« NM-01: Martin Heinrich Campaign Seeking Field & Finance Interns | Main | Get Your Tickets Now: David Iglesias Booksigning & Talk in ABQ 5/18/08 »
Friday, April 18, 2008
Lobbyist $$$$ (Updated: Hillary Disses Activists)
UPDATE: A story just broke on Huffington Post about Hillary being highly critical of "Democratic activists" and MoveOn, and blaming them (in other words, us) for her prez campaign woes at a private fundraiser after Super Tuesday. Mindboggling. It obviously bugs DLC Dems that ordinary people are becoming active in the political and election processes. That damned Howard Dean started it all. Read all about it. There's an audio clip too.
************
Yes, it's one of the new Obama web ads. But it doesn't mention his name .... By the way, I was at the Dem prez candidate forum at YearlyKos last summer (below) where Hillary uttered her defense of lobbyists statement that's shown in the video. It was astonishing at the time, and I think it still is.
So long ago when Edwards & Kucinich were still in the race
As we move ever closer to Tuesday's Pennsylvania primary, another national poll shows Obama pulling away with a large lead. According to the new Newsweek poll of registered Democrats and Dem leaners:
The survey of 1,209 registered voters found that Obama now leads Clinton by nearly 20 points, or 54 percent to 35 percent, among registered Democrats and those who lean Democratic nationwide. The previous Newsweek poll, conducted in March after Clinton's big primary wins in Ohio and Texas, showed the two Democrats locked in a statistical tie (45 percent for Obama to 44 percent for Clinton). The new poll puts Obama ahead among women as well as men, and voters aged 60 and older as well as younger voters. (For the complete poll data, click here).
One of the more devastating results for Clinton was that a majority of all registered voters now see her as dishonest and untrustworthy. According to the poll, just four in 10 (41 percent) registered voters view the New York senator as honest and trustworthy, while 51 percent think the opposite. This compares with solid majorities of voters who see Obama and McCain as honest and trustworthy (both polled 61 percent).
The results suggest that Clinton was damaged more by being caught in a tall tale about landing in Bosnia under sniper fire than Obama has been by his recent controversies, including the firestorm of criticism provoked by the Illinois senator's remarks that blue-collar voters "cling" to religion, guns and other issues because of their bitterness. In addition, over half (53 percent) of voters say they believe Obama shares their values, more than those who say the same thing about Clinton (47 percent) or McCain (45 percent).
Maybe it's because of responses like this one by Obama:
Post debate in Raleigh, NC
Technorati Tags:Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, lobbyists
April 18, 2008 at 03:50 PM in 2008 Presidential Primary, Ethics & Campaign Reform | Permalink
Comments
Jeez I hope Hillary gets out of the race after Penna. We need to start working on beating McCain not more of this Obama bashing by Hillary and her friends like Stephanopoulis. The Clintons are so selfish.
I do miss Edwards though. I was a big supporter and hope he gets something in the cabinet if the democrats win.
Posted by: Josie | Apr 18, 2008 5:45:43 PM
I agree, its way past time to start focusing on defeating McSameasbu$h. So far he has enjoyed a free ride and hasn't had to answer up for much of anything.
Posted by: VP | Apr 19, 2008 7:47:34 AM
Top 5 (Okay, 6) Reasons for “Supervoters” Why the Clinton “Big State” Strategy and Argument is a House of Cards
1.) It lost the last two elections.
2.) When Bill Clinton, in South Carolina, pushed the double-speak of “Obama-can’t-win-but-they-would-make-a-dream-ticket” line, he reasoned it would be because of what he implied was Obama’s “urban” draw. Yes. That same old map – with Hillary taking what would be, according to conventional wisdom, Republican territory in a general election. As if Clinton will really compete there. Anyone seen her “negatives” amongst Democrats, let alone Republicans?
3.) This is further undercut by Obama’s wins in those “small states.” You know, where there are a lot of those “white” working class voters that Clinton says are her “base.” Am I missing something here? I don’t think there’s any reason to doubt Obama is going continue to bring new voters to the polls and pad the popular vote – state by state. (“There are not blue states and red states…there are the United States…blah, blah, blah.”)
4.) Clinton’s latest double-speak where behind closed doors she continues to say Obama can’t win, but when pushed said that not only does Clinton think Obama can beat McCain, but she also said she’ll do “anything” she can to make sure a Democrat takes the Whitehouse following November’s election. That would make the “Big State” strategy moot anyway, right? I mean, since she’ll bring it home for the Dems anyway?
5.) The reason Obama’s message has resonated with large chunks of the electorate is because it transcends the micro-poll messaging and targeting that leads to a divided electorate – currently playing itself out with the Clinton “Big State” (and 50% + 1, slash and burn, kitchen sink) strategy in exit polling, showing the same old divides of class, race, gender, religion, region, etc., etc., etc.
6.) Playing devil’s advocate (you know, “we’re only toughening Obama up for the general when the Republican attack machine really comes after whoever’s the nominee”) still makes you an advocate for, um, the devil. Uh, did I mention Clinton’s negatives?
In the end, what Obama has bet on is that changing the electoral map can transcend what a friend of mine calls the “tyranny of the six percent” (you know – so many agree with you and so many disagree with you and you go after the rest) that leads to micro-poll messaging and targeting and 50 % + 1 tactical elections (oh yeah, and two-party corporate control of the electoral system – oops did I say that?) where solutions and progress get lost in the margins of the “undecideds” and special interests.
This race is down to a debate about strategy. Obama's team has shown throughout the primary campaign that it is clearly better at strategy, and Clinton's house of cards is showing that Obama's strategy is clearly better for the general election.
Posted by: | Apr 21, 2008 10:34:56 PM
