The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

It is understandable why the Clinton Machine and their supporters are in a state of rage and utter frustration. Clearly, this was not the script that had been thoroughly poll tested. The primary was never intended to become a vigorously contested battle, for Mark Penn had predicted it would be nothing more than a procedural afterthought. Their entire focus was on the coronation that would climax in a wild celebration in Denver.

After all, the precedent had already been established when HRC decided to become the Senator from New York. Despite having no affiliation with the bluest of blue states, her breath taking sense of entitlement enabled her to disregard her illegitimacy and claim the prize. Her plan to run for President had crossed the first threshold. The next carefully calculated decision was to not have the courage to take on Bush in 2004, when the stakes could not have been higher for the country, yet victory could not be assured. So now the playing field was exactly as planned.

Her camp had assumed that the "Big Dog" could continue to masquerade as the elder Statesman of the party while he focused on raising boatloads of money for the General Election. How could they ever have imagined that he would be forced to descend in becoming the "Attack Dog" in the trenches of South Carolina? While the Clintons have always taken the Black community for granted, they were now assigning a former President the task of attempting to marginalize Obama's landslide victory in South Carolina as a "Jesse Jackson Black Thing".

Hillary Clinton was presumed to be the face of historical change, yet it is Barack who draws thousands of incredibly energized, enthusiastic supporters wherever he goes and is able to raise $32 million from over 650,000 donors in the month of January alone. Meanwhile, Clinton supporters have been cast as a staged, dated, and shrill bunch of whiners desperately seeking the limelight that has lost interest. Where once a "Hillary" bumper sticker was intended to be revolutionary, it is now so passé- the epitome of the dysfunctional, divisive status quo.

If in the end, Clinton prevails it is preposterous to assume that the millions of passionately committed supporters of Barack Obama will flip the switch to Hillary Clinton. A few may but the majority, particularly those that Barack brought into the process believing they finally had someone worth voting for, will return to the apathetic sidelines. Having Clinton on the ticket in 2008 will ensure a McCain victory and we then can all look forward to his promised 100 years of war and occupation in Iraq. It is time to seize the moment and elect Barack Obama as the next President of the United States.

Hillary want to put caps on insurance when they are at high rates! Obama want to lower cost and then place caps on insurance and then make it available to everyone. Clinton will be putting money in the pockets of insurance companies with her plan. When ask by John Edwards in the SC debate will she get rid of lobbyist in the white house she stuttered and ran in circles. Finally, John Edwards said" I guess I can take that has a no". Clinton says she can handle the Republicans, but do the American people want to be reminded of all the bad/illegal things the Clintons were involved with? How will that affect the voters. We will lose the White House. Bill Clinton was back in the news for excepting questionable donations. Why would you want illegal Bill back in the White House!

The Huffington Post reporting ...

Conyers: Bill Clinton "Can't Contain Himself" On Trail
February 4, 2008 08:03 PM

Rep. John Conyers, the powerful chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and a supporter of Sen. Barack Obama, levied harsh words for Bill Clinton, saying the former president "can't contain himself" on the campaign trail.

"He acts like this is an entitlement," said the Michigan Democrat. "How could anyone be challenging him and his wife?" It is hard for us to remember that that was exactly the age he was when he ran for president. He was 46, the same age [as Obama]. And he was considered an upstart." ...

Feminist Leaders Oppose Hillary, Endorse Obama
Posted February 3, 2008 | 07:40 PM (EST)

More than 100 New York feminist leaders released a joint statement Sunday afternoon criticizing Hillary Clinton and supporting Obama for president - evidence that Clinton's support among women activists has declined significantly in the days before the super-Tuesday primary.

Clinton's support for the war in Iraq was the leading reason she lost the support of the group, which calls itself "New York Feminists for Peace and Barack Obama!" "We urgently need a presidential candidate whose first priority is to address domestic needs," the group added.

Those endorsing Obama include longtime peace activist Cora Weiss; Katha Pollitt, columnist for The Nation; Pulitzer-prize winning New York Times writer Margo Jefferson; award-winning women's rights historians Alice Kessler Harris and Linda Gordon; Barbara Weinstein, president of the American Historical Association, and Ellen P. Chapnick, Dean for Social Justice Initiatives at Columbia Law School. Susan Sarandon and Francis Fox Piven signed on Monday.

"Choosing to support Senator Obama was not an easy decision for us," the group stated, "because electing a woman president would be a cause for celebration in itself." They "deplored" the "sexist attacks against Senator Clinton that have circulated in the media." But, they stated, they nevertheless supported Obama because his election "would be another historic achievement" and because "his support for gender equality has been unwavering."

The group based their opposition to Clinton on "her seven-year record as senator." Despite her recent pledges to remove troops from Iraq, the group stated, Clinton's "record of embracing military solutions and the foreign policy advisers she has selected make us doubt that she will end this calamitous war."

The group supported Obama not only for his positions on the war and gender equality, but also because of "the dramatic engagement of young people" with his campaign.

Tim, here's some beef for you:

On Legislative Experience:

Senator Clinton, who has served only one full term (6yrs.), and another year campaigning, has managed to author and pass into law, (20) twenty pieces of legislation in her first six years.
These bills can be found on the website of the Library of Congress (www.thomas.loc.gov), but to save you trouble, I'll post them here for you.
1. Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site.
2. Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month.
3. Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Honor.
4. Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall.
5. Name courthouse after James L. Watson.
6. Name post office after Jonn A. O'Shea.
7. Designate Aug. 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
8. Support the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
9. Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicentennial of his death.
10. Congratulate the Syracuse Univ. Orange Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
11. Congratulate the Le Moyne College Dolphins Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
12. Establish the 225th Anniversary of the American Revolution Commemorative Program.
13. Name post office after Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda.
14. Honor Shirley Chisholm for her service to the nation and express condolences on her death.
15. Honor John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford, firefighters who lost their lives on duty. Only five of Clinton's bills are, more substantive. 16. Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11.
17. Pay for city projects in response to 9/11
18. Assist landmine victims in other countries.
19. Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care.
20. Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as protected in the wilderness preservation system.

There you have it, the fact's straight from the Senate Record.

Now, I would post those of Obama's, but the list is too substantive, so I'll mainly categorize.
During the first (8) eight years of his elected service he sponsored over 820 bills. He introduced
233 regarding healthcare reform,
125 on poverty and public assistance,
112 crime fighting bills,
97 economic bills,
60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills,
21 ethics reform bills,
15 gun control,
6 veterans affairs and many others.

His first year in the U.S. Senate, he authored 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427. These inculded
**the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 (became law),
**The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, (became law),
**The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate,
**The 2007 Government Ethics Bill, (became law),
**The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill, (In committee), and many more.

In all since enter the U.S. Senate, Senator Obama has written 890 bills and co-sponsored another 1096. An impressive record, for someone who supposedly has no record according to the spin meisters and mindless twits.

There is a an apparent push by almost everybody in the media orchestrated by pundits and talkshow host alike to create a bandwagon effect to favor senator obama. while they always find fault on senator clinton and and his husband, they deliberately gives mr. obama a free pass.They have dug up all the baggages of the clintons but they have not scrutinized the record of mr. obama.

Mr. obama has offered few substance in his campaigned. Where is the beef?

He is nothing but a snakeoil salesman. A candidate with a sweet smile and a glib tongue. He is selling an elixir of hope and, unity to a mesmerized electorate but they will soon find out that the elixir is nothing but water that is only good for removing the mote in their eyes.

How many copies of that argument have you posted in the past 24 hours, vishalg_99?

I've seen at least three or four on the Post.

"29 Democratic senators voted for the resolution. Many of them, like Kerry, were finally persuaded that the vote will be used primarily for getting Saddam Hussein to come clean. They might not have trusted him. Bush was going to war anyway. Only, we might have given Republicans a 60 vote senate. Friends, Hillary Haters, Monday Morning Quarterbacks, Backseat Drivers, what would have happened then?"

21 Democratic senators somehow overcame these horrible pressures and voted against the war. In fact, at least one GOP senator also managed it, the principled Lincoln Chafee.

Overall, in both chambers, 120 Democratic legislators voted for the war, while 147 voted against it.

So more than half of Hillary Clinton's colleagues were somehow able to escape this inescapable moral trap with their principles intact. But she wasn't.

You're asking us to accept someone from the bottom half of the pile.

And now to 2007. The senate was no longer what you call a "jingoistic pressure cooker", in fact the war party (including Hillary) has been discredited. No-one can claim to have any illusions that Bush might use force when given an "authorization to use force". And what does Clinton do? She votes to authorize Bush to attack Iran's armed forces (Kyl-Lieberman amendment).

She's learned nothing, she's still rattling the sabre, and she's STILL giving Bush carte blanche to attack foreign countries.

...and following her Iran vote, his WMD evidence AGAIN turned out to be as insubstantial as a fart on the wind. Almost as insubstantial as his evidence against Iraq.

If she couldn't learn by 2007, she never will.

Part of the problem of the Clinton campaign and Clinton supporters is that in order to fight against anything or anyone linked, endorsed or otherwise associated with Obama they are willing to trash or otherwise demean those individuals. So who have I seen trash written about to date? Reagan, Republicans (oopss, there goes half the country), Kennedys, MLK, Oprah, Jesse Jackson...is there anyone I am missing?

...First ask yourself these questions:

Do you agree with Hillary's vote in favor of the Kyl-Lieberman ammendment?

Do you agree with Bill Clinton's bombing the pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan which eventually killed tens of thousands due to lack of medicine?

Did you know that Hillary voted in favor of No Child Left Behind in 2001?

Did you know that Hillary did not in fact vote against the bankruptcy reform bill in 2005 (as she claimed in the recent Nevada debate). It turns out she didn't vote at all.

Do you agree with Hillary's appointing Sandy Berger as one of her National Security advisors? Berger plead guilty to stealing and destroying classified intelligence documents (they were related to 9/11).

Do you agree with Hillary's having Mark Penn as one of her chief strategists (a major voice for her campaign) who represents Blackwater as well as a huge uniform supplier that refuses to deal with the Culinary Workers Union and that he has a history of being a known union buster?

Do you agree with the Clinton's support of NAFTA?

Do you agree with Hillary's voting against increasing fuel economy and the production of renewable fuels like Ethanol?

Do you agree with Bill Clinton's selling attack helicopters to Israel used to kill "terrorists" and many innocent civilians?

Do you agree with Hillary's mandated health care plan that to this day leaves out the consequences for middle to lower income families who can't afford the rates she is proposing?

Do you agree with Hillary's statement in regards to social security that the majority of Americans in this country make over 90,000 dollars a year?

Do you agree with Hillary's voting against providing seniors with a prescription drug benefit?

Do you agree with Hillary's support and defense of lobbysists?

Do you agree with Hillary's support of current bankrupcy laws that continue to hurt lower income Americans and small businesses?

Do you agree with Hillary's voting against medical liability reform so that doctors are not forced out of practice for junk lawsuits?

Do you agree with Hillary's opposition against a level playing field so that people who pay for health insureance out of their own pocket get the same tax break the big corporations get for providing health care benefits to their employees?

CONT.

"I can lead this nation and motivate all Americans to serve a cause greater than their self-interest," said McCain.

Sure. A cause like building permanent military bases in Iraq.

How inspiring.

My letter to earth-loving Democrats:

Well it's almost time now. Here's my quivering argument for whatever it counts.

Let's first perspectify the Clinton legacy. Obama supporters are very tearful about Clinton's affair with Lewinsky and his hurtful lying. There are politicians, you know, who are both, pristine in private life and make competent presidents. Let's take a historical shot at this Audacity of Hope. JFK was a serial philanderer, poking every hole in sight. He gave us Bay of Piglets and near Apocalypto. Then, LBJ fatally perpetuated Vietnam. Nixon - criminal. Carter - exquisitely incompetent. Reagan of soaring national debt/Iran Contra/S&L crises. George Recession Sr - no, he was in bed only with the Saudis. Then, Bill Clinton. Wipe away the scum thrown at your faces by the republican propaganda, and if you attained puberty a bit before 90s, you will see quite easily, Bill Clinton's were the best presidential years in recent history. Who compares?

Let's get to near history and Hillary's vote for the Iraq war resolution. Our country had just been devastatingly attacked. Such was the patriotism that a Democratic Senator who left most of his body parts in the fields of Vietnam was knocked out of the senate for not being patriotic enough! 29 Democratic senators voted for the resolution. Many of them, like Kerry, were finally persuaded that the vote will be used primarily for getting Saddam Hussein to come clean. They might not have trusted him. Bush was going to war anyway. Only, we might have given Republicans a 60 vote senate. Friends, Hillary Haters, Monday Morning Quarterbacks, Backseat Drivers, what would have happened then?
Meanwhile, on a hilltop, far away from the battlefield, there was a Senator in the safe confines of a very blue state. His state not devastated like New York. Sears Tower still towering. He made a fine anti-war speech. Simultaneously, he was lustily voting Present in his state legislature instead of taking a stand on radioactive issues to avoid providing propaganda material to the Republicans. Political expediency, it's called. Clinton haters are very intimate with this phrase. If Obama had to be politically expedient in the Bluest of Blue states, what, you must think, he would have done in the jingoistic pressure cooker of the 2002/03 senate? When we did not know where and when again we might be hit again. One anti-war commentary given from the distant, safe, liberal confines of IL should not a president make!
Predictably, once Obama was in Senate, his voting was identical to democrats like Clinton. He raised no hell, showed no leadership. Why should he? You see, voting against war funding is a somewhat unpopular thing. You can't do that and hope to become President. And you can't just say Present, you know. You have to vote.

So now we have a tight race. Hillary might very well lose. No doubt, Hillary supporters will have to show up.

Obama supporters also feel about his electability. Good night, good luck and sweet dreams. We wouldn't let Hillary lay a hand on Obama. No, we must be all tea/coffee only. If you criticize - you are racist. Dearest, I am going to go out on a very dangerous limb here. I have a feeling, Republicans won't be so sensitive. No, I think they will have a thing or two to say about that. *Despite* all the hype, Obama is not doing dramatically better than Hillary against McCain. How will it look after Republicans have worked him over? To those who insist that our gem, Obama is still unknown - he has spent aver $120 million dollar introducing himself. Media has been all ga-ga about him. Can it really get better for him? You know, Fox, i.e., conservative media won't keep giving him a pass. They won't mind asking him about his drug use. Pox on them but they will - and much more. Though, in my personal opinion they ought not to bother with that. McCain's strong, maverick character and years of experience will be quite enough. To a left of center and right of MoveOn org type of a person like me, when I put Obama next to McCain, I see a shrub next to a Titan. Obama's experience? He has organized in Chicago - shame on me if I deny him that. In a general election, Comrades, that only works if the public has a seizure while rolling on the floor in laughter. Bird flu, global warming have nothing on the effect Obama's record-setting lack of experience might have on the general population.

No, wrong, I am not a purple Democrat. I thought Howard Dean was a better candidate than Al Gore/John Kerry. I was devastated when he was knocked out because he dared to be emotional/spontaneous. He had such a strong executive experience but the media didn't like his laughter. He had no style. In America we must have Style.

I doubt if an undecided voter comes all the way here. And I don't have the Audacity of Hope to believe I can make any impression on those who love Obama. But try I must.

check out the editorial "Political Epithets" at the blogzine SAVAGE POLITICS.
www.savagepolitics.com
Here is an excerpt: "The issue of political corruption has been a widely discussed problem as of late, ever since the "ObaMedia" has been utilizing this argument to support their proposition that the Clinton Candidacy spells an "ugly" return to the politics of "sleaze" and "special interests" (they have thrown this charge against John McCain as well). It is thus presumed that the longer a politician is in Washington, the higher the probability of his improbity will be. By this faulty logic, it is then assumed that only those who are "outside" of the system are clean of these "evil" influences and somehow possess a "canonical" authority over the idea of uprightness. Of course, most of these same critics ignore the fact that their whole conceptualization of corruption destroys this premise, since it would make it impossible to arrive in Washington without already being corrupt, or at least easily corruptible. Unfortunately, our Press has engaged us in this ridiculously never ending spiral, a trend that has been increasingly helped by our psychological conditioning to respond in a visceral way when confronted with these political key-words, even though their definition, as in the case of corruption itself, is sorely unknown. What is the definition of political corruption?..." get the rest of the article at www.savagepolitics.com

Darren--the average of the 6 polls you cite is a 7 1/3 advantage for Clinton. How is a comment in the blog of a 6 point edge for Clinton a statistically significant difference between the polls in your very own post?

[If you know anything about statistics, you know that standard deviation is not applicable to a small sample size. One needs to apply a T-test and you'll find the confidence in such a difference is nil.]

BB

Perhaps it is this:

November looms, and people know that only Obama can beat McCain. Why? Hillary does not appeal to the necessary Independent and Swing voters required to take the White House. Obama, on the other hand, has wide appeal.

If people don't want another four years of a Republican presidency, they should vote Obama.

Hillary as the nominee = a McCain presidency. Think November. Vote Obama.

A black man stole my health insurance.

Wishful thinking. Cherry-picking polls again. The Wash. Post is just shameful.

Go to pollster.com. Here's what the latest polls say -- a balanced approach.

Pollster Dates N/Pop Clinton Edwards Obama Undecided
SurveyUSA 2/2-3/08 706 LV 52 - 41 3
Strategic Vision (R) 2/1-3/08 600 LV 47 - 41 12
Quinnipiac 1/30-2/3/08 463 LV 48 - 43 9
Reuters/C-SPAN/
Zogby 1/30-2/2/08 868 LV 43 - 42 14
MSNBC-McClatchy/
Mason-Dixon 1/30-2/1/08 400 LV 46 - 39 12
Monmouth 1/30-2/1/08 718 LV 50 - 36 14