John McCain called Wednesday for the first presidential debate, scheduled for Friday in Mississippi, to be delayed (to Oct 2 in St. Louis from what Politico is saying…isn’t that supposed to be the VP debate date? Crafty, John, crafty. They would have to reschedule that too.) and urged Barack Obama to join him in Washington for a high-level meeting of congressional leaders to address the financial crisis. Obama responded that the debate should go on.
He also scrapped a planned appearance on David Letterman. Letterman was not having that. Um…did you not realize that he would see you taping an interview with Katie Couric after your girl, Sarah, tripped up and called our current economic mess what is really is…The Second Great Depression…2008 style?? Dumb. I agree with Letterman. You don’t suspend your campaign…you let your VP soldier on…oh wait…you can’t trust her. She can’t talk to the press without talking points. Oh well!
Meanwhile, President Bush has invited both men to come to the White House today for a summit meeting with congressional leadership. He needs to invite Warren Buffet (McCain suggested this…and I agree with him on that at least).
Obama rebuffed the proposal… “It’s my belief that this is exactly the time the American people need to hear from the person who in approximately 40 days will be responsible with dealing with this mess,” he told reporters in Florida, where he has been prepping for Friday’s event. “What I think is important is that we don’t suddenly infuse Capitol Hill with presidential politics,” he said.
He also took a real shot at McCain: “Presidents are going to have to deal with more than one thing at a time,” Obama said. “It’s not necessary for us to think that we can do only one thing, and suspend everything else.”
Multitasking, John. Multitasking!! You were in the military…Good Grief!
Debate organizers also said they have no plans to postpone. “We have been notified by the Commission on Presidential Debates that we are proceeding as scheduled,” said the University of Mississippi, which was to host Friday’s encounter. “We are ready to host the debate, and we expect the debate to occur as planned,” Ole Miss said in a statement. Continue reading
Filed under drama, ecomonmic, government, news, obama, opinion, politics, society, washington dc, white folks, women, youtube
WASHINGTON (AFP) — Ex-president Bill Clinton said in an interview Monday that he was not a racist, but refused to revisit his primary campaign spats with Barack Obama’s campaign until after November’s election.
Clinton, who became embroiled in a string of controversies while backing his wife Hillary Clinton in her unsuccessful Democratic primary bid, denied ever attacking the presumptive Democratic nominee personally.
“It would be counterproductive for me to talk about it,” Clinton said in an interview with ABC television.
“There are things that I wished I urged her to do. Things I wished I had said, things I wished I hadn’t said.
“But I am not a racist. I never made a racist comment and I did not attack him personally.
Clinton accused the Obama campaign of “playing the race card” against him during the primary campaign, which appeared to strain his previously close ties with the African American community.
Some Obama backers bristled when Clinton in January likened Obama’s candidacy to the campaign of African-American civil rights icon Jesse Jackson in 1988.
Others also accused Clinton of trying to diminish Obama, the first African American candidate with a realistic chance of winning the presidency.
Is it just me or was Hillary’s exit completely ungracious? What does she mean by “suspend” her campaign?
Eh…she’s out. I will try not to talk bad about her anymore and just move foward.
Yes We CAN!
You know, I didn’t really know what to make of Hillary Clinton’s latest ill-advised comments. It’s been a long race and it’s easy to slip up and say something innocent, but damaging if taken the wrong way, so I didn’t want to jump to conclusions. The below article is a very interesting take on the whole thing. Either she didn’t know the time lines of the democratic elections she was referencing or she took a serious shot at Obama (no pun intended)…
Clinton’s Grim Scenario
(The Washington Post) – If this campaign goes on much longer, what will be left of Hillary Clinton?
A woman uniformly described by her close friends as genuine, principled and sane has been reduced to citing the timing of Robert F. Kennedy’s assassination as a reason to stay in the race — an argument that is un-genuine, unprincipled and insane. She vows to keep pushing, perhaps all the way to the convention in August. What manner of disintegration is yet to come?
For anyone who missed it, Clinton was pleading her cause before the editorial board of the Sioux Falls, S.D., Argus Leader on Friday. Rejecting calls to drop out because her chances of winning have become so slight, she said the following: “My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. You know I just, I don’t understand it.”
The point isn’t whether you take Clinton at her word that she didn’t actually mean to suggest that someone — guess who? — might be assassinated. The point is: Whoa, where did that come from?
Setting aside for the moment the ugliness of Clinton’s remark, just try to make it hold together. Clinton’s basic argument is that attempts to push her out of the race are hasty and premature, since the nomination sometimes isn’t decided until June. She cites two election years, 1968 and 1992, as evidence — but neither is relevant to 2008 because the campaign calendar has been changed.
In 1968, the Democratic race kicked off with the New Hampshire primary on March 12; when Robert Kennedy was killed, the campaign was not quite three months old. In 1992, the first contest was the Iowa caucuses on Feb. 10; by the beginning of June, candidates had been battling for about 3 1/2 months — and it was clear that Bill Clinton would be the nominee, though he hadn’t technically wrapped it up.
This year, the Iowa caucuses were held on Jan. 3, the earliest date ever. Other states scrambled to move their contests up in the calendar as well. When June arrives, the candidates will have been slogging through primaries and caucuses for five full months — a good deal longer than in those earlier campaign cycles.
So Clinton’s disturbing remark wasn’t wishful thinking — as far as I know (to quote Clinton herself, when asked earlier this year about false rumors that her opponent Barack Obama is a Muslim). Clearly, it wasn’t logical thinking. It can only have been magical thinking, albeit not the happy-magic kind.
Clinton has always claimed to be the cold-eyed realist in the race, and at one point maybe she was. Increasingly, though, her words and actions reflect the kind of thinking that animates myths and fairy tales: Maybe a sudden and powerful storm will scatter my enemy’s ships. Maybe a strapping woodsman will come along and save the day. Continue reading
Cartoon: Auth (Washington Post)
Stop already, LADY!! Sigh…the band played on.
Below is an article from Time Magazine about a new ad that will begin airing to make it appear that Obama is weak on crime and terrorism. Back in 2001, while in the Illinois Senate, he voted against a bill to use the death penalty for gang-related murders if a perpetrator was also a gang member. This is somehow supposed to suggest that he would be “as weak” on terrorism. These things get so blown out of context, but unfortunately some people don’t care about context…
An old right-wing attack dog has returned with a new target: Barack 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.”
Brown says the initial effort, a 60-second spot called “Victims,” will be aired later this month in North Carolina and e-mailed to between 3 and 7 million conservatives this week, with a plea for more funding to further spread the message. “All of the efforts I have ever done in my life have been significantly funded,” Brown claimed, though he declined to describe the size of the purchase. “This is going to be the most Internet-intensive effort for an ad debut ever.”
The new ad recounts the deaths of three Chicago residents in 2001 at the hands of criminal gangs. “That same year, a Chicago state senator named Barack Obama voted against expanding the death penalty for gang-related murders,” an ominous female narrator intones. “So the question is, can a man so weak in the war on gangs be trusted in the war on terror?”
Brown is funding the initial ad campaign through a political action committee called the National Campaign Fund, which had $14,027 in the bank at the end of March. Brown said he had established several other front groups to fund a long-range effort to erode Obama’s support, including a second PAC, called The Legacy Committee, a 527 organization called Citizens for a Safe and Prosperous America and a so-called “social welfare” 501(c)4 nonprofit called the Policy Issues Institute. Continue reading
NPR is asking…
A “drumbeat” has started to sound in the media the past week with the speech on race by Sen. Barack Obama and with the announcement of Bill Richardson’s endorsement of Obama – “this could be the beginning of the end for Clinton.”
Jim Vandehei and Mike Allen at Politico.com wrote today that “One big fact has largely been lost in the recent coverage of the Democratic presidential race: Hillary Rodham Clinton has virtually no chance of winning.”
Former Republican and Democratic strategist (in fact, he worked for the Clintons) Dick Morris said on Fox News yesterday that “First of all, he is the Democratic Party nominee. There is no way that Hillary Clinton is going to either beat him in elected delegates or persuade the superdelegates. He is the Democratic nominee.” (Morris did add that he thinks the Wright issue will sink Obama in the fall.)
Jack Cafferty, of the Cafferty File on CNN, used the phrase when talking about the Richardson endorsement and the delegate count. Specifically, Cafferty said Richardson’s status as a special delegate gives other special delegates the excuse to come out and support Obama now, despite the Wright controversy.
Toby Harnden, The Daily Telegraph’s U.S. editor since 2006, writes that Clinton has “no realistic path” to the nomination. “Unless Obama is, as the now-jailed former Louisiana governor Edwin Edwards once put it, ‘caught in bed with either a dead girl or a live boy’ she cannot overcome his pledged delegate lead.”
Slate’s Trailhead blog looks at the different ways that Clinton could catch up and pass Obama but then adds, “All this being a long way of saying, Hillary’s path to the nomination is not ‘narrow.’ It’s barricaded. Yet still there seems to be a hesitation among the media to declare Clinton dead. Maybe it’s her zombielike ability to rise again — first in New Hampshire, then in Nevada, then most recently in Texas and Ohio. But people have to understand there will be no knockout blow, no head shot. Rather it will be a long, slow exit that causes pain to everyone involved.”
But there are also two things to consider: 1) endorsements really haven’t mattered in the past. Kennedy endorsed Obama, and he still lost Mass. on Super Tuesday; 2) Clinton is way behind in pledged delegates but what about all of those superdelegates who may have benefited from the Clinton legacy in the past … and who will want to benefit from them in the future?
So what do you think? Is the end nigh? Does the Richardson announcement help Obama with superdelegates? What about Clinton’s ability to fight back again and again? (And hey, isn’t she leading in a lot of the polls right now?)
What do you think?