That would have set up a closely scrutinized and potentially explosive pairing in the midst of a presidential campaign, one in which the New York senator is campaigning for Democratic nominee Barack Obama while Palin actively courts disappointed Clinton supporters.
"Her attendance was news to us, and this was never billed to us as a partisan political event," said Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines. "Sen. Clinton will therefore not be attending."Maybe Reines doesn't understand what the word 'partisan' means. If representatives from each of the two-party political system are invited and show up, that would by definition make it 'non-partisan'. Nobody complained when Sens. Obama and McCain were within hugging distance on September 11th.
Meet the artist of the Obama posters.“It was pretty tough and hard fought,” [Senator Obama] said about the primary season, describing the former first lady as a “formidable opponent.”
He may be speaking too early, but not soon enough, for my money.
The real debates have finally begun - and they center on international dealings.Finally, the West Virginia Democratic primary was disappointing, not because of how badly Obama lost by, but for the fairly latent reasons why. But don't take my word for it... here's their words.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Economists say that's not going to happen. They say this is going to go straight into the profits of the oil companies. They're not going to actually lower their prices. And the two top leaders in the House are against it. Nearly every editorial board and economist in the country has come out against it. Even a supporter of yours, Paul Krugman of The New York Times, calls it pointless and disappointing.
Can you name one economist, a credible economist who supports the suspension?CLINTON: Well, you know, George, I think we've been for the last seven years seeing a tremendous amount of government power and elite opinion basically behind policies that haven't worked well for the middle class and hard-working Americans.
So, what I hear you saying, Senator, is that the current administration got us into this hell-hole because they listened to experts, and not because they're bull-headed ideologues who would not take suggestions from experts - and oftentimes would deliberately remove them from influence. Gosh, thanks for clearing that one up.
CLINTON: From the moment I started this campaign, I've said that I am absolutely determined that we're going to reverse the trends that have been going on in our government and in our political system, because what I have seen is that the rich have gotten richer. A vast majority -- I think something like 90 percent -- of the wealth gains over the last seven years have gone to the top 10 percent of wage earners in America.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But can you name an economist who thinks this makes sense?
CLINTON: Well, I'll tell you what, I'm not going to put my lot in with economists, because I know if we get it right, if we actually did it right, if we had a president who used all the tools of the presidency, we would design it in such a way that it would be implemented effectively.
Now, look, I have long-term plans too. I mean, it's a misnomer to say this is all that I'm doing. It's not. I have a comprehensive long-term energy plan that would go right at dependence on foreign oil. We've got to undermine this incredible addiction that we have. We use more foreign oil today than we did on 9/11. That is a disaster for America.
So, the solution is to use more, nationally-found gas? To once again destroy our land to find enough gas to last a few months? To hold off on attempting anything substantial now in an effort to attempt everything at once at a later yet-to-be-determined-time and then hope that nothing goes to pot at the 11 1/2 hour? To plan for the future by ignoring the nearly-present right now?
Brilliant!
In his 1991 book, The Reasoning Voter, political scientist Samuel Popkin argued that most people make their choice on the basis of "low-information signaling" — that is, stupid things like whether you know how to roll a bowling ball or wear an American-flag pin. In the era of Republican dominance, the low-information signals were really low — how Michael Dukakis looked in a tanker's helmet, whether John Kerry's favorite sports were too precious (like wind-surfing), whether Al Gore's debate sighs over his opponent's simple obfuscations were patronizing. Bill Clinton was the lone Democratic master of low-information signaling — a love of McDonald's and other assorted big-gulp appetites gave him credibility that even trumped his evasion of military service.Another article (this time on the division within the Democratic Party between those with a post-secondary education and those without and, in general, about demographics) by David Brooks here.
The audacity of the Obama campaign was the belief that in a time of trouble... the low-information politics of the past could be tossed aside in favor of a high-minded, if deliberately vague, appeal to the nation's need to finally address some huge problems. But that assumption hit a wall in Pennsylvania. Specifically, it hit a wall at the debate staged by ABC News in Philadelphia — viewed by an audience of 10 million, including a disproportionate number of Pennsylvanians — that will go down in history for the relentless vulgarity of its questions, with the first 40 minutes focused exclusively on so-called character issues rather than policy. Obama was on the defensive from the start, but gradually the defensiveness morphed into bitter frustration. He kept his cool — a very presidential character trait — and allowed his disdain to show only when he was asked a question about his opponent's Bosnia gaffe. "Senator Clinton deserves the right to make some errors once in a while," he said. "What's important is to make sure that we don't get so obsessed with gaffes that we lose sight of the fact that this is a defining moment in our history."...
[Obama's] point, and Bill Clinton's, is indisputable: there is a need for a big election this year...
But Obama is going about it the wrong way. "After 14 long months," he said in his concession speech, "it's easy to get caught up in the distractions and the silliness and the tit for tat that consumes our politics..." What's wrong with that, you might ask? It's too abstract, too detached. Too often, Obama has seemed unwilling to get down in the muck and fight off the "distractions" that are crippling his campaign. Obviously, this is strategy — his appeal has been the promise of a politics of civility (and as a black man, he wants to send low-information signals that he is neither angry nor threatening). But what if, after ABC had enabled the smarmy American-flag-pin question from an "average citizen," Obama had taken on George Stephanopoulos and Charlie Gibson directly, "Why aren't you guys wearing pins? Why isn't Hillary?" Indeed, this was Clinton's strategy in an earlier debate, upbraiding her questioners from MSNBC — and it may have turned the tide in her favor in Ohio and Texas.
Voters are telling exit pollsters that they didn’t much like that flurry of negative ads in the last few days. And yet a majority said those ads were very important or somewhat important in their decisions. This is evidence of what political operatives often say — that people say they don’t like it when candidates go negative and yet they do pay attention to it. In other words, it works.I fear that we may not be ready for positivism, creativity and resolutions any time soon.
Exit polls from [Tuesday's] primary... asked voters if the race of the candidate was important: 19 percent said yes, while 80 percent said no.Huh??Of those who said yes, 59 percent voted for Mrs. Clinton and 41 percent voted for Senator Barack Obama.
Of those who said no, 53 percent voted for Mrs. Clinton and 47 percent voted for Mr. Obama.
Broken down by race, 13 percent of whites said race was important to them, and 75 percent of those voters sided with Mrs. Clinton. Of the 66 percent of whites who said race was not important to them, 58 percent voted for her.
A lot of the way this whole campaign has been covered has amused me. But there was a lot of fulminating because Hillary, one time late at night when she was exhausted, misstated and immediately apologized for it, what happened to her in Bosnia in 1995.All good said and done. Except that, according to Ben Smith,
the speech where she got in trouble for “misspeaking” about arriving under sniper fire was in the morning, she told the story more than once, she didn’t acknowledge that she misspoke until more than a week after giving the speech... and Pat Nixon visited Saigon in 1969 .I guess it depends on what your definition of 'Is' is...
It is inhumane, in my opinion, to force people who have a genuine medical need for coffee to wait in line behind people who apparently view it as some kind of recreational activity. I bet this kind of thing does not happen to heroin addicts. I bet that when serious heroin addicts go to purchase their heroin, they do not tolerate waiting in line while some dilettante in front of them orders a hazelnut smack-a-cino with cinnamon sprinkles...
Then I thought: What kind of world is this when you worry that people might be ripping you off by selling you coffee that was NOT pooped out by a weasel?
[W]hile Obama's personal image is more favorable than Clinton's, certain social beliefs and attitudes among older, white, working-class Democratic voters are associated with his lower levels of support among this group.
In particular, white Democrats who hold unfavorable views of Obama are much more likely than those who have favorable opinions of him to say that equal rights for minorities have been pushed too far; they also are more likely to disapprove of interracial dating, and are more concerned about the threat that immigrants may pose to American values. In addition, nearly a quarter of white Democrats (23%) who hold a negative view of Obama believe he is a Muslim...
One-in-ten voters believe that Barack Obama is Muslim; 14% of Republicans, 10% of Democrats and 8% of independents think he is Muslim.
Nearly six-in-ten Democratic voters (57%) believe that Obama is most likely to win the party's nomination, while 28% expect Clinton to prevail. Last month, 70% said Obama was most likely to win, while 17% expected Clinton to win.h/t to Art Levine at Huffington Post
After originally refusing to play politics with this issue, it’s disappointing to see Hillary Clinton’s campaign sink to this low in a transparent effort to distract attention away from the story she made up about dodging sniper fire in Bosnia. The truth is, Barack Obama has already spoken out against his pastor’s offensive comments and addressed the issue of race in America with a deeply personal and uncommonly honest speech. The American people deserve better than tired political games that do nothing to solve the larger challenges facing this country.
It is because Obama is a black male that he has the experience that he does - that has helped to make him into the person that he is, and in his case, would make him a truly great candidate.
But, let’s take another spin at this, eh? If he were white and still came across the way he does now, still have the ambition, charisma, intelligence, talents, and dreams that he does? That’d still be historic - after all, the last two white men with that combination were assassinated in the '60s. But they had the extra backing of a paternity that designed itself from day one to reach the highest public places. You see Obama would most likely have less opposition and fewer people nipping at his heels. This election would be a rollover and my guess is that Ms. Clinton would beg to be his running mate.
