Ronald Reagan was famous for telling altered or made-up anecdotes. Is that who Hillary wants to emulate?
Seems to me that with her record on health care she’d want to be as transparent and honest as possible.
I don’t think any of the candidates are being honest with Americans regarding a national health care plan, especially on the subject of cost. Telling fake stories to boost your credibility is only part of the problem.
I missed the part of the story where we know that she deliberately altered the anecdote; can someone link to that?
Daniel
Shayna (whotta surprise) had linked to it in the “Handicapping thread” - Here. Here is how Clinton heard the story:
Here is how it gets told:
Note now it’s turned away twice (she was never turned away at all) and the added details of the ambulance ride, and the conversation that never happened. Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
www.electoral-vote.com has ARG calling Pennsylvania a dead heat. 45-45, Hillary to Barack.
That can not be good.
That electoral-vote.com site was fascinating. I thought it kind of odd that Obama’s color was brown and Hillary’s was pink, but very interesting analysis nonetheless.
The last thing Obama should do is pull ahead in PA with 2 weeks to go. This will mobilize the same sympathy vote that Hillary got in NH and also make Hillary tempted to go nuclear. As an underdog, the Clinton machine is quite ferocious.
Yeah, but it’s ARG. They don’t mean very much.
Still, when four of the last five PA polls have shown Hillary’s lead down to 5% or less, you’ve gotta wonder, even if they’re crap polls.
With any luck, last week’s Survey USA poll will be the first of a weekly series of polls. If so, we’d probably hear the results tomorrow. If they show the race closing significantly, I’ll believe it.
Are you saying he has to lose it to win it?!
No I’m just saying that he has tended to have great Saturdays and lousy Mondays. New Hampshire was solid for him at one point, he was much closer in Ohio and in some polls led in Texas. In California, polls showed him to be closer than the final tally. I think the public likes the underdog and gives a last day boost to whoever is in second. I’d feel a lot better about him being 2 points down going into the 22nd than be 2 points up.
I’m prefer to see Obama 5 points down on the Monday before the vote and lose by only 2 points – that would beat expectations and thus be a win for him.
Of course what I really want is for him to win PA outright, but that’s probably not going to happen.
It could happen, though. Oh, I’d bet against it, but there’s just the sense of a final shift in the air. Even if Hillary wins PA, I can’t see her winning by enough to convince her backers that she’s still got game.
Obama’s up by 9% and 10%, respectively, in the Gallup and Rasmussen trackers. He’s had leads that big in each of them before, but I don’t think it’s happened at the same time.
According to DemConWatch, Hillary’s superdelegate lead is down to 24, as a result of this recent bit of action:
That was +5 for Obama, -1 for Clinton, over the weekend.
All the Hillary coverage lately has been about imaginary Bosnian snipers, imagined details of an uninsured woman’s death, Mark Penn playing both sides while running Hillary’s campaign, and last but not least, whether and when she’ll withdraw.
And all the PA polls have the momentum swinging Obama’s way.
That’s a lot all swinging in the same direction at once, this late in the game when things tend to be less volatile.
Don’t forget the unpaid bills.
I don’t think that will make a difference to anyone but the creditors. She’s well enough known that she can campaign on a shoestring now and I don’t think she’d lose that much of her base.
I just meant that it doesn’t look particularly good.
Meanwhile, the Obama campaign returns a $100 donation:
You forgot to include this part:
Another Super D for Obama.
The site owner admits to being tongue-in-cheek about the brown/pink divide. He alsready ran through the other colors in previous primary maps and said that, as long as it’s all about demographics these days…
If nothing else, this is quite humourous
I don’t know what to make of it. If it’s real, what the heck is Terry McAuliffe’s story here? …it seems to be raining sabots on this campaign.
You guys do know who the site owner of electoral-vote.org is?
He’s the man who literally wrote the book on computer operating systems.
Nice. :dubious: Is there any chance at all this is true? :rolleyes: I think not.
RCP shows Hil only 6% overall.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/pa/pennsylvania_democratic_primary-240.html
That’s OK, but far less than what she wants.
Here is an interesting site, one that show what I have ben saying all along- that Obama likes “the system” when it gets him delegates, but decries it as “undemocratic” when it doesn’t. :rolleyes:
"*Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign has been particularly vociferous in claiming that its candidate stands for a transformative, participatory new politics. It has vaunted Obama’s narrow lead in the overall popular vote in the primaries to date, as well as in the count of elected delegates, as the definitive will of the party’s rank and file. If, while heeding the party’s rules, the Democratic superdelegates overturn those majorities, Obama’s supporters claim, they will have displayed a cynical contempt for democracy that would tear the party apart.
These arguments might be compelling if Obama’s leads were not so reliant on certain eccentricities in the current Democratic nominating process, as well as on some blatantly anti-democratic maneuvers by the Obama campaign. Obama’s advantage hinges on a system that, whatever the actual intentions behind it, seems custom-made to hobble Democratic chances in the fall. It depends on ignoring one of the central principles of American electoral politics, one that will be operative on a state-by-state basis this November, which is that the winner takes all. If the Democrats ran their nominating process the way we run our general elections, Sen. Hillary Clinton would have a commanding lead in the delegate count, one that will only grow more commanding after the next round of primaries, and all questions about which of the two Democratic contenders is more electable would be moot. …
The exclusion thus far of these two vital states has come about because of an arbitrary and catastrophic decision made last year by Howard Dean and the Democratic National Committee. Two democratic options are available to clean up the mess: Either relent by including the existing Michigan and Florida results or hold new primaries there.
Yet in this, as has happened more than once this primary season, the Obama camp’s reaction has not been to clean up the mess the party has created, but to benefit from it. Given the original primary outcomes in Michigan and Florida, Obama has rejected the idea of certifying the results. Although Obama’s supporters conducted a stealth “uncommitted” campaign in Michigan after he voluntarily removed his name from the state ballot, and even though, contrary to DNC directives, his campaign advertised in Florida, Clinton still won both states decisively. …
Yet the Obama campaign has stoutly resisted any such revote in either state. In Michigan, Obama’s supporters thwarted efforts to pass the legislation necessary to conduct a new primary. In Florida, campaign lawyers threw monkey wrenches to stop the process cold, claiming that a revote would somehow violate the Voting Rights Act, and charging that a proposed mail-in revote would not be “fraud proof.” (Obama himself, it’s important to note, proposed a bill in 2007 to allow for mail-in voting in federal elections.)
…
Now consider the delegate count and its connection to the popular vote. In Nevada, Clinton also won a popular majority, despite pressure from union officials on the rank and file attending the caucuses to vote for Obama. Yet Obama claims, on the primary electoral map posted on his official Web site, that he actually won Nevada – presumably because rules that gave greater weight to rural than urban votes mean he won a marginal edge in the Byzantine allotment of the state’s delegates. Why, in deference to the clear-cut Nevada popular majority, doesn’t Obama cede the majority of the state’s delegates to Clinton? Because, according to the rules, he’s entitled to those delegates. But why are the rules suddenly sacrosanct and the popular vote irrelevant? Might it be because the rules, and not the popular vote, now benefit Obama? And what about Texas, another state where Clinton won the popular vote but has not been awarded the majority of pledged delegates? Once again, for Obama, the rules are suddenly all-important – because the rules, and not the popular majority, now favor him."
*
This site shows that Hillary would do better in the general elction, and inf fact Hil woudl win over McCain while Obama will lose:
http://www.mydd.com/tag/2008%20Election%3B%20SurveyUSA
"
*
So I’ve updated Survey USA’s Electoral College prediction based on updated results in 15 states. The results:
Hillary Clinton 294
John McCain 231
Tie 13
John McCain 288
Barack Obama 238
Tie 12