From Republican lapdog/leaker of CIA agent's identities, Bob Novak:
Republican political leaders are split over whether they would rather run against Clinton or Obama, but the big majority of them see Clinton as a more beatable foe. There is no difference of opinion among Democratic political leaders. They see McCain as the most difficult Republican to defeat.Keep Reading (if there's more)...
Obama has recieved a large number of endorsements from governors of red states. At Slate.com, Jeff Greenfield imagines an ad for Obama that would emphasize his ability to reach Republican voters:
It would go something like this:
—I'm Janet Napolitano, Democratic governor of Arizona—a state Bush won twice.Keep Reading (if there's more)...
—I'm Kathleen Sebelius, Democratic governor of Kansas—a state Bush won twice.
—I'm Claire McKaskill, Democratic Senator from Missouri—a state Bush won twice.
If Al Gore had won any of our states in 2000, there never would have been a Bush presidency. Instead, Democrats lost the last two presidential elections because our candidates couldn't compete in our states, and too many others.
Any Democrat can win in your deep blue state. But to win the White House, we need someone who can win our states, too. We believe that candidate is Barack Obama.
—We think so, too. I'm Tom Kaine, governor of Virgnia, where Bush won twice. And I'm Ben Nelson, Democratic senator from Nebraska, where Bush won twice.
Please: Give us a Democratic candidate who can win the states that will decide who wins the White House. Give us Barack Obama.
The head of the National Association of Women in Chicago explains how the Clinton campaign distortions made her switch to Obama.
Thanks to Ely for pointing this out to me. Full disclosure though: does look like this video does come direct from the Obama campaign.
Keep Reading (if there's more)...
Ok, as I've said McCain is the toughest candidate for either Obama or Hillary to beat. According to today's Rasmussen Poll, he would beat Obama 47-41 (six points) and Hillary 48-40 (eight points).
Hillary Clinton is currently viewed favorably by 47%, unfavorably by 51%. Barack Obama is viewed favorably by 51%, unfavorably by 45%.
Hilarious article entitled "Much Ado About Not Much" from Dana Milbank at Washington Post about Hillary's uncontested "win" in Florida, where the delegates don't count, the Dems had agreed not to campaign, but she held a "victory" party to steal momentum from Obama:
I know people are busy, I know not everyone can follow everything closely, but this is purely a stunt to capitalize on that, and I find it kind of insulting and at least a little dishonest - like a lot of stuff her campaign has been up to."...in a political stunt worthy of the late Evel Knievel, the Clinton campaign decided to put on an ersatz victory party that, it hoped, would erase memories of Obama's actual victory Saturday night in South Carolina's Democratic primary. "Thank you, Florida Democrats!" Clinton shouted to the cheering throng. "I am thrilled to have this vote of confidence."
It was a perfect reproduction of an actual victory speech, delivered at a perfectly ersatz celebration at a perfectly pretend location: a faux Italianate palace with lion sculptures, indoor fountains and a commanding view of Interstate 595. The Signature Grand ("Elegant Weddings and Grand Social Occasions") was also holding receptions Tuesday night for a pediatric practice and for a group of optometry students, but the Clinton campaign was the biggest draw: It filled the Silver Palm Room, the Golden Palm Room and the Emerald Palm Room."
Got this at ABC News's "The Note":
McCain is the toughest candidate for Obama OR Clinton to defeat, in the latest poll I saw, Obama tied, Clinton lost, but within the margin of error. Keep Reading (if there's more)...Obama travels to Denver on Wednesday, site of the 2008 Democratic National Convention, to "frame this campaign as a choice between the past and the future," per his campaign.
A (sharp) excerpt: "It's time for new leadership that understands that the way to win a debate with John McCain is not by nominating someone who agreed with him on voting for the war in Iraq; who agreed with him in voting to give George Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iran; who agrees with him in embracing the Bush-Cheney policy of not talking to leaders we don't like; and who actually differed with him by arguing for exceptions for torture before changing positions when the politics of the moment changed."
According to the Connecticut Post, in their Obama endorsment. According to polls, Clinton and Obama are tied in the state I went to high school in - 40/40 - so get out there and vote Obama!
...Years of service is important, but nothing can substitute for good judgment and an ability to lead....In 2002, when war fever gripped the nation and Democrats lined up behind President Bush and his war of choice in Iraq, Obama spoke against it. It's true, he was not in the U.S. Senate, and therefore was not under the pressure his counterpart faced. But there is no excusing Sen. Clinton for supporting a war for what was, to all appearances, political expediency. Obama's desire for higher office was apparent even then, but he did not fall into that trap.
A headline from New Hampshire's Union Leader:
Hillary's Word: It's Worth Nothing
Article goes on to discuss Hillary's backing down from earlier agreement about delegates in Michigan and Florida, which I brought up here.
Clinton coldly and knowingly lied to New Hampshire and Iowa. Her promise was not a vague statement. It was a signed pledge with a clear and unequivocal meaning.
She signed it thinking that keeping the other candidates out of Michigan and Florida was to her advantage, but knowing she would break it if that proved beneficial later on. It did, and she did.
Answer is: YES. In fact, in head to head polls with the leading Republican candidates, Obama usually does better than Clinton.
Why? Because the Republican party is pretty fractured right now, and don't have a candidate they are crazy about, but they do have one thing that unites them: Clinton hate. Obama, on the other hand, has a proven ability to reach across party lines and draw in Independents and some Republicans. Check the Chicago Tribune endorsement I linked to.
That said (and because he'd also compete for those Independent votes), McCain is the one they both would have trouble beating. In a recent poll, Obama would tie McCain, Clinton would lose, just barely (within the margin of error). Against almost every other Republican candidate, they would both win, usually with Obama winning by a greater margin. That's because we've had 8 dangerously incompetent years of Bush, and people want a change - so its the Democrats to lose (which theyve proven good at doing)
Coming later:
Some republican testimony to that fact (several conservatives have pronounced themselves to being caught up and "moved" by obama.
Keep Reading (if there's more)...
Highlights from Teddy Kennedy's endorsement of Obama at American University (along with Caroline Kennedy) - site of one of JFK's most famous speeches. It was pretty moving, and you can tell Ted is juiced.
He makes sure to specifically counter a lot of the Clinton claims - saying Obama is ready from day one, was always against the war (as he was), etc.
Full speeches:
Teddy
Caroline
Obama's acceptance
Keep Reading (if there's more)...
Interesting rundown/fact check on some of the Clinton campaign's attacks, also points out how hawkish some of her early positions were, and the contortions she goes through to deny that. From Bloomberg:
In recent debates and in an appearance on NBC television's ``Meet the Press,'' she has flagrantly misrepresented her own and her opponents' positions or statements...Hyperbole is a staple of American political campaigns. Senator Hillary Clinton has crossed the line into distortion....Although every candidate makes misstatements, the various fact-check organizations and detached analysts usually find the Clinton campaign in a league of its own. It's not the depths of the duplicity; compared to other abuses, like the Swift Boat attack lies against John Kerry in 2004, these are benign. The problem is there is a pervasive pattern at a time when voters are clamoring for authenticity.
Ok, another issue people have with Obama is they think he makes good speeches, but they ask where are his actual policies - what will he actually do? Howard Kurtz's article from today's Washington Post discusses this (I will quote):
One media narrative that seems to be taking root is of Obama as the candidate of lofty rhetoric and Clinton as the maven of pedestrian policy talk. At a rally at Furman University here Tuesday, Obama brought the audience to several peaks, raising his voice over the applause while describing how his days as a community organizer "taught me that ordinary people can do extraordinary things" and how "the dream that so many generations fought for feels like it is slipping away."
But the address was saturated with proposals. Obama called for tax rebates; a one-time boost in Social Security checks; extending unemployment insurance; mortgage aid for those facing foreclosure; raising the minimum wage; protecting pensions; and college tuition credits. And that was before he got to his support for solar and wind power and biodiesel fuel. (There was no discussion of how he would pay for all this, other than to say his health-care plan would be partly financed by ending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans.)
How, then, has Obama been saddled with an image of being long on inspiration and short on details? The answer is that journalists are not accustomed to covering a candidate who moves crowds the way Obama does, who uses speech cadences and rhythm like Martin Luther King Jr. without making his talk explicitly about race. Sen. Clinton already owned the policy-wonk slot, so by default, Obama was cast as the poetic one.
His home paper, the Chicago Tribune:
"Obama can help this nation move forward. A Tribune profile last May labeled his eight years in Springfield as "a study in complexity, caution and calculation. In the minority party for all but his final two years in the Statehouse, he tempered a progressive agenda with a cold dash of realism, often forging consensus with conservative Republicans when other liberals wanted to crusade."
If you guys didn't know, there's a bunch of spam emails (especially getting traction in the Jewish community) warning people that Obama is actually a Muslim who doesn't look at the flag during the pledge of allegiance, would swear into office on the Koran and when his secret programming is activated...will restart the caliphate from within the United States. If you didn't know - THIS IS ALL ABSOLUTE BUNK! Please send to anyone you know voting in Florida.
Check it:
"Campaign Of Falsehoods On Obama Seen Sticking" (Jewish Week)
"Sliming Obama" (Newsweek)
Keep Reading (if there's more)...
So here's what happened: Michigan & Florida moved their primaries up early in the election season. The Democratic party wasn't happy and the party (and tacitly, the candidates) agreed that the delegates from those states would not be counted. Obama and Edwards weren't even on the ballot in Michigan (although Clinton still only got 55% of the DEMOCRATIC vote - 40% chose to vote for "uncommitted"), so those delegates go to her. She's leading in Florida right now (no one is supposed to campaign there), and its a big state with lots of delegates, voting on Feb 5.
So guess what? Hillary wants to change the rules, and make those delegates count - after the fact. skeezy, in my humble opinion.
Read some here:
"Clinton roils vote dispute in presidential race" (Reuters)
EDIT: Whoops, I was wrong, the Florida election is this Tuesday along with the Republicans. Because no campaigning has gone on there and Hillary is the "name" candidate, look for her to do well and use it as a way to try to steal momentum and headlines from Obama, even though it doesn't count.
Keep Reading (if there's more)...
"Can Obama Go The Distance?" by Richard Wolffe (Newsweek)
Great revealing article about Obama, his family and his campaign, and how they really are trying to start a grassroots kind of "new" politics.
"Goodbye to All That: Why Obama Matters" by Andrew Sullivan (The Atlantic Monthly)
As the intro to the article states: "Is Iraq Vietnam? Who really won in 2000? Which side are you on in the culture wars? These questions have divided the Baby Boomers and distorted our politics. One candidate could transcend them."
Keep Reading (if there's more)...
Andrew Sullivan "The hardball master has taught Hillary well" Times (UK) A good read about the divisive political games being played.
The New York Times had a slew this week:
Bob Herbert "Questions for the Clintons"
Gail Collins "Editing Hillary's Story"
Maureen Dowd "Two Against One"
Frank Rich "The Billary Road to Republican Victory"
Newsweek
Jonathan Alter "Clintons' Patronizing Tactics"
In the NY Times:
"OVER the years, I’ve been deeply moved by the people who’ve told me they wished they could feel inspired and hopeful about America the way people did when my father was president. This sense is even more profound today. That is why I am supporting a presidential candidate in the Democratic primaries, Barack Obama."
Check it.
The San Francisco Chronicle Obama Endorsement - "Reprieve and Renewal"
Philadelphia Inquirer Endorsement
NY Observer Endorsement
St. Louis Post-Dispatch - "Barack Obama: The new generation"
Keep Reading (if there's more)...
Bill Clinton this week tried this week to blame the press for injecting race into the campaign, that Hillary's campaign was not trying to brand Obama as the "black candidate" in order to divide voters and reduce the possible broader appeal of his candidacy. Oh, yeah? Then why'd you go say this:
"Clinton campaign strategists denied any intentional effort to stir the racial debate. But they said they believe the fallout has had the effect of branding Obama as "the black candidate," a tag that could hurt him outside the South." (the AP via TPM)
As Josh Marshall (mostly a Clinton supporter) at TPM states - "guess they're really broken up about it. "
Obama doesn't always come off his best in the debates and if you're just watching the evening news or catching a bit on CNN or the Daily Show, you don't really get a sense of how great or inspiring a speaker he is. This was a great speech he made after winning a "rout" (as the AP called in) in South Carolina. Give it the time to check it out or read it (other of his speech highlights, some of which I like even more, linked below):
Hi Everyone,
