellow Democrats (small wonder so many are supporting Obama).

Then there are the deaths of Vince Foster and some 50 others by suicide, murder, accidents and sudden illnesses--a body count unmatched by any administration in American history.

Then, last but not least, is the way she has cowed the news media into imposing a gag order on itself. Had a Butler University student not brought up the Monica Lewinsky scandal, and had not the CBS tape of her bullet-dodging story in Bosnia come to light, the news media would have given the Clintons a smooth, free ride to the nomination and, probably, to the White House.

Yes, Hillary Clinton is one hell of a fighter--tough, smart, unyielding, as the Governor says. Precisely the kind of leader our nation needs in these troubled times.

Posted by: Carlos Navarro | April 21, 2008 10:13 AM | Report abuse

OK, so now amid all the polls showing the race stabilizing, with the undecideds breaking for Clinton, and about an average 6- or 7-point lead for her, in drops this PPP poll showing OBAMA up by 3!!

I checked the Ohio results, and PPP had HRC up by 9 just before the election (as you know she won by about 10).

What the f**k?

Posted by: jac13 | April 21, 2008 10:12 AM | Report abuse

PS Leichtman:

When you post stuff like this:

"But it is my prediction that all of the polls are absolutely wrong, and that 90 percent of undecideds will break to Obama because of his totally positive message this week. "

Then you accuse *others* of being in denial, you honestly make a fool of yourself. You know, just sayin', in case you actually care about your own humiliation.

Posted by: JD | April 21, 2008 9:55 AM | Report abuse

So... just out of curiosity.... Leichtman, what am I in denial about, exactly?

All I did was show you the averages of a bunch of polls, focusing on the Dem primary. I'm not suggesting what's going to happen, and frankly it doesn't matter at all to me. I honestly don't care who wins.

Personally, I think McCain will beat either one now, and I doubt it will be close (maybe 55-45). They've torn each other to shreds in this process. However, it's a fight that the Dem party needed to have with itself eventually, so might as well get it on the table.

Posted by: JD | April 21, 2008 9:52 AM | Report abuse

Chris, how are people counting the votes that Limbaugh Republicans have/will cast? I've heard that Hillary won the primary by 109K in Tx, and that 119K Republicans voted for her (or at least in the Democratic primary). Pennsylvania has 160K new "Democrats" who were formerly registered as Republicans. How do we interpret the win that I expect (but hope not) that she will get tomorrow? How do we interpret polls--do they count the crossover Republicans? This is very confusing to me.

Posted by: Russell Burck | April 21, 2008 9:48 AM | Report abuse

JD, jac,scrivner I absolutely agree with all of you that HC will be lucky if she hangs on tomorrow by 2-3 points and it looks very likely that Obama will now squeak out a win.

By the way can you guys tell us in detail what happened to Obama's 11 point lead nationally in the McClatchy national poll that shows HC a week later either ahead nationally by 1 point or down by 2 points. That is either a 9 point or an 11 point national swing in 1 week. Jac understands Obama'poor debate performance but scivner and JD are in denial. But it is my prediction that all of the polls are absolutely wrong, and that 90 percent of undecideds will break to Obama because of his totally positive message this week.
And you guys and Michael Smurkonich are correct and it should be a 2 point race and he predicts a 2 point win for Obama. Obama finally closes the deal in Pa.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 21, 2008 9:41 AM | Report abuse

Why hasn't Clinton's strong connection to [east] Indian businesses and outsourcers been explored by the press. I had to find out about it myself.

Clinton Woos the Outsourcers that Workers Fear

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/07/30/2857/

"Three weeks ago [July 2007], her husband [former President Bill Clinton] drew applause at a conference of 14,000 Indian Americans in Washington as he extolled the benefits of "open borders, easy travel, easy immigration." He said the outsourcing debate bothered him because it failed to acknowledge the contributions of Indians who settled in the U.S. The same day, he headlined a fundraiser at the conference for his wife's campaign."

Posted by: Tom | April 21, 2008 9:31 AM | Report abuse

As you say, Chris, this is a big and important fight. When Hillary complains to her donors that MoveOn.org activists flood the caucuses and vote, she speaks against democracy. It is vitally important that she be defeated.

Posted by: Russell Burck | April 21, 2008 9:28 AM | Report abuse

The polls all show the undecideds breaking for Clinton, as they have in many previous primaries. She may win by more than 10%. If not, it will be because the newly-registered and party-switching voters go for Obama 60-40, as polled. I see no way Obama wins; the best he can do is hold her under 10%.

Regardless of the spin Hillary puts on it, she will have lost a 20-point lead in a state that was tailor-made for her.

The bad news: on we go to NC, IN and beyond. At this rate, they're going to destroy each other, if they haven't already.

"There once were two cats of Kilkenny
Each thought there was one cat too many
So they fought and they fit, and they scratched and they bit
Till excepting their nails and the tips of their tails
Instead of two cats there weren't any."

Posted by: jac13 | April 21, 2008 9:20 AM | Report abuse

Well the polls as usual are all over the place in the last two days. They go from Clinton up 3 to 13. The average being about 7%

If what happened in NH and OH occurs here Clinton will win the undecided voters and could then could win PA by 10% which she will need to prove her point about Obama not being able to win the big states in November.

It will an interesting day in PA tomorrow.

Posted by: peter DC | April 21, 2008 9:04 AM | Report abuse

Hey Leichtman, you can try to convince yourself all you want that HRC's edge in PA is expanding, but the clear trend in this chart

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/pa/pennsylvania_democratic_primary-240.html

is that it narrowed a few weeks ago and seems to be standing pat. I'm sure you will decry this as some GOP trick, but as a guy who doesn't have a dog in this fight, I can tell you that this site is pretty good. They take the averages of about 8 polls and look at the big picture.

Posted by: JD | April 21, 2008 8:46 AM | Report abuse

scrivener says zogby reports Obama soaring to within 3 points and if I don t agree I need to retract post;

I won t back down and neither will HC. This is the truth about what zogby ACTUALLY reported yesterday and all of your DELIBERATE
MISINFORMATION won t chang that;

Newsmax/Zogby 'Poll: Clinton Edge Continues to Expand in PA
UTICA, New York--The final weekend before tomorrow's important primary election in Pennsylvania was good for New York's Hillary Clinton, as she made a definitive move toward victory over rival Illinois' Barack Obama, a fresh Newsmax/Zogby daily telephone tracking poll shows.
She gained two points over the past 24 hours as Obama lost one point, and she now leads 48% to 42%, the latest polling shows.'

Posted by: Leichtman | April 21, 2008 7:57 AM | Report abuse


Who do you predict will win the Pennsylvania Democratic Presidential Primary?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=2127


.

Posted by: Frank, Austin TX | April 21, 2008 7:39 AM | Report abuse

to the person who wrote of mccain: "His well documented out of control anger, complemented by rudeness, filthy language in public ..."(and to most of the rest of the commenters here)

if you guys can't do better than this, you'd better start practicing saying "president mccain".

i can-not-WAIT to see him debate either the messiah or shrillary, because one of them is gonna get SCHOOLED by him.

it's the dems' election to lose once again, and whom have they picked as candidates? one is a hypocritical empty suit who surrounds himself with offensive america-haters. the other is a compulsive liar just like her husband, who was the only president to be impeached in the last 100 years.

neither have any foreign-policy experience to speak of.

both will galvanize the right, along with many moderates, to go for mccain, who is far, far more of a centrist and will be able to work with both sides of the aisle in congress.

this is gonna be fun...

Posted by: ex-democrat | April 21, 2008 5:11 AM | Report abuse

Clinton is the problem in the DEMOCRATIC PARTY. American is not for KINGS and QUEENS.

We are for progressive change and know that we can always use a new person with a new perspective on things. otherwise how do you get change?

Vote OBAMA if you have any sense!

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 4:10 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: scrivener
Zogby reports tonite (Sun. 4/20) that HC's lead has NARROWED to only 3 pts. from 5 pts. yesterday. Your post is totally incorrect when you wrote that "Zogby reports a 2 pt uptick" for HC.

-------------------------------------------
Zogby also had Ohio tied and Obama winning Texas, California and NJ were off by something like 12-15%. Other states have been more accurate, but like the poster above I would still hold off calling a trend until confirmed by SUSA.

Posted by: Elizabeth | April 21, 2008 3:10 AM | Report abuse

Clinton is being compared to Osama bin laden? Clinton wants to destroy the party? What proof do you have that Clinton wants to destroy the party? Because she is competing against OBama? That is the same as saying Clinton was the front-runner in Nov 07 and if Obama would have dropped out in December we would have had our nominee in January and ALL of the money that both OBama and HIllary have raised since Jan to now would have been available to go up against John McCain.
Osama bin laden? I guess Hillary supporters are the angry ones who spew venom.

Posted by: David M | April 21, 2008 2:36 AM | Report abuse

By now, a lot of us (Including a good number of Super Delegates) are saying " A pox on both of them. Neither one of them can beat McCain or so the polls seem to suggest. Lets take another look at Edwards or even Biden. (Not Gore or Kerry, they are losers) Unless the Super Delegates commit early, neither of them will win on the first ballot at the Convention. That is as far as elected delegates are committed to "the one that brung him/her." After that, all delegates are free to do as they please. On the second ballot the convention could elect an alternative to those two. That way the party will also not face a revolt from whomever loses this current battle and hand the Presidency to McCain. As far as I can see this is the only way left for Democrats to win this year. Just look at the poll numbers. If Clinton wins, 18% of the Obama supporters will vote for McCain. Even worse, if Obama wins 28% of her supporters will vote for McCain. In both cases this is a disaster waiting to happen if you are a Democrat and a gift from the electoral Gods if you are a Republican. Let us look at alternatives or, come November we Democrats will once again bemoan the fact that we missed a golden opportunity.

Posted by: OPA2 | April 21, 2008 2:23 AM | Report abuse


I am a Minnesotan, an independent voter who supported and voted Ron Paul in the primary and I am adamant on a returning our troops home from Iraq. I have never in my life voted for a Democratic presidential candidate.

Now that Congressman Paul is apparently out of the race, it looks like my choice will be between McCain on one hand and either Clinton or Obama on the other.

If Obama is the Democratic nominee, I will vote for him. He treats the public as intelligent adults and I have listened to his speeches (especially the New York address on financial policy) where I have found his positions to be rational and surprisingly moderate.

Despite McCain's detestable position on Iraq, I would easily vote for him over Senator Clinton for one simple reason:

I CRINGE AT THE THOUGHT OF YOUNG AMERICANS GRADUATING FROM COLLEGE IN 2012 HAVING KNOWN NO PRESIDENT OTHER THAN A "BUSH" OR A "CLINTON."

Posted by: LukeAnderson | April 21, 2008 2:02 AM | Report abuse

After November no matter who is elected no one will even bother to blog anymore. We are all just having fun online because none of us know who is going to win.

Posted by: Cheryl M | April 21, 2008 12:08 AM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton's radical summer

http://www2.nysun.com/article/66933

One partner at the firm, Doris Walker, was a Communist Party member at the time. Another partner, Robert Treuhaft, had left the party in 1958, several years after being called before the House Un-American Activities Committee and labeled as one of America's most "dangerously subversive" lawyers. The Oakland-based firm was renowned for taking clients others rejected as too controversial, including Communists, draft resisters, and members of the African-American militant group known as the Black Panthers.

To this day, Mrs. Clinton's decision to work at the unabashedly left-wing firm is surprising, even shocking, to some of her former colleagues there and to those supporting her bid for the presidency. To the former first lady's enemies and political opponents, her summer at the Treuhaft firm is yet another indication that radical ideology lurks beneath the patina of moderation she has adopted in public life.

Posted by: B2O2 | April 20, 2008 11:30 PM | Report abuse

No matter what happens on Tuesday in Pa the Clinton campaign has a spin ready for whatever outcome even a loss. The truth is that she will press on no matter what. To expect Hillary Clinton to drop out of this race is to expect Osama Bin laden to repent for September 11.

A complete and total defeat in each of the following primaries is what is called for. And a resounding endorsement by the superdelegates to put him over the top at 2025 by June. Hillary will not accept these results. She will claim it was not fair, that the Super D's were coerced and that the Fl and Mi delegations and voting reslts need to be recognized.

She is preparing for a rough and tumble bitter fight up to the convention. She is prepared to destroy the Party and she is willing to do whatever it takes to kill Obama's chances in November.

Posted by: cacique88 | April 20, 2008 11:20 PM | Report abuse

If Hillary wants to whine about an Obama ad, she should do so forthrightly herself rather than dispatch a staffer do this for her. Delegating this task makes it seem like the complaint itself is a fabrication intended to by-pass Ms. Clinton's credibility problem.

The key to healthcare reform, and the realistic pathway to universal coverage, does not lie in fine words or for that matter a claim of experience derived from prior failure. Effective change depends upon inspired consent and adroit leadership, and the product is apt to be a series of steps rather than going all the way with one play.

Posted by: FirstMouse | April 20, 2008 11:13 PM | Report abuse

It looks as though there is hope that the two Democrat potentials in a prompt and civilized manner [http://www.dailyscoff.com/?p=72], though I'm not certain either campaign is giving the option its due consideration...

-jjg

Posted by: J. Gravelle | April 20, 2008 11:00 PM | Report abuse

It's factually incorrect to say that Obama went to small PA towns with middle class white voters and told them that they had antipathy for people who weren't like them.

We're not talking about slightly different wording, we're talking about COMPLETELY DIFFERENT WORDING; it's something he never said directly to voters. He said it to private donors at a fundraiser and IT means everything.

What it means is showing up in the polls. Dean sees it; Supers see it. They can go ahead and ELECT Obama, but he will not win in NOV. Let's face it, you've got half of the Democrative electorate voting against him in the primary. This is a neck and neck race.


Right now you can see the party leaders trying to appear as if they're/we're united. Look at it this way if Obama wins the nomination: the Republican attack machine will reinvigorate Clinton's attacks. Moderate Democrats will swing to McCain and it's very likely Independents will too.

If he can't win the big Dem states now, when he's forking over bucks 4 to 1; when he has every endorsement under the sun and he still can't swing it in the primary, than he will not win in NOV.

Posted by: VAMMAP | April 20, 2008 10:50 PM | Report abuse

Leichtman:

Zogby reports tonite (Sun. 4/20) that HC's lead has NARROWED to only 3 pts. from 5 pts. yesterday. Your post is totally incorrect when you wrote that "Zogby reports a 2 pt uptick" for HC.

The differential is 3 pts. and HC is going DOWN, not up...

This is troubling to me, since I would like to see HC win so that Obama decides to throw his delegates to Gore and perhaps run as his VP -- thus checkmating Hillary and driving her from contention.

Leichtman, to preserve your credibility, please correct your post.

Posted by: scrivener | April 20, 2008 10:41 PM | Report abuse

Mandated health care is dead on arrival in Congress and Hillary knows it. Let's talk about what can be accomplished, not Hillary's fairy tale of a policy.

Posted by: Steve | April 20, 2008 10:26 PM | Report abuse

well said vammap

Posted by: Anonymous | April 20, 2008 10:19 PM | Report abuse

Leichtman, you say it oddly, but I agree with you about the state of this nation. Maybe one day we will have a black president, but hopefully not this year.

Posted by: VAMMAP | April 20, 2008 7:54 PM
-------------------------------------------

Obama supporters have a real problem impersonating people! It's a symptom of a general inability to defend their own candidate! Too bad!

VAMMAP

Posted by: VAMMAP | April 20, 2008 10:03 PM | Report abuse

Zogby reports a 2 per centage point uptick for HC in his Sunday polling numbers.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 20, 2008 9:01 PM | Report abuse

Anonymous poster, you have confirmed what everyone suspects about the Clintons, that they can not succeed on their own merits but must rely on the politics of victimhood. Clinton fans here refuse to acknowledge the hypocrisy of Hillary Clinton's selfishness, and toss slurs around. Hillary's patronizing tone towards the next president of this country is mirrored in how certain posters here refer to African-Americans. You know who you are, because you are driven to ground when you are called on it. After a few days licking your wounds you are back spewing the same venom.

It will be so nice when Hillary bows out and the trolls here who slander and slur a great man realize that all their "work" has been for naught, and may return to things that hold their interest for much longer, like proving the world is flat.

Posted by: Unity '08 | April 20, 2008 9:00 PM | Report abuse

You end your column, Chris, "So why spend the time battling it out? Because . . . both sides believe [a great deal] is at stake on Tuesday."

You're part of the distraction yourself, Chris. A more important issue is Slick Hillie's self-righteous attacks on Obama's "bitter" remarks when she herself slimes MoveOn.org and democratic activists who have the gall to vote and speak up at caucuses that she's supposed to own. When are you going to address that?


Posted by: newddle | April 20, 2008 8:35 PM | Report abuse

You end your column, Chris, "So why spend the time battling it out? Because . . . both sides believe [a great deal] is at stake on Tuesday."

You're part of the distraction yourself, Chris. A more important issue is Slick Hillie's self-righteous attacks on Obama's "bitter" remarks when she herself slimes MoveOn.org and democratic activists who have the gall to vote and speak up at caucuses that she's supposed to own. When are you going to address that?


Posted by: newddle | April 20, 2008 8:35 PM | Report abuse

You end your column, Chris, "So why spend the time battling it out? Because . . . both sides believe [a great deal] is at stake on Tuesday."

You're part of the distraction yourself, Chris. A more important issue is Slick Hillie's self-righteous attacks on Obama's "bitter" remarks when she herself slimes MoveOn.org and democratic activists who have the gall to vote and speak up at caucuses that she's supposed to own. When are you going to address that?


Posted by: newddle | April 20, 2008 8:35 PM | Report abuse

you ae an idiot Unity.You think HC supporters are racists and have nothing better to do then post ugly racial slurs here which I absolutely and totally condemn as being against everything that I believe in and have been brought up to believe in in my religion and family upbringing,but which is being malisciously being posted under my name and other HC supporters for 2 weeks. You have absolutely no idea how offensive I find those posts and the idea that you acknowlegde those posts as being legitimate speaks very little for your integrity. You have no idea who we are or what our ersonal values re other than continually post that H supporters are racist. Eough lready, its sickenig.Unfortunately this site seems to do nothing to monitor those disgusting tactics and the idea that any campaign supporter would try and legitimize such sleezy tactics is the worst type of gutter politics. Anyone here that thinks promoting racial divisions for partisan advantage is funny or cute or that it is not happening here needs to grow up, it is dispicable, and needs to stop. I ask the moderator, if there is one here to please put a stop to it. It is offensive.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 20, 2008 8:16 PM | Report abuse

Leichtman, you say it oddly, but I agree with you about the state of this nation. Maybe one day we will have a black president, but hopefully not this year.

Posted by: VAMMAP | April 20, 2008 7:54 PM | Report abuse

To the cowardly anonymous poster at 6:42 - trying to spin the sign-in thing as something that only happens to Clinton's haters is the sort of victimhood we expect you to play. It is also a fact that many of the Clinton's haters in here are exploiting the situation, posting genuine slurs against Obama, then saying minutes later that someone else did it.

Fortunately, after your spokeeman's pathetic performance on MTP this morning, the writing is on the wall. Clinton is done, but her cowardly supporters will continue to stay here and slur, and use the free-and-easy sign in system to hide behind. Good bye to you and ggod riddance.

Posted by: Unity '08 | April 20, 2008 7:52 PM | Report abuse

Obama said he is new kind of leader who united people, change the way politic was done.

All I can see is he divide Democratic Party, trying to force Hillary droff out of the race when he can not win it out right, preventing votes from Florida, and Michigan to be counted.

What kind of new leader is that? Shame on him !!!!

Posted by: kinh bui | April 20, 2008 7:01 PM | Report abuse

My opinion is that Clinton will win by about 10 to 15 points. In Ohio, it was the same. Supposedly, after Obama outspent her 5 to 1 (like PA), he was closing in on her. But, Clinton's internal polls (always more reliable) showed her 10 points ahead on the Sunday before the vote. That is what she won by. I think she might win PA by at least 15 points, even after Obama has outspent her 5 to 1. The Emperor has no clothes. With everything against her, she still is the best shot the Democrats have for the White House. If she does not get the nomination, say hello to President McCain. No one is going to vote for Obama with friends like Ayers, Rezko and Rev. Wright. Not just friends, but close associations. Rove must be laughing out loud at the potential which some were able to see Wednesday night in Obama's dismal performance. It may be too early to pour the champagne for the Republicans, but right now, the inventory for Democrats is running low.

Posted by: Polcomm | April 20, 2008 6:57 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: stryker

Interesting note made by Philly Daily News political columnist John Baer the other night, I believe, on hardball. Polls show Clinton leading in Pa, but what he said is that the pollers are not calling those with cell phones. As a great amount, if not a majority of young voters now uses cell phones rather than land lines, they are not being counted in the polls. Considering that Sen. Obama has brought thousands of new young voters into the fold, there is the great possibilty that he will win in Pa or at least come a lot closer than the polls now show.


Voters have had cell phones in every state contested to date. Probably less in PN with the large percentage of older residents.

Watch particularly for a SurveyUSA poll if one is released tomorrow (they usually do the latest of any organization). Because it has been by far the most accurate most accurate polling company so far this primary season. The spread was exactly right in Ohio, within 1-2% margin close in California and many other states.

Five days ago they had Clinton up by 14.
54% to 40%. I'm fairly confident there will be fresh numbers Monday. Stay tuned. :)

Posted by: Anonymous | April 20, 2008 6:42 PM | Report abuse

I see that there are children here again posting racial slurs and attributing them to HC suporters playing games with their sign ins. What an absolutely disgusting abuse of this site and to the political system.

Is that what is meant by postive campaigning, ending "the politics of usual" and replacing it with slash and burn politics, by manipulation of your opponent's posts to create racial hostility against HC and her supporters. This is not the first time and likely not the last time that these hit and run tactics and psychological warfare is used to attempt to censor and intimidate any voice here for HC. If these are Obama suporters you bring absolute shame to the Democratic party and to the candidate you claim to speak for. What an absolute disgrace. To those who deny these are tactics of Obama supporters, I have one very simple question. Why are these false racial and misdirected postings repeatedly done AGAINST those here who proudy identify themselves as HC suporters?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 20, 2008 6:20 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: jac13

Disagree. Obama had excellent debates in California and Ohio. Also disagree that he is a grandstander who is not interested in policy. In fact he is thoughtful and well-versed on a variety of policy issues. Just read "Audacity of Hope." That description of him simply parrots the blanket -- and unfounded -- assertion of Clinton and his other opponents, that he just makes good speeches but there's no substance behind it. You just haven't looked.

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

You're right. I haven't looked because I am a voter hiring for arguably the most pressure filled position in the world. Candidates that come to any other interview incapable of answering direct questions directly, run out the clock on their opponant, don't present workable plans or relevant experience and tell the employer to read their book and web site instead can normally be dismissed without hesitation.

Which is why the rare unscripted/unstaged situations that arise in a campaign are considered most demonstrative of grace under fire and cool competence in trying circumstances, most akin to the dynamics of a formal job interview. There is no doubt that Obama is the more reflective, meditative and better spoken candidate.
Unfortunately for him, what isn't a critical factor to the office of the presidency is a Sociologist/Academician /Author...etc in Chief.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 20, 2008 6:08 PM | Report abuse

Every innane excuse has been given for Barack's "Bitter" remarks, for his 20 year association with Wright and now his ties to Ayres. The problem is this indicates a more serious hypocricy and double standard related to Obama's credibility.

Ayres says he supported MLK and non-violence but he was a member of the Weatherman and espoused and acted violently against his own country.

Obama himself responded in the debates that Bill Clinton pardoneed some of these same people when countering Clinton and Steph.

The problem is Bill is not Hillary. Obama is running against Hillary, not Bill.

Obama speech was so not an answer, if it was he wouldn't have said behind closed doors to private donors that middle class white voters have an antipathy to people that aren't like them, especially black people.

Bill Clinton was called the "First Black President." I think the problem is Black are voting for Obama because he is Black, not because he has the most experience or represents other minority groups... This is clear because he keeps courting every demographic group, but blacks..


Obama supporters really need to take a hard look at the demographics in the remaining states and in the NW manufacturing states to know that Obama may not carry them if he is the nominee in Nov. The Dems will lose.

Posted by: VAMMAP | April 20, 2008 6:07 PM | Report abuse

leichtman quote

"axelrod was not more professional just in your face, overly aggressive and on the nasty side. Gerrin is a quite pollster, bright but not nearly aggressive enough. Last time I checked Jay no one I know votes for Pres based upon what they thought of the candidate's spokesperson, that actually is demeaning to the voters. I am getting enthusiastic responses in my calling today for HC, and no one mentioned what they thought about their spokespersons."

It;s a game of inches you can't dismiss anything. That is why she is behind now, taking things for granted.

Posted by: Jeff | April 20, 2008 5:56 PM | Report abuse

Interesting note made by Philly Daily News political columnist John Baer the other night, I believe, on hardball. Polls show Clinton leading in Pa, but what he said is that the pollers are not calling those with cell phones. As a great amount, if not a majority of young voters now uses cell phones rather than land lines, they are not being counted in the polls. Considering that Sen. Obama has brought thousands of new young voters into the fold, there is the great possibilty that he will win in Pa or at least come a lot closer than the polls now show. The man brought out over 30,000 people to Philly Friday night, many of them first-time voters. Around the same time, Chelsea Clinton went gay bar hopping with Gov Rendell in Philly. I don't give a hoot where she does her campaigning, but how will middle Pa react to Hillary's daughter going to gay bars. Especially when one lesbian proudly proclaimed, after having her picture taken with Chelseas, "I grabbed her ass!" I don't think you will see that in any Clinton campaign ad.

Posted by: stryker | April 20, 2008 5:53 PM | Report abuse

Some Hill supporter called me today, had to tell her I was for Obama, but Hill was my second choice only because I couldn't vote for McCain. Used to respect her, now I really can't stand her or her rabid, lying supporters who try to throw anything at Barack, then cry "foul" when he answers back. Something like 68% of the Democrats say she is untrustworthy. Only Bush has a bigger number and we're supposed to put her in the WH? Why? Why not just let Bush have another four years. If by some way she gets elected president, we' re supposed to trust her then?
A reason Obama didn't do as well inthe debate: He believed the questions were going to be about important matter, like the war, like torture, like our horrible foreign policy, like the trashing of the Constitution. But what;s he get: flag pins, Rev Wright again (after he's answered about him about a dozen times and give one of the best speeches on race relations ever), and Wm Ayers a 60's radical who had served his jail term and is now a respected Chicagoan who happened to be on the same council as Obama. Want to discuss Hill & Bill's connection with Marc Rich and his pardon or Bill's pardon of two actual Weatherground bombers?
Get used to it, Hill's going to lose. Maybe in 8 years, after she has rehabilitated herself, she can try again.

Posted by: mike l | April 20, 2008 5:42 PM | Report abuse

From NBC's Chuck Todd
A new MSNBC/McClatchy/Pittsburgh Post-Gazette poll of Pennsylvania indicates things are staying fairly competitive in the Pennsylvania Dem primary.

The poll of 625 likely Dem primary voters was conducted Thursday and Friday and showed Clinton leading Obama 48-43%. Considering the 4% margin of error, it means Clinton's lead is inside the margin.

Still, the poll is consistent with what the campaigns and other reputable polls have been showing and that is Clinton getting close to 50% and Obama struggling to climb over 45%.

So what happens on Tuesday? Well, let's take a look at the undecided vote. Going inside the poll's demographics, one finds the highest undec. totals in the more rural parts of the state; that's not good news for Obama. In the so-called "T" region of the state (i.e., almost everything between Philly and Pittsburgh), Clinton leads 51-37 with 11% undecided; this is one of the few demographic groups sporting double-digit undecided.

Two other interesting cross-tabs with high undecideds also indicate the potential that undecided vote will break for Clinton. Among bowlers (24% of the electorate) and gun owners (38% of the electorate), Clinton leads big. She's up 54-33 among bowlers and 53-28 among gun owners; There were 13% undec. among bowlers and 17% undec among gun owners.

So while the poll shows Clinton with a narrow lead (and arguably a narrowing lead), the clues inside the numbers indicate this is her race to lose and that her lead could expand. Should this race end up as close as this poll indicates (i.e. 5 points or less), then this means many of these undec. potential Clinton voters decided to stay home; If the come to the polls, she could see her lead climb to over 5 points.

And that's the game Tuesday, not if Clinton will win, but how big will her victory be. She'd like to net more than 200K in the popular vote which she would only get with both a large turnout (approx. 2 million total) and a 10 point victory.



http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/20/923759.aspx

Posted by: VAMMAP | April 20, 2008 5:23 PM | Report abuse

What's everyone's take on this. Obama has flip-flopped on McCain?

April 20, 2008
Obama: McCain would be better president than Bush
Posted: 04:54 PM ET

Obama has said electing McCain would mean a third Bush term.

READING, Pennsylvania (CNN) - Democrat Barack Obama conceded Sunday that all three leading presidential contenders would be better than President Bush -- including Republican opponent John McCain.

"Either Democrat would be better than John McCain," he said. "And all three of us would be better than George Bush."

In the past, Obama has equated a McCain presidency to a "third Bush term."

From: CNN Political Producer Chris Welch
Filed under: Barack Obama • John McCain •

Posted by: VAMMAP | April 20, 2008 5:21 PM | Report abuse

Anon 4:18 -

Disagree. Obama had excellent debates in California and Ohio. Also disagree that he is a grandstander who is not interested in policy. In fact he is thoughtful and well-versed on a variety of policy issues. Just read "Audacity of Hope." That description of him simply parrots the blanket -- and unfounded -- assertion of Clinton and his other opponents, that he just makes good speeches but there's no substance behind it. You just haven't looked.

Posted by: jac13 | April 20, 2008 4:32 PM | Report abuse

Who posted that 4:20 post? I am going to lodge a complaint. I have many colored friends!

Posted by: Leichtman | April 20, 2008 4:31 PM | Report abuse

That is not my post at 3:54 p.m. You children, I have had over 400 people hang up the phone on me today when they found out I was from the Clinton campaign. Do you think your potty-mouth attacks are going to stop me?

The nation will one day be ready for a negro president, but not this year. I call people to beg them to vote with their emotions on this one, and I hope that I am making this clear here also.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 20, 2008 4:20 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: jac13

In any event, there's no denying it: Obama did have a lousy performance last Wednesday. It didn't help that George and Charlie seemed determined to show that their d**ks were bigger than any of the other networks' debate moderators, but the fact is he appeared tired and unprepared, was thrown off balance by the rough questioning, and never recovered. Fine. Score one for Hillary. Obama should learn from the experience. The effect on the race remains to be seen. The polls have been equivocal. We'll probably learn something Tuesday night.


---------------------------------------------
And when has the man ever performed better than Clinton on a consistent basis ? Or as Maureen Dowd put it in her NYT column this morning....


The thorny questions Obama got in the debate were absolutely predictable, yet he seemed utterly unprepared and annoyed by them. He did not do well for the same reason he failed to outmaneuver Hillary in a year's worth of debates: he disdains the convention, the need for sound bites and witty flick-offs and game-changing jabs.

He needs to be less philosophical and abstract, and more visceral and personal. Some of the topics he acted dismissive about are real things on the minds of many Americans.


Whatever. Name your excuse. Personally I think he's a grandstander showhorse not particularly interested or conversant on issues like the economy and defense.
But to chalk it up to one bad night is worse than Axelrod spin who was actually surprised by the negative reviews. An exaggeration worthy of Bosnia, in other words.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 20, 2008 4:18 PM | Report abuse

jac you know I compared policy positions, read Obama's books and attended an early U.T. Obama rally before coming to agree with Elizabeth Edward's assesment that HC healthcare plan is superior and that I don't share Sen Obama's values. But I was amazed to still find as many Pa undecided voters who unbelievably said they still had not heard enough today in my 200 calls this weekend, but David Axelrod is not exactly someone that they take their cues from, that is left to us political junkies who actually pay attention to what is posted here.

Gerrin, jay I believe is a pollster, quiet and reserved and not hard hitting just surprised that they didn't use Williams or Wolfson who are better communicators, but again voters don't pay much attention to these folks only the political junkies.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 20, 2008 3:54 PM | Report abuse

I have Medicare and Medicaid, and just received a statement from the hospital of their charges for the needle biopsy of my right lung in the amount of $5,237.50, this does not include the Dr. that performed the procedure or the Pathologists reports. Any serious illness will almost certainly cost upwards of what most folks make a year. My RX's alone far exceed my monthly income, and the CyberKnife treatment I am going to try and get as my best option for the treatment of my condition is unknown to me at this time but I will have some idea this week when I consult with the Dr. that does this type of Radiation Therapy.

Posted by: lylepink | April 20, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

PA Final Score : Sen.Hillary Clinton will win by around 300,000 to 350,000 Votes on Tuesday, TAKE IT TO THE BANK. Please check my previous OH and TX Final Score, it was on the MONEY.

Posted by: sam | April 20, 2008 3:27 PM | Report abuse

btw leichtman if you really wanted to see MTP just go to msnbc.com and search around.

Posted by: jay spartan | April 20, 2008 3:08 PM | Report abuse

leichtman-well i wasnt going to make my choice based on their spokesperson. my point was it seems like the hillary supporter wasnt even prepared for MTP.

anonposter-um last i checked the government doesnt owe me free cable. if anything the internet is a better tool for information. also pbs should be publicly funded again(please lord no more pledge drives!)

Posted by: jay spartan | April 20, 2008 3:07 PM | Report abuse

leichtman -

I agree with you that making a decision on a candidate based on his or her spokesperson is silly and borders on irresponsible. Would you allow that the same is true of making that decision based on a candidate's supporters' internet posts? (jab, jab) :-)

Posted by: jac13 | April 20, 2008 2:53 PM | Report abuse

To Leichtman:

The govt. does not owe you free cable... altho the cable industry should have a very low cost lifeline service that provides the news networks (MSNBC carries MTP later today, I believe).

Over-the-air TV remains free, and if you must have the govt. subsidize your TV, request one of those $40 off coupons for a set-top converter box www.DTV2009.gov which, with decent self-amplified rabbit ears, should bring in your local NBC station on your existing old analog TV.

Let me take this opportunity to advocate that PBS create an over-the-air all news channel on par with the BBC world service to serve those 1 in 5 PBS viewers who do not have cable, either by choice or due to economics).

Will someone please post this mornings MTP on YouTube so Leichtman doesn't have to spring for those rabbit ears?

Posted by: scrivener | April 20, 2008 2:48 PM | Report abuse

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/19/AR2008041902224.html

Let's start talking about a real issue in the general election, McCain's unsuitability for the presidency. His well documented out of control anger, complemented by rudeness, filthy language in public (even against his own wife), physical intimidation, arrogance and vindictiveness cannot be ignored. How do these serious character flaws impact his judgment? How can someone this unstable and small minded be a serious contender for the presidency?

Posted by: 01/20/09 | April 20, 2008 2:44 PM | Report abuse

axelrod was not more professional just in your face, overly aggressive and on the nasty side. Gerrin is a quite pollster, bright but not nearly aggressive enough. Last time I checked Jay no one I know votes for Pres based upon what they thought of the candidate's spokesperson, that actually is demeaning to the voters. I am getting enthusiastic responses in my calling today for HC, and no one mentioned what they thought about their spokespersons.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 20, 2008 2:23 PM | Report abuse

I did not get to see MTP this morning, because I forgot to pay my cable bill.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 20, 2008 12:02 PM

When is this country going to wake up to the idea of universal cable? It's sad how those fortunate among us can afford the best cable service, while those who didn't win life's lottery are forced to go without?

Among other Westernized countries, only America refuses to enact government-provided cable, making it fair for all.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 20, 2008 2:21 PM | Report abuse

Leichtman-no rabbit ears? anyways i also saw that, axelrod seems to be more professional and had his act together, now if penn had hung around longer, then it might have been a fight.

actually the real debate was over on fox news sunday, where both senators durbin and shumer(sp) were going at it. at one point shumer wanted to choke out chris wallace for trying to move on. jeeze let the man make his point.

MI and FLA- a few threads back someone(reason) commented that both states will flip to McCain in nov. let me be the first from the wolverine state to say hell no!

here are some facts about MI
1)McCain lost MI, now if it was say Romney, you might have a point. but saying the auto jobs wont come back just lost you 17 electorial votes.

2)Detroit-who ever is the Dem nominee, the city will turn out en mass! especially if obama is the nominee.

3)as for the MI dems not being seated, well im sure when the primaries is over then the canidate will seat them, no matter what ruling comes down.

Posted by: jay spartan | April 20, 2008 1:59 PM | Report abuse

HERE! HERE! jeff...

In relevance to Chris's blog, Obama and his campaign are smart enough to realize they have to fend off attacks even when it comes from fellow Democrats (i.e. Democratically-funded 527s groups and Hillary and her campaign surrogates). At least in this round of back-and-forth the candidates are talking about issues agains.

Hillary has to win PA and has an inherent advantage there with most of the major Democratic state political lenders in her camp (i.e. Rendell, Nutter and others).

Hillary will most probably win PA but the margin of victory is the biggest news. If she wins by more than 10pts, she lives on to present a case to stay in the race past June 3rd. If Hillary wins by 5 to 10 pts, she enables her campaign to continue on past May 6th. If Hillary wins by 1 to 5pts, political pundits will call this contest a draw especially if Hillary's democratic base shows some erosion. If Hillary loses Pa she will drop out shortly after the May 6th primaries.

Posted by: AJ | April 20, 2008 1:51 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA CAMPAIGN OFFICE BURGLARIZED, COMPUTER STOLEN: DIRTY TRICKS REDUX?

Fixanistas: Please study the following dispatch from today's Huffington Post:


"Barack Obama's Allentown office was burglarized this week, and multiple laptops and cell phones were stolen, an Obama campaign aide said today. A police spokesman confirmed the incident, but couldn't provide details today because reports are kept in the department's records depository, which is closed weekends.


An Obama aide, speaking on condition of anonymity, said "a couple" field laptops were taken out of the office at 1233 Linden St. The computers have demographic information that the campaign uses to target voters. "A couple" cell phones were also taken, the aide said."


Have Nixon's plumbers been reconstituted? Is some rogue arm of some powerful entity working to subvert democracy? Has some force deployed Blackwater-style mercenaries to disrupt political discourse?

At Obama rallies, I have witnessed a strange agglomeration of individuals chanting for Obama but wearing clothes and haircuts uncharacteristic of Obama supporters (a jarhead haircut and newish camo jacket coupled with super-white sneakers and jeans that look fresh off the store shelf paint a picture that's just not right).

Has anyone else experienced disturbing phenomena out there on the trail? These are the kinds that the punditistas do not pick up because they rarely venture to the edges of the crowds to see what's really happening way way down on the ground....

Posted by: scrivener | April 20, 2008 1:49 PM | Report abuse

Wow! What a lot of venom for one set of blogs. Talk about hateful speech. Let's get civil in our discourse. Hateful speech gets nowhere and only reflects poorly on the author of such diatribes.

Now for another bit of venom. :)

I have heard or read most of what Hillary and Barack have said during the last several months. As a middle-aged white man from the South, I find Hillary's attempt to react with disgust at Barack's statements rather curious. The tone of her campaign shifted from actually trying to give factual rebuttals to engaging in all out sarcasm. Being a former Hillary supporter (Yes, I sent a contribution a long time ago), I back Barack fully. The Wright, Ayers, and "bitter" topics are nothing new. I've heard white ministers either say or mean worse, but I did not leave the church. As we say, "preachers come and preachers go, but we'll still be here." Over the years, there have been others, like Ayers, who tried to express disagreement with a non-listening government. The problem here is the unfortunate release of his book from which the quotes were taken as if he said them on 9/11. Too bad that the Christians among us do not understand the teachings of forgiveness and redemption. Heaven knows, Bush obviously has been forgiven for taking drugs, DUI, alcoholism, and MIA during Vietnam. Forgive Bill Clinton for his problems, NEVER! Such is the double standard of the religious right. Just imagine what the $100s of billions being spent on a mistake in Iraq could do for the common good, not only here but in the world. The second wealthiest country in the world with respect to oil reserves is bilking the largest debtor nation in the world. Wow! What a strategy. To my Republican friends, one day you will wake up and see what happened to this great nation - the nation that you destroyed with your hateful speech about government, no-tax campaigns, and pre-emptive wars.

Posted by: Earl C, Virginia Beach | April 20, 2008 1:21 PM | Report abuse

PA is important.... not only to Obama and Clinton, but to all Democratic voters. Hillary's trash-talking reckless campaign is losing votes for Dems daily. Just look at the polls.

If she doesn't care enough about winning in November to discipline herself, the PA voters could. Delivering a victory to Obama might end this campaign-season mud-wrestle.

PA voters.... do you really want another truth-challenged Clinton, belting back beers and making foreign "we'll retaliate with massive force" Middle East policy on the fly?

The more Iowa saw of Hillary, the less palitable she became. Iowans saw her for what she is, and she came in third there even though she dismissed those Iowa voters.... whining that caucuses were somehow unfair to her.

PA.... we're counting on you. No more DC
establishment insiders, vote for change.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | April 20, 2008 1:08 PM | Report abuse

nclwtk:

You are exactly right. Everybody who was there at the time said we would have had a health plan 15 years ago if not for Hillary. She drove it right into the ground. She may like to rewrite history but she is the reason we don't have it now.

Posted by: jeff | April 20, 2008 1:05 PM | Report abuse

the joke that is the media:


"Due to a writing error, the reference to the Democratic candidates ruling out "middle-class tax cuts" in Thursday's column should have read "middle-class tax hikes.""

So the Times told you that Dem candidates have ruled out middle-class tax cuts -- instead of 'middle-class tax hikes'

no bias there. no sirree.


Posted by: your republican media machine | April 20, 2008 12:55 PM | Report abuse

Someone should ask HIllary what good is a health care plan with mandates that will never get passed by Congress. Praise it all you want, her plan in DOA on arrival. WHy bother with having these grand policy iniatives if there isnt a realistic chance of getting them enacting. Clinton can be a big a bully as she wants as a candidate, but both she and Obama are really likely to deal with a Senate without the 60 votes and a House with barely a working majority. Neither seem likely to have much in the way of coattails, esp after Hillary seeks to destroy Obama as a gift to the Republicans.

Posted by: nclwtk | April 20, 2008 12:53 PM | Report abuse

I am making rants because I point out what a mess your campaign is and you are being out played by what could be called an amateur.

Posted by: jeff | April 20, 2008 12:24 PM | Report abuse

vammap the children are apparently back here to play today and cause mischief. They think it is cute and elevates their campaign, exactly what I can least stand about them, like the racists remarks they posted typing in your name last week to smear the HC campaign. It is childish and dispicable, and his from the campaign that smuggly claims they are above politics.

I have 2 hrs of Pa calling to do to reach my 500 commitment for the campaign by tomorrow and refuse to let these children interfere with that, espcially by jeff who is the likely culprit based upon his constant rants and incoherence.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 20, 2008 12:13 PM | Report abuse

I am thoroughly confused. Will the real "leichtman" please stand up?

Posted by: jac13 | April 20, 2008 12:11 PM | Report abuse

Leichtman:

For one thing, you make the assumption I am for Obama. Second, it is yours and others kinds of self delusional thinking that got your campaign in the spot it is now. The $100,000 I was referring to was the one thrown for the workers. It was little more then pissing away money donated by supporters for nothing as they were going broke. It was when they thought they could not lose. "Shambles" is being polite, incompetence is more fitting. I don't get the "You'll see Tuesday" comment. In November when she is home writing a book "How to lose apresidential campaign when you were a sure thing", instead of being the nominee, you all will be pointing fingers at each other in a circle firing squad. I am sure you really care, but I am afraid the failure will have been from within when this is over.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 20, 2008 12:10 PM | Report abuse

Jeff,

I disagree, and I'm an Obama supporter. Hillary's campaign is like a vampire, in the sense that it cannot be killed. Every time she's been given up for dead, she has defied the odds and come back to life. So I wouldn't write her off -- at least not yet.

The only way for Obama to end this is to win in PA on Tuesday, and I don't think he will. HRC will probably win by 7 to 10. (His only chance is that the new Dem registrants in PA, who apparently are 2-to-1 for BHO, are being underpolled -- but that's a long shot.) If she does win by that much, even though it will only net her 8 or 10 more delegates, she'll press on.

My point is, there is disarray in Hillary's campaign, but she's not down yet. Every time Barack has gotten overconfident he has stumbled. The good news is it looks like he's learned his lesson by the way he is campaigning in PA this weekend.

Posted by: jac13 | April 20, 2008 12:06 PM | Report abuse

jeff - ignore these other jokers. I did not get to see MTP this morning, because I forgot to pay my cable bill. Anyways, the Clinton camp asked me to appear for them because it can't afford a spokesman, but I could not make it because of the double shift I was working at the register. I will go to the library and watch it online.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 20, 2008 12:02 PM | Report abuse

leichtman - I see you have jumped ship. I officially declare that you will not share in the glory in the event of a 1 in a million PA victory, you dopey hack.

Posted by: VAMMAP | April 20, 2008 12:00 PM | Report abuse

The most outrageous thing, I admit, will be Obama's PA victory.

The 11:53 post is not mine, btw.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 20, 2008 11:58 AM | Report abuse

Did you see meet the press this morning? The Clinton spokesperson on there Stammering and stuttering can't answer a question and then excuses it by saying, "he has only been there for two weeks". Then what the hell is he doing on a highly watched show by millions of people and he has no idea what he is talking about. This is two days before one of the most important votes for Clinton. The Clinton campaigns wheels are off and they are dragging on the ground. After watching that this morning I would say it is really over within their campaign

Posted by: jeff | April 20, 2008 11:54 AM | Report abuse

jeff once again where are you coming from with words like hate,anger?

HC's campaign got out maneuvered in caucuses and put all of their eggs in the Ca basket, but angry, those are your words not our's, we are proud of or candidate. For instance in 2004 we had 16 people at our pt caucus 168 in March.Teachers had TAKS tests to aniste, the elderly and infirm could not show at the caucuses cutting their Tx vote in 1/2 there is nothing w could to change that.

$100,000 fund raiser, no a $2.5 million dollar Elton John event while your campaign had 200 billionaire bundlers raising $16 million
Our campaign is in shambles? Lets hear you repeat that on Tues. Have you been to the HC web site, have you been in one of our campaign offices since you I doubt tht, you seem to arrogantly suggest you know so much of our envigorated campaign then those of us involved in he campaign. Shambles I dare you to post that here on Tues night sir.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 20, 2008 11:53 AM | Report abuse

leichtman -

You know, I don't think the Obama campaign expected George S. to tilt toward HRC beforehand, and I'm unaware of anyone in a position of authority in the campaign who has said since the debate that he did. And, in fact, I don't think he did. What I think is that ABC's moderators thought, rightly or wrongly, that the media had not been tough enough on Obama, and "over-corrected." It's as simple as that. I also think that Hillary, when presented with opportunities to "pile on," understandably couldn't bring herself to let the moments pass. And I agree with one commentator who said that Obama compounded the problem by returning a couple of times to issues he had responded to fairly effectively, thus giving Hillary another chance to smack him. All in all, a pretty lousy performance.

BTW, I also think that those who say that, by the time the debate settled into substantive issues, she was stronger than he was, are correct. We'll never know whether that's because he got rattled in the beginning. I do wonder why there hasn't been more attention to her "massive retaliation" statement, which I thought was imprudent.

Posted by: jac13 | April 20, 2008 11:51 AM | Report abuse

Leichtman:

Lets face it, her campaign is and has been a shambles. Out of money and having $100,000 parties, what have they been thinking. One of the worst political campaigns ever and from people who were supposed to be some of the best. If Clinton people want to be angry with anyone it should Hillary herself for pissing away what would have been a sure win.

Posted by: jeff | April 20, 2008 11:38 AM | Report abuse

the 11:28 post not the 11:30 post

Posted by: Leichman | April 20, 2008 11:37 AM | Report abuse

Watch Bill Clinton, Guns, Gays and God.
The Dem Party needs a soul searching to address the issue instead of backing off and wishing these problems are not there.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYaJHAnmjtk

Posted by: Mean | April 20, 2008 11:36 AM | Report abuse

jac my 11:30 compliment was mine. Leichtmaan

Posted by: Leichtman | April 20, 2008 11:34 AM | Report abuse

jeff you have not been here to read the absolutely disgusting posts here over the last month to describe HC. I could list them but many of them have been said repeatedly are simply unfit for print but your observation is way off base. callng Obama supporter's complaints whining, does not pale in comparison to a lot of things posted here to describe HC or her supporters.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 20, 2008 11:33 AM | Report abuse

Hillary needs a 527 to put out an ad with Senator Finger doing his act at two venues on Thursday last.
They can explain that he did his f aux face touch/flipping finger gesture at the exact same moment in both speeches.

Posted by: Truth Seeker | April 20, 2008 11:31 AM | Report abuse

jac13 said
"Hillary Clinton said during the debate, in effect, "I said something I knew not to be the case," and "I'll have to get more sleep." In other words, she admitted that she lied, and then blamed it on fatigue.

To "exaggerate" is to embellish a true story. This was not exaggeration: all the elements of it were not true, including sniper fire, running to the car, and cancelling the welcoming ceremony. And she repeated if FOUR times! Gibson and Stephanopoulos just let that answer lie there with no follow-up. Need any more evidence of bias?"

It's worse then that, she was reading from a script at the time. She functions on the "Big Lie" theory. You just lie and a certain amount will stick. The problem is with todays technology that thinking doesn't work anymore. Saying you don't remember, or made a mistake can be proved with a cell phone video that pops up on youtube.

It is as if all her advisors as well as her self are at least 20 years or more out of date. She is quoting Truman for God sake from almost 60 years ago instead of something young people can identify with. When the books are written how she blew this election, out of date ideas will be one of the main reasons it happened.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 20, 2008 11:30 AM | Report abuse

thank you for your honesty jac pparently few of the Obama supporters can accept that and fits easier in ther narative to just go after the moderator "In any event, there's no denying it: Obama did have a lousy performance last Wednesday"
As I watched the debate I told my wife they were asking some really idiotc questions like the flag pin question but also mentioned that Obama seemed unprepared, tired, rattled, off message, and not focused almost like he didn't want to be there. Isn't it fair to ask if the Obama campaign didn't trust George S. they should have said something in the debate negotiation nt railing for week aftr the facts, and why play the victim card, that just seems to acknolwdge he did poorly and reinfrces nd image of weakness or a misdirection argument. Thank you for your honesty though sometimes its hard to find.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 20, 2008 11:28 AM | Report abuse

gary one word anwers that, Medicare. My 92 year old mom and her generation would not imagine a country without Medicare, or our soldies without tricare.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 20, 2008 11:18 AM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton said during the debate, in effect, "I said something I knew not to be the case," and "I'll have to get more sleep." In other words, she admitted that she lied, and then blamed it on fatigue.

To "exaggerate" is to embellish a true story. This was not exaggeration: all the elements of it were not true, including sniper fire, running to the car, and cancelling the welcoming ceremony. And she repeated if FOUR times! Gibson and Stephanopoulos just let that answer lie there with no follow-up. Need any more evidence of bias?

In any event, there's no denying it: Obama did have a lousy performance last Wednesday. It didn't help that George and Charlie seemed determined to show that their d**ks were bigger than any of the other networks' debate moderators, but the fact is he appeared tired and unprepared, was thrown off balance by the rough questioning, and never recovered. Fine. Score one for Hillary. Obama should learn from the experience. The effect on the race remains to be seen. The polls have been equivocal. We'll probably learn something Tuesday night.

A larger question is, is time running out for HRC, and if so, how long will she protract this and continue to play into McCain's hands?

Posted by: jac13 | April 20, 2008 11:15 AM | Report abuse

two words why i won't vote for hc or bo....
"health care" two words why i'm not in favor of a national health care program.....
"social security". why would anyone trust the government to run health care after making such a mess out of ss?

Posted by: gary | April 20, 2008 11:09 AM | Report abuse

Leichtman

I am referring to this board and others.

Posted by: jeff | April 20, 2008 11:06 AM | Report abuse

there are so many serious problems in this country --
the article on today's NYT about the Pentagon manipulating the "retired" generals and the networks is frightening and one more reason they ALL need to go --

Out with the old media, out with the old politicians - this country will be better off with a "roll of the dice" - than the same old - same old

The stupid comments of HRC people which can be refuted by a 5 second Google search only continue to poison the well-

Maybe those are people - like Hillary Clinton herself - who would rather see years of John McCain and save 2012 for another run by Sen Clinton?

But as another poster above wrote - and I agree with - there will be no democratic party left in 2012 to support Hillary Clinton -- Sen Clinton would be up for reelection in NY in 2012 and there will be a vigorous anti Clinton candidate somewhere who will not let this go easy -- and there will be a third Unity party of the Bloombergs. Hagels. Nunns and yes the Obama's - who are the true patriots and care more about this country that continuing the CLinton dynasty

It is sad to watch

Posted by: awb75 | April 20, 2008 11:03 AM | Report abuse

Actually on boards like this I doubt most really care much at all one way or the other. It has just become like a sports contest and a fad for many people to take one side or the other. Next week they will be on to the next fad. This whole thing has such a phony sense to it on both sides.

Posted by: jeff | April 20, 2008 11:02 AM | Report abuse

Dems villanized LBJ and Humphrey just like has been done to HC and 40 years later I still lament of much different we would have been with Humphrey as President. Seems like we have a habit of often turning away from the most qualified candidate and then decades laer realizing what a mistake that was and come to regret it.

And jeff you talk about hate, what do you think about the Obama conference call saying HC does not deserve to lay a reef at the tomb of the unknown soldier. Talk about hate jeff. Or cyncal robo calls into Scranton saying you can't trust HC on guns even after Sen Obama has been the one to sit on boards issuing grants for gun control.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 20, 2008 11:01 AM | Report abuse

Leichtman,
"do his supporters now feel that any post that doesn't simply praise Sen Obama is hate"

Not but it is interesting how the insult ratio from the supporters of HRC vs. Obama here is going towards 100 - 0.

Just from the thread above:
"whimp" "whiner" Liar" "get his worthless butt kicked good" "THE DANGEROUS CANDIDATE"
"Supporter of 'Infanticide" "What an absolute low life".

How is this not "hate" or insults?

Posted by: Claus H. | April 20, 2008 10:51 AM | Report abuse

The New York Times leads with a 7,500-word exposé of the Pentagon "message machine," a concerted effort by the Department of Defense to spread the Bush administration's Iraq talking points by briefing supposedly independent retired commanders for network and cable television appearances.

The NYT successfully sued the Department of Defense to gain access to thousands of e-mails and internal documents relating to its posse of military T.V. commentators. The 8,000 pages of information "reveal a symbiotic relationship where the usual dividing lines between government and journalism have been obliterated." These "military experts" often communicated with the Pentagon to receive the latest agenda before going on camera, and some used the inside information to assist private companies in obtaining military contracts. More unfortunately, "members of this group have echoed administration talking points, sometimes even when they suspected the information was false or inflated. Some analysts acknowledge they suppressed doubts because they feared jeopardizing their access."

Posted by: the pentagon/contractor propaganda machine | April 20, 2008 10:49 AM | Report abuse

Hillary is starting to remind me of Hubert Humphrey and his candidacies. After the fact, many of us wish we would have supported Hubert. We may have avoided both the tragedy of Nixon and the letdown of Carter.

Posted by: William | April 20, 2008 10:46 AM | Report abuse

jeff talks about hate. Unortunately he has not been here over the last month to read any of the absolutely vulgar posts and comments here mad by some Obama supprters about HC that I wouldn't even expose to children.

Is it hate jeff to point out Obama contradictions and shortcomings with his healthcare plan, to ask why Sen Obama's capaign did not complain about the debate moderators before the debate and have chosen instead to play the victim card, or to point out Sen Obama's contradictions about his stand regarding gun control such as:

"Though Obama's camp has worked to assure gun owners their rights are protected, he once sat on board that funded gun control grants."

do his spporters now feel that any post that doesn't simply praise Sen Obama is hate, or is that once again their efforts to play the victim card?

Posted by: Leichtman | April 20, 2008 10:36 AM | Report abuse

So frankly I cannot wait to see Wimpy Liar
Barack Hussein Obama get his worthless butt
kicked good by Hillary Clinton in Tuesday
PA Primary. And then see Whining Barry go
whining and crying back to his elitist
San Francisco Elitist Rich Fat Cat Backers
and his New Mommy Madame Nancy Pelosi for
somemore Whine and Cheese Whine Session!..
And all the while Democrat Turncoat Screwup
Howard Dean and Windsurfer John Kerry and
old lush Teddy DUI Kennedy are going nuts
trying to figure why their boy and Messiah
Arrogant Elitist Leftist Barack Obama was
not corinated by the voters by now! Just
say No to Obama,Pelosi,Kerry,Dean and Kennedy in 2008! No OBAMA!

Posted by: Sherry Kay | April 20, 2008 10:34 AM | Report abuse

The Clinton posters seen to have so much hate, what does this stem from? Seeing that both candidates are essentially the same candidate as far as issues go except for a few variables where is it coming from?

Posted by: jeff | April 20, 2008 10:20 AM | Report abuse

Pennsylvania Primary

Who do you predict will win the Pennsylvania Democratic Presidential Primary?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=2127


.

Posted by: Frank, Austin TX | April 20, 2008 10:09 AM | Report abuse

It is clear in an area like healthcare that capitalism does not work, but Senator Clinton's idea of socialized medicine cannot work in the current climate either.

Posted by: Ann | April 20, 2008 9:44 AM


I agree! Why should we spend our own money on healthcare? Let Congress spend their money, and provide it for the country.

Posted by: JD | April 20, 2008 10:09 AM | Report abuse

If Hillary can't stand the truth about her health care plan from a guy who she says is not ready to be President, then Hillary should take her own advice and get out of the kitchen.

Hillary has proven that spending a couple of years sleeping in a governor's mansion or sleeping in the White House does not qualify one to be president. A tourist guide yes, but not a President.

Posted by: svbreeder | April 20, 2008 10:08 AM | Report abuse

socialized medicine like oh my gosh in Canada or Medicare or Tricare. Talk to actual people Canada like I did before you make such comments. Oh and if you are upst about doctors and mal practice ask your Republican legislatures. I USED to handle medical mal practice claims, but they have become so honorous on climants that 99% of Texas lawyer won't touch them thanks to our Republican state legislatue who has stacked even the worst episodes of mal practice in favor of doctors and hospitals.

AntiSeletion in the Obama plan is ignored b/c so many of his supporters are GenY who will not opt into the system until they have an illess and benefit disproportionately from the Obama plan. Its like rear ending your neighbor's car and then saying oops I guess its time for me to now run down to my local state farm agent and sign up for liability coverage, now. Ask any healthare expert what Obama's AntiSelection will do to premiums. If you are under 25 and healthy great. If you are 40-65 see what AntiSelection does for your premiums. No one bothers to ask Sen Obama what AntiSelection will do to totally undermine his healthcare plan. As usual he once again gets a free pass, b/c he is Senator Obama, the teflon candidate.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 20, 2008 10:05 AM | Report abuse

Barack Obama has become a whiner in the last month. He does not like being questioned about anything. If he is, there are racial overtones or it is attack politics whether coming from his opponent or the media.
Is this country ready for a president who does not like anyone to question him? We already have that now in George W Bush. If you question him, he says you are not patriotic.
Obama has become a whiner and I for one do not like whiners. Obama has a sense of entitlement to the democratic nomination. Why? He will not enough delegates anymore than Clinton. She could very well win the popular vote. Clinton is not asking Obama to quit the race.
Penn,North Carolina, Indiana, Kentucky, West Virginia, Puerto Rico, Oregon and Montana still have to vote.
Obama should buck up and earn this nomination IF he can. Otherwise, please for the sake of the Democratic Party stop whining. Whiners lose.

Posted by: Tired of whining | April 20, 2008 9:54 AM | Report abuse

In a perfect world, mandated health care would be the answer, but our health care expenditures are double, triple, sometimes ten times what is paid in other countries. If my husband did not have insurance through work, we would have nothing. He hates his job, but he cannot and will not leave until our children are 18.

Foreign doctors are often trained in our hospitals, but do not have to carry huge malpractice insurance. Also, most countries subsidize prescription drugs, which make them affordable for all.

It is clear in an area like healthcare that capitalism does not work, but Senator Clinton's idea of socialized medicine cannot work in the current climate either.

Posted by: Ann | April 20, 2008 9:44 AM | Report abuse

Chris, I disagree that people aren't watching these ads. Polls show that 10-15% of the voters in Pennsylvania haven't made up their minds yet despite the ads and numerous visits.

Also, by you showing them on your website, voters in the rest of the country can see them.

Posted by: Ann | April 20, 2008 9:41 AM | Report abuse

THE DANGEROUS CANDIDATE:

Supporter of 'Infanticide' (late-term abortions) in Illinois!

Giving his opponent the "finger' (see You Tube)!

What an absolute low life----is this what we want for our children?

We know what he wants for his kids in taking them to hear HATE AMERICA!

Clinton vs. McCain in November...we KNOW THEY WILL STAND UP FOR AMERICA!

Posted by: Sean McM | April 20, 2008 9:20 AM | Report abuse

Such a silly kerfuffle. Obama complains about Hillary's ads, and is crying no fair - what's he going to say when he's across the table from Ahmadinejad and Wen Jaibao? Please don't hurt my feelings?

What a wimp!

Posted by: JD | April 20, 2008 9:20 AM | Report abuse

VAMMAP's version of the issue is completely incorrect.

Hillary, on more than one occasion tried to make herself into a hero who had been literally 'under fire'. This type of exaggeration is truly abhorrent, especially as we have men and women who are truly in life-or-death situations every moment they are in Iraq. And it took Hillary almost 10 days & 3 opportunities before she finally acknowledged that she 'misspoke'. Hardly an apology there. Her first actual apology was at the debate on Wed.

Obama, however, had said basically the same statement to crowds & town-hall meetings all across the state of PA...and crowds cheered him on! That Obama used a slightly different wording the following week to a group in California is a non-issue.

Posted by: Our Only Hope | April 20, 2008 8:46 AM | Report abuse

Elizabeth Edwards endorsed Hillary's health care, not Obama's plan, saying Hillary's was the only one that would work, because it's mandated. This conclusion is shared my many experts..

An exaggeration is not a lie: you have to realize that the Boznia recollection was accurately described in her book, so her retelling of it was really an elaboration, exaggeration of real potential security issues on the ground.. in a war zone area; though candidates' comments on the campaign trail should be more closely vetted, there was no ill intent in this exageration.

Conversely, what Obama said to wealthy donors in a private fundraiser was deeply disturbing because he was telling them something about small town white Americans that was prejudical. He attributed their lack incorrectly to the Clinton administration. And he stated that they had antipathy for people who weren't like them. He was saying they were racist.
When he got found out he admitted the words, but said he mangled them.

Clinton came out and apologized and did not try to explain away, what was nothing more than exaggeration.

On the other hand, no matter how many ways Obama tries to parse the words he mangled, he admits the meaning behind them is essentially true, nevertheless he wants it both ways and he continues to attempt to dettach himself from them by saying the symptoms are a result of what politicians have done to them; that's made him look like the liar, not Hillary.

Posted by: VAMMAP | April 20, 2008 8:18 AM | Report abuse

If HRC wants to have a chance of winning this nomination, she needs to explain why she can't seem to stop lying about the most ridiculous things.

Posted by: Jayne | April 20, 2008 7:22 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company