RSS Feed for This PostCurrent Article

Lanny Davis on Fox News [Update on Hillary’s Recent Victories]

Lanny dares to ask THE question for the Democratic delegates: Do we really have to nominate the WEAKEST candidate because that’s what we feel we MUST do?

You HAVE to see what a friend of mine, MarkJay, who’s a professor at a major university, wrote about the last few months — about the NUMBER OF VOTES that Hillary has been winning — and this relates directly to what Larry Johnson wrote last night in “At least 200,001 Reasons Hillary Should Be President” — and now the rest:

I haven’t had time to add the exact totals, but it’s clear from this data at Real Clear Politics.

That Hillary has won the popular vote each of the last three months (with June expected to extend that to four).

Hillary got more votes in March than Obama got.

Hillary got more votes in April than Obama got

Hillary got more votes in May than Obama got

Hillary will get more votes in June than Obama got

And Hillary has more total votes overall than Obama has gotten.

Enough said!

P.S. Love you, Lanny. You’re alright too, Laura! (Never thought i’d say that.)

Trackback URL

RSS Feed for This Post140 Comments »

Comment by standard | 2008-05-21 08:31:49

We can’t afford to keep getting George Bushes elected.
We HAVE to get someone strong in that office.

Comment by Ren Vs Stimpy | 2008-05-21 09:14:56

IN THE SPIRIT OF PARTY UNITY ALLOW ME TO OFFER MY CONGRATULATIONS TO BARRY AND MICHELLE FOR PROVING THE EXTENT OF WHITE GUILT IN AMERICA AND HOW MONEY AND ADVERTISING REMAINS THE MOST PERSUASIVE MEANS BY WHICH WE CHOOSE OUR “LEADERS”

…………………./´¯/)
………………..,/¯../
………………./…./
…………./´¯/’…’/´¯¯`·¸
………./’/…/…./……./¨¯\
……..(’(…´…´…. ¯~/’…’)
………\……………..’…../
……….”…\………. _.·´
…………\…………..(
…………..\………….\…

Comment by blobert | 2008-05-21 09:29:38

 

Comment by Emily Pickett | 2008-05-21 09:45:43

You said it perfectly!

 

Comment by SusanUnPC | 2008-05-21 10:38:09

I’m in awe. I am also stealing that.

Comment by Ren Vs Stimpy | 2008-05-21 11:51:39

SusanUnPC:
Please “steal” freely. (but does this mean you’re unblocking my email too?)

Today we launch a new political reactionary coalition:
BAD FINGER DEMOCRATS (BFD)
(To be loosely confused with Big F**king Deal)

If you are as sick of this process as we are then please start signing all your posts here and everywhere as follows (copy and paste)

…………………./´¯/)
………………..,/¯../
………………./…./
…………./´¯/’…’/´¯¯`·¸
………./’/…/…./……./¨¯\
……..(’(…´…´…. ¯~/’…’)
………\……………..’…../
……….”…\………. _.·´
…………\…………..(
…………..\………….\…
BAD FINGER DEMOCRATS

 
 

Comment by PaganPower | 2008-05-21 12:13:01

Hahahahaha! Damn I wish I could do that!

Comment by Ren Vs Stimpy | 2008-05-21 12:17:50

YOU CAN DO THAT!

just copy and paste and you are automatically enrolled in the:

BFD
(Bad Finger Democrats)

…………………./´¯/)
………………..,/¯../
………………./…./
…………./´¯/’…’/´¯¯`·¸
………./’/…/…./……./¨¯\
……..(’(…´…´…. ¯~/’…’)
………\……………..’…../
……….”…\………. _.·´
…………\…………..(
…………..\………….\…
BAD FINGER DEMOCRATS

 
 
 
 

Comment by Mary | 2008-05-21 08:42:50

Hillary is without question the most qualified yet the DNC wants Obama. This is just so discouraging for our country.

Comment by standard | 2008-05-21 08:49:20

I keep wondering how much Soros paid the NYT to publish Obama spam.

 

Comment by **== President Hillary Clinton **== | 2008-05-21 08:54:17

Keep fighting! Hillary can be our nominee if we keep donating and fighting for her!

Comment by Susaninbosque | 2008-05-21 09:34:53

The thing that I noticed last night in particular is the following:

Hillary is really a woman: a woman running for president.

Barack Obama is NOT really a black man: we have not only NO black man running for president, but we have an advertising cut-out of one.

Comment by Mary | 2008-05-21 09:46:29

And seriously, given Barak Obama’s record of siding with corporations, he doesn’t really represent anything “new.”

His desire to appear “bipartisan” will result in capitulating to the other side, including telecom immunity.

Did you hear Pelosi and Stoyer are pushing their Dems to support a “compromise,” which means they are moving towards giving telecoms immunity just to get something passed and looking “productive.”

And think about this: Obama will OWE these DNC leaders for their electoral support, just as he “owed” the Chicago political machine for his Senate seat.

He’ll go along to get along, because he OWES them.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Nothing new there, except slicker marketing, based on hope and change.

Good grief.

 

Comment by workingclass artist | 2008-05-21 10:31:47

Obama has nothing in common with your average African American citizen…..That’s why he went to TUCC….He should have gone to a good ol’ southern Baptist church….or that one in Harlem….All he learned at TUCC was to double up on MARXISM WRAPED IN THE BABY JESUS….

 
 

Comment by Neal | 2008-06-03 23:25:58

Obama won the nomination, dumbo. A party divided cannot stand. You want more Iraq? More poverty? More foreclosures? Keep supporting Hillary like the dumbo that you are. Or, you can do the SMART thing, think with your BRAIN and support the nominee to defeat John McSame.

 
 

Comment by susan | 2008-05-21 09:33:11

It appears that Obama and his campaign leaders have plans to take over the DNC in the general election race. Oh boy, oh boy, I can hardly wait to see the looks on Dean’s, Pelosi’s, and Reid’s faces when Obama does to them what he’s done to Hillary and her supporters!!! What goes around comes around; you reap what you sow; once a putz, always a putz [alright, I made that one up!]!!!

Comment by Emily Pickett | 2008-05-21 09:48:09

It is no longer the Democratic Party.
It is the OBAMA PARTY.
(vile .. isn’t it?)

 

Comment by workingclass artist | 2008-05-21 10:33:45

Susan you mentioned this on another thread…can you provide a link to the story….I want to read it….thanks

 
 
 

Comment by Newport News Dem | 2008-05-21 08:52:49

I have a good friend who is a state senator. He is a great state senator. He is not ready to be CinC while wars on 2 fronts are being fought which is what BO is bring to the table.

BO has not the experience or gravitas to be POTUS. By every metric, except the rube goldberg method the DNC has devised, HRC would be our nominee and become POTUS in an electoral college blowout.

What a shame if BO is annointed by Donna and the DNC/beltway media crowd.

IMO, he has no shot in November!

Comment by swannyj | 2008-05-21 08:56:11

Hillary must continue on, if for nothing else in case Obama implodes….which is what he seems to be doing.

Please contribute to the campaign if you possibly can.

 
 

Comment by Ga6thDem | 2008-05-21 08:53:25

For all the yammering from Obama supporters about how we MUST vote for Obama if he’s the nominee, I have to say they certainly don’t care that he’s unelectable. If Roe v. Wade etc is so important then they should be backing a candidate who can actually win in Nov. not some one who is sure to lose to McCain like Obama.

Comment by **== President Hillary Clinton **== | 2008-05-21 08:55:25

Great point! The trolls defeated by logic yet again!

 

Comment by workingclass artist | 2008-05-21 10:36:11

If they cared about Roe v Wade….they would have supported the Female candidate…

 

Comment by Neal | 2008-06-03 23:27:10

Obama won the nomination, dumbo. A party divided cannot stand. You want more Iraq? More poverty? More foreclosures? Keep supporting Hillary like the dumbo that you are. Or, you can do the SMART thing, think with your BRAIN and support the nominee to defeat John McSame.

The electoral map shows Obama will defeat McCain, but not if you keep yammering on, dumbos.

 
 

Comment by Manu | 2008-05-21 08:57:59

MSNBC, CNN, ABC, etc. have been appalling. Just wait until their Chosen One crashes and burns. They’ll try to spin that one like there’s no tomorrow.

Keith Olberman Sucks!

Comment by lute | 2008-05-21 09:05:47

I watched FOX last night. They gave positive coverage on Hillary. And had good interviews with Lanny Davis and Terry McAuliffe.

Comment by lute | 2008-05-21 09:07:31

Also, Ed Rendell. He was terrific.

 
 
 

Comment by SJ | 2008-05-21 09:01:46

It is really upsetting that when you look at her you know in your heart she is the best candidate and she would make an excellent President, she would fight for all no matter what.

Yet we have a group of people that keep pushing Obama, know fully well that he is risky as a candidate and will find it difficult to beat McCain, its like the DNC wants to lose, the voters are telling them in every exit poll, people are sounding off on blogs, letters to the SD, and the DNC but it all seems to fall on deaf ears, then we hear this nonsense that people will come around once the nominee is chosen.

I don’t think it can be any clearer than what we are witnessing, Obama cannot win this thing. Here is a golden chance for the DNC to hold the WH for possibly 8 or more years and they all seem to be in limbo to this fact. Why must we as voters accept the weakest candidate that is a very valid question, why must we accept the fact that polls are saying Obama cannot beat McCain and go with that anyway?

It is really getting difficult to understand this kind of logic and the more I think about it as a voter the more I harden myself into going with McCain to protest the crowning of Obama when we all know he will not win a GE.

Comment by AnninCa | 2008-05-21 09:07:46

It’s all about power. Powerful and well-prepared candidates must win in spite of Washington insiders. I will agree with one thing people are saying as they do their post-mortems, Hillary should not have conceded the caucus states.

The thinking must have been that she would not have to split the big state delegates with him in the ratios that emerged.

Other than that, I personally think the excuses being launched that she ran a bad campaign, yadda, yadda, are more defense remarks against the obvious: The Media played an unprecedented and dangerous role in this race, and the result is appalling. The best and most prepared candidate to help the country is likely not to be the nominee.

So don’t expect the media to be accountable in the least. Their livlihoods depend upon killing this idea.

Comment by ChrisXP | 2008-05-21 10:25:36

From Wikipedia’s article on “Yellow journalism”…

Just two years after Pulitzer took it over, the World became the highest circulation newspaper in New York, aided in part by its strong ties to the Democratic Party.[6] Older publishers, envious of Pulitzer’s success, began criticizing the World, harping on its crime stories and stunts while ignoring its more serious reporting — trends which influenced the popular perception of yellow journalism, both then and now. Charles Dana, editor of the New York Sun, attacked The World and said Pulitzer was “deficient in judgment and in staying power.”[7]

Pulitzer’s approach made an impression on William Randolph Hearst, a mining heir who acquired the San Francisco Examiner from his father in 1887. Hearst read the World while studying at Harvard University and resolved to make the Examiner as bright as Pulitzer’s paper.[8]. Under his leadership, the Examiner devoted 24 percent of its space to crime, presenting the stories as morality plays, and sprinkled adultery and “nudity” (by 19th century standards) on the front page.[9]

That was the start of “news” as we know it.

And for some information about current news, check: Feiler Faster Thesis…

The idea is credited to Bruce Feiler and first defined by Mickey Kaus in a February 24, 2000 Kausfiles blog post and Slate online magazine article, “Faster Politics: ‘Momentum’ ain’t what it used to be.” Only in a later article on March 9, 2000 did Kaus give the theory the name “Feiler Faster Thesis.”

In the original article, Kaus describes two trends: the speeding up of the news cycle and the compression of the schedule of primaries for the 2000 U.S. general election. Kaus wrote: “Feiler’s point is that we should put these two trends together–and that when we do, Trend 1 considerably softens the impact of Trend 2.” Kaus uses the observation to reassess the concept of momentum in politics, suggesting that there are now simply more opportunities for turns of fortune and that voters are able, for the most part, to keep up.

 

Comment by workingclass artist | 2008-05-21 10:40:20

On american rhetoric.com there is an excellent speech given by Teddy Roosevelt on the muckraker…yellow journalism in politics and the responsibility of the media to the public…

 
 

Comment by StandingUpForAWinner | 2008-05-22 01:46:47

We (each) need to write to the super-delegates who support Hillary and ask them to make a public statement, preferably as a group or groups, that they are standing strong behind her and that they believe she is the strongest candidate for the GE. Several full page ads in major newspapers would go a long way toward forcing the MSM and DNC to pay attention to Hillary’s real strength.

 
 

Comment by calli sweeti | 2008-05-21 09:02:08

Thank you Lanny for stating the obvious that has so many Democrats feeling like Alice looking through the glass. What alternative reality are the heads of the DNC living in? Come November, the map of the United States will only include Obama friendly states such as Oregon and Vermont. What is the game plan for George Soros? Is it true that Soros wants to rewrite the map of the mideast minus the State of Israel? It was amazing to listen to the lies and insults to Hillary and her supporters coming out of the talking heads last night.

Comment by Kathy | 2008-05-21 12:38:42

For every 1 letter we write to delegates and the DNC, Obamabrats write 10. That may be the why we feel we are not being heard. I don’t know how to counteract that problem. Obamabrats are all over the place like flies on sh*t.

I remember at the beginning of this campaign while waiting for election returns, Brazile mumbled that she was being swamped with Obama letters. No one at the table picked up on what she said and went on to talk about something else. I do remember her saying that though.

 

Comment by Kathy | 2008-05-21 12:39:08

For every 1 letter we write to delegates and the DNC, Obamabrats write 10. That may be why we feel we are not being heard. I don’t know how to counteract that problem. Obamabrats are all over the place like flies on sh*t.

I remember at the beginning of this campaign while waiting for election returns, Brazile mumbled that she was being swamped with Obama letters. No one at the table picked up on what she said and went on to talk about something else. I do remember her saying that though.

 
 

Comment by It's Not Me | 2008-05-21 09:02:24

Lanny Davis is a treasure. Hillary’s lucky to have him as a friend. He’s a TRUE friend.

He said this is going to the convention…UNLESS the DNC does the right thing by MI and FL. We all know they won’t do the right thing by those states because it doesn’t fit their agenda. It looks like we are going to have us a VERY spirited Democratic Convention! BRING-IT-ON!

I want to see Hillary make her case for being the candidate with the most electoral votes AND the candidate with the popular vote and then watch the Democratic elites, on NATIONAL TEEVEE, tell her “No, sorry. This guy who cannot win in November must be our nominee because his voters will riot if he’s not.” I dare them. I DOUBLE dare them to do that.

Comment by AnninCa | 2008-05-21 09:10:51

That has been her challenge to Obama for months. Either give her her votes in Florida and Michigan or I’ll see you all the way to the convention.

I read this morning that she’s consulted with her superdelegates, and they are telling her to stay in. There are apparently other superdelegates who want to endorse her but are afraid to do so, and they are saying the same thing. So it’s a myth that everyone in the Democratic Party is lining up behind Barack. They aren’t.

He’ll either give her her votes or have her squelch his momentum until August. His choice.

 

Comment by demfromphilly | 2008-05-21 09:31:15

You are absolutely right. The DNC is being held hostage by a group of Obama supporters who threaten to riot if Super delegates exercise their duty and select the stronger nominee in Denver. Obama put this threat on the table early on when he stated he could get the support of Senator Clinton’s voters but she would not get his. This sent a clear message to the DNC that if he wasn’t aided in getting the nomination he would not, under any circumstance, work for the party, and his supporters would be free to do what ever the hell they wanted. Al, Jesse, Donna, and Doug Wilder have made it very clear what awaits if Obama isn’t successful in his extortion of the Democratic Party.

 
 

Comment by ccwarrior72 | 2008-05-21 09:03:24

Obama claim to the American presidency, an entitlement felt by black voters out of historic injury and conceded by many white voters out of social guilt.
To some Hispanics, the Obama candidacy is perceived as the presidential version of Affirmative Action, and like any government entitled program there is always someone benefiting at the expense of another. Women, the working class, seniors, the less influent and the typical white all to be sacrificed for the appeasement of the African American voters. Forget about experience, his weakness, his associates and his almost no chance of winning the election. Put all that aside and vote for him because “you owe him something”. John Kerry replied why Sen Obama would make a good candidate ” Hes Black” thats why Hes a black man how fucking SAD

Comment by Mary | 2008-05-21 09:52:38

Bill Mahr openly said on his show months ago:

“We OWE Blacks more than we owe women.”

And the all male guests he had on his show all nodded and agreed.

I never watched his show again.

 

Comment by workingclass artist | 2008-05-21 10:43:45

Hmmm…..Following that logic…Native Americans should be first in line.
No ?

 
 

Comment by Betty | 2008-05-21 09:05:36

Last night on Fox I heard someone talking about an Obama guy replacing Howard Dean. I didnt catch the whole conversation, just that part, so I don’t know in what sense they were saying it. Does anyone know?

Comment by AnninCa | 2008-05-21 09:18:27

Yes, Betty….it’s on RCP today. But you are mishearing. It’s just about setting up a DNC arm for the national convention with one of Obama’s key guys to head it.

Dean’s role remains the same.

Comment by Mary | 2008-05-21 09:54:54

Obama’s guy is heading it because so many Democrats have stopped giving the DNC money, and they can’t pay the bills for convention preparations.

They need Obama’s MONEY to pay those bills.

Comment by Dawnelle | 2008-05-21 10:15:09

HA!! And they will continue being BROKE as far as I’m concerned they will get no more of my money.

I’ve already unsubscribed from EVERYthing DNC weeks ago.

 
 
 
 

Comment by HillaryMadamePresident | 2008-05-21 09:06:32

I read a news brief that scrolled across the screen on Fox this morning. Has anyone heard that a Senior Aide for Obama is in talks to be head of the DNC, but won’t make a decision until after Obama “secures” the nomination? I personally think that anyone who want to head the DNC should be approved by Registered Democrats…of course, everything has been in the tank for Obama so why should this be different. Has anyone else heard this news?

 

Comment by SJ | 2008-05-21 09:07:44

Betty I myself have been trying to understand this yahoo news of Obama taking over the DNC and putting his guy in place in Dean’s spot.

No one seems to be interested in finding out what that is about but it did make the news, I would really love to know what is going on with that.

 

Comment by GOPmurderedconscience | 2008-05-21 09:08:22

Is there any reason why the DNC should give Obama the nomination?

Please don’t give me that “pledged delegates” crap, it’s a crock. Obama lost NV and ends up with more PD, he lost TX by 100K votes and ended with more PD.

Moreover, you needed 616 Dems in AK to earn 1 PD whereas you needed 11,352 Dems in CA to earn 1 PD.
Besides geniuses in the DNC, does anyone in his right mind believes 1 AK(D)=19 CA(D)? We don’t even care about AK, I’m sorry.

Hillary Clinton is leading in the popular vote. If you look at the numbers among registered Democrats, her lead is staggering.

Is there even a question as to whom Democrats want as their nominee?

Obama has been declared the nominee by the media and his backers non-stop since the WI primary. How come Democrats have kept rejecting him over and over and over again?

Remember the entire Appalachia map? Hillary won more than 90% of all counties.

Comment by AnninCa | 2008-05-21 09:28:52

My own sense of what’s really going on is that her SDs as well as quite a few of those who have not endorsed are quite clear on your points. They definitely know, as Lanny points out, that she has proven to be the stronger candidate. That’s why they are urging her to stick tight. There’s only 3 races left. Not much money will have to be spent. It’s a no-brainer.

See what he’ll agree to do about MI and FL is their thinking. Go on to the convention.

They get it. Everyone gets it. She has to take partial responsibility, too, for this problem. Letting him rack up delegates in the cheap caucus states truly was a big mistake, so her hands aren’t completely clean either. But she’s definitely proven herself now. She has, in fact, beaten him.

BUT…..huge But….she didn’t come close enough in the delegates math. So she’ll have to go to the convention in 2nd place. No way around that one.

But the SDs are still going to watch and see. Obama’s performance in NC was as expected, rather like Oregon. But look at his head-to-head numbers there now. He’s tanking. It appears he really will take Oregon in the Fall. Colorado? Way more iffy.

I think now is when the SDs start to really look at the reality of how he’s going to fare, see how he handles McCain, see what happens.

It’s a long time to August. One more bittergate or Wright event? He’ll lose his very fragile coalition he’s put together. Moreover, I personally think the SDs ARE payng attention to the women.

Koch came out yesterday and said he’s likely to vote for McCain. From what I read, he could very likely influence NY Jewish voters. We already know that Obama has little chance to win over Florida at this point. If Jewish Dems really don’t go for him, that’s significant. Furthermore, McCain will go for the Latino vote and get a fair share, particularly the older Latinos.

So she stays in, takes the heat for the “silent” Democratic Party SDs who realize that this is a mistake to nominate him. They, in turn, stick by her until the convention.

And then we’ll just have to see what’s what.

Comment by blobert | 2008-05-21 09:34:39

Excuse me?

How many of these caucuses were anything except opportunities for fraud.

Plenty of that documented in Texas caucuses.

Comment by AnninCa | 2008-05-21 09:40:54

I meant the states where she didn’t contest. By Nevada, she was on track and figuring out how to offset some of his tactics.

Comment by Mary | 2008-05-21 10:15:03

I watched ole Rachel Maddow on MSNBC blather on about how Kentucky doesn’t really matter because it has always been a Red State anyway…..

And then you could see on her face that she realized she had literally walked into the same argument about Obama’s Alaska, Kansas, and Alabama.

She literally stopped talking in mid-sentence, like she’d realized how STOOPID she is.

Too funny!!!!

 

Comment by rjj | 2008-05-21 10:28:57

There seems to have been a major cockup in Nevada:

I am actually not surprised that Clinton’s supporters didn’t show as they didn’t show at the Washoe County convention either and many of them left early. Clearly, our conviction was stronger. Like many other Obama delegates, we offered our home as a place to stay for those coming from Clark County, our own house guest getting a flat tire and taking 11 hours to get here Friday night driving with her young daughter. She did it because it was that important to her. I heard stories of Clinton delegates arguing with the airlines and checking into hotels BEFORE registering at the convention. It was important to us and we proved it. Several flights in were delayed and there was talk that there was “conspiracy” because several Clinton delegates who arrived too late to be seated, were not. Why didn’t they take an earlier flight? Why didn’t they fly in the night before? Watching what my house guest went through to be here (a flat tire in the middle of nowhere, little money and no sleep) she showed up. She was here. Others slept in their cars. There was no genuine excuse for someone not to be there by noon with a one hour flight…And when the convention ran three hours over the end time, we stayed while many left.

http://www.politickernv.com/jkcooper/1501/obama-takes-lion-s-share-nevada-delegates

 
 
 

Comment by It's Not Me | 2008-05-21 10:24:16

Koch said he would vote for McCain?? I missed that. He will do that only if Obama is the nominee? Not if Hillary is the nominee, right?

I just can’t see any way Obama will EVER get the Jewish vote. Not now. Too much is known about him and his questionable background and shady friends. Farrakhan, Wright, Auchi and Rezko cannot sit well with the Jewish community. The Rev. Wright speech about how wonderful Farrakhan is should be enough to stop the Jewish votes going to Obama. Then there’s the Hamas anti-Israel screed printed in Wright’s Triumph magazine….. I don’t see Obama getting the Jewish vote, but that’s just me.:)

 

Comment by speaktruth | 2008-05-21 15:57:27

I think we need ways for women to keep up the pressure. They have totally ignored, dissed, discounted us, even though we are the ones that control the voting. Yes, I know, Obama gets some women, too, but a minority, and that number is decreasing as women become more aware (slowly) of what is going on.
I think sexism, misogyny, and gender should have been talked about a long time ago. I still think she should do a speech on gender, just as he did on race. It needs to be addressed. This country is so backward in that way.
Even Rachel Maddow said we should have had a female president by now.

 
 

Comment by marianna | 2008-05-21 19:22:14

Everything you say here is wrong…if not, please provide a link to show that she is leading (her lead is staggering you say) in the popular vote?

do you not understand the system? its the delegates, NOT the popular vote….Obama did not make these rules, he just played the game better than Hillary.

What do you care what the media says?? do you think that all americans think what the media tells them to? If so, and the media has been so anti-Hillary and pro-Obama, then how can Hillary win anything at all? Guess you are wrong again in this theory….don’t keep putting down americans who actually DO have a mind of their own and don’t need the media to tell them what to think and how to vote.

 

Comment by StandingUpForAWinner | 2008-05-22 01:28:34

And Michigan and Florida have more Democratic voters than 14 of the caucus stares. In fact, they have an incredible 9% of the total Democratic electorate. Ignoring the will of 10% of the voters (or effectively ignoring it by crediting it only after they coronate Obama) guarantees that an Obama nomination will never be viewed as credible.

 
 

Comment by Brigitte N. | 2008-05-21 09:13:01

This morning, on “Morning Joe,” Mika Brzesinzky said something to the effect that it needed to be examined why people in Kentucky voted against Obama and for Clinton–she did not ask why people in Oregon voted against Clinton and for Obama…I never heard whether this was further discussed and how…I switched stations.

Comment by **== President Hillary Clinton **== | 2008-05-21 09:21:03

Mika is an airhead.

Comment by demfromphilly | 2008-05-21 09:43:23

Her father works for Obama. The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree?

Comment by sinking ratboat | 2008-05-21 09:53:16

Hey Mika! The people of the great Commonwealth of Kentucky voted against Obama because he is UNQUALIFIED to be POTUS.
92% of KY voters who said experience matters voted for Hillary Clinton.

Comment by **== President Hillary Clinton **== | 2008-05-21 10:06:29

But he might be qualified to be elected county dog catcher?

 
 
 
 

Comment by mimi | 2008-05-21 09:56:34

STOP WATCHING MSNBC!!!

MSNBC=PORN NETWORK!

Comment by **== President Hillary Clinton **== | 2008-05-21 10:07:20

Its not even good porn.

 
 

Comment by Karma | 2008-05-21 10:51:07

I think her whole family needs to be examined. Her dad imagined the plot, armed, trained and then abandoned the people who fought against the USSR….and then the US.

With a flip response that the USSR was more of a threat than religious fanatics. Huh? What has created more havoc in the world than a religious fanatic?

He has even stated this Admin would create a false flag attack on the US for their political advantage.

Well, if this guy has no probelms creating one against the USSR, and stating this Admin would create another one.

Who is to say he wouldn’t advise Obama to create another one?

I even heard a slight against Russia verses Iran from Obama on one of his speeches. Which made me want to research if he has any others as well as the concern that he wants to continue Dubya’s policies of antagonizing them.

 
 

Comment by SJ | 2008-05-21 09:13:55

I believe if Dean is giving up his spot to a Obama pick then we will have to ask what did Obama give Dean, something looks rotten in that mix.

Dind Dean cut a deal with Obama for the nomination something is afoul with all this news of Obama taking over the DNC, how can this be? How can Obama come out of nowhere and control the DNC, are registered democrats not going to have a say as to what direction the party goes into?

Something really seems strange with this new piece of news, it has to be the strangest developments coming out in this election, seems like a fix is in and many player seems to know about it, but the registered members don’t.

Comment by **== President Hillary Clinton **== | 2008-05-21 09:24:01

Dean is giving up his spot? Link?

 

Comment by kathy | 2008-05-21 10:07:19

rezkowatch.blogspot.com had an interesting read the other day about the Dean/Obama connection.

Forgot the title of it, but the link seemed pretty strong.

 
 

Comment by Betty | 2008-05-21 09:15:30

I feel there is a lot of stuff being done by Obama’s campaign that is under the radar. Like consolidating fund raising, telling people not to contribute to other organizations like “Vote Vets”. Do the Obama supporters think it is ok, why? I vaguely caught something about election reform being the justification.

Will someone who understands this write about it?

Comment by mimi | 2008-05-21 10:00:21

Yes, do write about this and explain.

One thing I notice is that there aren’t many leaks coming out of the Obama Camp. That in itself is scary. Everybody must either be on the same page or intimidated. I suspect the latter.

Comment by Mary | 2008-05-21 10:18:05

I suspect they’re all BOUGHT.

Did you know that Robert Byrd, whose state went for Hillary, but his superdelegate vote is going for Obama, got $88,000 from Moveon.org?

MoveOn is his biggest campaign contributor now, so he cast his superdelegate endorsement AGAINST the voters in his own state.

 

Comment by StandingUpForAWinner | 2008-05-22 01:30:16

Can you say “Totalitarianism”?

 
 
 

Comment by calli sweeti | 2008-05-21 09:16:02

This election has turned me into such a cynic, but since it has come out that Patti Soylis Doyle is a Chicago native and Axelrod friend, I’m thinking that’s why she never made a caucus strategy for Hillary’s campaign. (Weren’t there rumors that there must be a campaign mole?)Hillary has done a much better job managing her campaign now that Maggie Williams has taken over, but I keep thinking somehow this all goes back to the Dean strategy to win the caucus delegates and win the nomination that way.

Comment by AnninCa | 2008-05-21 09:34:25

I seem to remember that Patti was just not prepared to run a full-on campaign. She didn’t get her organizing ducks in order, but then, nobody was expecting to have this type of a primary, either.

She was basically in over her head.

These people jump around from one candidate to another, so I haven’t ever paid any attention to the idea that there are nefarious motives. They are professional consultants and could work for Osama bin Laden probably if he paid the right money. :)

Comment by Mary | 2008-05-21 10:01:39

Patti sounds a lot like Donna Brazille, who ran the Gore campaign into the ground. It was Brazille who urged Gore not to contest the whole Florida state votes, and to concede at the end.

Not to worry, though…..with the DNC Peter Principle, Patti may end up with a job there. Think Bob Schrum, too.

It’s not WHAT you know; it’s WHO you know, in that murky world.

Comment by AnninCa | 2008-05-21 10:04:38

Apparently. Donna is a very, very poor representative to speak for the DNC. In my opinion, she constantly harms Obama, too. Her remarks fueled his big losses in WVa and KY, not that he needed much “help.” But she incited backlash.

That’s just stupid thinking.

Comment by Mary | 2008-05-21 10:19:38

Ah, but NOW, Donna is “praising” Clinton and urging the party to unite.

Barf.

 
 
 

Comment by rjj | 2008-05-21 10:08:20

She needn’t have nefarious motives. She was new at the game; a lack of confidence and some misplaced confidence would be enough. It is not difficult to imagine her having a collegial schmooze with axelrod and getting some “confidential” disinformation, subversive “guidance,” or just misdirection. If he did not attempt to do that, he was not doing his job.

 
 
 

Comment by ccwarrior72 | 2008-05-21 09:20:59

Hillary Here in FLORIDA

* 05/21: Join Hillary for a “Solutions for America” event in Boca Raton
* 05/21: Join Hillary for a “Solutions for America” event in Sunrise
* 05/21: Join Hillary for a “Solutions for America” event in Coral Gables

Comment by PamFlorida | 2008-05-21 16:31:09

Saw Hillary & Chelsea in Boca Raton today. She talked about seating FL. & MI. and voters rights in the democratic process. Sen. Clinton is passionate, sincere, and speaks from the heart. She makes eye contact with each person and is very warm to everyone who approaches her.
She looks great-it boggles my mind that she can do this every day and still look rested, calm, & very comfortable in her own skin.

 
 

Comment by SJ | 2008-05-21 09:22:21

It does beg the question as to what Patti was up to now that she is going to the Obama side, look as if she was a plant all the time. Some these move by certain people looks so low and questionable as if they have no integrity at all.

It is amazing as to what some people can do and not ever think how they will be viewed by others when this is all over, Obama must of made a lot of promises to many I hope if pay back time comes he can deliver, it really does seem strange all these sudden change of hearts to Obama.

Comment by mimi | 2008-05-21 10:02:53

I had not heard this. Patti Soylis Doyle is now in the Obama campaign? Can someone provide a link.

Comment by It's Not Me | 2008-05-21 10:36:17

She’s talking to Axelrove. Here’s a bit from Politico:

Top Hillarylander mulls Obama job
By BEN SMITH | 5/19/08 1:31 PM EST

Patti Solis Doyle (pictured), a Chicago native whose brother is an alderman there, has known Axelrod even longer than she’s known the Clintons.
Photo: AP

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s former campaign manager and confidante, Patti Solis Doyle, and Sen. Barack Obama’s top adviser have informally discussed the former Clintonite’s going to work for the Obama campaign in the general election.

Solis Doyle’s possible hiring is a major breach not just in Clinton’s campaign but in the political universe known as “Hillaryland,” a term Solis Doyle reportedly coined after joining the Clintons in 1991 as the first lady’s personal scheduler. She was forced out of Hillary Clinton’s campaign in February amid internal criticism about her spending practices and preparation for upcoming contests.

“I’ve talked to Patti throughout. I know that she wants to be helpful in a general election campaign, and we appreciate that,” Obama’s chief strategist, David Axelrod told Politico, declining directly to answer the question of whether he and Solis Doyle had discussed her working for the campaign.

Other Democrats familiar with their conversations said there had been informal discussions of Solis Doyle going to work for Obama after the primary formally draws to a close.

“If Barack Obama’s the nominee, I’ll do everything I can to get him elected,” Solis Doyle told Politico.

Solis Doyle, a Chicago native whose brother is an alderman there, has known Axelrod even longer than she’s known the Clintons. Both said they’d talked frequently through the course of the campaign. Solis Doyle said there had been “no real conversations” about a job, but didn’t deny the subject had been broached. ….snip….

http://tinyurl.com/4jy2ew

Comment by StandingUpForAWinner | 2008-05-22 01:33:34

I wouldn’t believe this stuff on Politico, or any MSM, about Patty Solis. She is incredibly loyal to Hillary, and vice-versa. I don’t think she would go anywhere near Obama’s campaign as long as Hillary is in the race.

 
 
 

Comment by kathy | 2008-05-21 10:14:14

I always think blackmail. But then again, I tend to jump to sordid conclusions.

Comment by Mary | 2008-05-21 10:31:08

Naaah. Occams’s Razor: it’s $$$$$$$ from Obama and his buddies, and a promise from Donna Brazille of a job at the DNC.