Hillary still leads in key swing states

Quinnipiac University poll:

Plagued by a defection of Clinton supporters and white working class voters, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, the leading Democratic presidential contender, trails Arizona Sen. John McCain, the likely Republican candidate, in Florida and Ohio, according to simultaneous Quinnipiac University Swing State polls released today. Sen. Obama is six points ahead in Pennsylvania. New York Sen. Clinton wins handily in all three states. No one has been elected President since 1960 without taking two of these three largest swing states in the Electoral College. Results from the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University polls show:

• Florida: Clinton tops McCain 48 - 41 percent; McCain leads Obama 45 - 41 percent;

• Ohio: Clinton beats McCain 48 - 41 percent; McCain tops Obama 44 - 40 percent;

• Pennsylvania: Clinton tops McCain 50 - 37 percent; Obama leads McCain 46 - 40 percent.

In the McCain-Obama matchups, 26 to 36 percent of Clinton supporters in each state say that if Obama is the nominee they would switch to the Republican in November. Only 10 to 18 percent of Obama supporters say they would defect to McCain if Clinton is the nominee.

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.

Hillary wins Pennsylvania!

Woo hoo! Hillary is a heavyweight who can take a punch and win the big matches.

With 99% of the precincts reporting, Clinton won 55% to Obama's 45%. PAers went double-digit for Hillary. In big-swing state PA, Obama outspent Clinton 3-to-1 with $12 million in advertising and he campaigned in PA for six weeks. But she still took the state. She's a tough fighter. White blue-collar voters love her, having voted for her in large numbers, and I think they did because they identify with her grit, feel good about Clinton's strength on the economy. I don't accept the spin that these voters are largely racists.

During CNN's primary coverage John King compared Obama to Democratic nominee Gov. Dukakis, whom Poppy Bush defeated in PA in 1988, the last time a Democrat lost the state in a general election. Uh-oh. Bob Somerby of The Daily Howler predicted the media would Dukakis-ize Obama. King also said Hillary "thumped Obama" in PA. "She won the elderly vote, she won the Catholic vote... an impressive demographic and geographic sweep." She won lunch-bucket Reagan Democrats. Oh, my... that reality must have gotten superdelegates' attention.

Bucks County, where 5% of PA's population lives, broke large for Hillary. Montgomery and Lackawanna also boomed for Hillary. Bill Schneider of CNN related Hillary's win to neighboring NJ and OH, states she also won by 10%, perhaps a harbinger of what may happen in adjacent IN, WV, and KY.

The dang CNN pundit heads, David Gergen et al, said if the superdelegates give the nod to Hillary, the decision would mobilize African Americans to leave the party and anger young voters. Puh-leeze. Thank goodness Clinton supporter Paul Begalas weighed in and said, nah! Oh, no. That won't happen. Gergen later came back saying Obama's "bitter" comments hurt him in PA. What the heck do pundits know? They have written Hillary off... how many times now?

When Hillary took the victory stage, she was welcomed by chants of, "Hillary! Hillary! Hillary!" During her speech, Hillary said the "road to Pennsylvania Avenue runs through Pennsylvania!" She's "ready to lead on Day One." And the crowd roared, "Yes, she can! Yes, she can! Yes, she can!"

A few of Hillary's remarks: "You know, some people counted me out and said to drop out. But the American people... the American people don't quit, and they deserve a president who doesn't quit, either.... And you deserve a champion who stands with you.... And, of course, all across the world, our men and women in uniform, some on your second, third, or fourth tour of duty, you deserve a commander-in-chief who will finally bring you home..." An inspiring speech, the transcript is here.

CNN reported at 12:13 AM that HillaryClinton.com had raised more than $2.5 million within the past two hours.

Counting both FL and MI, Hillary moved ahead of Obama in the popular vote tally. She garnered 200,000+ in PA--1,250,193 to Obama's 1,035,361 votes--with 1% outstanding.

Still more primaries ahead in NC, IN (May 6), WV (May 13), KY, OR (May 20), Puerto Rico (Jun. 1), SD, MT (Jun. 3), and a caucus in Guam that comes up next (May 3). So send Hillary some love.

Yaaaaaaaaaa-hooooooooooo! The nomination is still up for grabs. Obama may have the pledged delegate lead, having won a lot of small states (some of which won't turn Democratic), his home state, and caucuses that disenfranchised working-class voters... but he can't close big battleground states like PA and OH. And don't forget MI and FL.

Superdelegates and the DNC need to reconsider the Cuomo Dream Ticket proposal with Clinton at the top. Obama is still too green. He would, however, make a great choice for veep helping to rebuild the damage done by Bush, working to win over voters who are Hillary supporters. Democrats could possibly hold onto the WH for 16 years.

OMG! What a history-making ticket: Clinton-Obama 2008. Democrats would win by a landslide, IMO, and shore up down-ticket races. Sure would love to see the number of Senate Democrats rise to 60.

POSTSCRIPT: Newsmax/Zogby poll was wrong unless one gave credence to John Zogby's conditional footnote as I did. H/t to TalkLeft for PA county info.

UPDATE: Heard conflicting reports about how much Obama spent on ads in PA. NYTimes reported: "In March, in the run-up to the Pennsylvania vote, the Obama campaign spent $31 million, compared with $22 million by the Clinton campaign. A large part of that went into television advertisements. According to CMAG, a firm that tracks television advertising, the Obama campaign spent $11 million on campaign commercials from March 18 to April 16, compared with the Clinton campaign’s $4.5 million."

Nora Ephron's white people

The white people of Nora Ephron's movies.

Joseph alerted me to Nora Ephron's insipid column on "White Men." The Ephron excerpts that he quoted:

This is an election about whether the people of Pennsylvania hate blacks more than they hate women. And when I say people, I don't mean people, I mean white men.

Hillary's case is not an attractive one, because what she'll essentially be saying (and has been saying, although very carefully) is that she can attract more racist white male voters than Obama can.

Oh, gawd. Go read Joseph for his political viewpoints and to get the link to Ephron's column. He's absolutely right about Ephron's implied threat, Vote as I tell you to vote, or I'll call you a racist or a sexist.

What nauseates me about Ephron? Her blindness to her projection onto Hillary of the very criticism of which she's made a career: white woman meets white man, relationship unfolds toward commitment. M'yeah. Meg Ryan, who played the romantic lead in Ephron's movies, Sleepless in Seattle and You've Got Mail, represents a white female who isn't happy without the white man of her dreams played by actor Tom Hanks. Has Ephron considered how she's contributing to the sexist, racist storyline she now decries? She depicts a world in which her main characters are all white. Have Pennsylvania voters become influenced by all the Hollywood movies that reinforce white racial hegemony? Has Ephron considered the underlying racist narratives in her films? Silly idea, isn't it?

Of course, it ridiculous in Nora's mind to entertain the possibility that PA voters prefer Clinton's policy positions over Obama's. Or maybe PA's white male voters have been repulsed by Barry's negative and dubious campaign attack ads against Clinton. I dunno. But I can say with confidence that skin color doesn't qualify a candidate to solve the economic worries that voters say are their top concern. I support Hillary because she offers solutions I prefer. Perhaps Obama hasn't convincingly persuaded PA voters on the issues more than Clinton. But to Nora, those white men in PA are racists and so is Hillary. Disregard that their voting preferences may be predicated on their wallets and who can best fill them with job income and better economic conditions.

I'll set aside the anti-feminist argument that a woman needs a man for her self-fulfillment because humans do crave companionship. How Nora represents these human yearnings irk me as a feminist. Simply, she infers sexist stereotypes. Funny that Nora hasn't discovered the log in her eye.

There's another reason to discount Nora Ephron's ramblings: she mishandles facts. In her column she stated (with emphasis):

Even around the time of Ohio, when there were primarily three candidates, the outlines were murky, because Edwards was still in there, picking up votes from all sectors.

Edwards dropped out of the presidential race before Super Tuesday on Jan. 30, 2008, when he declared, "It's time for me to step aside so that history can blaze it's path." Ohio's primary date was March 4. Hello! Earth to Nora. Edwards was not in the race "around the time of Ohio."

So pardon moi if I open a can of bwahahaha when Ephron makes an fallacious, inflammatory assertion without any proof that Hillary is saying although very carefully that "she can attract more racist white male voters than Obama can." Proof, Nora, present your evidence if you can without mangling the facts. When a pundit undertakes the serious allegation to smear a candidate implying racism, it's her job to present evidence. Subjective propaganda and opinion isn't acceptable. Show me the proof to substantiate the claim or to my thinking, the accuser is an unmitigated slanderer or a hopelessly irresponsible ninny.

Historically, white racists vote Republican (see the Southern Strategy). Why would they turn out for a Democratic primary? I can think of a reason: vote for the unelectable candidate, the one they think their GOP candidate can beat in the fall. I could speculate that spoilers are crossing over in open primaries to help Obama beat Clinton so they can vote against him in November since Clinton is more likely to defeat McCain.

Secondly, Ephron evidently lacks a depth of political knowledge to realize that playing the race card isn't a new invention used against a Democratic presidential opponent. Bill Bradley maligned Al Gore in 2000 when he "ripped the vice president for injecting racism into the 1988 campaign by raising the Willie Horton case against Michael Dukakis.” It wasn't true--Gore is not a racist--but our mindless press corps picked up the racial theme against Gore and spread it, just as our biased media have painted the Clintons as slobbering racists in this campaign. [Ed. note: Al Gore never mentioned Willie Horton in case you don't click the The Daily Howler link. H/t to Joseph Cannon in comments.]

Why liberals fall for this specious propaganda, one can only speculate, but none of the answers are good when allegedly intelligent people follow the plot lines our morally-bankrupt news media concoct. If the Clintons are such super-smart politicians, why the hell would they commit electoral suicide undermining Hillary's chances of winning? It defies logic, but don't expect to find sound reasoning in Ephron's column (or from rubes who swallow such drool).

Based on Nora's own "insights," how has Ephron exempted herself from the fact that she devises a world on film that is predominantly white-skinned? Are we to assume, based on Nora's suppositions, that she is saying she can attract more racist white movie-goers than Spike Lee can (and has been saying, although very carefully)? Goose, gander, sauce, Nora.

Ephron bemoans, "after all these stupid articles about how powerless white men are. . . after all this, they turn out (surprise!) to have all the power." You know what's ironic? The swooning of Nora's female characters into the arms of men in her cinematic works. In You've Got Mail, the Hanks character owns a bookstore chain that eventually puts our struggling heroine's independent bookstore out of business. The female lead played by Ryan can't stand the powerful businessman who precipitates her company's demise. Yet, in the end, they fall in love. Cue soundtrack, Over The Rainbow. Can you believe it? Maybe it's time to start boycotting her sexist movies where men "turn out (surprise!) to have all the power."

Why Nora continues to churn out intellectually-shallow polemics is a mystery. In her "White Men" column, I wonder if she's attempting to assuage her white guilt for having been racially insensitive in casting and writing screenplays that tell stories about white people. Just a guess. I have no proof other than her filmography, which relegates African-American actors to bit parts. To foster such an argument is as overly-simplistic as Ephron saying that Hillary can "attract more racist white male voters than Obama can."

Maybe Nora hasn't paid attention. Obama is attracting more African American voters than Hillary, but I wouldn't particularly assign a racial component to Barry's voting bloc. History-making and enthusiasm? Yes. Racist? No. Sexist? Maybe. Of course, there are racists, sexists, and homophobes. But are we to blame the candidates for how bigots vote? Not if they don't pander to them. What's also troubling is Ephron's judgment that "white men cannot be relied on, as all of us know who have spent a lifetime dating them." Ahem. Making judgmental generalizations isn't helpful in healing whatever divides men, women, ethnic groups, or any segment of our society.

I don't have time today--aren't you lucky--to analyze why women like Nora dislike Hillary enough to slime her. But there's something deeply pathological and psychologically disturbing going on. Using racial smears is ugly business. Doing so without facts is libelous.

One thing you can bet: Winged Tasmanian wombats will fly out my bum before I waste one dollar on any Nora Ephron enterprise past or future.

POSTSCRIPT: One key observation from Joseph that I failed to mention: "People like Nora Ephron do the Republican Party's work so expertly that I wouldn't be surprised to learn of a covert GOP pay-off."

IMAGE: Cropped from a movie poster of Sleepless in Seattle. Poll graphic from Yahoo! News.

UPDATE: Edited for clarity.

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.

Distortions and mocking Clinton

Katiebird at The Confluence applied a fact check to Obama's distortion of the truth about jobs during the Clinton presidency specific to Pennsylvania. Nice job. M'yeah, Obama twisted reality. Funny how his eloquence failed him. Or did it? Maybe his economic expertise goes awry because... well... does he have much?

For a national perspective, Krugman supplied a graphic on the ratio of employment to population in a tale of two administrations, Clinton vs. Bush. But to hear Obama's tall tale, "[Jobs] fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration..." Oh, really?


Lambert offered another chart.

And there's more mockery from Obama of Hillary (video). A "man of deep faith" plays politics by accusing Hillary of playing politics.

Click the links and look above at the job numbers. After watching the video, check Obama's contributors, his ties to lobbyists, and his lobbyist advisors. What about his oil company donations and his wealthy donors and bundlers? Don't they count? Or do they fall under Obama Rules.

Methinks he doth protest too much about who's out of touch and playing politics.

SUPSDD (same unity pony sh*t, different day).

Gays, GOP, GOTV

The other day Avedon posted a nifty link from Open Left on A VERY Cheap Turnout-Boosting Method Democrats Need To Embrace from Paul Rosenberg. Kewl ideas.

The GOP, however, aims to pull out the ol' gay wedge issue among others to GOTV for the election November 4.

Reuters summarized (with emphasis):

FLORIDA - Amendment 2 asking Floridians to vote yes or no to a proposal to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman will be on the ballot. Florida is seen as a crucial swing state in the presidential election.

CALIFORNIA - Signatures are being gathered in California, another important state, to have a similar proposals on its ballot. The petition must have 700,000 signatures gathered by April 28 for the proposal to be placed on the ballot.

ARKANSAS - Signatures are being sought to propose a measure to change state law to ban unmarried couples from adopting or serving as foster parents. Gay rights activists say same-sex couples are the target of this initiative.

From 365Gay, the contentious battle in Florida has provoked the usual right-wing hate speech describing any union other than between a man and a woman as "aberrant."

The Washington Blade updated the latest news on Califorina's anti-gay ballot initiative today:

...proponents of a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage are reporting that they have gathered 881,000 of the 1.1 million signatures needed, according to a report by the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation. The Equality for All campaign continues to fight the signature-gathering drive and has called on the gay community and other supportive Californians to help stop the initiative. The “protectmarriage.com” campaign called on volunteers and paid signature gatherers to turn in their petitions by Tuesday, but petitions can be turned in as late as April 21 and still count toward qualifying the amendment for the ballot. Because the proposed ballot initiative would change the state constitution, the legislature, which in 2005 and 2007 passed marriage bills Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed, would be prohibited from passing another bill in the future. And since constitutional amendments take precedence over legislation and limit the authority of courts, current cases that might lead to marriage would be stopped or reversed. The California Supreme Court is considering a same-sex marriage case.

In Pennsylvania, The Philadelphia Inquirer picked up Hillary's interview with the Philly Gay News:

She said she opposed a measure that would ban same-sex marriage in Pennsylvania. "I would be very distressed if Pennsylvania were to adopt that kind of mean-spirited referendum," she said.

Last week, The Phoenix Online wrote that "the state Senate Judiciary Committee voted to advance a bill that would amend the state’s constitution to make both same-sex marriages and the 'functional equivalent' of marriage — such as civil unions — illegal in Pennsylvania. . . Before the bill can be put into effect, it must pass the Senate Appropriations Committee and two consecutive General Assembly sessions. . .Then state residents would vote on it in a referendum. "

Arizona attempted to amend its state constitution banning gay marriage, a measure that had passed the House. But smart maneuvering by Rep. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Phoenix), who tacked on a provision "to grant certain rights to unmarried couples living together, whether gay or straight," a strategy that effectively "tied the two issues together as a single ballot question, meaning voters who want to make same-sex weddings unconstitutional would be voting for some constitutional rights for gay couples," caused AZ House Republicans to kill the bill. A similar bill in the AZ Senate will not come to the floor for a vote.

And there are those other "hot button" issues that Reuters reported (with emphasis and edited for brevity):

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION/CIVIL RIGHTS--COLORADO - A proposed constitutional amendment will be on the November ballot in Colorado that says: "The state shall not discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to any group or individual on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in the operation of public employment, public contracting or public education." ...Attempts are under way to get similar proposals on the ballot in Arizona, Nebraska, Oklahoma and Missouri. Initiatives are spearheaded by the American Civil Rights Institute.

Critics say they are aimed to end affirmative action and get conservative Republicans out to vote.

ABORTION: CALIFORNIA - Signatures are being gathered for a ballot proposal requiring parental notification before a minor can get an abortion.

SOUTH DAKOTA - Signatures are being gathered for a proposal to ban abortion except in cases of rape, incest or if the pregnancy threatens the mother's health or life. The signatures must be submitted by April and 16,776 must be collected.

Enthusiasm to GOTV for McCain needs an extra special wingnut ingredient, n'est-ce pas?

I'm proud of Hillary's stand against these anti-gay measures. My kind of candidate for president.

If you know of other ballot initiatives, send me an email or leave your comments and I'll update accordingly. Thanks!

Hillary leads in swing state polls

The results of the latest Quinnipiac University Poll (with emphasis):

New York Sen. Hillary Clinton holds a 50 - 41 percent lead over Illinois Sen. Barack Obama among likely Pennsylvania Democratic primary voters and runs better against Arizona Sen. John McCain, the likely Republican nominee in Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

This compares to a 53 - 41 percent lead in a March 18 survey by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University. In general election match ups of the three largest and most important swing states in the Electoral College, the survey finds.

• Florida: Clinton 44 percent - McCain 42 percent; McCain beats Obama 46 - 37 percent;

• Ohio: Clinton beats McCain 48 - 39 percent; Obama gets 43 percent to McCain's 42 percent;

• Pennsylvania: Clinton tops McCain 48 - 40 percent; Obama leads McCain 43 - 39 percent.

The primary vote between Obama and Clinton splits sharply along racial lines, with her advantage coming from stronger support in every contest from white voters. For example, Clinton leads 59 - 34 percent among white Pennsylvania likely primary voters, while Obama leads 73 - 11 percent among black Democrats.

"When it comes to November, Sen. Hillary Clinton's strength is a big edge over Sen. Barack Obama among white voters, who have not given a majority of their votes to a Democratic presidential nominee since Lyndon Johnson in 1964," said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute."

More than a third of voters in the three states think Obama's race is an advantage, more than twice the number who think it is a disadvantage. By contrast, roughly a quarter of voters say Clinton's gender is an advantage, and about the same number think it is a disadvantage.

"Former Democratic vice presidential nominee Geraldine Ferraro's assertion that Obama's race has helped his candidacy finds some support among the electorate," said Brown.

"At least for now, Sen. Clinton's argument that she is the better general election candidate in these key battleground states appears to have some validity," said Brown. "In this survey, her strength among white voters is why she runs better against Sen. McCain than does Sen. Obama.

"Roughly one in five Democrats in the three states say they will vote for McCain against Obama, but less than 10 percent say they would vote for McCain over Clinton. Among white Democrats, 23 percent defect to McCain in a matchup with Obama, but only 11 percent defect when Clinton is the Democratic candidate." Pennsylvania

Among Pennsylvania Democrats, Clinton leads 54 - 37 percent with women, and ties Obama 46 - 46 percent with men. Obama leads 51 - 42 percent among voters under 45 years old, while Clinton leads 54 - 37 percent among voters over 45.

By a 48 - 42 percent margin, Pennsylvania registered voters have a favorable opinion of Clinton. Obama gets a 49 - 31 percent favorability and McCain gets 47 - 31 percent.

"Sen. Clinton's imaginary snipers, Rev. Wright, Geraldine Ferraro, these events have taken only a small toll on Sen. Clinton's lead in the Pennsylvania Democratic primary," said Clay F. Richards, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

"Her strength is her clear advantage among white voters - blue collar whites, less educated whites, economically hurting whites, that group known famously as Reagan Democrats in the Keystone State. Obama is marshalling all his forces, but despite his eloquent dialogue on the race issue, Pennsylvania Democrats are unmoved. So Far."

The economy is the most important issue in their vote, 46 percent of voters say, followed by 23 percent who list the war in Iraq and 14 percent who cite health care.

Looking at the most important quality in a candidate, 30 percent want a strong leader and 26 percent want someone who is trustworthy.

Being black is an advantage for Obama, 32 percent say, while 15 percent say it's a disadvantage and 47 percent say it makes no difference.

Being a woman is an advantage for Clinton, 26 percent say, with 25 percent saying it's a disadvantage and 45 percent saying it makes no difference.

For further details, click the link to the full analysis.