What Alegre said

For true:

[Hillary is] working her backside off to get BHO and down ticket Democrats elected and dammit - people need to understand just how hard she's working.

A few things that leapt out at me as I watched the video Alegre had posted of Hillary stumping for Obama (linked below). She is an amazingly accomplished stateswoman, an extraordinary human being committed to advancing equality for all of us. During one segment in the video filmed in Omaha, NE, Hillary Clinton spoke to the advocacy group, Girls Inc. She said:

As a nation, we do not yet fully and equally value women's work.

Later she remarked during an interview, "You know, I didn't set out to run as a woman for president but that's the only way I could run." What did she mean?

Well, I was really saying that, you know, I didn't consider myself the woman candidate although obviously I was. I mean, that's who I am.
But as I got into the campaign and realized that's how people were seeing me, for better or for worse in some situations, that there was this historical burden that I was carrying that I had not anticipated.

It became apparent that there's a lot of unfinished business in our country when it comes to gender.

And that's a fact.




I found this scene from the video especially poignant and touching. Who knows? Maybe a few of these young women aspire to being a U.S. senator, a governor, or the POTUS.

Why Democrats lose

Our most reliable witness Bob Somerby explained. Go read his entire post, "WHY YOUR PARTY LOSES! We won’t take it, the GOP said. Dems and libs constantly do," to comprehend the situation. The gist:

Press corps inanity to the side, has the media greeted Palin’s selection with sexism and elite condescension? Yes, there has been some of each–and there has been some exaggeration of same by major Republican honchos. But in all the events of the past few days, the major difference between the two parties has been made abundantly clear. It’s captured in this Politico piece by John Harris (for the record, the headline is grossly deceptive). If you want to know why your party loses, consider the highlighted passage:

HARRIS (9/4/08): As the controversy over her qualifications and McCain’s vetting process overwhelmed events here, hypocritical rhetoric was flowing at full tide on all sides of the debate.

Many conservatives, who spent a generation ridiculing the politics of victimhood and group identity, are now zealously invoking both in the Twin Cities. A common GOP talking point here is that Palin’s gender and experiences as a mother should be counted as an asset among her qualifications. At the news conference, former Massachusetts Gov. Jane Swift condemned “an outrageous smear campaign” against Palin, and former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina said, “The Republican Party will not stand by while Gov. Palin is subjected to sexist attacks.”

Let’s repeat what Fiorina said: “The Republican Party will not stand by while Gov. Palin is subjected to sexist attacks.” Remove the limiting term there–“sexist.” Thus adjusted, Fiorina’s statement explains our electoral politics over the past twenty years.

The Republican Party will not stand by while its candidates get attacked. The Democratic Party, and its major affiliates, have done just that. For years.

Fast forward to Somerby's conclusion (after he exposed the Democratic non-response to 1999 smears that President Bill Clinton was a murderer):

Now! Go back and reread Fiorina’s statement, and consider the conduct of the past several days. If you still don’t understand why your party loses, then let’s face it–you never will.

By the way, what else transpired as these Dem/liberal elements kept their traps shut in August 1999? On Fox, a gang of male pundits went on the air and mocked the way Hillary Clinton looked back in the 1970s. (They had a photograph, and it looked very funny. See THE DAILY HOWLER, 6/6/08.) And of course, all across the political landscape, the RNC and the MSM kept inventing new, bogus tales about the vile Candidate Gore. The Democratic Party never said boo about those matters either. Neither did those liberal journals. Nor those liberal columnists.

How does your political world work? Here’s how:

Sally Quinn and Maureen Dowd played the fool about Palin–and the Republican Party fought back hard. They’ve played the fool about Big Dems for years–and the Democratic Party said nothing.

Yep! There was some sexism in the coverage of Palin–and the Republican Party fought back hard, exaggerating as it did. But then, during this same campaign, a major Democratic woman was gender-trashed from December 2006 on. Eighteen months later, Howard Dean explained why he didn’t speak up. I don’t watch that much cable, he said.

As recently as last evening, some of our fools continued to say that they feel “insulted” by Palin’s selection. If they had an ounce of sense, they’d instead feel insulted by Dean.

Insulted by Howard Dean? Yeah, he thinks we're dumb sweeties. Point taken.

What should have been a Democratic cakewalk into the WH this year now rests on convincing swing voters in the upcoming debates.

The best debater the Democrats had was Sen. Hillary Clinton. She could have beaten McCain handily during the debates and in November because no one--no one--articulates the Democratic brand with more strength and persuasive conviction than Clinton.

No matter how much Obama turns to Hillary and female surrogates "to undercut Gov. Sarah Palin and Senator John McCain," the problem is...

Hillary Clinton is not on the ticket.

No way, no how, no Obama

From the convention floor after Hillary's speech, Anne Price-Mills, an African-American woman and a delegate for Clinton, summed up why she's still in Hill's camp and uncommitted to Obama (with emphasis):

Tell me, why is this so important to you? What does this moment mean to you?

ANNE PRICE-MILLS, HILLARY CLINTON SUPPORTER: Hillary Clinton proved to me tonight that she would have made an excellent president. She was presidential tonight. She's the evidence that women have come so far and to let gender be a hindrance, to let a phenomenal, an intelligent, a powerful, a moving, a motivating person not move us into the next generation, not move us into the future that we deserve, not move us into the green economy that we deserve, not being able to address the concerns that we deserve, and now everybody just want us to suddenly shift.

You just saw it yourselves. You saw it yourself; you know that was a presidential speech. You know it. When you guys look back at the end of this week and you start to tear apart the speeches and you will, you know that was a presidential speech.

She did everything for Obama that she was supposed to do. Now it's time for him to step up and do what he's supposed to do.

MALVEAUX: Will you vote for her when you cast your votes later in the week?

PRICE-MILLS: I was selected to come here as a delegate for Clinton. I will vote for Clinton.

You ask me about my personal vote in November? Obama has two months. I won't vote for McCain. But he has to get me there and I haven't connected with him. Experience speaks to me. I ask everybody all the time, I said, would you take us to heal us? Would you take somebody straight out of Harvard, even if they had the education, and put them as a CEO in the company?

MALVEAUX: Tell me the kind of connection you felt with Hillary Clinton.

PRICE-MILLS: I see in Hillary, I saw in Hillary what my potential future could be. I saw more than just dreams. I saw things that could be reality.

In her eyes and in her words, I could envision the reality of knowing that we can actually have green jobs instead of talks. That we could have the image that we once have of a United States that was respected and that went out and did the jobs that we're supposed to do on the global level. I saw the country that we strived to be and wanted to be and she could have made it happen.

MALVEAUX: Will you cast that vote for him in November? Will you cast your vote for Barack Obama in November or will you vote for McCain or not vote at all?

PRICE-MILLS: I will not vote for McCain. I will not vote for McCain. But for the first time since I was 18, and that's been a long time, I may be faced with something I don't want to have to deal with.

I've never not voted. I am one of the strongest Democrats I know. I call up all my family and say, Carl, you need to get out the house, I don't care how much rain is pouring down. I don't what's going on in your schedule, you need to vote.

For the first time I'm faced with not being a person who calls them and says go vote. They may have to call me and tell me and remind me of how hard and how long we strived to get to the right to vote, the right to be here.

Experience counts. I don't care what anybody told you. And his resume is just --

Anne Price-Mills never filled in the blank about Obama's résumé but I can guess. It's lacking.

Obama isn't the best choice for the Democratic presidential nominee at this time in history. Hillary is.

With the highest respect for Hillary's call for unity, I must be true to myself. I own my vote and it must be earned. I will not reward a party that has betrayed Clinton Democrats, turned a blind eye to sexism, and allowed a rookie U.S. senator with a thin résumé to usurp the party because of why? Money?! Sexism? Clinton-hatred? The party has disgracefully lost its way especially in taking action on women's rights.

I have previously written:

I can't speak for others but my opposition is:

• about protesting a party that's sexist, corrupt, and out of touch
  

• about throwing out party leadership by abstaining from their Anointed One
  

• about a nomination process that used undemocratic means, i.e., caucuses, that made the Democratic party's name a joke

• about the injustice of punishing MI and FL but giving NH, IA, and SC waivers when those states also violated the Rulz
  

• about the dismissal of women and the working class by claiming we have no other political option other than voting Democratic
  

• about the DNC rigging the nomination to wrangle their cash cow

• about nominating the least qualified candidate of the field

• about Obama's complicity in a dirty-tricks campaign of false racial smears, sexism, and okey doke politics

• about manipulating the press propaganda machine to favor The One

• about embracing homophobes and playing the LGBT community for suckers

• about voting for "the lesser of two evils" that insidiously enables evil, hypocrisy, and complacency

• about rejecting the extortion of my vote through intimidation and fear-mongering
  

• about protesting the abandonment of constitutional principles for political capital.
  

I'm probably forgetting other important motives, but in short, I am fed up and revolting against corruption, sexism, exploitation of racial tensions, homophobia, and the plutocracy of both parties.

I hold Howard Dean, the biased anti-Clinton DNC, and the barking mad Obama wingnuts responsible for discrediting the Democratic party that's supposed to represent liberal principles and to stand up for democratic policies.

The party should count its lucky stars that I plan to vote for down-ticket Democrats. But...

No way, no how, no Obama.

Clinton, Obama: Who can beat McCain?

Must read! Looking ahead to the general election, and more importantly, the Electoral College math, bringiton at Corrente provides a rich, lengthy analysis on who's more electable.

The last thing [Democratic] leaders want is to nominate another flawed candidate, one who can win the activist part of the Democratic Party but will fail in the general election.

Shorter version:

Hillary Clinton has the best chance of beating John McCain, and by a substantial margin.

Also check the update via Paul Maslin, former pollster for Bill Richardson and Howard Dean. His outlook on Obama's chances of beating McCain beyond 238 Electoral College votes are “a harder slog”.

Dukakis-Obama watch

With Clinton's 10-point victory over Obama in Pennsylvania, the specter of Gov. Michael Dukakis has arisen and attached itself to Obama. Dukakis, whom Poppy Bush defeated in PA in 1988, was the last Democratic presidential nominee who didn't carry the state in the general election.

Checked in at Google News and abracadabra! The name, Dukakis, popped up like a rabbit out of Obama's hat. A few articles and op/eds (Dukakis name emphasized.)...

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution's conservative columnist Jim Wooten [Bleh!]:

It is noteworthy, as others have pointed out, that Democrats are about to nominate another candidate in the mold of John Kerry, Michael Dukakis, George McGovern, Jimmy Carter and Al Gore — and one who’ll get the nomination by winning smaller states, like South Carolina, that the party has no hopes of winning in November. Except for his home state of Illinois, Hillary won the big states: New York, New Jersey, California, Texas, Florida Ohio and others essential to Democratic success in November.... ...[Obama's] base is blacks, liberals and young voters. Blue-collar workers making less than $50,000 a year, older women and Hispanics — key constituencies the party needs — aren’t with him yet.

Another conservative, David Frum at NRO, Obama = Dukakis?

Back in 1988, the elder George HW Bush defeated the Democratic challenger Michael Dukakis by convincing America that Dukakis was radically unacceptable: too left-wing, too weak, too out of touch with the values of ordinary voters.... ...So, the thought is spreading – can McCain win by doing to Obama what George HW Bush did to Michael Dukakis? If so, then his lack of a domestic platform may not matter much. Who remembers George HW Bush’s 1988 platform?

Frum concluded that Dukakis-izing won't work this time; 2008 is very different than 1988. M'yeah. But GOP smear tactics aren't.

TIME's A Willie Horton Hit on Obama?

Starting Tuesday, a group of conservative activists led by Floyd Brown, author of the famous Willie Horton ad used so effectively against Michael Dukakis in 1988, will begin a campaign to tar Obama as weak on crime and terrorism, a strategy that aims to upend Obama's relatively strong reputation among Republican voters.... ..."The campaign by Hillary Clinton has not been able to raise Obama's negatives," said Brown on Monday. "It is absolutely critical that Obama's negatives go up with Republicans."

Boston Globe columnist Joan Vennochi at the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Obama's patriotism:

Barack Obama believes his patriotism can't be challenged. Maybe he should talk to Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, and John Kerry.... ...Obama wants the race for the White House to be about hope. It probably won't be.... ...In 1988, Dukakis said the campaign was about "competence, not ideology." His opponent, George H.W. Bush, made it all about ideology. The GOP turned Dukakis into a civil liberties-loving elitist who let convicted felons free to strike again.... ...But Obama should be ready to face the political reality that accompanies some controversial choices... ...They include his decision to stay in a church whose pastor blamed America for the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001; and his association, however tenuous, with a Vietnam-era radical named William Ayers.

John Dickerson at Slate, She's Got a Friend in Pennsylvania:

Clinton has some useful data to mine in the exit polls, particularly about those blue-collar voters we've been watching all election. Obama just can't get to them. He's tried everything: policy changes, bowling, drinking beer, and shelving all talk of arugula. He still lost to Clinton 54-46 among that group. The Clinton team will argue that without these voters, Obama will be like Michael Dukakis, a liberal favorite unable to compete against Republicans in Ohio and Pennsylvania because he can't woo regular people. Obama did win these voters in New Hampshire and Missouri but hasn't won among them since the Wisconsin primary in mid-February.... ...For those still debating whether Obama's remarks about small-town voters harmed him, the data suggest he hurt himself. Among gun owners, Clinton won 60 percent of the vote. Among small-town voters, she won 59 percent of the vote to Obama's 41 percent. In previous contests, Obama's had a slim 49 percent to 45 percent edge among small-town voters. Clinton also won among religious voters.

We don't really know what the Clinton campaign will argue. Dickerson speculated. However, if Hillary ends up with the popular vote edge including MI and FL coupled with the fact that she has won the big states critical to an Electoral College victory, then superdelegates need to weigh who can beat McCain in November.

Consider this from Sean Wilentz at Salon, Why Hillary Clinton should be winning:

Apr. 07, 2008 | The continuing contest for the Democratic presidential nomination has become a frenzy of debates and proclamations about democracy. Sen. Barack Obama's campaign has been particularly vociferous in claiming that its candidate stands for a transformative, participatory new politics. It has vaunted Obama's narrow lead in the overall popular vote in the primaries to date, as well as in the count of elected delegates, as the definitive will of the party's rank and file. If, while heeding the party's rules, the Democratic superdelegates overturn those majorities, Obama's supporters claim, they will have displayed a cynical contempt for democracy that would tear the party apart.

These arguments might be compelling if Obama's leads were not so reliant on certain eccentricities in the current Democratic nominating process, as well as on some blatantly anti-democratic maneuvers by the Obama campaign. Obama's advantage hinges on a system that, whatever the actual intentions behind it, seems custom-made to hobble Democratic chances in the fall. It depends on ignoring one of the central principles of American electoral politics, one that will be operative on a state-by-state basis this November, which is that the winner takes all. If the Democrats ran their nominating process the way we run our general elections, Sen. Hillary Clinton would have a commanding lead in the delegate count, one that will only grow more commanding after the next round of primaries, and all questions about which of the two Democratic contenders is more electable would be moot. [Emphasis added.]

An aside worth mentioning: no one--Obama or Clinton--can win the Democratic nomination without superdelegates. The Obamasphere likes to disregard this fact as if Obama's pledged delegate lead is the Holy Grail, an idea propagandized by Barry's campaign and NBC. Nonetheless, it is true. The superdelegates will decide the nominee. Like it or not.

Paul Lukasiak at Corrente--an excellent blogger with both feet firmly grounded in reality--presented Survey USA polling analysis of nine states surveryed in April--CA, IA, MA, MN, MO, NM, OH, OR, and WI--compared to the SUSA 50-state poll conducted in February. Obama's ability to beat McCain is weakening. Hillary is getting stronger:

Barack Obama is hemmorhaging support against John McCain in states where Democrats can/should win in November.... ...In the last six weeks, Barack Obama has been losing support, while Hillary Clinton has gained support, when matched against McCain. Much of Clinton’s additional support is from voters who were undecided in late February, and Clinton essentially “split” the “recent deciders” with McCain; as a result there is little change in her margins against McCain. But people who were undecided whether they preferred Obama or McCain are also making up their minds – and choosing McCain. As a result, Obama’s margins against McCain are looking much worse.

Democrats may think they have the presidency sown up after the carnage and incompetency of Bush-Cheney. The GOP brand is in the tank. M'yeah. I thought only an idiot would vote GOP in 2004. So color me skeptical.

Clinton-Obama 2008. That's the ticket to decisively beat McCain.

Spinning a swan song

Pam Spaulding noted the latest Zogby poll, margin of error +/- 4.1%:

There are 8% "Not sure" with a 4-point margin of error but Pam uses this poll to question Clinton's potential success in PA: "You pair [the poll] with the fact that over 35,000 attended an Obama rally in Philly yesterday, and there has to be a certain level of panic in the Clinton camp. " Ahem. The Zogby poll was conducted in partnership with Newsmax. Newsmax!?

Also read John Zogby's footnote about the "Not sure" cohort, which he asserts are white/Catholic Democratic voters who prefer McCain in the general election. They don't like Hillary and "aren't breaking for Obama." But if they do vote, "then they will probably vote for Clinton and she can conceivably meet the 10-point victory threshold that meets pundits' expectations."

Let's review: Zogby was wrong about New Hampshire when its poll showed Obama ahead by 4 points and with 22% "Not sure." Who won NH by 3 points, a 7-point swing over Obama? Clinton.

Zogby was wrong about Ohio showing Clinton and Obama tied at 44% apiece and 8% "Not sure." Hillary won Ohio by 10 points: 54 to Obama's 44.

Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby poll showed Obama ahead in California with a narrow lead and "Obama and Clinton were deadlocked in New Jersey." Clinton won CA 52% to Obama's 43%, and Hillary won NJ 54% to Obama's 44%.

PA is a state where Obama is outspending Clinton 3-to-1 in advertising and with misleading health care attack ads and a deceitful lobbyist ad smearing Hillary when Mr. Obama himself is hooked up with Wall Street, Big Oil, and K Street. Jeebus! The denial in the Obamasphere about Barack is breathtakingly pathological, a symptom of Clinton Derangement Syndrome.

The difference between Hillary and Barry--they both accept corporate cash--is Hillary can beat McCain in November. Obama can't, IMO. Go look at what's available most recently from SurveyUSA in state-by-state match-ups between Clinton and Obama vs. McCain, a better measure than national polls unless you diss politics is local. If I get a chance, I'll post an update for folks daunted by going through each of the recent polls on NM, MO, NY, OH, OR, VA, MN, WI, KS, AL, CA, IA, KY, and WA. One swing state worth mentioning is OH: Clinton clobbers McCain, 53 to 42, and 4% of undecided voters can't make up the gap. However, Obama loses to McCain by 2 points with 8% undecided. Hillary is much stronger candidate to win OH with its 20 Electoral College electors.

In big blue Massachusetts, a primary state that Hillary won, Clinton beats John McCain easily, 56% to 41% with only 3% undecided. But Obama barely beats McCain by 2 points--in Massachusetts!--with 7% undecided voters predominantly women. Democrats solidly support Clinton, 86% of them, with a 21-point advantage over Obama at 65%. In an Obama vs. McCain match, 28% of Democrats switch to McCain. Hillary engenders more loyalty: only 12% of Democrats defect. Massachusetts is a gay and lesbian stronghold and maybe part of the Obama-McCain undecided group. What if they won't vote for the guy--McCain or Obama--with a sweet spot for homophobes? Twirl on that.

Regarding PA, take the Zogby poll--all the PA polls--with a great big shaker of salt. Pam asked in her wrap-up:

If Clinton only wins by single digits, how will that be spun?

If she wins the popular vote in PA, but the delegate split doesn't close the gap at all, how can that be declared a victory?

If she somehow manages to lose PA, how on earth will her camp explain that away?

Once upon a time, winning the popular vote was something Democrats valued as a "victory." What's changed? Seriously. WTF has changed? PA offers 21 electors via the Electoral College determined by... wait for it... the popular vote. Have a go at Fun with the Electoral College.

The question I have: how is the Obamasphere going to spin a single-digit Clinton PA win if that happens? Will they shriek their fauxgressive anthem, WWTSBQ?

Pam has applied the nicknames sHillary, "sHill," and "DOMA-wife" to Clinton for years. M'yeah. Guess we can speculate who Pam's voting for in NC, a southern state that hasn't voted for a Democratic president since 1976. I also live in a southern red-state but I cast my ballot for Hillary because I was, and still am, more confident in Clinton beating McCain in the general election especially on the economy. I considered the positive rub-off of "Clinton-era prosperity," to borrow a descriptor from Krugman--OH, PA, MI, WV, MO, AR, NM, IA, for example, voted for Bill Clinton twice, FL in 1996--and Hillary has done her own homework, differentiating herself from Bill, offering more details about her plans than Obama.

Why Democrats discount the clout of the states that can deliver an Electoral College victory and are leveraging their votes to pick Obama, a nominee who can't win the big swing states such as Florida, is as mystifying as why Hillary-hating lemmings blindly follow "The Precious" to step off the cliff. For a reality check, Anglachel offered her typically super-smart analysis on Saturday. Two brief insights: "[Obama] is as mainstream as anyone else within the party power elite, which itself is a fairly narrow slice of all possible political stances," and she described the "trial balloon sent up by the DNC" in seating the FL/MI delegation via TalkLeft. Go read both and ponder the behind-the-scenes manipulation.

For bloggers who haven't noticed or have been preoccupied due to a terminal case of CDS or OFB cha-ching euphoria, the mainstream press corps is once again playing favorites as they did in 2000 and 2004. Our clueless so-called liberal blogosphere has ignored the carnage of influencing the Democratic nomination that began Oct. 30, 2007, through November and February (see subhead, Red Faced With Rage, and for background here, also here and the media racist storyline that the fauxgressive blogosphere swallowed like candy packaged with Bill's Jesse Jackson remark here).

Did the media give John Edwards a fair shake? No. And they have treated Hillary Clinton abysmally. Now that Obama has been getting his ax Gore-d... oh, how the Obamasphere has screeched its disapproval. The liberal blogosphere should have been howling all along, a disquieting non-reaction I will never forget. When the media smears Obama, one must call it out as the despicable crap that it is. Same goes for any Democrat including Hillary. Props to Media Matters on that score. What was the A-List Blog Boyz response to the sliming of Hillary and Bill Clinton by the press? They piled on or hung a Do Not Disturb sign on their blogs and took a nap. The SCLB has failed to understand that the media hates Democrats, all of them. Look at who owns the media? When media savage any Democrat, the long-term impact undermines the Obamasphere's "Precious."

When media darling McCain takes the oath of office because Democrats allowed a flawed caucus system to disenfranchise working-class Democrats, hyped the "Holy Grail" of pledged delegates, and other silliness like punishing FL and MI to eventually crown Obama as the nominee--unforgivable if Hillary ends up with the popular vote edge--remember who's to blame. It won't be Hillary. Look in the mirror.


POSTSCRIPT: Corrente offers a glossary of acronyms like WWTSBQ.

UPDATE: If only I had checked my RSS reader before posting. Jeralyn comes through with Why Hillary Is More Likely to Beat McCain with analysis by a veteran Democratic party activist, William Arnone.

Irresponsible journalism at work

The headline reads, McCain even with Obama, leads Clinton: Reuters poll.

The article reports on the latest poll release from Reuters/Zogby.

What the article doesn't say: In the four-way match-ups of Obama vs. McCain and Clinton vs. McCain, no where in the reporting is the percent of "Other/Not sure" mentioned.

Screen grabs from Zogby below

In the two-way match-ups, just try and find the cohort that's "Other/Not sure" at the Zogby link. At least the article designated the margin of error: 3.1% among likely voters and 4.3% among likely Democratic voters.

IOW, take the poll with a big shaker of salt.

Makes the headline and the report a wee bit misleading, doncha think? Now Reuters wouldn't have a bias, would it?