Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 02:48 pm Post subject: Who will tell Mrs. Clinton that it is over?
The Clintons are 8 points ahead of Mr. Obama in Ohio and people are wondering which version of Hilliary Clinton will show up at the debate.
Quote:
The Swamp: Ohio Poll: Clinton leads Obama in critical contest
The Ohio debate also raises the question of which Clinton will show up:
The smiling, conciliatory Clinton who debated Obama in Texas last week in a largely civil encounter in which both refrained from bitter campaign-trail rhetoric.
Or the explosive Clinton who declared, “Shame on you, Barack Obama,’’ on the road in recent days, complaining about campaign mailings which the Obama camp has sent to voters â€" and the derisive Clinton who mocks the platitudes of the Obama campaign as playing to some sort of “celestial-choir’’ vision of miraculous results with empty rhetoric.
The Ohio Poll suggests that Clinton might want to play the debate presidentially -- firm, but without the appearance of worry about any threat in her highly successful rival. Obama is likely to reprise his own appearance in Texas last week, playing to the same level of confidence. . . .
it won't matter which Clinton shows up, it won't be the same version that leaves.
Quote:
Robert D. Novak - Who Will Tell Hillary? - washingtonpost.com
Even before Sen. Barack Obama won his ninth straight contest against Sen. Hillary Clinton, in Wisconsin last Tuesday, wise old heads in the Democratic Party were asking this question: Who will tell her that it's over, that she cannot win the presidential nomination and that the sooner she leaves the race, the more it will improve the party's chances of defeating Sen. John McCain in November?
In an ideal though unattainable world, Clinton would have dropped out when it became clear even before Wisconsin that she could not be nominated. The nightmare scenario was that she would win in Wisconsin, claiming a "comeback" that would propel her to narrow victories in Texas and Ohio on March 4. That still would not have cut her a path to the nomination. But telling her then to end her candidacy and avoiding a bloody battle stretching to the party's national convention in Denver might not have been achievable.
The Democratic dilemma recalls the Republican problem, in a much different context, 34 years ago, when GOP graybeards asked: "Who will bell the cat?" -- or, go to Richard Nixon and inform him that he had lost his support in the party and must resign the presidency. Sen. Barry Goldwater successfully performed that mission in 1974, but there is no Goldwater facsimile in today's Democratic Party (except for Sen. Ted Kennedy, who could not do it because he has endorsed Obama).
Clinton's rationale for remaining a candidate is the Texas-Ohio parlay, and pre-Wisconsin polls gave her a comfortable lead in both states. But Texas has become a dead heat, and her margin in Ohio is down to single digits. Following the Wisconsin returns, Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland, Clinton's leading endorser in the state, is reported to have privately expressed concern as to whether he can hold the state for her. If she ekes out a win in Ohio while losing Texas, who will bell Hillary? . . .
There is a widespread feeling, though, that a comeback this time is unlikely. Clinton advisers say internal polls showed a very tough race to win the Texas primary, and while advisers are drawing some hope from Hillary Clinton's indefatigable nature, some are also burning out.
Morale is low. After 13 months of dawn-to-dark, seven-day weeks, the staff is exhausted. Some have taken to going home early - 9pm - turning off their BlackBerrys, and polishing off bottles of wine.
Some advisers have been heard yelling at close friends and colleagues. Others have taken several days off, despite it being crunch time. Some have grown depressed, be it over Obama's momentum, the attacks on the campaign's management from outside critics, or their view that the news media has been much rougher on Clinton than on Obama. And, some of her major fundraisers have begun playing down their roles, asking reporters to refer to them simply as "donors", to try to rein in their image as unfailingly loyal to the Clintons. . . .
Of course, my reliability for predictions is like SSA adjudicating a disability claim, nothing more than a coin flip. I thought that New Orleans would quickly rise again due to the grit of its citizens -- I dramatically underestimated the need that communities have for outside support and how had it is to pull oneself up by the bootstraps. I also am on record as declaring Mt. Obama done after seeing him in an absolutly dismal presentation on Meet the Press a couple of months ago. As Deltajudge points out, this sure is an interesting race. _________________ David Traver
Attorney
Traver & Traver, S.C.
P.O. Box 188
North Prairie, WI 53153-0188
262-594-2096
http://ssaconnect.com http://traverlaw.com https://germaniapublishing.com http://www.jamespublishing.com/books/ssr.htm
Poll: It's all tied up for Dems in Texas - CNN.com
In the CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey released Monday, 50 percent of likely Democratic primary voters said Obama is their choice for the party's nominee, while 46 percent backed Clinton. . . .
Joined: 13 May 2004 Posts: 1134 Location: Cincinnati OH
Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 12:59 am Post subject:
I've been watching the campaigns up close for the last few days, and I'm impressed that the Obama folks are just outworking Senator Clinton. She comes to town on Sunday, speaks to a few hundred people, and gets a little press coverage. He comes to town on Monday, draws 15,000, and leads all of the local news broadcasts, along with the lead story in the Enquirer. Further, because Ohio allows early voting, his campaign had buses to take people straight from the rally to the Board of Elections. I suspect the polls may be wrong about how Ohio is going to vote next week.
Joined: 13 May 2004 Posts: 1134 Location: Cincinnati OH
Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 05:10 pm Post subject:
The latest poll I see (from yesterday, before the debate) shows her lead down to 5 points. It was over 10 points in all of the polls two weeks ago. My subjective opinion is she did not particularly help herself in the debate.
Joined: 13 May 2004 Posts: 1134 Location: Cincinnati OH
Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 05:23 pm Post subject:
I predicted last week that Senator Obama would pull out a victory in Ohio. Based on the polls I'm now seeing, I'm prepared to eat crow on that prediction. The likely result is a split, with Senator Clinton winning Ohio (barely) and Senator Obama winning Texas (barely).
Less than two weeks ago, President Clinton publicly told a crowd in Texas that Senator Clinton must win Ohio and Texas to have a viable claim to stay in the race.
Now, the "spin" coming from Senator Clinton's campaign has changed
Quote:
Should the senators split the states' contests -- or if Sen. Clinton wins, but only by narrow margins -- the debate will turn to how to interpret the results. Two smaller states, Rhode Island and Vermont, also vote today. Clinton aides have started to imply that even just one big win today would allow her to claim she had broken Sen. Obama's momentum, justifying a continuing competition.
I like Hillary, but this is going to be a problem. Are we now going to be faced with a Pennsylvania "firewall?" Is she going to come up with another reason to justify the continuing existence of her campaign if she loses in Pennsylvania? Is she planning on trying to steal the nomination from Senator Obama at the convention? If she loses either Ohio or Texas today, its time to go gentle into that good night and save the Democratic party the resources that would be spent on continuing this campaign.
The democrats are worried about this. This thing can easily wind up in a brokered convention. The reason they are worried is the republicans have their candidate and can regroup and heal the wounds caused by McCain, while they are still deciding who is going to be their candidate. Also there is some concern about hispanic and jewish support if Obama gets the nomination. This is a historic campaign and election and very exciting. What intrigues me most in these early stages is the dust-up about Obama's middle name name, Hussein. That is his name, is it not? Is he ashamed of it? Funny thing about it, the more it is brought up, the more it becomes known.
It would appear as if a lot of people like her--a lot. Can the Democrats justify turning away the candidate with the most popular votes and in the states with the highest electoral college votes? It is interesting, too, that now that the media is a little less breathless about Obama; he looks like politics as usual--land deals, questionable fund-raising, disavowing his public speeches as "just campaign rhetoric", and lying about it until he got caught. How much more of what he says is just campaing rhetoric?
We Democrats are in the happy situation of having two candidates who are hashing out all of the arguments before the general election. Clinton or Obama, ether one is better than McCain, and either of them will run right over McCain in the general election.
Joined: 13 May 2004 Posts: 1134 Location: Cincinnati OH
Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 02:46 pm Post subject:
I have a couple of local (Ohio) observations about posts above 1) To Delta Judge: Cincinnati was the recent home to a Barack Hussein Obama firestorm, when local talk radio jackass Bill Cunningham introduced Senator McCain at a rally, and repeatedly referred to Senator Obama by his full name. Senator McCain immediately apologised after the rally. Given the timing of his apology, it could not possibly have been prompted by complaints from the Barack campaign or "the liberal media." Senator McCain decided to distance himself from the remarks because Senator McCain was presumably offended personally. Moreover, I heard not one peep about the incident from the Obama campaign in the firestorm that followed. I imagine that Senator Obama is fully prepared to be called Barak Hussein Obama for the rest of the campaign, (and possibly for the next eight years). If that's the worst the Republicans can do, I suspect he can live with it.
2) Hillary won Ohio fair and square, but there was definitely some Republican mischief going on yesterday. Clermont County (immediately to my east) is "rock-ribbed Republican." There are an estimated 14000 Democrats in the county. Almost 30,000 ballots were cast in the Democratic primary (this is one of the counties that ran out of Democratic ballots). The primary voters in Clermont went 60% for Hillary. Based on these numbers, I suspect that Republicans intentionally voted for Hillary to prolong the Democratic primary race.
You are probably correct. Rush Limbaugh told republicans to go out and vote for Hilliary, and we don't know how many did. Hillary won the primary, and Obama the caucus, and nobody knows, least of all Rush who admitted it. It is still a horse race, and as I said it is going to wind up in a brokered convention. This is hurting the democrats. They need a unified front, and don't have it. While they are fighting among themselves, the republicans are arming themselves. Going to be fun. Think the republicans would like to have someone other than McCain to go up against whoever the democratic nominee is, but they is stuck with him.
Uncertainties mark Clinton's itinerary - International Herald Tribune
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is bracing for one of the most difficult days of her presidential race on Wednesday, anticipating new pressure to quit the race and facing a set of financial and logistical decisions that will determine just how robust a campaign she can continue to wage against Sen. Barack Obama, according to several advisers and political allies.
And that is only for starters, these people say: After her narrow win in the Indiana primary and steep loss in North Carolina, working off a few hours of sleep, Clinton is also bound to think over a question in her own head and to hear it from at least some supporters — should she continue running?
The advisers and allies to Clinton said in interviews on Tuesday night that her victory in Indiana — even by less than 2 percentage points — made it less certain that she would withdraw from the race. (Her advisers had said a loss would likely lead her to quit.) Yet these supporters said that North Carolina had come to be seen as a major test in the eyes of the Clintons and their aides, and the severity of her loss to Obama there was dispiriting.
They were also girding for the possibility of more bad news. Her campaign is deep in debt and believed to be near broke, and her advisers made the unusual move on Tuesday night of refusing to confirm or deny whether Clinton had made a loan to her campaign to keep it afloat. She made such a loan, of $5 million, in January, and she pleaded for donations in her televised primary night remarks on Tuesday, even reminding people that they could donate on her Web site. . . .
Neo: I know you're out there. I can feel you now. I know that you're afraid... you're afraid of us. You're afraid of change. I don't know the future. I didn't come here to tell you how this is going to end. I came here to tell you how it's going to begin. I'm going to hang up this phone, and then I'm going to show these people what you don't want them to see. I'm going to show them a world without you. A world without rules and controls, without borders or boundaries. A world where anything is possible. Where we go from there is a choice I leave to you. . . .
Joined: 30 Jan 2005 Posts: 202 Location: Orlando, FL
Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 02:20 pm Post subject:
My $.02 about this whole process:
Why is it so dang complicated and drawn out? Maybe decades/centuries ago when communication was limited, primaries and conventions were needed. Today, it just seem like a huge waste of time and money.
It's simple - you want to run for president, you register and get your name on the ballot. Eliminate the primaries and conventions. Have a set time frame that candidates can campaign - none of this running for years! Have a national voting day (hey - don't we already have one?) and people vote for whoever they want.
From there I have 2 suggestions - the first is that if there is no candidate who gets a majority (51%), then the top 2 candidates have a run off.
The second suggestions is more radical - the candidate who gets the most votes in president, and the candidate with the second highest total is vice president. I know, I know - wouldn't work, unrealistic, etc. But just think - it would force the parties to work together for the good of the country. Oh wait - I guess we can't have that, now can we?
Seriously though - other countries are able to elect national leaders in a short time frame without spending obscene amounts of money. Why can't we?
(FYI - I live in Florida but was not able to vote in the primary because I am a registered Independent and the primaries here are closed.)
Who will tell Hillary to get out the race? Why Bill, of course. If not, then Chelsea, on Mother's Day - her Mother's day gift being to pull her mother back to the reality that the fat lady has already sung. What could be a better Mother's day gift than sparing your mother humiliation and being labeled a spoiler and possibly blamed for a Democratic defeat should Obama lose. _________________ "Ask and You Shall Receive"
You can post new topics in this forum You can reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Traverlaw, Traver Law, Traver Law Offices, S.C., Traver & Traver, S.C.,
Traverlaw.com, SSAConnect,
Attorneys for the disabled and disadvantaged in all areas of Social Security
disability law, http://traverlaw.com,
http://ssaconnect.com, Connect, SSA Connect, Think Bigger,
Social Security Advice Connect, Social Security Disability Advice Connect,
"Social Security Disability Advocacy, Debate, and Professional News,"
the yellow and orange swoosh image, and the square favicon.ico image,
are trademarks and service marks of Attorney David F. Traver.
For information the about use of this copyrighted and trademarked material call
262-594-2096.
CONNECT 
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
