nt6oju13jy90eu http://www.203367.com/499053.html qfjjpvwc0nnyai

b81zs2512pqrgbpf6 [URL=http://www.989802.com/234743.html] cchmfn5lo6avagoo1 [/URL] bu5d2l7tob0yuu2

"(assuming you're an American citizen)"

JD. imho you are nuts. Don't expect a response to these kinds of totally inane comments

I don't understand the lack of Union leadership outrage over this situation with Mark Penn in the Clinton campaign. All she did was "shuffle the deck" so to speak. This guy is still gonna do polling and provide "advice". Mark Penn needs to be GONE! I cannot put any trust in Clinton that she has the best interests of American union members as long as she refuses to part with this guy. And neither should the leadership of any union. I don't understand all the wailing about Obama's unpaid advisor's comments to some Canadian official, while the leader of Clinton's campaign is holding strategy meetings to get this onerous Columbian legislation passed? She is basically spitting in the eye of the unions by moving this guy to the back room for a while till the heat (what little of it that has been generated) dies down. Is union leadership so in love with (or in fear of) the Clintons that they accept this with nary a whimper? WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE? The AFL-CIO ought to be hounding Clinton night and day to make a complete break with this guy. Somebody please explain to me why that is not happening.

If Obama gets the nomination, the GE will be overshadowed by dramas of race and patriotism. It's not the fault of the candidates that the media don't stick to the issues. Clinton's treatment by the press has been prejudicial than anything I've seen in my lifetime. Salacious, slanderous coverage has no relation to the fact that she has largely run a more substantive campaign.

Aye!

Clintons = Drama, Drama, Drama.

If Hillary Clinton gets to the White House, it will be more of the same and the people's business will be overshadowed.

Our problems in this country are too serious to settle for this.

But the bottom line for me is that if you are looking at lapses in judgement I would think Obama's continued friendship and defense of his to Pastors, Wright and Meeks are much more serious. I would rather have an oil baron contribute to either of their campaigns than have people with the views and words and actions of these two Pastors be spiritual advisors and mentors to the next President.

I don't know who will win the nomination, and I want to support the Democratic nominee whoever that may be. But if it is Obama he will have to take the next step in disassociating himself from these two men and their divisive views if he wants to unite the party before he can attempt to unite the nation.

I completely concur. It is becoming more and more clear that Obama's policy making decision style is to listen, try to see positions from all angles, appease all sides in the debate and never make the tough call. He showed it again by wavering on the question of presidential participation in the Olympics.

That is not someone I want as my president and no amount of slander, appeals to party loyalty or changing the subject to Hillary's wrongdoings is going to change my vote. Show me where Obama has demonstrated
moral or political courage, when he has done the right thing out of conviction not self-opportunism and I'll listen.

JD you call monica an impt ISSUE in this campaign and my refusal to play along with your nonsense naïve. I call $4 gas prices,record home foreclosures, a collapsing economy,
47 million uninsurred and a 3 triilion dollar endless war ISSUES. Silly me, you and the Goldbergs think we should best talk about REAL ISSUES.

Boy, you really have to be careful to put a space between the first two words of the title of this post or you'll end up with a different unfortunate, but appropriate, title.

Leightman, since when does approval ratings have anything to do with competency or effective stewardship. If you're looking for approval, watch American Idol. There are so many examples of high marks for lousy leaders there's no point in listing them. I love you Dems, if your guy lies it's okay, if the other guy lies - he's Hitler. I hate to bring up constitutional protocol but the Congress approved of the Bush plan, they authorized it, then the Dems thought it was politically expedient to oppose the war. The result, the Iraqi's stop fighting to win and began fighting to maim. The more the Dem railed against the war, the more soldiers got targeted. Why win a battle when your enemy does you work for you. Everyone should have shut up until the boys were home. Of course Dems don't fight so as Kerrey stated only the "stupid" went into the service. Who cares about them? Additionally the blight disregard for military readiness during the Clinton years led to a woefully unprepared military.

Leichtman, sorry you're unable to have a reasonable conversation about what was unarguably the dominant issue facing Bill and Hillary during those years.

Your post suggests that you're in a state of denial about the issue, which is sad in a way. Note that I never attacked you or HRC's candidacy in my responses - only stated what seems to me as patently obvious.

If you want to support HRC or Obama or McCain because of their positions on the issues, feel free (assuming you're an American citizen). Lashing out, putting your hands over your ears and humming showtunes, and launching ham-handed attacks only serves to eliminate your own credibility on this site.

Take care.

calling it HC's signature issue proves that you are truly part of the Karl Rove slime machine which I ssuspected all along. Get over it JD. Bill Clinton left office with a 62% approval rating. W will be lucky to leave with numbers surpassing Richard Nixon's. Your side's signature issue will be presiding over the worst Presidency in 200 years.

and bsimon: ha!

For the record, I've got my liberal leanings:

- pro choice
- pro drug legalization
- pro troop drawdown
- anti 10 commandments in schools, etc

One more thing: Before you chime in that it was asked of Chelsea not HRC, remember: it was HRC who made the decision to put her own kid out there on the hustings. Chelsea is representing the HRC package, good and bad.

Yes I know Chelsea is pretty young (just a guess: 25?), but that's certainly old enough in my book, especially when you're actively campaigning for your candidate in the supposedly open forum of a college campus.

Leichtman, the question brings up the signature issue, or at least the dominant one, of HRC's reign in the Whitehouse. To think otherwise is niave.

Yes, I know if you're HRC it's certainly a painful memory, and I'm sure she would rather talk about her healthcare plan or cockamamie scheme to freeze interest rates on variable loans. But she doesn't get to pick and choose what people ask of her, not for something so public and impactful to her husband's administration (and hers: isn't part of her pitch that she's the experienced one?).

JD writes
"not to get into labels (bsimon, I'm looking in your direction...) but I'm more a libertarian"

Hey, at least I didn't label you a liberal...

Ah the Democratic Party. At last revealed for the petty race baiting collection of stalinists that they are. Black people are okay as long as they vote for the WHITE candidate of the Party Elite's choice. Don't dare come out of the kitchen and join the dance. This worship of Hillary is hilarious if it weren't so serious. This person, who would rather lie than tell the truth, who is riding the coattails of her husbands misdeeds and is willing to risk the only solid voting block the dysfunctional Demo party has (the black vote), is neither worthy nor deserving. This country must get out of the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton death spiral if we are to survive as a nation. Half the nation is hoping for the other half to fail so OUR person can return to the throne. The result of these two loser families? Social Security/Medicare broken beyond compare, out of control spending, earmark bonuses to record levels given to campaign contributors, tax rates on the federal and local level that lock the young and poor out of the American dream. Keep on worshiping these knuckleheads, keep feeding them power. We have only ourselves to blame

I am fiscally conservative as well, but I am reasonably trying to warn those supporters of the Obama campaign(which I doubt you are) to knock off talk about monica in this campaign it will explode in your face either in the remaining primaries or in the general if Obama is the nominee. I for one will never support Sen Obama if either he or his campaign tries to make that an issue in the next 8 weeks. Certainly Sen Obama does not control the voice of his supporters or bloggers, but if Obama supporters don't believe me, just approach a HC supporter in your community and ask if they want to hear more about monica in the primary from the Obama campaign. My guess is that you won't like what you hear.

Is it a fair question? Absolutely if you are a GOPer or wish to totally divide the democratic party. Is that your intent JD?

Leichtman, not to get into labels (bsimon, I'm looking in your direction...) but I'm more a libertarian, which I guess has some conservative pieces, especially fiscally.

The question was not asked of Chelsea on a blog, it was asked during a college campaign appearance. For HRC. Where she was the 'face of the campaign'.

Once HRC made the decision to use her daughter to shill for the youth vote, she (both she's, actually) need to be prepared for this stuff.

Personally, I'd guessed that the person who raised the question you mention was a Republican, not an Obama supporter. In my opinion, the question was in bounds; she experienced the stresses of the near constitutional crisis firsthand, and although it's a close call, I found the question tough but not beyond the pale.

"The problem is that you're equating anonymous comments on political blogs with campaign tactics."

you are likely right, and as I stated I doubt and hoepfully presume that the Obama campaign would not touch that line b/c it would be truly toxic to HC supporters. At times it is honestly hard to decifer whether those kinds of comments are coming from Repub HC haters or from Obama supporters. Soryy but at times those insults sound awfully similar ( again not from you) Lets just agree that this campaign has way to many serious consequences then to rehash that kind of garbage which I honsetly believe is an unfair and painful jab and Chelsea and HC.

Why doesnt Hippary start singing so she can know for certain that the fat lady has sung. This is over.

Obama 08

To me, as a military member who participated in Afghanistan and Iraq, the greatest patriotism of all was Senator Obama's public declarations of how an invasion into Iraq would detract from our military efforts in Afghanistan. I could care less how often a politician wears a lapel pin, but to the extent that a politician speaks and acts to preserve life, liberty, and the U.S. Constitution, that is the true sign of patriotism. Anything less is empty, serving only to underhandedly manipulate the American people into giving their support. Back then, it was considered patriotic to rename your food into "freedom fries" or "freedom toast". The ignorance of it all is enough to make me weep.

Leichtman- JD is a conservative who would likely take some offense at being characterized as an Obama supporter.

I think its fair to say JD is not shy about being unfond of Sen Clinton; perhaps you've mistaken critisim of her as an indication of support for Obama.

Regarding your question, its irrelevant. The problem is that you're equating anonymous comments on political blogs with campaign tactics. It would be like claiming that svreader is an official spokesperson for the Clinton campaign. The premise is ludicrous & would make me look like a delusioned fool if I were to make the claim.

bsimon I was only reiterating what I read right here over the weekend where a self described Obama supporter made it absolutely clear, I believe it was JD who post her often, that Chelsea is an appropriate target for those kinds of questions. When Obama supporters make those kinds of allegation then why should we not presume that your side wishes to drive that story. I know absolutely nothing about the students who asked those questions, and stated so. It just seems suspicious that we hear that question repeated here by some of his co called supporters.

My question is this bismon: do you feel as an Obama supporter who has lectured me often about how uplifting Sen Obama's campaign is and how he does not believe in politics as usual, that it is appropriate for his campaign or his supporters to us the lewinsky story as a campaign strategy against HC?

I would like an honest answer to that question, b/c how I perceive that is dealt with by the campaign, may very likely determine who I support in Nov especially if Sen Obama is the democratic nominee.

proudtobeGOP writes
"He has a patriotism problem."

He doesn't have a patriotism problem, he has a disinformation problem.

I also suspect that, due to your personal situation, you are more susceptible to view the 'patriotism problem' as more important than it is with average swing voters. My guess is that the majority of folks who think one's patriotism is measured by the frequency with which a flag pin is worn are uninclined to vote for any Democrat.

Practically no one has questioned Obama's patriotism, aside from a few bloggers and a stray TV commentator or two. Nonetheless, he declared after the Texas and Ohio primaries, "In this campaign, we will not stand for the politics that uses religion as a wedge and patriotism as a bludgeon."

He has a patriotism problem. That is not the same as calling him unpatriotic, which no one is doing.

I noticed him injecting it into his stump speech last Friday, saying "I love this country" when previously he hadn't made that part of the stock speech. Gone is the old hope riff.

It has been replaced with a new tag line about love of country because patriotism is a crucial challenge for Obama now.

His aides believe, and rightly so, that the Wright controversy was more about anti-Americanism than it was about race.

All the little things add up...taking off the flag pin, not putting his hand over his heart for the national anthem, his wife's lack of pride in America until they voted for her husband, his pastor's anti-American teachings. It adds up, that's all I'm saying.

Patriotism is just an empty word to Republicans. It's a meaningless slogan, a reflexive gesture, a plastic lapel pin, an American flag made in China, a a bumper sticker.

But mostly, it's a bludgeon to use against anyone who doesn't agree with your opinions.

Interesting. According to Leichtman, asking whether Sen Clinton's credibility has been damaged by the Monica thing is an "absolutely despicable cheap shot." Yet, it is apparently entirely acceptable to imply her opponent is involved with having the question asked - despite no evidence to support the allegation. Leichtman, perhaps your post also qualifies as an "absolutely despicable cheap shot."

Leichtman:

Likewise, we should presume that the questioner was not a Clinton-campaign plant whose off-topic and perhaps out-of-bounds question was designed to elicit sypathy for HRC and ire towards BHO.

It could go either way, IMO, since the questioner revealed in subsequent interviews (after all the brouhaha erupted) that he's a "big supporter" of HRC, but he was unable to articulate any good reason for asking that particular question. Maybe he's just an attention-wh0re, in which case it all makes a little more sense.

This dumb white b*^tch better not try to steal the campagn with the super-delegetes.
this corrupt has gotta stop!

Hillary: Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's
the problem after all?

Mirror: Actually honey, it's you.

Hillary: Nah! Gotta be Penn.

Chelsea an Acceptable Target of the Obama Campaign?

JD asking Chelsea about Monica is not part of the rough and tumble of politics it was nothing but an absolutely despicable cheap shot. I presume that it was not instigated by the Obama campaign but believe me I along with likely millions of other HC supporters will not only switch from not voting for Pres but will actively support John McCain if it turns out that the Obama campaign was behind those questions to Chelsea and he becomes the nominee.

Last week JD we were all told that we should get behind the Obama campaign b/c he did not represent a "campaign as usual".

I doubt that I am alone in feeling that not only would such tactics be campaigning as usual, but the worst kind of gutter politics we have seen from a democrat and completely unacceptable.If its acceptable to you that is truly disappointing. If you speak for the strategy of the Obama campaign that is even worse.

Once again I am presuming in good faith that the Obama campaign had absolutely NOTHING to do with those scurrilous questions to Chelsea, and you should hope that I am correct as that would be absolutely toxic to your campaign, and likely the end of his presumptive nomination march.

drindl - "John McCain is a bridge to the past -- a man who believes American taxpayers -- and our military -- should be the world's police force, installing puppets and enforcing their power."

If that is the bridge to where the US was instrumental in defeating the Nazis, communism and several really bad dictators, give me the map to that bridge because I want on.

Meghan McCain is a 'target' too -- since she's out on the stump with her father, fair game. And she has a political blog too!

I hear Cindy is too busy investing her $100 million beer bucks inheritance to campaign. Owns lots of stock in Merck, WalMart, Pfizer...

I love Obama! Down with Hillary! She is a liar. I retract everything I said about her.

Obama will clean McCain's clock. Hooray for Obama. We need change and genius. Obama is the best candidate since Lincoln! We should clone him, and make the clone his VP! Hooray for Obama!

Democrats' patriotism problem.

"Obama has suggested the patriotism of his political opponents pales in contrast with his "true patriotism." At least that was how he explained his decision to remove his American flag lapel pin.

"You know, the truth is that right after 9/11, I had a pin," Obama said. "Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we're talking about the Iraq war, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security, I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest."

In effect, Obama turned the patriotism issue on its head (or at least he tried to). If anyone was unpatriotic, it was his critics and foes, certainly not Obama."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/946ipgio.asp?pg=2

There's a difference--a significant one--between being falsely called unpatriotic and having what Joe Klein of Time defines as a problem with patriotism.

"Patriotism is, sadly, a crucial challenge for Obama now," Klein wrote. Why?

Not because of Republicans, but because the Jeremiah Wright anti-American preaching and Michelle Obama's telling comments about having never been proud of this country before it supported her husband, and his purposeful removal of the flag pin from his lapel - these things have fed an undercurrent of doubt about "whether he is 'American' enough."

"This is a chronic disease among Democrats, who tend to talk more about what's wrong with America than what's right," Klein said.
---------------------

Blaming the VRWC is not the cure, especially since you've got to be paranoid to believe they're the problem in the first place.

Obama has a patriotism problem, even his campaign believes this is a bigger problem than any race issue he tried to turn it into after the Youtubes of Wright surfaced. This is one problem that's not going away and is sure to be revisited in the general election.

svreader, before I respond, please don't mistake me for either a Clintonista or an Obamaniac. So let me comment on the alleged attacks on HRC's family by Obama's henchmen.

Bill and Chelsea are not *only* family members of the candidate, in the traditional sense (ie, they're not Nancy Reagan, the Bush twins, Amy Carter, etc). They are actively campaigning and 'speechifying' for HRC - Bill in the media, clumsily, and Chelsea at about 75 colleges so far. They are in effect senior campaign advisors to HRC.

Seems to me that makes them perfectly acceptable targets during a rough-n-tumble campaign. This is a big difference from attacking the spouse who stays in the traditional role, emotional support (like McCain's wife).

Even Obama's wife has been making the rounds, giving speeches (and saying the wrong things too; what is it w/ the spouses of Dem candidates? It's amateur hour over there...) Therefore, she's a reasonable target as well IMHO.

"Not only will we vote for McCain if Obama becomes the nominee, but we'll be glad if he re-institutes the draft."

I knew you were a republican.

It must be obvious to everyone that svreader is a republican troll.

"This is the kind of debate we need, not focus-group-driven slogans designed to grab headlines. "

You mean, like "the surge is working"?

I'm glad to know that McCain is now taking advice from the Henry Kissinger -- because he has so much credibility.

John McCain is a bridge to the past -- a man who believes American taxpayers -- and our military -- should be the world's police force, installing puppets and enforcing their power.

dcgrass that was a really classy post. At this point however I see absolutely no reason to give Sen Obama my positive support in Nov IF he is the nominee other than as a protest of McCain. There has been asboluetly nothing I have either heard nor seen either from the candidate or his supporters which would convince me that he should be elected as Pres.I won't go nearly as far as sreaver's post above however I was certainly upset to read posts here the other night attacking Chelsea, they were uncalled for. Incidentally excluding the numbers in Fla and Michigan in the popular vote, the current lead(before Pa) is 697,000 not 800,00 as mistakenly quoted.

Pen is, was, a self serving idiot, end of story.

AYE

Disclosure: I'm an Obama supporter who is tired if the bashing and smearing by both (arrently) Clinton and Obama supporters.

----
RE: Texas popular vote.
Yes, Clinton won the primary by approx 110,000 votes. But, Obama won the million person caucus by > 10%. Doing the math, it is unclear who actually received more votes total in TX (unless of course caucuses don't count) since I haven't seen the caucus raw votes released anywhere.

svreader,
Do you post elsewhere besides the Fix? I'm not interested in following you, I'm just speculating as to why there are occasionally to consecutive posts that aren't yours.

Obama supporters aren't loyal to the Democratic Party, they're loyal to their cult leader Barry Obama.
ajtiger --

By attacking other readers, rather than trying to answer the points those readers raise, Obama supporters lose twice.

We're not going to vote for Obama for anything.

Because Obama supporters have been so nasty to us, we'll actively work for, and we'll vote for, McCain.

Heck of a job, Obama-nuts!!!!

I know it is hard to ignore the rantings of svreader, my fellow Hope-Mongers. But what can you expect.

The only difference in the departure of Mark Penn as a Hillary campaign strategist is that Hillary saves campaign money and Clinton loyalists will feel better.

Meanwhile back in reality, Mark Penn's departure only re-enforces the continual link in Hillary's campaign with conflicts of interests and the influence of lobbyists/special interest money; does nothing to reduce the 169 pledged delegate lead, the ~800,000 popular vote lead, and the 14 more voting contests lead that Obama has over Hillary.

From: The Three Revolutions
By Henry A. Kissinger
Monday, April 7, 2008

"Conventional wisdom holds that disenchantment with President Bush's alleged unilateralism is at the heart of European-American disagreements.

But it will become apparent soon after the change of administrations that the principal difference between the two sides of the Atlantic is that America is still a traditional nation-state whose people respond to calls for sacrifices on behalf of a much wider definition of the national interest than Europe's definition.

...In a world in which the sole superpower is a proponent of the prerogatives of the traditional nation-state, where Europe is stuck in halfway status, where the Middle East does not fit the nation-state model and faces a religiously motivated revolution, and where the nations of South and East Asia still practice the balance of power, what is the nature of the international order that can accommodate these different perspectives?

This is the kind of debate we need, not focus-group-driven slogans designed to grab headlines. "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/06/AR2008040601660.html

Amen to that.

drindl --

Not only will we vote for McCain if Obama becomes the nominee, but we'll be glad if he re-institutes the draft.

Obama supporters could use a few years in the army.

It would cut their arrogance down to size.

Clinton supporters will never forget or forgive Obama supporters attacks on Bill Clinton and even Chelsea, neither of which was running.

You didn't just try to "kill" our candidate, you went after her entire family.

Even the mafia doesn't do that.

AYE

"The problem is that Obama is unelectable in a general election doesn't seem to bother his supporters" svreader

That's because your assertion is false:
http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/03/06/electoral-math-as-of-030608-obama-280-mccain-258/

and
http://www.presidentelectionpolls.com/

In both cases, Obama does better than Clinton against McCain and in both cases, he wins the electoral vote contest.

As a fervent Democrat, I think Clinton would be a better candidate and President than Obama. It's with a great deal of dismay, therefore, that I've watched her campaighn steadily disintegrate and implode.

That said, I am one of millions who will happily vote for Sen. Obama if he wins the nomination-- which looks increasingly likely. My husband, daughters, and every person I know says the same-- they'll vote for the winner of the Democratic nomination, regardless of who it is. I know nobody who wants another 4 years of Republican domination.

And on THAT note: people, ENOUGH OF THE NAME CALLING. You do NOTHING to enhance your position or encourage others to agree with you. All you do is add to the continued polarization that's degraded this country in the past 20 years. If you disagree with a certain post, IGNORE IT. There are some people (on both sides) whose posts I simply scroll past.

If this continues, there are many long-time posters to this blog who will simply drop out. I post very rarely myself (I don't know WHO has the time to do all this stuff), but I very much enjoy reading opinions that are different than mine. It opens my mind to viewpoints I may not have considered. I value the give-and-take of a respectful disagreement very highly.

Whatever happened to the wonderful concept of the "loyal opposition"?

drindl --

I want to see the best person elected, and that's Senator Clinton.

Obama's not the kind of guy his supporters push that he is.

Obama's thugs personally attack anybody who tries to point that out.

Hillary's a far better candidate, and far more electable nationally.

Obama's supporters have made their campaign one of attacking her, bellow the belt, with empty screeds, while trying to intimidate anyone who supports her from posting.

Obama's run a cult, not a campaign.

He's pissed mainstream democrats off so much that he's lost the people he needs most in the general election.

He's moved it beyond issues, where Sen Clinton has the lead and made it purely personal.

That's a world-class blunder.

http://www.gopcatholics.blogspot.com

It is a disservice for the Media to claim that Mark Penn has been FIRED or has stepped down or that he will not be affiliated with the campaign. This is contradicted in Maggie Williams' statement which says "After the events of the last few days, Mark Penn has asked to give up his role as Chief Strategist of the Clinton Campaign; Mark, and Penn, Schoen and Berland Associates, Inc. will CONTINUE to PROVIDE polling and advice to the campaign. " From the following statement it is accurate for the Media to say he has been DEMOTED! Although many in the Media are trying to insinuate that he has been fired or has stepped down, this is a FABRICATION and Media has a right to inform Truth and not falsifications.

'"The president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, James Hoffa, said through an aide tonight that the change is of little significance, since Mr. Penn will continue to advise and poll for Mrs. Clinton's presidential bid. "Demotion doesn't answer General President Hoffa's concerns. Mark Penn is still on her payroll and Burson-Marsteller's payroll," a spokeswoman for Mr. Hoffa, Leigh Strope, said. "Title demotion doesn't indicate loss of influence."' "In a statement on Friday, Mr. Hoffa called for Mr. Penn's ouster. "Someone like Mark Penn should not be dictating strategy, and possibly legislation, for a Democratic candidate for president," the Teamster leader said."

Anyone with any Political smarts and savvy, should know that the Clintons are not REALLY getting rid of Penn and that this is just a smoke screen -- he is far too valuable to them and knows WAY too much for them to push him under the bus. He will still be pulling the strings behind that Wizard of Oz Curtin, as they say,polling and advising! This is just more double talk, double speak, misstate, misspeak and misspoke moment. Mark Penn should step down for Real!

WHAT??

"That ad ran in the lead-up to the March 4 Texas primary, which Clinton won."

Care to review the delegate totals on that state? If the contest is for Delegates, and Obama won more than Clinton, does that mean soon you'll be telling everyone clinton is the president even though Obama sits behind the desk?

McCain is enthusiastic about pushing troops into harm's way and asking them to put their lives on the line for a dubious purpose, but not so enthusiastic about helping them get an education of they are lucky enough to survive:

"On "This Week" today, host George Stephanopolous asked Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) why neither he nor Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has cosponsored Sen. Jim Webb's 21st Century GI Bill, which would dramatically enhance educational benefits given to soldiers.

Graham ducked the question, refusing to answer for his and McCain's notable absence on the issue. "

Webb pointed out in March that "many more Republicans could vote for the bill if McCain endorsed it."

So McCain may single-handedly be torpedoing the chances of this bipartisan bill. So much for 'supporting the troops.' It's all a lie, folks.

How can Senator Clinton's campaign make the case for experience and competence when she can't seem to manage her campaign organization and strategy?

It's amazing why after poor planning, sloppy execution, poor fund raising and as much post super Tuesday preparedness as Rumsfeld had for post invasion Iraq that the Senator has the audacity to claim the competence card.

For all his so-called inexperience Senator Obama has run a masterful campaign.

do you have anything else to do, svreader -- besides throw the election to republicans?

do you want a health care system that's even more broken than what we've already got?

"The debate continues: Joseph Rago of the Wall Street Journal argues that Sen. McCain "ought to welcome" Elizabeth Edwards' criticisms of his health care plan. As Edwards says, McCain lets insurers discriminate against people with costly diseases - ironically including McCain himself.

But Rago says that's okay for three reasons. First, Sen. McCain would create a government backstop for expensive cases. Sounds good, but the devil is in the details - and McCain aides are still "scrambling to come up with ways to satisfy those who want more coverage without violating what they call McCain's 'conservative principles'." I'm sure it's hard to create a new government backstop for millions while also "shrinking government's role in health care."

Second, Rago says the McCain plan lets people carry their coverage from job to job. But you can't keep coverage you never get, and the individual market is fundamentally broken for millions of people.

Finally, Rago says the McCain plan would lower costs. But by leaving millions uninsured, the McCain plan drives up costs by raising administrative costs and undermining preventive care and other efforts to keep costs down.

McCain wants more people to buy health coverage on their own, and his plan might work for families who are healthy and upper-income. But shouldn't health reform start with people who actually need help?"

svreader -

Your proctologist called. He found your head!

The problem is that Obama is unelectable in a general election doesn't seem to bother his supporters.

His strategy has been to mouth vague platitudes while kicking Hillary below the belt using his supporters to do the dirty work.

That's not going to work against McCain.

Obama's lost mainstream democrats.

His supporters are destroying the Democratic Party.

Mark, if you're suggesting that Hillary is ultimately to blame for the debacle her campaign became, you're right, obviously.

But candiates have to leave most of the decision-making to the brains in their operations, and it became evident by late last year that there were some serious problems in Camp Clinton, and after Iowa, the public internal sniping made it clear that people inside the campaign were seeing what perceptive outside observers were seeing. Clinton's strategy was wrong from the beginning, and she and Penn refused to change direction. There's a really good G.W. Bush : Rumsfeld :: H. Clinton : Penn analogy to be made here.

Really looking forward to the game tonight. I have a .wav file of the rock chalk chant I keep annoying my cube neighbors with. But I've been predicting losses for KU at every step, so I'm not going to change now. My prediction: Memphis 71, KU 63. If so, I'll be happy for Memphis and for Calipari, who was an assistant at KU under Larry Brown way back when.

mark in austin writes
"Let us be very clear that PR flaks like Penn and Black and whoever BHO is using are not lawyers and they have no judicially enforceable Code of Ethics.

They view each client: HRC, Columbia; McC, Blackwater: as separate profit centers. They do not make policy. They sell their clients.

That is not a conflict of interest for them."

On the surface this is certainly true. In this case, however, there is at least circumstantial evidence that further followup might reveal interesting connections. Wasn't a week or so ago that the Columbian president made disparaging comments about Sen Obama for not supporting the Columbian trade agreement? Maybe it was 2 weeks ago. As it turns out, Sen Clinton shares the same view on the agreement, but the President of Columbia didn't criticize her in the same way he criticized Obama. Now, as it turns out, Columbia had hired the Clinton campaign's cheif strategist's firm to do their lobbying. Is this mere coincidence?

Obama was for the war, before he was against it, before he was for it again, before he was against it again.

From "Commentary" --

Throughout his dramatic campaign to win his party's nomination for the presidency, Senator Barack Obama has tended to ignore the specifics of policy in favor of the generalities of emotion, centering his appeal to voters on vague promises of "change" and "unity." But on one issue, above all others, Obama has remained fixated from the campaign's first moment, and that is the war in Iraq. By Obama's own account, the consistency of his stand on this war demonstrates more than anything else that he, a one-term United States Senator who arrived in Washington in 2005 with no foreign-policy experience, after an uneventful eight-year stint in the Illinois state senate, possesses the wisdom, the clear-sightedness, and the judgment to assume the responsibilities of the nation's commander-in-chief.

Obama calls Iraq "the most important foreign-policy decision in a generation." By the word "decision," presumably, he means to refer at once to President Bush's decision to invade Iraq, Congress's decision to authorize that policy, and his own early decision to oppose any such action.

Indeed, Obama was not yet in the Senate, and the Senate had not yet voted to authorize the war, when, in a speech delivered in Chicago on October 2, 2002, he announced his view of the matter. Granting forthrightly that the Iraqi despot Saddam Hussein had "repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity," and that he "butchers his own people," Obama nevertheless held that, despite all these well-proven crimes, Saddam posed no "imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors." What is more, he added, "I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences."

Nine days later, the Senate passed its resolution granting George Bush the authority to use force to remove Saddam Hussein from power. In the Senate that day were four of Obama's rivals in this year's Democratic contest for the presidency--Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Christopher Dodd, and Joseph Biden--and all four voted in favor.1 A fifth rival, Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico, also spoke out in support of the war.

Alone among this year's major Democratic candidates, then, Obama can claim an unspotted record of opposition to American involvement in Iraq and even a kind of prescience as to the subsequent course of events there. In any account of his electoral success so far, this factor must weigh as heavily as his natural eloquence and his ingratiating personality.

But Obama's thoughts on the war in Iraq did not begin and end with that one speech in October 2002. In fact, an examination of both his statements and his Senate votes over the intervening years demonstrates something very different from the consistency that he and his supporters have claimed for him. It demonstrates instead a record of problematically ad-hoc judgments at best, calculatingly cynical judgments at worst. Even if, for the sake of argument, one were to stipulate that Barack Obama was right in 2002, what does this subsequent record say about his fitness to serve?

_____________

Almost as soon as the war began in March 2003, Obama had second thoughts about his opposition to it. Watching the dramatic footage of the toppling of Saddam's statue in Baghdad, and then the President's speech aboard the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln, "I began to suspect," he would write later in his autobiographical The Audacity of Hope (2006), "that I might have been wrong." And these second thoughts seem to have stayed with him throughout the entire first phase of the occupation following our initial combat victory. As he told the Chicago Tribune in July 2004, "There's not that much difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage."

In November, having won election to the U.S. Senate, Obama once again confirmed his determination to stay the course in Iraq in an interview with PBS's Charlie Rose. "Once we go in, then we're committed," he said, adding:

[O]nce the decision was made, then we've got to do everything we can to stabilize the country, to make it successful, because we'll have too much at stake in the Middle East. And that's the position that I continue to take....

John McCain continues his Bush-like delusional rosy view of Iraq, ignoring the grim realities:

"We are no longer staring into the abyss of defeat, and we can now look ahead to the genuine prospect of success," McCain said in a speech prepared for delivery Monday.

Despite the positive numbers he cited, 2007 - the year of the troop buildup - was the deadliest yet, and violence has resumed in Baghdad and soared in Basra."

Move-On doesn't have to run an ad. The Joint Chiefs of Staff and many of the top brass in the Pentagon are questioning Petreus' judgement themselves.

Thanks, mark -- I thought it was interesting in light of the Petreus/Crocker hearings coming up this week--what we all should be focusing on, because the outcome will affect not only the election, but our course forward in Iraq, which is very constrained due to lack of troops and equipment.

Sorry folks, had to paste the article in two pieces and repeated a graf.

"On the cheerful side, these flaks actually have no agenda of their own except successfully selling their clients' goods and services and policies to the buyers. "

Ah, indeed, Mark -- they are completely amoral. Their loyalty goes to the highest bidder -- and if that happens to be an enemy of the US -- that irrelevant to a lobbyist. They are true citizens of the world, you see. But as close advisors to Presidential canddiates, very very dangerous.

Too late for this to matter.

Clinton has run an extremely ugly and nasty, and peculiarly innefective campaign.

42 states have had their say. The race is practically speaking over.

And now she's getting rid of Rove, er, I mean Penn?

Shows some very bad decisionmaking.

Good article, drindl. Thanx. Gotta go.

people, get beyond your pettiness and focus on the danger we're in -- the Petreus Doctrine Myth:

"WEST POINT, N.Y. -- When Gen. David Petraeus testifies before Congress on Tuesday, lawmakers from both parties will praise him for reducing violence in Iraq. President Bush will try to use his popularity to bolster support for the war. Some Republicans will muse about the general as a vice-presidential candidate.

Lt. Col. Gian Gentile, a history professor here who served two tours in Iraq, begs to differ. He argues that Gen. Petraeus's counterinsurgency tactics are getting too much credit for the improved situation in Iraq. Moreover, he argues, concentrating on such an approach is eroding the military's ability to wage large-scale conventional wars.

"We've come up with this false narrative, this incorrect explanation of what is going on in Iraq," he says. "We've come to see counterinsurgency as the solution to every problem and we're losing the ability to wage any other kind of war."

Col. Gentile is giving voice to an idea that previously few in the military dared mention: Perhaps the Petraeus doctrine isn't all it's cracked up to be. That's a big controversy within a military that has embraced counterinsurgency tactics as a path to victory in Iraq. The debate, sparked by a short essay written by Col. Gentile titled "Misreading the Surge," has been raging in military circles for months.

Lt. Col. Gian Gentile argues that the counterinsurgency strategy Gen. David Petraeus is pursuing in Iraq by isn't primarily responsible for reducing violence there and that the U.S. military's focus on such tactics is eroding its ability to wage large-scale conventional wars.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff have warned recently that the military's ability to fight another kind of conflict -- say a war with North Korea -- has eroded.

At a February hearing before the House Armed Services Committee, Gen. George Casey, the Army chief of staff, said troops have been unable to train for any other type of conflict because of the short time between deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Gen. James Conway, the commandant of the Marine Corps, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that month that the focus on counterinsurgency means the Marines will "have to take extraordinary steps to retain the ability to serve as the nation's shock troops in major combat operations."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120753402909694027.html?mod=hpp_us_inside_today

AYE

Let us be very clear that PR flaks like Penn and Black and whoever BHO is using are not lawyers and they have no judicially enforceable Code of Ethics.

They view each client: HRC, Columbia; McC, Blackwater: as separate profit centers. They do not make policy. They sell their clients.

That is not a conflict of interest for them.

The Agency run by the guy from LA and his wife flaks for Ds and Rs at the same time.

It may be hard to swallow, but as drindl says, if a pol uses a big time flak, the flak's agency represents someone who would embarrass the pol.

On the cheerful side, these flaks actually have no agenda of their own except successfully selling their clients' goods and services and policies to the buyers. :-)

You're right leichtman. I wonder of Move-on is going to run another of their ads.

I doubt it.

Now we know what was on Hillary's mind when she told us in Missoula yesterday that "more twists and turns were ahead."

Montana's first expossure to the two candidates went well. Both spoke at the Mansfield Metcalf dinner in Butte. Obama spoke to a packed crowd of 9,000 at Adams Field House prior to his Butte visit and Hillary spoke to 1,500 at a meeting billed as a town hall meeting. It was really a speech in which she took about ten questions from the audience afterward.But both handled themselves well and made good first impressions.

Hillary got a little more help from Husband Bill who visited Havre, Great Falls and Helena last week. Billings is already grousing about why they the states largest city, didn't get a visit. If presidential candidates ever do come here, Billing has been the only stop. The local newspaper there pointed out quite correctly, that while Missoula may have the most Democrats, Billings is second in that regard, though Yellowstone county still leans center right. That is more national politics than Montana has had in ages. And it's still almost two months until our primary. Unless something radically changes, I expect we'll see a lot more of them as soon at the Oregon primary concludes in May.

Isn't Patreas' tesimony tomorrow and how the candidates question him a bit more important to voters then all of this silly inside the beltway discussions?

The news reports say that Mark Penn wanted out rather than he was fired. It is a little hard to believe that that would be the case since he has already been releived by the Columbian government. If the Clinton's didn't fire him, the question remains why they still need his service in any form. If he was only asked to step down and perform his duties in some other capacity it is still bad for the campaign.

Mark Penn has already made more than $10 million from Hillary's campaign for the presidency. This is 30 times more than the money his company was given by the Columbian drug lords. Now the worst thing is Hillary is still going to depend on his and his companies services for polling results. Can't she continue her campaign without doing polling for every little thing. Maggie Williams statement that her campaign will still use him for polling results tells that either the campaign still owes him large sums of money, or this whole thing about him leaving on his own is just another lie from the Clinton campaign put forth for her followers to swallow. Either way it is too bitter to swallow.

Thank you for clarifying that Penn has only been demoted; he's not gone from the Clinton campaign. One inaccuracy in your article: Hillary did not win Texas. For the primaries/caucuses, the measure of winning is the delegate count. Some caucus states don't even report the popular vote.

Given that Penn and the Clintons have been best buds since 1996, it's safe to say that they're aware of his anti-union, anti-environment, anti-populist professional work. How could Hillary align herself so closely with someone who (ostensibly) is 180 out from her own positions? We know she lied about her efforts to promote NAFTA, so we can probably assume that she also supports the Colombian Free Trade Agreement that Penn is trying to push through Congress.

Birds of a feather flock together. More on Mark Penn: http://www.prwatch.org/node/6213

this has bad judgement and broken moral compass written all over it by both clinton and penn, which leads me off the ranch a bit in asking this...is there any truth to clinton being fired by general counsel jerry zeifman during nixon's impeachment?...and, if so, why is no one running with it?...

I think this affair shows how very badly broken Washington is. These are supposedly the brightest and best and it never occurred to Mark Penn that there was something wrong in pushing a deal that his boss publicly opposed? He is a) stupid - which I don't believe b)HRC supports the deal in private but opposes it public - quite possible c)Washington has become tone deaf with regard to ethics and public responsibility- very likely.

Condi wants to be VP?

"On ABC's This Week, Republican strategist Dan Senor said that Condoleezza Rice has been actively campaigning to be John McCain's pick for Vice President.

Speaking of possible Vice President options for McCain, Senor said, "Condi Rice is an option. Tom Ridge is an option. Although, I think he'd have problems at the convention. Mitt Romney is an option. Condoleezza Rice has been actively campaigning for this.

There's this ritual in Washington, The Americans for Tax Reform which is headed by Grover Norquist, holds a weekly meeting of conservative leaders, about 100 or 150 people--including reps from Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, Congressional leaders, etc. Ten days ago, they had an interesting visit from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice."

The Republican VP must be vetted by Grover [Anarchist] Norquist, and apparently Condi has the nod..

It's strikes me just how much the DC insiders are out of touch with the rest of the world when they even suggest Tom Ridge --those who remember him at all only think of him as the laughingstock/clown who gave us color-coded 'terror alerts' and Duct and Cover.

peterdc: Obama really was a constitutional law professor; this has been confirmed by the school. (He was not on the tenure track, so his title was "senior lecturer", but that is a type of professor.) The only untruth there was when Hillary's campaign lied about Obama's background.

"Suspected Shiite militants lobbed rockets and mortar shells into the U.S.-protected Green Zone and a military base elsewhere in Baghdad on Sunday, killing three American troops and wounding 31, officials said."

This is NOT AL-QUEDA. This is SHIIITES, supposedly the US' allies in Iraq, remember? Now even the Shiites are penetrating the Green Zone and killing American troops. The security situtation is now worse than it was before the so-called 'surge.'

Well the Clinton haters are out in force again. It does get boring.

I am glad that Penn was smart enough to get out and not tar Hillary with his really stupid mistake. It was plain dumb.

But the reality is that this is not an issue that will hurt Hillary as she has been opposed to the treaty and will vote against it.

Repeating the story about the woman not getting health care is silly as is Obama's claim he was a constitutional law professor. Both untruths- who cares? Niether one of these mistruths will affect people in the long run.

The real issues are the economy and their plans for it- what they will do about Iraq-who has a better record in the Senate on working across the isle- who can do more on health care- and who understands better the levers of power in Washington. I think the answers to all these questions is Hillary Clinton. But these are the issues that the Obama folks should deal with if they want to make their case.

If you want to look at lapses in judgement i think we can point to things they have both done. Even Russert yesterday had to correct Senator Casey when he said Obama hasn't taken money from special interests or lobbyists. He has-Hillary has.

But the bottom line for me is that if you are looking at lapses in judgement I would think Obama's continued friendship and defense of his to Pastors, Wright and Meeks are much more serious. I would rather have an oil baron contribute to either of their campaigns than have people with the views and words and actions of these two Pastors be spiritual advisors and mentors to the next President.

I don't know who will win the nomination, and I want to support the Democratic nominee whoever that may be. But if it is Obama he will have to take the next step in disassociating himself from these two men and their divisive views if he wants to unite the party before he can attempt to unite the nation.

Penn was a highly negative influence on Clinton -- I think she wold have run a much better campaign without him.

I think Black is a similarly corrosive influence on McCain, causing him to repeatedly mischaracterize and distort information coming out of Iraq -- like the idea that the Sunni al queda have some sort of ties with Iran, or that al-Sadr that had called a cease-fire in the recent Basra faceof, when in reality al-Maliki himself had backed down and gone to Iran seeking for them to broker a deal with al-Sadr, which they did.

ask the average Pa voter what they think about Mark Penn and except for folks like truth obsessed with his name they would likely say who,what? People filling up their gas tanks or picking up their kids from day cae could care less.
And mark I always thpought that Kansas would be in the final 4 but was imprssed by Memphis who I am guessing will win tonight. Incidentally I don t know a single Clinton supporter that eer cared for Penn or his political judgment. Would love to see them bring in Paul Begala personally.

I am not sure whether Penn is to be blamed for the downfall of the Clinton campaign. Penn was only one of the many strategists she had. There were many including Bill who screwed up her campaign message. At this juncture Hillary's campaign does not have a single message they can fall back onto. The only message that has been consistently put forth by her campaign is the message of smearing the opponent and his message. That strategy is still in full force and is probably not going to change whether Mark Penn is in or out. That comes from Hillary's heart every time we have listened to her from day one (ie, when her husband was president). Those days everything was slated as 'right wing conspiracy'. So blaming the opponent for everything and taking credit for things that didn't happen (sniper fire), and making up stories (woman who lost healthcare) are all the different images of Hillary and not that of her campaign managers.

The hypocrisy is way too thick on this one - The Clintons are hiding their support of ALL the free trade deals - hiding Hillary's old ties to Wal-Mart.

Ironically, Hillary's one piece of "experience" - being on the Board of Directors of a major corporation - is the one thing she wants to desperately hide.

WAIT the Clintons do not want you to think about this too much - do not think about all those free trade agreements - with all the special interest money the Clintons took over the decaded to push those argreements through.

Do not think about all the jobs lost, health care lost, families strained, towns depressed, Middle American slammed.

Middle America now looks more like Arkansas than it did before 1992. Thanks to the "genius" policy wonks the Clintons who were soooo much smarter than everyone else - how much of a joke can it be ???? So now they want to give us a third Clinton term??? What else in America is there left to sell out ??? Hasn't Hillary really already done enough damage ???

This is a perfect example of the kind of conflict of interest issue that arises when candidates depend on lobbyists who cater to multi-national corporations and foreign governments. What does it say about whose interests this candidate will be serving?

It is time now for John McCain to also come clean -- to release his tax returns -- which he promised to do months ago -- to reveal his wife's investments with her $100 million dollar inheritance, and to explain his relationship with his own chief strategist, Charles Black:

Like Mark Penn, Black is a lobbyist for the mercernary org, Blackwater.

Black, whose ties with the Bush family go back to 1972, when he and Karl Rove were jockeying for control of the College Republicans in a campaign so dirty that George H.W. Bush, then head of the Republican National Committee, had to step in and sort matters out.

BKSH, the company Black founded. was representing Iraq exile Ahmed Chalabi as early as 1999 and continued doing so until the invasion of Iraq. An international con-man found guilty in absentia in Jordan for bank scams, Chalabi is most widely known for being the key pre-Iraq war intelligence propagandist who supplied skewed information to support the Pentagon's ultra-secretive Office of Special Plans and the now-discredited pre-war reporting of Judith Miller for the New York Times.

Then in the summer and fall of 2005, Lincoln Group, which had been tasked by the Pentagon with providing pro-US stories to Iraqi media, was subcontracting the work to BKSH, as the same time as BKSH was registered to represent the government of Iraq as its US lobbyist.

So you see Black was representing Ahmed Chalabi, the Iraqi exile/Iranian spy who fed us false information that was used to build a case for war with Iraq: then his company provided pro-US propaganda to Iraqi media, while at the same time, they were the lobbyists in the US for the government of Iraq.

Could you think of anyone who was more invested in starting this war, and continuing to pour more taxpayer money into it? No you can't, because Black is one of the dirtiest, most central players. His client roster also dates back to such paragons as the late Filipino President Ferdinand Marcos and several African dictators.

McCain's chief fundraiser, on the other hand is Tom Loeffler, a prominent lobbyist and former Texas congressman whose clients range from PhRMA to the kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

John McCain is the ultimate republican DC insider. If you want 4 more yeats of the same, you know where to get it.

I'm no expert, and this is just what I know from POTUS 08 radio and from Washington Week. As far as I understand the Texas results, Mul, 66% of the delegates were pledged by the primary vote, and 33% by the caucus.

Additionally, the primary pledged delegate amounts were apportioned not directly by population, but rather by the turnout per district of voters in the 2004 general election. In 2004, urban areas like Dallas, Houston, Austin, etc (the places where Obama won) all came out in larger numbers to support Kerry than did the rural and South Texas districts where Hillary won. So Obama acquired more delegates by virtue of where his votes came from, since Democrats in Hillary's districts shot themselves in the foot by voting Republican or simply not voting at all in 2004.

The caucus is evidently debatable in how much it should count, considering the Clintons threatened lawsuit if the caucus results were released the same night as the primary results (something I find very offensive, how she threatened lawsuits leading into elections in Texas and Nevada). This was not a secret though, that there would be a caucus in Texas as well as a primary. The Texas Two-Step they called it, it was campaigned for by both candidates. Their claim that the caucus was undemocratic seems ironic, since Bill Clinton himself needed the Texas caucus to win Texas in his primary way back when.

This time around though, Obama won the caucus handily, and might I add, IT WAS THE LARGEST CAUCUS IN AMERICAN HISTORY.

All things considered, Obama started the state 20 points down with only a few weeks to combat a candidate who began her political career there and had the best name recognition in the country. He finished very close in votes despite all the early voting and right-wing radio's calls for Republicans to go out and vote Hillary to keep the race from ending. He won the right districts, and his massive 'from-the-bottom-up" support overwhelmed the Texas caucus, putting him over the top. All in all, I'd say he ran Texas pretty successfully, and at worst I'd call it a draw.

novamatt,

Are we sure Penn was the architect? HRC seems more comfortable, now that she is not "inevitable", but is her arc coincidental with the decline of Penn? In any case, she may be a better candidate than her campaign reflects.

KU and Memphis were easily the best teams UT faced this year. It should be a great game tonight. I will be pulling for our conference rivals. Rock chalk, Jayhawk!

Here's the "jenius" of Penn: he had an historic candidate beloved by a vast majority of Democrats, and rather than go with the obvious, positive narrative, he strategized an incumbent/"experience" national coronation campaign (in the out party primary, no less) in an election cycle begging for an outsider, "change" candidate. Moron.

And he tried to sell this Frankenstein nightmare of a campaign with a cocktail of wedge politics and rhetorical untruths so toxic that half the Democratic Party now loathes the Clintons.

If politics were about results, Penn would be permanently unemployable.

Keep dreaming Mul.
Clinton won't be winning the popular vote, and she certainly won't be winning the nomination.

HRC's tough and determined, but she clearly has not managed her campaign well. To have so much going for you, and to come up short. It must hurt.

Almost time to rally around Obama.

I suppose this is technically accurate but misleading: "That ad ran in the lead-up to the March 4 Texas primary, which Clinton won." She won the primary but he won the caucuses held that day, and Barack walked away with more delegates after all the dust settled, so if you were trying to say "Hillary won Texas" to illustrate the efficacy of the 3 am ad, that is incorrect.

Posted by: bobscof | April 6, 2008 11:36 PM

So what you are saying is Clinton won the Texes primary?

Please you guys must have been raised by republicans or something. Hillary got the most votes that is probably how the supers are going to decide things. She needs to pick up about 1/2 million to snag the popular vote.

As a Pennsylvania voter, this story makes my decision easier. From what I've seen, of the 3 remaining candidates, only Obama's campaign has been not endured mismanagement, has avoided staff purges, and has been financially sound. That sends a signal about judgment and attention to detail.

Hasn't it already been proven that the Canadian/NAFTAgate came from the Clinton (and NOT the Obama) campaign? You cannot convince me that Clinton did not know of Penn's Columbia FTA visit and the reason for it as well! Don't be fooled - she knows EVERYTHING that goes on in her campaign...she has that Clinton habit of wanting 'plausible deniability'...no responsibility for anything - blame someone else. In the very slim chance that she doesn't know, well, she shouldn't be running for President then.

Should add that I don't think there's any doubt that the race has tightened in PA. The Clinton folks admitted as much today.

Note of caution on polling (and I'm an Obama supporter):

Rasmussen (and a couple of others, including Survey USA) uses a flawed methodology, IMO. I wouldn't put much credence in those numbers. Rasmussen uses an automated calling mechanism and no live interviewers. As a result, the sample consists mostly of self-selected, opinionated, politically educated voters, not exactly representative of the general population.

Granted, some pollsters argue that the methodology is more sound since respondents would be more willing to give their opinions to a computer than a human being.

I don't fall in that camp.

And, I vote AYE on the svreader, Thinker, rat-the, etc. issue :-)

The fish rots from the head ...

Yet another top strategist fired - does not say much for Mrs Clinton's selection and management skills, God forbid she has to answer that phone call!

A good company depends on the hiring and management ability of the CEO!

Now, when will Hillary step down ? This is really becoming pathetic. Yes Clinton supporters... we all know that Hillary has every 'right' to stay on ... just NO good reason at all. What she is effectively saying Now is that she is willing to sacrifice the Democratic Party's chances in November to insure her leverage to petition for the VP slot. That's pretty Sleazy politicking Clinton supporters and you know damn well it is. What does that make YOU at this point?

Remember when Hillary had this to say:

"Speaking about the Canada/Obama/Nafta flap, Clinton said, "If you come to Ohio and you go give speeches that are very critical of NAFTA? and then we find out that your chief economic adviser has gone to a foreign government and basically done the old wink-wink " "Don"t pay any attention, this is just political rhetoric" " I think that raises serious questions."

She went on to say, "I would ask you to look at this story and substitute my name for Sen. Obama"s name and see what you would do with this story? Just ask yourself [what you would do] if some of my advisers had been having private meetings with foreign governments."

So lemme get this straight...Clinton has been framing herself as the champion of the working class, of the rust belt unionists, and of everyone who has lost their jobs due to overseas outsourcing, and all the while her chief strategist is working on ways to get a new free trade agreement pushed through Congress?

Sounds like another day at the office for the Clinton campaign. Lie through her teeth to buddy up to those whose vote she needs, and all the while be sharpening the knife that she is going to plunge in their backs when she is done with them.

Bill Clinton is responsible for a good portion of the free trade agreements that this country is saddled with right now. Anyone expect Hillary to do differently?

Should she get elected, free trade will be one of her first major policy flip-flops.

Of course, Penn's exit may help keep Clinton from getting elected in the first place. Union folks in Pennsylvania, Indiana, and elsewhere can't be happy to hear that Clinton's minions are lobbying against them. How many percentage points is this going to cost Clinton in the upcoming contests?

And, wow, Clinton just got done embarrassing herself terribly with the Bosnia sniper fire fantasy, and now her chief strategist is dragged down for pushing free trade agreements that Clinton, at least for the duration of her campaign, opposes. This campaign seems singularly obsessed lately with shooting itself in the foot.

SVreader: U are a moron and UR obsessive anti-Obama comments are mindless, sleazy garbage that has no place in political commentary. U lost any claim to free speech rights that U might have had because UR comments are 100 percent vicious, scurrilous, lying tabloid trash aimed at dimwits. Go back to your sponsor Rush Limbaugh -- and spout your garbage to his ditto-heads. LesG

Hillary has proven once again that she has ths magnetism to surround herself with sleezeballs the likes of fugitive Norman Hsu, racist Geraldine Feraro, racist Shaheen, racist Bob Kerrey, racist Rendell, and unpatriotic Mark Penn who is working late at night to ship American jobs to Columbia. Not only that she has speech writers and advisors who help her tell war stories that are all lies.

svreader...respectful of your opinion, i must say...enough, enough, enough...people may be appreciative of your opinion, but enough of the circumlocution and diatribes...no one wants to have to wade through pages of your thoughts and research to get to the crux of the matter...cut and paste the site, not the article...can you imagine the drudgery of all of us following your lead with tidbits and tirades ad nauseam?...less is more, baby.

This is good news for me, now the other part of her team working against her, Wolfson, needs to go as well.

When you claim in a campaign you oppose NAFTA that means you don't hire people who are working behind the scenes for so-called "free-trade," the nice word for slavery.
Penn resigning is not an embarrassment nor surprise to anyone, but Cillizza's telling of it certainly is. How he could completely avoid pointing out Hillary's obvious deceit is unacceptable journalism. Are we then to assume that everything said in a campaign doesn't count? Cillizza's framing is that Hillary is "showing she's still in control of her campaign." Talk about putting a shine on a toadstool. His post is an insult to the readers and to the Obama campaign, by suggesting everyone's a liar anyway so what does it matter? It matters.

APRIL 6: A Rasmussen poll shows a considerable tightening in the primary, with a tie between Clinton and Obama:

Hillary Clinton: 45%
Barack Obama: 45%
Undecided: 6%

svreader: Your humanity called and left a message expressing deep regret for having left you.

svreader claim she/he/it is a jew. I wonder what kind of jew she/he/it is?

One last thing, svreader. I spend a great deal of time investigating the claims of the candidates, and while I don't believe any candidate is perfect, Sen. Obama has earned my respect.

The problem with you is your prejudices and your sources, which reinforce those prejudices.

I have traced several of your particular "sources" to the network of Radical Right blogs maintained by the same folks who describe Obama as Muslim, blacks as "apes," Muslims as "terrorists" and Obama as a "terrorist ape." Not a few of your sources also believe in UFO abductions and anal probes of hapless hillbillies.

You "sources" are run by and for flakes.

"Freedom of speech is a basic right."

Not when it's libel, you moron. Have one of your Ivy League lawyers explain that to you.

I fell sorry for svreader and other fans of FOX News. Despite their spins and their hate-based and fear-mongering campaign against Obama, their candidate, McCain, will have to face Obama this fall.

All: svreader has been exposed as one of many sock puppets, intent on sowing discontent. Occasionally he/she/it forgets which handle is being used, and posts a pro-Obama message. Among other fibs, his whole family was wiped out in the Holocaust, he has hired and fired many Ivy League-schooled lawyers, and has an extensive set of contacts on Capitol Hill that feed him his "scoops." Oh yeah - he insists that the truth about Obama is soon to be revealed in a book coming out any day now, but there is no finding it on Amazon.

People have had him booted, but he keeps slipping back in.

TheTruth --

You should really rename yourself "Pravda"

Your posts bear as much relation to "the truth" as their paper did.

The thug-like behavior of Obama supporters towards Clinton supporters will ensure that Obama willl never be elected to the Whitehouse.

This is America.

Freedom of speech is a basic right.

When will someone call this campaign what it is --- inept and not ready.

ripper --

I only have one identity and you have no right to have it blocked.

i haven't' violated any Washington Post rules.

You, like far too many Obama supporters, act like you think this is the Soviet union.

It isn't.

This is America.

I have just as much right to post as you do.

I'm not Anti-American, Rev Wright is.

So are you, by trying to supress my right to express my opinion.

All: svreader has been exposed as one of many sock puppets, intent on sowing discontent. Occasionally he/she/it forgets which handle is being used, and posts a pro-Obama message. Among other fibs, his whole family was wiped out in the Holocaust, he has hired and fired many Ivy League-schooled lawyers, and has an extensive set of contacts on Capitol Hill that feed him his "scoops." Oh yeah - he insists that the truth about Obama is soon to be revealed in a book coming out any day now, but there is no finding it on Amazon.

People have had him booted, but he keeps slipping back in.

svreader,

I plan to do all I can to have you, in all your identities, blocked as a user of this site. Clearly, I don't have the time or inclination to resort to the extensive sliming you do. Nor do I visit or place any stock in the Republican Radical Right, anti-Obama, un-Christian, fear-mongering, racist web sites you seem to absorb verbatim.

If your days on this site are not numbered, so be it. I find no humor in your rants. You wallow in hate and appeal to the worst instincts of humanity.

A Two-fer: Penn actually gets to stay with the campaign while pumping up Hillary's intended image of objecting to the Colombian lobbyist and the public thinks Penn is out. He's not out.

And the second one is a spin to make the public think the viciousness of Hillary's campaign against Obama was all Penn's idea.

Hillary and her team cannot be trusted. Publicly against free trade, privaetly for it. Phoney Bosnia sniper fire story, phoney hospital story, if I knew the what I know about the war, promoted NAFTA in Clinton Administration runs against it for nomination. Everything Hillary says is a lie. Only a fool would believe her and Bill.

"Why not find out as much as you can so you can make the best choice?"

Thank you. I have looked at your material, and realized that Obama is definitely the best choice.

miracle --

What does Obama's stickng with Rev. Wright for 20 years say about his judgement?

That's far worse!!!

Seems Clinton found a way to knock the stories about her taxes off the front pages.

Penn takes a demotion for the team.

That she hires people of such low-level integrity - AND stays loyal to them long past their flaws are obvious - does not speak highly of Mrs. Clinton's executive abilities.

(It's all far too Bush-like, actually, for comfort.)

Ripper, Boutan --

Why not read it?

Look at Obama's actions, not just his words.

Look at how he's changed his positions over and over again.

This election will determine who our next President is.

Why not find out as much as you can so you can make the best choice?

I suppose this is technically accurate but misleading: "That ad ran in the lead-up to the March 4 Texas primary, which Clinton won." She won the primary but he won the caucuses held that day, and Barack walked away with more delegates after all the dust settled, so if you were trying to say "Hillary won Texas" to illustrate the efficacy of the 3 am ad, that is incorrect.

NAY

As an Obama fan, I believe svreader does Hillary far more harm than good with all his rantings.

I hope he posts them everywhere.

Keep it up svreader. Obama's campaign should add you to the payroll.

bigeugene- good point. An incomplete removal seems to tilt the balance towards option two: the campaign turning into a "who's running this show?" fiasco.

Hard to see how Penn's departure helps. Yes, it takes heat off the Columbia issue. But if he's been as critical to the campaign as it seems, this is a bad time for a shake-up at the top. Two weeks to go in a must-win state in which they've been losing ground & the top guy is out the door - maybe fresh ideas are just