David Plouffe, Obama Campaign Manager, released a memo yesterday which stated:
Now that Mississippi is behind us, we move on to the next ten contests. The Clinton Campaign would like to focus your attention only on Pennsylvania – a state in which they have already declared that they are “unbeatable.” But Pennsylvania is only one of 10 remaining contests, each important in terms of allocating delegates and ultimately deciding who are nominee will be. Senator Obama campaigned in Pennsylvania yesterday and will do so again later this week, but he will also campaign aggressively in the other upcoming states – he will travel to other upcoming states in the very near future.It added:
The key is not who wins the states that the Clinton campaign thinks are important.Doesn't the Obama campaign think that Pennsylvania is important too?
While we don't fault Obama for canceling his Penn State Beaver rally today -- he did that because he had to be Washington for key Senate votes -- we are feeling a bit neglected as an actual voter.
You see, KDKA Radio Reporter Maria Leaf mentioned during the press conference that the Obama Camp has been in talks with PA superdelegates "for months."
Wait a minute! That can't be right!
It's that awful Hillary woman who wants to play the superdelegates game, no?
Don't we keep hearing how Hillary cannot win without the superdelegates (of course it's rarely mentioned that neither can Barack).
And, it's the Obama supporters who keep saying that superdelegates must follow the wishes of their state's voters (unless, of course they're a Kennedy or a Kerry or a Napolitano . . . ).
I mean surely Obama wouldn't be lobbying the superdelegates in a state that his campaign thought he couldn't win, would he? It sounds so old school . . . so unchange-like . . . so very much like what he and his supporters criticize Hillary over.
I guess this is just another case of IOKIYB (It's OK If You're Barack)
.
49 comments:
This sniping is unattractive. Especially when it requires illogical stretches.
Six weeks of Pennsylvania campaigning means that our state is likely to get more attention than any state since Iowa and perhaps New Hampshire. Sen. Obama visited during the summer and was prevented by Senate voting from being in Pittsburgh today. He will be in western Pennsylvania often -- and in large venues -- during the next six weeks. Anyone ostensibly feeling "neglected" strikes me as a shade too needy, in one way or another.
I believe Sen. Clinton's supporters would more productively (and admirably) devote their time to describing why voters should prefer Sen. Clinton.
Maria,
And this is news? You're posts are becoming as whiny and irrelevant as Hillary herself. Compare and contrast your blog posts about the campaign with David's posts about the Obama campaign. There is a stark difference in the tone as well as the quality of the content.
So you are complaining about lining up super delegates. I see you are noticeably silent on Hilary using race politics to try and tell PA voters it is ok to not vote for someone because they are black. So I guess the corollary of your IOKIYB is IOKTBARIYAW (Its OK To Be A Racist If You’re a Women)
Yeah, I have nothing to add.
Uh, ignoring PA, then what are all those voter registration drives Obama is doing? Then why did he just open half a dozen offices across the state? Then why will he run radio and television ads there? Then why is he having town meeting after town meeting there? Ignoring PA hardly, running a national campaign absolutely.
What this is about is that Hillary hasn't paid her bills; among other things the champion of mandates owes nearly a half million dollars in backed health insurance premiums. Her campaign is cash strapped and can't afford to campaign in Indiana, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania at once. Indiana and North Carolina vote two weeks after PA. Together, they have more delegates than PA.
But, like all things Clinton, if you can't have it, break it. So now they're attacking Obama because he's raised $55 million in small donations in a month and can afford to run a truly national campaign, while Hillary is stuck in DC trying to raise what cash she can from her fat-cat lobbyist friends. Obama isn't ignoring PA.
There are a few logic errors in Maria's analysis.
First is her use of apophasis - in a blog post about how (allegedly) Senator Obama is "downplaying" Pennsylvania, she nevertheless says:
While we don't fault Obama for canceling his Penn State Beaver rally today...
The rhetorical device is used for precisely that reason: to point it out while looking like you're NOT pointing it out. It's as if in a discussion of George Bush I were to say, "Now I'm not going to talk about how he dishonestly ditched the TANG."
See? the point is made anyway.
Next is the issue with the superdelegates. Is it news to Maria that either candidate is wooing the superdelegates? Each side needs them to go over the top - that's the rules.
Is she aware, however, of Senator Clinton's plans to target delegates (delegates NOT SUPERDELEGATES) already pledged to Senator Obama?
Read about it here.
The article goes on to say that that, too, is within the rules.
The Obama campaign said that it had no plans for anything similar.
Whether it is or it isn't within the rules, it's barely anything other than sneaky and underhanded.
If you're going to win, win with some honor and decency. If you have to win by doing something underhanded like that, you'll be doing damage to the party you're looking to lead.
I knew that Senator Clinton was trying to steal pledged delegates from Caucuses who are not "elected" until the State's hold their party conventions, but I didn't know she was also openly going after pledged delegates from primaries. Thank you anonymous (whoever you may be!) for enlightening me (or maybe I should say making me nauseous with info. that I should have).
In the interest of full disclosure, I'm not from Pennsylvania. I'm from Pasadena, CA -- where the Rose Bowl Parade is. I am now left wondering why I bothered to stand in line to cast a ballot at all -- no, I'm not. This will not work. This really would be stealing an election. I can support her if she wins fair and square -- but goodness, if she does this, I will not be able to cast a ballot for her.
By the way, I am a woman, over 40 and white. -- Kim
Hillary said today that her win in MI is legitimate, since she chose to participate, whereas Barack chose not.
And his campaign even rashly dared to tell people to vote uncommitted.
As our governor said, it's so much easier to win an election against a candidate actually on the ballot than it is one with only your name on it.
In fact, is not that most underhanded and fast of Barack? He obviously was trying his sly boy tricks to hoodwink us and steal this primary all along.
Maria,
This sadly reeks of desperation.
How embarrassing this must be for you, Maria, complaining that Obama is playing by the rules while your candidate keeps trying to change the rules in the middle of the game.
You are far too bright to believe what you are putting out, so I must assume some level of self-deception or...no, I can't bring myself to call you dishonest, just desperately disappointed in Sen. Clinton, I guess.
First, it's an outright lie that Obama is ignoring Pennsylvania.
Second, let's talk about "downplaying" voters, because the Clinton campaign knows something about that.
How many times have we heard the Clinton camp say that the states that Obama has won don't matter, for whatever the reason. If it's a caucus, it doesn't matter. If it has a large African-American population, it doesn't matter. If Obama was expected to win it, it doesn't matter.
The Clinton campaign has dismissed the voters from the 30 contests Barack Obama has won(by comparison, Clinton has only won 15 contests). But Hillary's wins, or so we're told by Wolfson and Penn, count more than say, Mississippi or South Carolina or Wisconsin, Illinois, Washington, Colorado, Missouri, Virginia...
Or his victories don't count because their not states a Democrat will win in November.
How many different reasons have we heard about why the votes of Obama's states don't count? How many different ways can the Clinton campaign downplay the voters of those states?
It seems to me that the Clinton campaign doesn't like it when someone plays the same game with them.
And why shouldn't he? Even with a win in PA, Hillary won't overcome his pledged delegate lead. And there are more contests after that, so why let Hillary set this ridiculous expectation that everything rides on PA?
Not to worry! Hillary just received the official endorsements of Mayor Luke and County Exec. Dan...just in case anyone thought that she represented anything other than the status quo of the Democratic party.
If the Bushes got 12 years, then the Clintons deserve at least 16.
All for now, Air Ron's fueling up, Toby Keith's almost done soundchecking, and Hillary, Luke, Dan, and I want to do a flyover to assess the pothole disaster area that's become Pittsburgh on our way to Kazakhstan to negotiate a mine deal/new hockey area with their democratically elected president!
PA Democrat to the end...
John K. says: Barak Osama Obama has also been endorsed by Rev. Wright, who thinks aids is a Govt program to kill off minorities, Hugo Chavez and Hamas. This man is on a roll. LOL LOL
John K. says: Look at my weenie! It's not very big, but it's smarter than I am!
Any mature voter (not that all Obama voters immature or that all Clinton voters are mature) understands that a candidate is PERSON.So, when it is pointed out that Obama has engaged in courting the very people (superdelegates) that he has downplayed in the media why not deal with that truth. Instaed people resort to hurtful name calling and insinuations.He is playing rough politics. You know the kind that we are all very used to.
Just words?
Obama said he believes superdelegates – party leaders and elected officials not tied to state vote outcomes – are increasingly moving to back the candidate who has won in their home congressional district or state.
"The broader point is that there are going to be a lot of superdelegates who are examining this race as it moves forward," he said. "I think increasingly the superdelegates that I talk to are uncomfortable with the notion that they would override the decisions made by voters. And so, our position has always been clear, which is that the voters should make these decisions. Whoever has the most pledged delegates at the end of this contest should be the nominee and that superdelegates should ratify that decision by the voters. I know that Sen. Clinton feels differently. We'll see how the argument plays itself out."
[snip]
Obama also provided his view on how the system should work."The superdelegate system was set up for a scenario in which nobody had reached a majority, but there was a clear winner among the voters," he said. "And so the key was to close the gap. That was the point….It wasn't designed to override the decisions of the pledged delegates."
O M G! Obama is actually trying to persuade people to vote for him! That's REALLY dirty! Next thing you know, he'll be running advertising and making speeches -- IN PUBLIC! And all this after he never said he wouldn't!
If he were a legitimate candidate, he would be endorsing McCain, trying to steal committed delegates, and otherwise undermine party rules.
What's more, his campaign is playing dirty by spreading a rumor that he is actually a member of that priviledged group -- you know, niggers.
John K. says: It like I said. Obama got too big for his britches as far as the liberals are concerned. People of color are supposed to take advantage of affirmitive action but not to the extent that they unseat a white liberal. Just look at Clarence Thomas. How dare Obama challenge those lefties to live up to their rhetoric.
SS,
Finally! We agree
You're right, Barack will say or do anything to get elected.
What a freakin surprise!
At the same time he's publically saying that he believes that the voters should decide and that the supers should follow their will and that he's different than Hillary in that belief he's courting the supers.
SS,
This is as much of an endorsment of McCain by Obama as any claimed "endorsement" of McCain by Hillary:
March 2008: Sen. Obama claims that although he does not measure experience using longevity, if longevity is the metric to judge experience McCain would win on experience (undermining Sen. Clinton's statements about her years of experience). Obama campaign also puts out a memo in which they refer to McCain's history of "straight talk and independent thinking", which, along with Obama's character attacks on Clinton, will no doubt be used by McCain and the GOP against Clinton if she becomes the nominee.
Barack:
"And if longevity is the measure by which we determine who's got the best experience to answer that phone call, then John McCain wins because he's been there the longest."
Maria, that statement by Obama is not an endorsement of McCain and you know it, but Clinton's statements WERE favorably comparing McCain to Obama. At least be honest about this.
To put it another way: Obama was stating facts -- namely, that McCain has been in government much longer than either himself or Sen. Clinton. OTOH, Hillary was expressing an opinion -- namely that McCain is ready to be pres but Obama is not. Certainly even a partisan can understand that difference.
If you keep spouting bullshit for partisan political reasons, you'll start believing it, and yada, yada, yada, you're a Republican.
Schmuck, that statement by Clinton was not an endorsement of McCain and you know it, but Obama's statements WERE favorably comparing McCain to Clinton. At least be honest about this.
Seriously, at least be honest about this.
You're believing your buddy Howard Wolfson. Anybody who believes that guy is way,way off base. Tell us, is this the fist time you've agreed with Mayor Ravenstahl?
Maria, maybe you actually don't know it. To help you understand, please refute my second paragraph.
Why can't Obamakins just admit that He's just a man... and he knows how to play dirty Chicago politics. I wonder what would happen if the Clinton campaign questioned the loyalty of Kennedy, Kerry, and others to their voters whose states went for her? Why can Obama criticize her years of experience and she can not do the same? I just don't understand?
I challenge anyone to defend or excuse Obama's 20 year membership in this church. Watch it if you dare. http://youtube.com/watch?v=_Zs38vqJFfU It is exactly what needs to be said. If one white preacher stood in a pulpit spewing this much hate against blacks, he would not have a church, yet alone a following of any real Christian. this is not faked you guys. Imagine 20 years of sermons like this. Get Real!!!
SS,
Here's your 2nd paragraph:
"To put it another way: Obama was stating facts -- namely, that McCain has been in government much longer than either himself or Sen. Clinton. OTOH, Hillary was expressing an opinion -- namely that McCain is ready to be pres but Obama is not. Certainly even a partisan can understand that difference."
Could you supply the quote where Clinton said "McCain is ready to be pres but Obama is not" ? No, of course you can't because she never said that.
Obama has said that Clinton does not have the judgment to be president and that she'll say and do anything to be president and that McCain has a history of "straight talk and independent thinking." All opinion.
Obama has also reduced anything Hillary did as First Lady to "tea parties."
I also noticed your strong repudiation of Edwards when he played the "Women are too emotional to be Commander in Chief "card. Oh, right. You didn't.
Could you supply the quote where Clinton said "McCain is ready to be pres but Obama is not" ? No, of course you can't because she never said that.
You're kidding, right? Speaking of "crossing the threshold" in qualifications to be commander in chief, Sen. Clinton said, “I believe that I’ve done that. Certainly, Sen. McCain has done that and you’ll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy.” You can't possibly spin that to be anything else but a expression of more confidence in McCain than in Obama.
Obama has said that Clinton does not have the judgment to be president
Your turn to provide the quote.
Obama has also reduced anything Hillary did as First Lady to "tea parties."
Quote and link again, please.
I also noticed your strong repudiation of Edwards when he played the "Women are too emotional to be Commander in Chief "card. Oh, right. You didn't.
There are several problems with this. Here are two biggies:
-- As far as I know, Edwards never said any such thing, so I'm going to need still another link.
-- Whether he said it or not, and whether I repudiated it or not has no bearing on Sen. Clinton's qualifications to be president.
I'll say this, though. Any person, man or woman, who makes that claim in this day and age is a person who is unqualified to hold public office or a leadership position of any kind. If Sen. Edwards said that, I repudiate his statement -- and him -- in the strongest terms.
Two more things:
-- You and the senator need to understand that an Obama weakness does not equate to a Clinton strength. "He's bad" does not make The Monster good.
-- If you insist on taking this argument to a personal level, I will be most happy to oblige you, but I don't think either of us wants to turn you into another John K.
Get some of Rev. jeramiah Wright's sermons and listen to that for 20 years, have your kids listen every Sunday. Can you defend this kind of hatred and blasphemy coming from a Christian. I was fence-sitting, but now I'm not. Obama cannot be an American patriot and have this man as his inspiration. Maybe that doesn't make Hillary better, but it sure cancels my vote for Obama.
Maria don't let those guys intimidate you. I have a feeling they are all John K. in disguise.
"He's bad" does not make The Monster good.
-- If you insist on taking this argument to a personal level, I will be most happy to oblige you, but I don't think either of us wants to turn you into another John K.
The Monster.
Yeah, right.
You're certainly basing your arguments on the facts.
Personal?
I'm the one being called a racist women in this thread (no, not by you).
Obama cannot be an American patriot and have this man as his inspiration. Maybe that doesn't make Hillary better, but it sure cancels my vote for Obama.
I completely disagree with the first sentence but if it were true I would agree completely with the second. That's my point.
Maria don't let those guys intimidate you.
Speaking strictly for myself, I have no intention to intimidate Maria. Maria is a terrific person. She's just dead wrong about Sen. Clinton.
From my point of view, Sen. Clinton has demonstrated her monstrousness and her unsuitability to hold public office and the trust of her party.
Personal?
Yeah, personal. You were clearly questioning my feminist credentials. That's personal. You know me better than that. Please stop it.
The path to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue goes through Pennsylvania so if Barack Obama can't win there, how will he win the general election?
Obama Snarkery;
[Answer: I suppose by holding obviously Democratic states like California and New York, and beating McCain in swing states like Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Virginia and Wisconsin where Clinton lost to Obama by mostly crushing margins. But good question.]
Penn/ Wolfson Desperation:
After setbacks in Ohio and Texas, Barack Obama needs to demonstrate that he can win the state of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania is the last state with more than 15 electoral votes on the primary calendar and Barack Obama has lost six of the seven other largest states so far - every state except his home state of Illinois.
Killer Obama Camp Snarkery
[If you define "setback" as netting enough delegates out of our 20-plus-point wins in Mississippi and Wyoming to completely erase any delegate advantage the Clinton campaign earned out of March 4th, then yeah, we feel pretty setback.]
Vain attempt to justify H's campaign managers' exorbitant paychecks:
Pennsylvania is of particular importance, along with Ohio, Florida and Michigan, because it is dominated by the swing voters who are critical to a Democratic victory in November. No Democrat has won the presidency without winning Pennsylvania since 1948. And no candidate has won the Democratic nomination without winning Pennsylvania since 1972.
Glorious, almost college days' snarkery:
[What the Clinton campaign secretly means: PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT WE'VE LOST 14 OF THE LAST 17 CONTESTS AND SAID THAT MICHIGAN AND FLORIDA WOULDN'T COUNT FOR ANYTHING. Also, we're still trying to wrap our minds around the amazing coincidence that the only "important" states in the nominating process are the ones that Clinton won.]
But the Obama campaign has just announced that it is turning its attention away from Pennsylvania.
[Huh?]
"This is not a strategy that can beat John McCain in November."
And finally...
[I don't think Clinton's strategy of losing in state after state after promising more of the same politics is working all that well either.]
SS,
I did post on Edwards remark:
"...and it sure looks like John Edwards fucked up royally when he responded to Hillary's barely welling up for a second by playing the "Women are too emotional to be Commander in Chief card" or as Nation columnist Katha Pollitt put it:
John Edwards just lost my vote. How dare he take cheap shots at Hillary Clinton for letting her eyes mist over (not "crying" as was widely reported) at a meeting with voters in Portsmouth NH earlier today? This is a man who has used his most private tragedies--his wife's cancer, his son's fatal accident -- in his campaign in a way that had a woman done the same she would surely be accused of "oprahfying' the lofty realm of politics. This is also the man who promoted himself early on as the real women's candidate, and who has repeatedly used his likeable wife to humanize his rather slick and one-dimensional persona. Today he deployed against Hillary the oldest, dumbest canard about women: they're too emotional to hold power."
You read it and commented (see here):
http://2politicaljunkies.blogspot.com/2008/01/vagina-americans-have-their-say.html
Here's what Edwards said:
Edwards, speaking at a press availability in Laconia, New Hampshire, offered little sympathy and pounced on the opportunity to bring into question Clinton's ability to endure the stresses of the presidency. Edwards responded, 'I think what we need in a commander-in-chief is strength and resolve, and presidential campaigns are tough business, but being president of the United States is also tough business.'"
Paranoia must have taken a very firm foothold in your soul, Maria, to translate "I think what we need in a commander-in-chief is strength and resolve" into "Women are too emotional to be Commander in Chief."
But suppose Edwards DID say that in so many words. Suppose he actually said, "Women are too emotional to be Commander in Chief, and Hillary Clinton is a very emotional woman." Does that mean that she IS qualified? C'mon.
BTW, my comment in that thread had nothing to do with the subject matter itself. I was responding to the over-caffeinated tone of Cynthia's hysterical rant. (Now please accuse me of calling all women hysterical.)
How come all the local politicians you like and respect are lining up behind Obama, and all of the local politicians you seem to loathe are lining up behind Clinton?
I'm voting for Barack. As for him ignoring this state, well, we've five weeks to go, so there'll be plenty of time to see him. At this point it's more a matter of him limiting her margin of victory in the primary. In the meantime, he keeps gathering money, endoresements, and delegate pledges. He's going to be the nominee and that's that.
- Shawn
Let's see, Obama has 400+ paid staffers throughout Western PA alone. He even has staffers that are helping us here in the South Hills. Tomorrow you can see for yourself how the Obama campaign is ignoring Pittsburgh and the rest of the state when 500+ volunteers descend on the St. Patties day parade tomorrow.
(Almost)Breaking News:
Hillary not only did not create S-CHIP, as she claims in her campaign's mark of supposed greatest strength, but was actually part of a White House effort to oppose what was in fact Sen. Kennedy's work.
First the foreign policy experience evaporates like a charade, and now this...
What's left to her candicacy?
...Maria...?
"The White House wasn't for it. We really roughed them up" in trying to get it approved over the Clinton administration's objections, Hatch said in an interview. "She may have done some advocacy [privately] over at the White House, but I'm not aware of it."
"I do like her," Hatch said of Hillary Clinton. "We all care about children. But does she deserve credit for SCHIP? No - Teddy does, but she doesn't."
Read what wikipedia has to say about S-CHIP here.
And
Associated Press:
"The children's health program wouldn't be in existence today if we didn't have Hillary pushing for it from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue," Kennedy told The Associated Press.
President Clinton signed the bill in August 1997.
While Kennedy is widely viewed as the driving force behind the program, by all accounts the former first lady's pressure was crucial.
"She wasn't a legislator, she didn't write the law, and she wasn't the president, so she didn't make the decisions," says Nick Littlefield, then a senior health adviser to Kennedy. "But we relied on her, worked with her and she was pivotal in encouraging the White House to do it."
___
Associated Press Writer Andrew DeMillo in Little Rock, Ark., contributed to this report.
© 2007 Associated Press.
haha you guys crack me up. as soon as maria agrees with me you all hate her. its like when dowd supports the mayor 1 out of 10 times and you hate him. wow, quite petty!
SS,
'Paranoia must have taken a very firm foothold in your soul, Maria, to translate "I think what we need in a commander-in-chief is strength and resolve" into "Women are too emotional to be Commander in Chief."'
Gee, I surpised you didn't say "hysteria" instead of paranoia. He said this in the context of a 24 hour news cycle of of video of Clinton "crying" (not)and I was far from the only women who got his message. If you go back to my original post, you'll see that Edwards support from women evaporated overnight.
We got it, even if you cna't or want to say you can't.
You people are determined to be insulted, aren't you? You're right. I should have called it hysterical paranoia.
I am so disappointed in you, Maria.
The truth is finally starting to come out and the "truth will set you free". America, wake up and smell the coffee. OB not on the level on this or much else it seems. He only speaks the truth when caught. How much more is lingering out there for the Republicans to mop-up the floor with him if, and that's a big IF, he were to survive this unforgivable affiliation with his pastor? Our country needs "US" to stand-up for her now. Our future lingers in the balance of the impending primaries & general election. We need a President to restore our standing at home and abroad. We need Hillary, not inexperience & a very questionable past, or Sen. more of the same, McCain.
The man of the Hour is not Hillary nor Mccain, their time has come and gone; the man of the hour is a black man with a white mother and he inspires us to belive in this country and its people. he believes in the 50 state election not an election of choice states.
But even as great a dreamer as he is he cannot dream of being in two places at the same time, and therefore his wife covers him when he is elsewhere.
that he has sweeped the Bushes, macCains, and Clintons out of their seats is not an overstatement but that he has exposed the hypocracy of politics and corporate rule over modern day America is his biggest achievement.
Do you think Spitzer would have been exposed if theri was fear of Hillary and Bill coming back, i don't think so!
No more Monica, Jessicah, Kristen in the white house, and no more alcoholics; screaming women womem and stepford wives in the white house, let a new dawn erupt in the white house with a new sort of life to wake up to how about that?
Would that not be something like opening a new present every day, rather than the same cigar in Monica Lewinsky's mouth?
Post a Comment