I am one of the few people who believes that, with the exception of Rudy Giuliani, John McCain was the weakest candidate that the Republicans could have nominate. Take away McCain's service and fawning press coverage and what do you have?
(1) A candidate who can't run a national campaign without imploding a couple of times.
(2) A candidate who can't wrap his head around economic issues in terms bigger than - 'lower taxes' and 'less spending'.
(3) A candidate who can't deliver a speech without looking like a doddering old fool.
(4) A candidate who has strapped himself to the one issue that has dragged his party's brand into the toilet.
The goal of this community is to elect Democrats, a goal I regrettably no longer share with regard to EVERY elected office. Yes, that's my way of saying the I will NEVER vote for Hillary Clinton to ANY elected office. Her comments to cede the commander-in-chief argument to the Republican nominee, while simultaneously challenging the credentials our party's leading contender left a very bad taste in my mouth. Given McCain's virulent temper and commitment to permanent war, how could she cede the commander-in-chief argument to him? This effectively guarantees that any charge questioning McCain's temperament will come with a pre-approved rebuttal from Hillary Clinton. To make matters worse she questioned Obama's readiness in the same breath. Had this charge not been made in conjunction with an endorsement of McCain's credentials, I wouldn't have had a big problem with it. This is a primary, after all. I could go on and on, but the bottom line is that I will NEVER vote for a Democrat who is so willing torch the his or her own party for personal gain.
By now most of us have seen the 'Children' ad put out by Senator Clinton's campaign. I definitely peed my pants when I saw the ad, but realized that I didn't want President Hillary Clinton to answer that phone. Usually, when I have shit scared out of me, I start thinking to my days as child and wonder what super hero would keep me safe. I think I'd like Batman to answer that red phone in Hillary's ad, but I think the question deserves further investigation.
Note: Read the diary. If you check my diary history, it is pretty obvious that I am Obama supporter. But I have a genuine disagreement with him on his NAFTA rhetoric. Ohio, and its economic downturn, is a little more personal to me than it is to most of you without Ohio roots. Read the diary. Ignore it if it angers you. Point out fallacies if you find them. Debate the merits of my argument. But there's no need to hurl any invective. My feelings and disappointments are genuine.
I think my love affair with Barack Obama is over. Now, I don't want anyone to think that the CTV story was what busted my confidence in him. In truth, my image of Barack as the 'Real Deal' was shattered right after the Virginia primary. My strong support for his candidacy has been coasting on delusions that I have force fed myself for two weeks. Barack Obama isn't anyone new, or anyone more noble than past nominees of our party. He's your average Democratic politician with once-in-a-generation oratorical skills.
.... isn't interested in solving our problems! There was a time when this wasn't true. But first, let's acknowledge that he's done a great deal more for this country than most of use are willing to admit. My parents were huge fans of Ralph Nader and their appreciation for his life's work led me to join the Green Party. (No, I didn't vote for Nader in 2000 or 2004) Now, as someone who was formerly a Green, why would I say Mr. Nader isn't interested in solving our problems?
For starters, he seems have little interest in starting a genuine political movement. I don't doubt Mr. Nader's commitment to the issues, but rather his commitment to the process of assembling the nation-wide grassroots support necessary to challenge the two major parties' stranglehold on American politics. Movements don't just roll out of bed one morning and get elected to city council, let alone the Presidency of the United States. Building a movement outside the two-party structure is hard work and takes years of preparation and groundwork.
"Give me a break! I've got news for all the latte-drinking, Prius- driving, Birkenstock-wearing, trust fund babies crowding in to hear him speak! This guy won't last a round against the Republican attack machine. He's a poet, not a fighter."
- Clinton supporter Tom Buffenbarger on Obama supporters
Can I just say, I've never actually had a latte (lactose intolerant), driven a Prius (I want one), worn Birkenstocks (Dwight Shrute does, though) or have a trust fund (if wishes were horses). So why did Tom Buffenbarger launch an attack that most medicated people know is bogus? Simple - to get one group of Democrats to hate another group of Democrats. Criticizing Obama's record hasn't worked. Belittling his soaring rhetoric hasn't worked. Attacking him in any way, shape or form hasn't worked. This is whats left. Getting our brothers and sisters in Ohio (and Texas) to hate us. Getting our fellow Democrats to believe that we don't care about them, the problems of our country or our deeply held Democratic ideals.
There's a new poll out from Rasmussen Reports out today. It is a poll of head-to-head match ups between John McCain and the front runners for out nomination (Clinton, Obama).
Big whup, right? Obama has his pockets of strength (upper midwest and interior west) and Clinton has hers (Great Lakes, northeast). However, the truth isn't quite so simple.
"Could we possibly have a nominee who hasn't won any of the significant states -- outside of Illinois? That raises some serious questions about Sen. Obama."
- Mark Penn, Clinton Campaign Strategist
The most laughable part of this quote is the assumption that Hillary will win Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Funny things happen when people show up to vote. What about Florida and Michigan, you say? Is Camp Hillary really going to brag about beating Obama in state where he wasn't even on the ballot? Or brag about beating him by 17 points in state in which candidates weren't allowed to campaign? Seriously? If we are supposed to buy the argument that Hillary's 'victories' in Florida and Michigan are a sign of her general election strength, do we have to work under the assumption that McCain won't be on the ballot in Michigan, or allowed to campaign in Florida? I concede, that under those ridiculous circumstances, Hillary is general election powerhouse!
If you are unpersuaded by fantasyland arguments, let's take a look at some recent (general election) polling data coming out of states in the west and upper midwest.
With ‘Super Tuesday’ behind us, we have a chance to take a look at how all the pollsters performed. Before throwing up numbers, I’d like to outline my approach to evaluating pollsters' performance.
.
#1: QUANTIFYING PERFORMANCE
How do we represent how ‘well’ a pollster performed? I think most of us will agree that the quantity of prime importance is the ability to predict a winner. However, any polling will involve a modest amount error and I don’t want to penalize pollsters who correctly project a close race, but get the winner wrong.
Planned Parenthood as gone up on the air in Virginia, educating Virginians about John McCain's ardent anti-choice record. Commonly known as a maverick, the 2008 version of John McCain is anything but. However, we can't wait till we have a nominee to make that case. We have to make that case NOW. As in, today! Planned Parenthood's radio ad is positively brilliant. By piggy-backing on the upcoming elections in Virginia, Planned Parenthood's ads are hitting the airwaves at the exact time that voters are starting to tune into their state's primary elections.
DON'T WAIT FOR A NOMINEE! Start attacking John McCain's undeserved reputation as a maverick now. Make sure that by the time we have a nominee, the general public knows what McCain's positions are. Instead of helping bloody up one of our nominees, beat the true enemy of progressive causes - John McCain.
Disclaimer: I am an Obama supporter and have already voted for my candidate. While Senator Clinton no longer has a chance at getting my vote, she can still get my money. But I need a few things....
Unlike the popularized (and probably unfair) caricature of the typical Obama supporter, I am deeply cynical, skeptical of charisma and intensely partisan. I could walk you through my reasons for supporting Obama, but it would be a wasted effort. I have already cast my vote.
Why does Hillary offer a compelling argument to be our next president?
Obviously, either Clinton or Obama, will need 2,025 convention delegates to win the nomination. However, the roaming nature of superdelegates (can change allegiance at any time) means the party can 'put the screws' to the trailing candidate and come up with a nominee well before the convention. So, what are the pledged delegate pressure points?
.
1. FIRST TO WIN 1,229 PLEDGED DELEGATES:
There are a total of 796 superdelegates at the convention. As soon a candidate reaches 1,229 pledged delegates, the superdelegates will then have the ability to pick the nominee, assuming they vote as one bloc. Again, having the ability and actually doing so are two different things. No one would expect Bill Clinton (a superdelegate) to vote for Obama, if Obama reaches 1,229 pledged delegates first. Think of 1,229 as the beginning of the end of the nomination process.
There are days that I'm a candidate partisan and there are days that I'm a partisan Democrat. Today is partisan Democrat day. It is hard for me to get too emotionally invested in a contest between two AMAZING candidates. As an Obama supporter, I'll be a little disappointed if he doesn't end the day ahead. But even if he doesn't, I'm confident we'll whup the Republicans in turnout in every state. I hope each campaign exceeds their wildest turnout estimates! That will be the victory I feel confident we'll all savor tonight. The lastest WaPo/ABC poll tells us why....
Which political party do you trust to do a better job handling THE ECONOMY?
UPDATE: As commenters have pointed out, polls and predictions are a fun fix for political junkies. What matters is GOTV! Make O-mentum a reality! [EVENTS / VOLUNTEER / PHONE BANK]
UPDATED:
I revised the title to reflect the reality that these projections really mean that Obama and Clinton are essentially within 50-75 delegates (3%-4%) of each other. My earlier title was meant to get people pumped, but I think it is safer that I temper expectations.
Obama has momentum and he's closing. But that's all I'd read into the polls and these projections. For the record, Obama trailing Clinton by anything less than 100 delegates is a big victory in my books. GOTV, volunteer, phonebank, vote!
A while back, I posted a diary outlining my method for projecting delegate counts based on the popular vote percentage. This model was based on data from the 2004 Democratic primaries, which also featured a three candidate dynamic (Kerry, Edwards, Dean/Clark). However, with John Edwards out of the race, I reconfigured my model because many polls include him as a candidate. Moreover, there are many Democrats who will still vote for Edwards on Tuesday.
.
Current 'Super Tuesday' Projection**: Clinton 773, Obama 738, Edwards 7
** - Does not include delegates from states where no recent poll (2 weeks) is available.
Delegates from States with No Recent Poll: 160 (AR, KS, NM, UT, ID, AK, ND)
There's a diary up on the reclist pointing out new poll numbers that suggest a definite migration of the John Edwards vote to Hillary Clinton. If this trend holds up with a another day of polling, I'll buy it. But my problem is not with the analysis, but the ensuing discussion in that diary. A lot of people on Dkos are accused of Hillary hatred in response to nearly any and all criticism of Senator Clinton. Again, I don't there are SOME misogynist trolls out there, but a lot of us just don't trust her. Probably not ever. Some here won't even vote for her.
First, let me state [un]equivocally (or unequivocably as Romney likes to say) that I will vote for the Democratic nominee in November. No ifs or buts. If the nominee is a stinky bag of Doritos, I will hold my nose and vote for the stinky bag of Doritos. My partisan impulses supersede any candidate loyalties I may have (I'm an Obama supporter). While I won't pretend to speak for the rest of you, let me out line why I don't like/trust/support Hillary.
