I don’t understand those who say we should still give Hillary and her camp “the benefit of the doubt.” Doing so may have been the correct thing to do at first, but how can anyone deny at this point in time, that this isn’t simply more of the same? Surely not a single Hillary supporter here can deny that she’s done this sort of thing before? And over and over. With Drudge’s help at times no less:
Hillary Clinton woos man who nearly ruined her husband
– bolding mine. Comments yours.
That is a hopeful sign for the general election – it indicates that Obama won’t sit around with his thumb us his ass when he gets attacked by the Republicans, unlike certain other candidates koffjohnkerrykoff in recent memory.
A sneak peek at the latest CBS News/New York Times poll
All Voters All Voters Dem Voters Dem Voters
Favorable Unfavorable Favorable Unfavorable
Obama 45 23 69 8
Clinton 35 43 61 27
McCain 36 32
I’d say these numbers are pretty telling.
No point trying, really. This isn’t a matter of facts or reason, as has been made abundantly clear by many posters here, yourself included. No argument against raw emotion is possible - as this thread has also made abundantly clear.
I haven’t. Try rereading after wiping off the rabid spittle foaming up over your eyes and you’d understand what I’ve said repeatedly.
You go have fun bashing, as Phlosphr at least understands is the purpose of this thread. But don’t bother with the baiting shit, okay?
This latest bit represents a small meh at most. Actually it’s good for Obama to get these silly things out of the way now. That way they are old hat by the time the general comes 'round. This gives an early news cycle chance to get it out of the way. It wouldn’t surprise me if some underling for HRC did it but so what? It is no longer news that her campaign is a bit schizoid on whether to go for the high or the low ground. HRC herself has been reminding me of the mayor in “The Nightmare Before Christmas” But that turban picture is a poor excuse for going negative.
Bashing HRC? Why bother? In fact …
These latest forays … the old news recycled “outrage” over mailers that give Obama airtime to emphasize that he believes that giving individuals a choice about healthcare (appeals to those Obamacans doesn’t it?) … the chance to get the Muslim Obama meme dismissed from the consciousness fairly early … the chance to yet again say that an executive needs good judgement from day one not just more experience at making poor calls … boy. They almost seem designed to help Obama in a general election …
Nah.
What’s surprising me is that Hillary is pulling the pin on some of these grenades so early. Obama did very well with voters who decided right before the primary. In a tight race, dropping the “shame on you” bit on Monday might swing some of those fence sitters her way or at least keep them on the fence.
Maybe the comments that her closing remarks at the last debate were near to a concession speech stung her and she feels that she has to show that she is still in the campaign.
Just a thought.
Just a thought, but isn’t she shooting herself all over again by pulling the pin on those early grenades? And I don’t think that whole “shame on you” thing held any water at all, as everything in those leaflets was factual. The shame rested on her shoulders, and the media jumped on it like flies on sh*t.
Not quite factual. She has not specified what, if any, enforcement mechanism there would be. Claiming that she has is an extrapolation of her position. Likewise putting that she said NAFTA was a “boon” isn’t quite true … a newspaper described her thinking as if it was a boon but she never said that exactly. The use of the quotes was misleading.
Worthy of a “shame on you” … no. But not completely accurate either.
Exactly. Had she lobbed these later, say on March 3rd, there wouldn’t be enough time for any other opinion to be shared. She’d have the last word before the primaries and thusly the greater influence over the voters. Doing it now? All she’s doing is setting the stage for a possibly interesting debate.
Clinton, of course, is no angel with regards to mailings either. Karl Roves playbook indeed.
No, that’s not quite right. There will be some enforcement.
She has evaded outlining what form that enforcement will take, but the Obama campaign is not extrapolating that Clinton’s plan will force people to buy health insurance. That is the very part of her plan that she is touting.
Oh no doubt, “angel” is not a word I’d use. It would be hard to mistake me for an HRC fan. His misleadings are benign compared to hers. But let’s not pretend that his campaign can do no wrong. Okay, Richard some enforcement mechanism … but unsaid is how much subsidy will be available for those who truly cannot afford it. Or if any exemptions would be allowed.
It’s a hijack but I’d like to see it merged with a Republican idea, tax credits to make private purchase more affordable. I’d make it a sliding scale, the lower you income the higher the credit and visaversa and get rid of (or drastically limit) the payroll tax exemption of healthcare benefits at work to pay for it. You must document healthcare coverage on your return to qualify for the credit, and if you cannot provide the documentation then you are automatically enrolled in a government program and the cost of the premium is added to your tax bill. Add in reforms so that insurers must take all comers and so that each company must offer their product A or B for the same prices to all purchasers whether they buy in bulk or as individuals and you’re talking meaningful reform.
I wonder how all the Dopers who posted in this thread talking about how gracious Hillary seemed at the end of the last Obama-Clinton debate (and how she had earned back some of their respect) feel about the sleaze coming out of the Clinton camp in the last few days?
Clinton is sure shoveling dirt furiously, but I suspect a large part of it is falling right back on her.
When it comes right down to the nitty-gritty, true character is showing through.
SurveyUSA (the best polling firm in the race so far) has a poll out today with Obama by 4 in Texas, which is just beyond the margin of error.
Isn’t that against U.S. campaign finance laws?
Jesus Christ! I liked Hillary. Did not think she was disgusting. But this pretty much cements my vote for McCain if Hillary gets the nomination now, no matter HOW old McCain is.
Over the past weeks, I had gone from “Vote for McCain” to “Probably abstain from the presidental ballot” to “Maybe I’d vote for Clinton”.
I’m back in the middle option now. Not willing to vote for McCain but I sure as hell won’t validate her campaign tactics with one more popular vote.
Donations from foreign nationals or using funds from foreign nationals violates 2 U.S.C. 441(e)-(f).
Whether Red’s action would violate that statute is probably not an appropriate discussion to have on a message board, though one could imagine arguments both ways.
What, there is a US campaign law that prohibits me from sending my son money and him doing with it whatever he pleases? Such as contributing to Obama’s campaign or taking a babe to a movie. Or my nephew doing the same exact thing beyond being an on-campus organizer for Barack at his uni? Both of course are American citizens.
Off to Guantanamo with me and my BIL it is. :rolleyes:
It’s not really beyond the applicable MOE, which is the MOE of a difference. (In this instance, the MOE of (Obama - Clinton) would be nearly double their individual MOEs due to the strong negative correlation between their support levels, i.e. when one goes up, the other almost has to go down.)
But (a) SUSA is a very good polling outfit, and (b) a week ago, SUSA had Clinton up 50-45. The change is also not beyond the MOE, but my back-of-the-envelope guess is that there’s only about an 11-12% chance that the change was just a fluke of sampling error. Just based on this one poll, things are moving Obama’s way.
And of course, all the other polls are showing the same movement in Texas.
Moreover, two national polls came out yesterday. USA Today/Gallup showed Obama up by 12, and CBS/NYT showed him up by 16, nationally.
Those are the sorts of numbers that make a superdelegate’s choice easy. At this point, everyone’s waiting until a week from tonight, but unless the momentum does a big reversal between now and then, it’ll be over on March 5. If Obama takes Texas, holds Clinton to a ~10-point win in Ohio, and keeps even a high single-digit lead nationally, the superdelegates will weigh in, and that’ll be the game.
Another nail in the coffin. Christopher Dodd is jumping on the Obama bandwagon. Unless the polls reverse dramatically in a week, Hillary can start to write her concession speech and Michelle Obama can request measurements of the curtains in the White House.