Lanny Davis: The Top Ten List of Undisputed Facts Showing Barack Obama's Weakness
[cnn-photo-caption image= http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/04/23/art.obama.pa2.jpg%5D
Let's forget about the spin on all sides and not use any adjectives to modify the following 10 Facts that should not be in dispute:
1. Hillary Clinton won by 10%, 220,000 votes, despite after most of the polls in the last several weeks on RealClearPolitics, including its RCP all-poll average, showed her ahead by single digits and dropping. The exit polls showed her winning by +5. (It's easy to forget that she won if you listen to the Obama spinners last night and today. Believe it or not, Pennsylvania's Rep. Murphy, a freshman congressman who supported Barack Obama, actually said last night on Larry King that Senator Obama did so well in losing to Senator Clinton yesterday that he has a "wind at his back." I am not kidding.
2. Senator Obama tried hard to win the state, campaigned intensely throughout the state for most of the last six weeks - and was trying to win, not just lose a narrow margin.
3. He spent $11 million on media - about three times more than Senator Clinton.
4. Most of his ads were personal negative attack ads against Senator Clinton, meaning attacks on her character and integrity.
5. There were no personal attack ads run by Hillary Clinton in Pennsylvania
6. Barack Obama hasn't won a single major industrial state that historically constitute the key "battleground" states for both parties, i.e., the states in the last three or four presidential elections have switched back and forth between the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates.
7. The reason that he lost can be found in the demographic data: He lost - and Senator Clinton won - by substantial margins blue collar and middle class white voters earning under $50,000 a year, senior citizens, rural voters, Hispanic voters, and women voters - all core constituencies in the Democratic base that must be won if a Democrat is to win the White House. For example, yesterday in Pennsylvania she won Roman Catholics by 32 percent (66034), union households by 18% (59-41), and those most concerned about the economy by 16 points (58-42). Only 60 percent of Democratic Catholic voters said they would vote for Mr. Obama in a general election.
8. Barack Obama has lost these same demographic groups in Massachusetts, Ohio, Texas, California and New Jersey and other major states that Senator Clinton won. There is a factual pattern of his weakness among these demographic groups in virtually every primary state that cannot be disputed.
9. Barack Obama is in a statistical dead heat with John McCain in Massachusetts. A recent Survey USA poll of registered voters found 48% backed Senator Obama vs. 46% for Senator McCain - within the margin of error. The same poll showed Senator Clinton with a 15% lead over McCain. The last time a Democrat did not win Massachusetts by a substantial margin was 1980, when Ronald Reagan defeated Jimmy Carter. Even in the historic landslide election of Richard Nixon in 1972, when he won 49 states, only Massachusetts supported Senator McGovern. Senator Obama currently runs considerably behind Senator McCain in Florida and Ohio, while Senator Clinton is ahead in both of those key battleground states.
10. Current polls show Senator Clinton runs ahead of John McCain nationally or dead even - and Senator Obama runs only dead even. For example, in the most recent USA Today national general election poll, Senator Clinton leads Senator McCain by +6; Senator Obama leads by less than the margin of error, +2.
Those are the facts. To all superdelegates: you decide who is riskier as a general election candidate. The candidate whose negatives, driven by the right-wing hate machine in the 1990s in particular, are all out there and already taken into account. Or a candidate who is still virtually unknown to most of the electorate, with Republicans clearly looking forward to filling in the blanks with the facts about his record, of which many general election voters still are not aware.
Lanny J. Davis
Friend of Senator Hillary Clinton,
and fundraiser for her presidential campaign
On Twitter
I think it's a waste of time responding to Lanny. It's real nonesense and previous bloggers have already addressed that. However, I wish to point out ( and a few persons have made this observation) that Barack Obama doesn't have a problem with blue collar workers or older white women. The fact is they have a problem. They are more likely to be ill-informed and consequently unwilling to embrace change. But life is a dynamic process and change is inevitable. Barack's messagee is simple. You must create the right environment to bring about certain changes. You can have the best plans and programs but if that catalyst isn't there they will continue to be just fancy sounding plans, like those for rebuilding New Orleans, creating jobs, health care and the list goes on.
Finally, someone is talking sense!
The media, being infatuated with Obama, did not do their jobs and begin to properly vet him until over half the primaries were over. Since then, there has been a drip, drip, drip of questionalbe relationships and misstatements - Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, Bitter-gate (especially regarding working class whites - "they have anitpathy for those who do not look like them," which, in context with his statement about his grandmother, "like all whites," was racist, really raises as much concern as his obvious disdain for white people's religion and leisure activities), Michelle's newly discovered pride in America, etc.
I read the full sermons that Rev. Wright's sound bites were taken from, which proved to me that the sound bites were as bad or worse in context than out. Obama sat in the pew for 20 years with his wife and with his two daughters listening to this propaganda.
Now Rev. Wright has come out of the closet to defend himself via the interview with Bill Moyers and give additional public speeches. God Bless him! Wright may be well on his way to becoming Hillary's best friend. His remarks during that interview saying that Obama was "a politician" and "said what he had to say" [to get votes] certainly doesn't jive with Obama's "new kind of politics" wherein he is above such matters and will unite all of us - you know, blacks, other minorities and us racist whites (like myself and others who participated in Civil Rights demonstrations, etc.).
The way Obama handles adversity is a greater indicator of why he is not ready than any other argument. He cannot close the deal.
His campaign using the media and surrogates to pressure Hillary to quit is also a lesson he learned from someone else when he ran for his first state office - the Palmer incident.
During the PA debate, he was obviously peeved at the quetions and was unable to respond to them in such a way as to "put them to bed." Rather, he attacked the questioner. The ABC debate was the first time the media did not give him a free pass and feed him opportunities to state his talking points and even correct his misstatements for him during the debate.. His response was to accuse Hillary and George Stephanopoulos of collusion.
After such a poor performance at that debate, how can anyone feel confident in his ability to go against John McCain? John McCain - a war hero with national security and military credentials, 25 years of experience in the Congress - against Obama - three years in his first national office wherein he was elected without a serious opponent and has not yet had to run for re-election, no miliary experience. The present votes in the state senate and his absence from the U.S. Senate when the vote on Iran was cast indicates a hesistancy to commit on controversial issues. Yes, that's right! The OTHER vote he chastised Hillary for that wasn't important enough to him to show up for.
Obama cannot stand up to the Republican smear machine. Hillary already has. Obama is not resilient like Hillary. He is not a "fighter" like Hillary is - he show considerable distaste and disdain for debate quetions which challenge his positions or personal traits. While he is giving eloquent, lofty speeches written by the likes of Ted Sorenson (Jack Kennedy's famous speech writer), his campaign is conducting the nastiest and most negative of attacks on Hillary. Then he complains about how negative Hillary is when she brings up one of his faults.
North Carolina may be very revealing. I understand the state Republican party intends to run some 527-type smear ads in spite of McCain's and the RNC's objections. I think Obama is about to be introduced to a small taste of what the general will be like.
Barack, my dear, welcome to swift-boating - I hope you enjoy drowning in your mistakes, because the Republicans and their 527s are chomping at the bit to start slinging mud the likes of which you apparently have not stopped to even begin to imagine. Cum ba ya is not in their playbook.
He isn't ready. He isn't ready. He isn't ready. I'm sure that's what Hillary was thinking when she was forced to say "Yes! Yes! Yes!" during the debate to preserve party unity.
The Republican smear machine will eat him alive. If he is nominated, John McCain will be in the White House on January 29, 2009. Hillary can win.
Eight years from now, after he has had a little more experience, which he disdainfully refers to as "boiling all the hope out of him," he may have sufficiently matured, in a political sense, to run again. The stakes are too high for our country right now. We need someone who knows what they are doing during the "fierce urgency of now.".
Obama ... I don't trust Hilary... if she get the nomination.. I am voting for John Mchain...
I am a Black American woman who is 65 years of age. I am a registered Democrat. I look at CNN all the time and other 24/7 news
stations and anyone who is not blind can see the prejudice that you display when you run these remarks from Rev. Wright's sermon over
and over. Mr. Obama has given a speech on this issue and you con-tinue to talk about him leaving his church. He should not leave his church. Your station and all the others need to stop talking about
Rev. Wright in association with Mr. Obama. Your running these comments over and over will not change the minds of the voters who want to vote for Mr. Obama. I am only one person but I do know that a lot of people feel the same. If he will continue on his course that he was on in the beginning and not let the media deter him from it he wil
do just fine.
Hillary won PA. Regardless of personal opinion or the belief in "unfair tactics" by one side or the other-she won. She was outspent by alot, she won by alot, and about her-we know alot. What do we know about Obama? Very little. His flame is flickering and people are having a hard time coping. Hillary is the best candidate to go up against McCain. You can tell that by the debates. When given an uncomfortable question that she's unprepared for-she gives an answer. She doesn't stutter and stammer and pray for a script-she answers. She is a fighter and stands up for those that can't. Obama stands up as long as there's a teleprompter within eye range. Give her a break folks! She does have what it takes and will do great things for this country! Give her the credit she deserves-she won PA-accept it and move on.
Go Hillary!
I was stunned to find out that many of the people who voted for Obama in Northern VA were prominent republicans who showed up at the polls. (Unfortunately you do not need to be registered as a democrat to vote. ) The argument cuts both ways that on one hand, Obama has attracted a republican contingency or on the other hand some republicans preferred to support the candidate that would not win against McCain. I am distressed by many of the caustic comments above which seem to me to be childish. Who was more negative in the campaign is outside the issue. The decisive issue who has workable solutions to our country's ills. I believe that Hillary Clinton has done the homework and Obama, while very charming, is still wrapped up in academic theories. I am also worried about the fact that he does not understand investments, never saved money (despite the income of over a million a year that he shares with his wife), and might be equally foolish with the budget of the American people.
Barak Obama is the choice of the vast majority of African-Americans because of his skin color. To choose a candidate for any reason no matter how illogical is the right of each American. The Clintons have done more for African-Americans and there quest for true equality yet primal racial identification or a naive longing for a transcendental figure to save us from ourselves seems to have blinded them to there own self-interest. If Obama wins the nomination and the election, he will become another Jimmy Carter. A president who held the high hopes of a dispirited nation in his hands only to drop the ball because he was hopelessly out of touch with the realities of modern politics. Obama, like Carter, will inherit a democratic majority in the Congress only to squander that advantage and achieve next to nothing due to lack of experience. Moreover, that sad fact will propel us into another 10 or 15 years of republican mismanagement, greed and stagnation.
I can't help but think that the television pundits are shortchanging the US electorate in, among other things, their description of them. I confess, I have never lived in the US so I may be totally out in left field here. But surely, to take issue with one commentator, people are not afraid of Barack Obama because they have never elected a "black" president before. What do you suppose his mother and grand parents taught him? What kind of reasoning and other skills did your elite educational institutions impart to him? Is it the fact that he'd left the country before he was 10 that frightens people? His name? What kind of vodoo do you suppose was instilled in him to cause people to feel they have to fear him because of his "race"...or more accurately races? This is really incredible. Perhaps what the commentator really meant to say was people are cautious (rather than fearful) because they don't know enough about him and they think he is inexperienced. That would make a bit more sense.
mind you folks, negative + negative = positive
So, just like what Sen. Clinton said, we will all be unified after the Primary election..
Let's talk "popular vote"... that's what the media keeps saying Obama leads in.
BUT last time I checked "caucus" votes are "caucus votes" and can hardly be characterized as "popular votes"...
you see popular votes are obtained in elections... you know where you close the curtain and cast a completely free POPULAR VOTE to ELECT a candidate...
you see Obama has pulled a fast one... using his neighborhood organizational skills to flood the previously sleepy & archaic caucus system and skew this primary contest...
and that's why he can't win an election...
because you don't get to overwhelm an election booth with 125 hard core left wing moveon.org zealots... the poor voter gets to draw the curtain & vote their FREE mind... 125 – 20 something Obama political operatives can't follow you in and cajole you into CHOOSING Obama.
That's right you CHOOSE a candidate at caucus... and people are subject to peer pressure & political correctness...
that's right folks.... Obama leads the CHOSEN VOTE...
& HAS LOST EVERY ELECTION IN EVERY MAJOR STATE... except Illinois (his home state)
Taxxachusetts
New York
New Jersey
Florida
Texas
California
Ohio
Pennsylvania
so stop it media/Obama operative! Quit citing his lead in popular votes because its a BIG LIE.
p.s. I wonder if CNN will censor(moderate..hehe) this post too?
These "undisputed facts" are indeed ridiculous, at least some of them, just like most of Senator Clinton's campaign – the facts are facts, that is, only when they serve the purpose of returning the Clinton Couple to the White House.
To claim that Sen. Obama's ads very negative, and Sen. Clinton's were not, when it was her advertisment in the closing hours of the primary campaign, with all those fearmongering pictures of nuclear war, Bin Laden and whatever else, would be laughable if it were not so worrisome and sad. And that is perhaps additional reason why "all those RCP polls" were wrong in predicting the Clinton victory with 8, 9 and not 10 per cent margin – just like with "3 a.m." ad before Texas and Ohio primaries, the Clintons succeeded in pushing the late deciders to their camp with propaganda of uncertainty and panic.
The fact, stronger that "the top ten" listed by Lanny Davis, is simple and pathetic – the Clintons and some of their supporters do not fear McCain victory in November – they desire it and they do whatever they can to help it, because the Obama victory would make another Hillary Clinton candidacy in 2012 so much less plausible.
hey how is going/?
l think the democratic party should find some
kind of way to count the delegates in those two states.
that are left out Michigan and Florida.
l dont think the people that vote in these
states should be deprived of their right to voted.
l also think the party should not disenfranchised..the privilege or legal right of voting.it's wrong.l think the clinton's should take it all way to convention.let it's be a dog fight'
The advisers should note we have:United States which has 52 States instead of 49-50.
we people of Democratic party :should fight diligently for the right
of these two States.
there you have it counselor.
pass it on.
thank you,
dottie.
response to "can obama seal the deal":
he has been, is, and will.
the states clinton has carried have been those in which the inherited machinery, capital, and organization of the former president were strongest and most established [california, ohio, pennslyvania, new york, etc...] of course she would say these are the critical states for a legitimate democratic candidate to carry.
she has not built upon this inheritance. all she has been able to do is craft a rhetorical position around the inherent democratic virtue of succeeding in those areas in which she is already supposed to be practically indomitable.
despite her distorted rhetoric – which now counts votes from the michigan primary toward her popular vote total – it is now more and more evident that there is nowhere for her to go. she ought to concede. but will she? yes she will. after indiana.
obama's patience has been remarkable. his endurance, discipline, organization, method - all seem to be operating at a clip that clinton cannot keep up with.
the so-called blue collar hang up for obama is a farce. clinton has dominated and claimed that territory as her own. the bulk of that vote has gone to her. quote the white blue collar philly suburb resident clinton supporter when asked if he would support obama should he gain the nomination replied, "definitely, without hesitation."
california, ohio, pennslyvania, florida, michigan (to say nothing of the states like kansas, wisconsin, colorado and virginia) will pull heavily democratic once the nominee is determined. i believe, once the dust settles, those states will actually pull more and more heavily toward obama. clinton's alienated identicon turns out to be a scarecrow.
by the way – obama has been as gentlemanly as he could be. dont expect him to be as reserved with mccain. there are significant policy differences to be brought forth. obama will summon the conscience of the nation in opposition to the policies of mccain. we have yet to see obama actually fight politically. all we have seen him do up to this point is be extraordinarily organized, competent, and eloquent. in the general election against mccain we will get to see obama with the gloves off. he respects mccain, but he will not mince words about the sharp differences in position between the two.
Lanny, John McCain would like ot thank you for your support.
Lanny’s comment that Hillary did not run any personal attack ads in Pennsylvania is a hoot and slightly disingenuous. Hillary’s ascorbic and stinging attacks are sufficient to surpass these ads. Also, how about the ad with Bin Laden image? I suppose Lanny considers it a quaint and run of the mill positive issue oriented message. Give me a break.
Good questions, Charles.
Why CAN'T Hillary put away Barrack? If she is touting electability as a reason for Super Delegates to support her, they should be asking themselves that question. How can she be electable if she is losing to a Jr Senator who came out of nowhere?
Lanny get your facts straight, we are tired of the same old tired comments. There will be no position for you because your lady is not going to be nominated. You can spin all you want, but this is our time and moment. You cannot fight a movement and this movement for CHANGE will be victorious.
The Top Ten List if Undisputed Facts Showing Barack Obama�s STRENGTHS
1. Obama won over 1 million votes out of 2.3 million votes in Pennsylvania
2. Hillary has been campaigning in Pennsylvania for 16 years, Obama has been campaigning for 16 months. Yet he closed the gap in Pennsylvania and got 45% of the vote. Amazing
3. The $12 million was worth it.
4. The only attack ad against Hillary was on policy. Hillary�s attacks against Obama were primarily personal attacks.
5. Obama has won millions of votes in the big states. More votes than the GOP candidates collectively. His ability to win 40% to 67% of the votes in the big states is remarkable. He has never gone below 40% in a big state. Whereas when Hillary loses a big state she loses big, taking as low as 31% of the vote. She has gone as low as 27% in South Carolina. The most she has gotten in a big state win is 57% in New York, her home state. Obama took 40%. Obama won his home state of Illinois with 65%. Hillary only took 33%. Hillary has not gone above 58% in any state except in Arkansas (Clinton Territory). Obama has gotten between 60% to 79% in 16 states.
6. He won Missouri plus three big states. (Big states are states with 10 million people or more)
7. He has won larger percentages of Hillary�s demographic than Hillary has won in his. He gets over 90% of the Black vote and takes up to 45%-50% of hers.
8. Hillary has lost the black vote in every state.
9. It�s 2008 and Barack Obama is creating a new pattern of politics and he�s not dependant on past patterns and trends to determine his victory. He is making political history.
10. Obama will bring the biggest win in Democratic History when he runs against John McCain in the General. John McCain is the best thing that could happen to the Democratic Party. The Republicans don�t like him.
The superdelegates are not stupiddelegates. They know that the majority of young voters and black voters will disengage in this year�s political race if Obama is not the Democratic Nominee. He is the one who has brought all the interest and momentum to the race. The excitement of a Black man running is 10 times more exciting for America than an INCUMBENT women running, seeing as there are currently 16 women Senators and only 1 Black Senator in the US Senate. Who has the thicker glass ceiling?
What Lanny fails to tell us is what other polls say, if he wants to use Mass. as a reason to question Obama then lets look at some other states head to head. I think we agree these are RED states, but Obama is competing. So go ahead Lanny and say he will never win Texas it never goes Democrat, or Indiana is the redest state it wont go for him. Well you just destroyed your own argument, by the way she is currently losing Michigan! I am sick of the Hillary Spin.
Recent Polls
Texas – Obama 46% McCain 47% dead heat McCain 49% Hillary 42%
NC- Obama 47% McCain 47% McCain 51% Hillary 40%
Michigan- Obama 43% McCain 41% McCain 46% Hillary 37%
Colorado- Obama 46% McCain 43% McCain 50% Hillary 36%
Iowa- Obama 49% McCain 42% McCain 48% Hillary 42%
I can go on- Hillary is in Statistical ties against McCain in WA, OR and Hawaii, democratic strongholds and Obama is handily winning
Michigan and Florida..Obama claims Rules! OK
Other Rules: The super delagates have the responsability to choose the candidate that is more qualified, that can win the Presidency!
These are the Rules...
So lets all follow the rules!! and we all know that we can not have a president of the United States of America with the association with Anti-Americans, that his speeches are a continuance of Litanies against America..and elitest that secretly puts down the blue collar workers of America!
I really can not see being responsible and picking Obama. So
the super delegates should and will be responsible for the election of Hillary Clinton! They will follow the Rules!!
Hillary 08 Go Lanny Great reasons and more so Truthful Reasons!
Super Delegates are there to make sure America is safe and to elect the President that will keep us safe...No Maybe's here..Hillary for President '08
I have been so undecided about who to vote for because I have blocked out constantly any negative things each canidate may have said about each other and focused on the facts. Can you bring some change to all that is happening now? That is what matters. It is the media that blows things up, however I must say with all the things that Mrs. Clinton is saying now, I can not remember what she said she could do for us. All she talks about is Obama this and that. Don't get me wrong I really liked Mrs. Clinton, but I can not remember why since she barely talks about it anymore. She is so busy trying to instill doubt, until she forgot about instilling faith, what we need to have in her. I wish she would stop so we could make the best choice. While he talks about what he will do and not her, she talks about what he can't do and not her. The whole thing is about Obama and it is whether his positive out ways his negative. Mrs. Clinton silently has voted for Mr. Obama and doesn't even know it.
Barack Obama has lost these same demographic groups in Massachusetts, Ohio, Texas, California and New Jersey and other major states that Senator Clinton won. There is a factual pattern of his weakness among these demographic groups in virtually every primary state that cannot be disputed.
That is a big loss, if he can't appeal to the base than the General Election is not Democrat. It wouldn't be the first time that Massachusetts went republican either.
A good portion of the states he won are Red states. Which if you look at the ratio of Republicans verses Democrat in these states chances are they are going to be Republican in the General Election. And you can't depend on Independents either.
So Obama supporters have to ask themselves a question; is he appealing to the Democratic base? These are people who no matter what vote Democrat. Unless of course they don't like the candidate. Back in 1980 Jimmy Carter I think only got 5 states and Ronald Reagan got the rest.
As far as negative ads they are both being negative, which is quite normal for any campaign. To say that they should have a nice campaign is being pussy's!
When an ad comes out questioning a particular issue is not a negative ad.
Let's see heres and ad; Why did Obama sign Dick Cheney's energy bill? Ya know the one that was made up in secret. When every other Democrat and that was just about everyone didn't.
Now that is an issue, but of course the Obama supporters witl say that is a negative ad.
Face it Obama supporters money can't buy you love!
"8. Barack Obama has lost these same demographic groups in Massachusetts, Ohio, Texas, California and New Jersey and other major states that Senator Clinton won. There is a factual pattern of his weakness among these demographic groups in virtually every primary state that cannot be disputed."
Yes, Obama would be in bad shape this fall running against a popular democrat with amazing name recognition and nearly identical policies as his own. How that translates to a contest with a Republican with vastly different policies is very much up for dispute.
"1. Hillary Clinton won by 10%"
No, 9.2%. There really is nothing magical about 10% except the "double-digits" claim, but since you all seem to be grasping for it, do the right thing mathematically and don't round your candidates percentage up and your opponents down before taking the difference. It looks pretty weak...
"5. There were no personal attack ads run by Hillary Clinton in Pennsylvania"
What about her attacking Obama's statement about people being bitter over losing their jobs? My guess is you are defining attack as something that is baseless, but your opinion is just a bit skewed if you think she never attack Obama.
As for your arguments about the past...Obama, in case you didn't notice, is not running a typical campaign. Why is it that Clinton can't close the deal by more than a 20 point margin in any contest other than in Arkansas when Obama has done it 16 times so far!? This is a relevant question as it is what she needs to do in all the remaining 9 contests to just pull even with Obama's delegate lead!! This country is not a static playing board, Lanny, as much as you'd like to paint it as one. Change is afoot!
How could Obama expect to win the general election,if he loses any two of the following states, NJ,NY, CA,FL, PA,OH,TX, and MI?
Larry's comment that Hillary did not run any personal attack ads in Pennsylvania is a hoot and slightly disingenuous. Hillary's ascorbic and stinging attacks are sufficient to surpass these ads. Also, how about the ad with Bin Laden image? I suppose Larry considers it a quaint and run of the mill positive issue oriented message. Give me a break.
From North Of The Border. Hey, I hope you guys elect the right person who can save your economy, bring about prosperity and peace. When your ship is sinking, you don't have the luxury to train the captain. The way we see it from north of your border, so far, you are on course for more of the same.
GREAT WORK LENNY - but I could give you 100 reasons or weaknesses of Obama. The first ten would be the CLOSET SKELETONS ALONE. Those SKELETONS are flying out of that closet pretty fast - and how many more will tip-toe out in the coming weeks. I see that GREAT Reverend Wright Ad the Republicans put on T.V. in North Carolina - and Hillary had nothing to do with it. Also in the Detroit News yesterday and today big articles on Reverend Wright and William Ayers. Oh, and that Reverend Wright has been invited by the NAACP to speak at their big event in Downtown Detroit soon. Everyone I hear is talking about Obama and Wright and Ayers. Boy, if we had a re-election here in Michigan Obama would be lucky to get 10%. That is the reason he said NO to Michigan for a re vote. But I hate to say it we Michigan people will not vote for Obama if he is the Democratic Nominee. HE STEPPED RIGHT ON WE MICHIGAN PEOPLE AND RUBBGED US INTO THE GROUND - Thanks Obama - NOW WE PEOPLE IN MICHIGAN COULD TELL YOU ABOUT BEING "BITTER".
The Clinton family has made me question my allegiance to the democrat party. I am seriously thinking that if Mrs. Clinton gets the nomination I will start voting for republicans. I'm from Minnesota and have been a true "blue" dem all my adult life not any more. The Clintons will turn me into an independant. Mrs Clinton is not the answer. The nation is better off with a republican.
Lanny's only pondering to his paycheck. He must be paid by the comment and with the amount of slinging here between the two factions he's going to be rich soon.
In all rational reasoning Obama did well, but so did Hilliary. Nothing was a surprise except that it was even this close. Obama shouldn't be trying to outspend her constantly as that is not his strongpoint. He should return to his roots and stop trying to beat her at her game. If he's the basketball player they say he'll regroup and play his game.
Hilliary should stop with the antics of fear and concentrate on her positives. She does well when she's discussing relevant topics not Bin Laden or flag pins.
Obama need to drop out! It's clear the voters want Hillary Clinton that a fact!! Hillary for 2008 all the way !! God-Bless Hillary !
Lanny Davis sold his soul to the Clintons a long time ago. Everything he says is suspect. He should pray for forgiveness. What he does is disgraceful and his sins will come back to haunt him.
Charles has ask the question that even AC 360 has failed to ask.
Why can't the Clinton political machine put the new guy away? Who is the underdog? Hillary? Why is he raising more money than her? All of a sudden, it is such a terrible thing that Obama has $11M and spent it on his campaign. Duh. What was he suppose to do with the money? That's exactly why I contribute to his campaign – to spend it! It's silly season.
What Job is Lanny looking for now in the Clinton's white house? An old Yale law classmate. Get a life of your own and stop living of the Clintons. What's your claim to fame?
Amazingly Hillary keeps moving the goal post and channging the rules. First MI and FL were not going to count now they should. She said the race was all about the popular votes, then when she realized it wasn't going her way she said it was about delegates. Now the delegates are drifting to the Obama, so it is now about electibility.
The Clinton's will go any length to be in the white house again. It fulfills a political ambition. This is what this is all about!! I tell ya, when a very good friend of the Clintons , like Bill Richardson, drifts to Obama it says something.
President John F. Kennedy called us to task during his Inaugural Address with, "And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country."
That's Senator Obama's spirit. Not Hillary's....
I don't expect Lanny Davis to change. His friendship and support of the Clintons is what it is. But, many of us are ready for somebody fresher, somebody newer, somebody who isn't as tainted with the muck that's smeared all over the politics of modern times. We're willing to consider that the so called "lack" of experience may be just a DIFFERENT experience. And, that may be a very, very good thing!