Let's try to contain the Obama cheerleading to one thread (and the Clinton bashing).

 

So, please, please, please put it here.

 

ETA: All comments in this thread must (obviously) follow Soxtalk's (And the Fil's) policies about personal attacks and whatnot.

It there a 'vise versa' thread coming?

It there a 'vise versa' thread coming?

I can do one--but is anyone here (other than myself) pro-Hillary?

I'll be honest--I just want to be able to read the Dem thread without constant Clinton bashing.

I can do one--but is anyone here (other than myself) pro-Hillary?

 

Me.

I'll be honest--I just want to be able to read the Dem thread without constant Clinton bashing.

Fair enough. I would be annoyed too if I were in your shoes.

Fair enough. I would be annoyed too if I were in your shoes.

Thanks, I really appreciate that.

And to kick things off...

 

A reader points to a flap underway in New Zealand, in which Hillary -- asked by Newsweek, for a good joke -- told a fairly insulting one about Prime Minister Helen Clark, referring to her (inaccurately) as the "former" prime minister.

 

As the blogger Rachel Morris points out, the New Zealand press, but along with creating some friction with a charter member of the Coalition of the Willing, the incident points to a broader trend: Clinton, despite her image as a steady hand on foreign policy, leads the field on actual foreign policy blunders this cycle.

 

Along with the New Zealand flap, she's twice created real tension with key heads of state: Putin, who took it badly when she said he "doesn't have a soul"; and Musharraf, whose government reacted furiously when she suggested he might have had Benazir Bhutto killed.

 

She also made a fairly basic error on the structure of the Pakistani government, and more recently (if, it seems, deliberately) rattled the foreign policy establishment by openly threatening nuclear retaliation against Iran.

 

These stories haven't really been told as a narrative, because they don't fit the existing narrative. But they are, together, a fairly striking batch.

 

LINK

Show Us Some Real Money, Hillary!

 

As I suspected, the "Hillary raised $10 million online overnight" report that the Washington Post ran with earlier today was too good to be true. I don't know if the mistake is the reporter's or if someone at Camp Hillary was spinning a bit too fast, but there's no way they raised that much since her win in Pennsylvania yesterday.

 

An email from Terry McAuliffe, Clinton campaign chairman, that I received three hours ago, says "More than 50,000 people have contributed to the campaign for the very first time in the last 24 hours alone." If 80% of Clinton's donations are from new givers, that implies a total number of about 60,000 donations. If we're very generous and assume an average donation of $100, which is high for first-time donors, that gives Clinton a current take of at most $6 million.

 

Reading the Post's report from its Trail blog, which was by Matthew Mosk, it looks like the over-spin came from Hassan Nemazee, a finance co-chair for Clinton and longtime Democratic fatcat. A Google search shows Nemazee fed the same line to Business Week, which cited him for the news that Clinton supposedly took in $10 million by 2pm this afternoon.

 

Why am I bothering to knock this particular claim down to size? Because 90% of politics is about perception, and if a campaign is perceived to be running out of money, or floating in money, that affects what other people will think and do about it. Internet-driven fundraising is an amazing thing, because the costs are so low and the speed so seemingly instantaneous. But anyone who reports on it should be careful to remember that the campaigns can easily hype these numbers, and by the time anyone checks for the truth it won't matter.

 

The same is true, by the way, for the Obama campaign, as Patrick Ruffini has shown that the Obama campaign's online widget showing its donor total has occasionally behaved in odd ways. The best solution to this problem of verifiability, and the lack thereof, would be real-time donation transparency, as was practiced by the Ron Paul campaign. Unfortunately, that's hardly likely from a major campaign any time soon.

 

LINK

I can do one--but is anyone here (other than myself) pro-Hillary?

I'm ambivalent. Or maybe indifferent. I'm still not sure which, though it probably doesn't matter.

I'm ambivalent. Or maybe indifferent. I'm still not sure which, though it probably doesn't matter.

 

I used to be indecisive...now I'm not so sure.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RIP Benny Hill

The honorary "Athomeboy" thread.

The honorary "Athomeboy" thread.

what a great idea! Thanks Soxy

Great, now once again I have to think about where to put things before posting them. Is it kind of anti-Hillary or just a reasonable commentary? Argh.

 

 

This just doesn't seem fair. Obama wasn't even on the ticket.

Obama gets another superdelegate and a labor union endorsement.

That is awesome.

The biggest positive about Obama: He's not Hillary

Interesting take. There flaws in the logic (such as delegates who might switch to Clinton), but it's an interesting numbers game...

 

43 Superdelegates to End It

Obama needs only 43 more unpledged superdelegates to clinch the nomination. That's right. Not 100, not 60. Just 43. At 43 more currently-named, unpledged superdelegates, Obama and his supporters can claim that Hillary Clinton cannot win.

Hillary Clinton is Push Polling in NC

Hillary Clinton is Push Polling in NC

I'm so tired of her deceptive tactics I can't even begin to explain myself. If only people wouldn't fall for this kind of stuff.

The biggest problem with killing off the general election thread...I don't know where to put polling data.

 

Research 2000, Indiana, April 23-24 (in field post PA), only 400 or so LV's so MOE is +5, trendlines in () from same poll, earlier in APR.

Obama 48 (46)

Clinton 47 (49)

Obama campaign now pledging to use their big fundraising pool to fund a massive, 50 state voter registration drive.