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?

A more perfect union

Morning has spoken




Obama's speech -- YouTube video link. Transcript PDF. Full text non-PDF (Courtesy Avedon). See also commentary from Watson, my good man, dday at Hullabaloo, and Glenn Greenwald at Salon. (H/t Tom).

Why We're Liberals: A Political Handbook for Post-Bush America by Eric Alterman, a review of his new book at Publishers Weekly. Need to update my reading list.

Anti-war Murtha endorsed Hillary -- Jeralyn at TalkLeft cited WashPo: " 'Her experience and careful consideration of [health care, education, the economy, and the war in Iraq] convinced me that she is best qualified to lead our nation and to bring credibility back to the White House,' Murtha said. He said he 'whole-heartedly' recommends Clinton to all voters in his state." That's some PA mojo.

Fighting for a Michigan revote: "Clinton is adding a quick trip to Detroit to her Wednesday campaign schedule in a high-profile push for a primary contest revote there so Michigan’s delegates are counted in the Democratic nomination fight." (The Caucus) C'mon, Obama. Stop resisting a revote. Go ahead. Just say it: Yes, we can!

Polls! McCain is up and beats both Barack and Hillary in favorability ratings. In PA, Clinton moves up, 53% to Obama's 41% among likely primary voters. TM

Notice to Hillary bloggers! If I'm taking TPM to task, then by jennies, I'm also holding Clinton bloggers accountable. They must end their unseemly affinity with "Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Newsmax, and Fox News as sources to buttress their arguments that Obama is an unelectable dewdrop with a hate diploma from Jeremiah Wright's religious academy." So not credible, so wingnutty. Stop it!

Unsurprisingly, I agree with Wolcott regarding Obama's speech. I also "question that a 'conversation' or dialogue about race is what the country wants or needs right now--it may be a pedagogical aria that appeals to the political media elite and other word-crafters but occupies a plane irrelevant to most people's concerns as the economy implodes." Survival trumps everything.

More Rev. Wright videos -- "The alleged 'racist' nature of the United States government has been a recurring theme in sermon after sermon by Obama's longtime pastor." (ABC News) The Wright stuff isn't going away easily.

Belated St. Patrick's Day note -- Ireland hearts Hillary: Prime Minister Bertie Ahern "called Mrs. Clinton 'hugely helpful' in the process both as first lady and as a U.S. senator, and suggested some of the criticism of her are unfair." What are the criticisms? That she exaggerated her role in the Northern Ireland peace process. Video at the link.

P-FLAG rally scared Sally! Pam reported on a gay and lesbian protest at Oklahoma City over Rep. Sally Kern's homophobic tirade. She fled. "The door to Kern's office was locked and the lights were out following the rally. She did not return telephone calls from The Associated Press to her office and home seeking comment."

Lost environmental documents -- Before you chuck 'em, it's a good idea to scan 'em for the Internet. But the EPA didn't.

Gender-bashing wingnut Laura Ingraham mocked Brett Favre for crying at his retirement presser. "All these years, and I didn't know there was a woman quarterback in the NFL." (Thanks, Amanda.)

Unbelievable headline -- Cheney again links Iraq invasion to 9/11 attacks. Isn't it about time to conduct a psych evaluation of Dick?

Why lies work: "[A] paradox of social psychology, a problem for myth busters everywhere: repeating a claim, even if only to refute it, increases its apparent truthfulness." As Arachnae said, "It all starts to make sense now, everything from the War in Iraq to Rush Limbaugh." So that's why Cheney keeps pushing that Iraq-9/11 link.

Thank you, thank you! Mary at The Left Coaster said it nicely: "Kudos to the Democratic challengers who have come up with a very credible plan for getting out of Iraq. Here's to Darcy Burner, Donna Edwards, Chellie Pingree, Tom Perriello, Sam Bennett and Jared Polis." Check Darcy's website for video and PDF of "A Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq."

A different kind of politics

A brief wrap-up for all you night owls

Steve Soto asked, "Senator Obama, did you want cheese with that whine?" as Obama attacks Clinton, dipping into the bag of the same ol' political tricks he so often promises he's not about. Oh, and of course, it's Clinton's fault as well as the media's for not having "cover[ed] the campaign properly." I don't think Obama was referring to blatant Clinton-bashing in the press or the right-wing freaktards. So could someone, please, call Barack a waahbulance. And get the smelling salts with a fainting couch for Donna Brazile before she hits the floor. She's highly sensitive to the politics of personal destruction.

Joebasic at Corrente offers some striking parallels to the campaign in 2000 vs. now in 2008. Scary!

Via Atrios, Laura Rozen adds a lengthy footnote to WashPo's publication of the sexist-laden "women are dumb" writing of Charlotte Allen. But just one thing's missing. Bob Somerby pointed out that barely a peep was uttered over the Post's equally-offensive Linda Hirshman. The explanation: "Allen, you see, is a pseudo-conservative; she writes for a string of kooky-con journals. Unfortunately, Hirshman is considered part of the 'liberal' team. In recent years, her work has appeared at the American Prospect, the New Republic, [Talking Points Memo]. Result? Liberal readers were allowed to learn half of what the Post did. They got to hear about Allen’s insulting piece, but not about Hirshman’s." Just when you thought liberal political pundits were--Ahem!--unbiased. . .Don't make us laugh.

Besides Hillary's stunning comeback, Avedon writes, "The best thing about Tuesday's results was the look on Russert's face." More goodies at Avedon's link.

This evening on CNN, I heard lots of talk about do-over primaries in Michigan and Florida. Let's hope they are not caucuses, which disenfranchises voters because the caucus system is less inclusive and prone to intimidation. For example, who wouldn't feel sheepish about standing up for a candidate that your boss hates. Secret ballots are the ticket, IMO. When I hear about all the caucuses Obama has won, I think of Geraldine Ferraro's point from this evening's NewsHour with Jim Lehrer: "There are no caucuses in November." Oops!

I also worry about a Republican governor from Florida--a state that has had its share of voting problems--bearing gifts in a contest that could decide who wins the Democratic nomination. One would hope that Chairman Howard Dean would have a plan for Michigan and Florida. But he doesn't.

A House Divided: What if Hillary loses? What if Barack loses? "Exit polls conducted Tuesday showed cause for concern among Democrats. In Ohio, 26 percent of Democratic primary voters said they would not be satisfied if Clinton won the nomination and 32 percent said they would not be satisfied if Obama won it. The findings were similar in Texas."

OTOH, Paul Krugman offered sage advice about polls: "Nobody knows anything." Word!

Yuck, yuck, yuck! Well, it isn't all that funny in reality. Chicago Sun-Times headline: "Sen. Obama, time to call us about Rezko: (312) 321-2417." Yeah, they listed their telephone number in the headline! "For months, Sun-Times investigative reporters have had a standing request to meet with Obama, face to face, to get answers to questions. . ." So why does Obama's head honcho David Axelrod claim Obama has "talked to reporters from both papers several times in several sessions about" Rezko when clearly he has not? What's Obama hiding?

How's this for audacity: Obama campaign lawyer Bob Bauer crashed a Clinton conference call. Thanks, Shark-fu! I preferred your version of the conversation. "Party unity. . . "

Oh, it is a different kind of politics depending on one's definition.

Say NO to bigotry and get America back on track

The Human Rights Campaign alerted me today to take action on the June 5 vote on the Federal Marriage Amendment. Republicans fearing losses during the midterm elections have resurrected one of their favorite boogey-men and a divisive issue--gay marriage--to distract the nation from more important congressional business--the Iraq War, immigration, energy costs, health care, and the economy.

Examine the most important issues facing Americans and you won't find gay marriage on the current list.



Only one poll back in 2004--the last time the GOP used gay-baiting to mobilize social conservatives--listed gay marriage at all and it was a low priority compared to the economy, terrorism, Iraq, and health care.


To the Time Poll's discredit, they lumped the gay marriage topic into "moral values issues," a specious attempt to frame the civil rights of a sexual minority as a "moral issue"--ugly political chicanery--which completely ignores the immorality of discrimination against a legit minority. Shame on Time.

Dishonest GOP politics and the outrageous, undocumented falsehood that allowing gays to legalize their unions will destroy the marriages of hetero people is a dubious claim. The divorce rate won't alter one bit for married hetero couples if gays can marry or legalize their relationships with civil unions. The Right's assertion that the sanctity of marriage is under assault is red herring, a diversion away from the truth, and an underhanded way to exploit the fear of conservatives to react with an emotional knee-jerk. Gay unions won't change how, when, or why heteros marry or divorce. Not. At. All.

But why bring gay marriage into the national debate and to a vote in Congress? Why now? With Bush's job disapproval at an all-time high and division within the GOP, putting FMA on the front-burner will rally the homophobic contingent of the conservative base and distract attention from Republican failures. Don't take the bait.

Do Americans truly want to codify discrimination into the U.S. Constitution? I don't think so and polls demonstrate that Americans oppose a federal amendment that takes away citizen rights. As Americans--and religious leaders--denounce the actions of right-wing efforts to keep gay U.S. citizens at the back of the bus, consider the words of the late civil rights advocate, Coretta Scott King. She didn't agree with anti-gay bigotry and her words powerfully speak the truth:

"I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people and I should stick to the issue of racial justice... But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King Jr. said, 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.' I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream to make room at the table of brother and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people."

...Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood," she said in a speech in Chicago in April 1998, just days before the 30th anniversary of her late husband's assassination. "I've always felt that homophobic attitudes and policies were unjust and unworthy of a free society and must be opposed by all Americans who believe in democracy."

But out-of-touch floundering Republicans want to hype an issue that won't affect the vast majority of Americans in the least to avert scrutiny from their abject failures in leading the nation to more prosperous and peaceful times. Republicans will do most anything to avoid accountability:

Rather than defend Bush, Rove will seek to rally the Republicans’ conservative grass roots by painting Democrats as the party of tax increases, gay marriage, secularism and military weakness. That’s where the national message money is going to be spent.

Take action and stop the insanity of Republicans off-track, heading us in the wrong direction and ignoring America's priorities. Say NO to the Federal Marriage Amendment and YES to no longer being manipulated politically. Voice your dissent and get Congress back on track and on the main issues affecting us all. Don't fall for gay-baiting and the GOP tactic to change the subject as they did in 2004. Look at what that got us.