"If I did not say provocative, racist drivel, I would not be on TV today." - G. Ferraro. April 1, 2008

Posted at March 12, 2008 9:23 AM in response to Wolfson On Ferraro's Latest: "We Have Made Clear That We Reject Her Remarks"

I am from SD and the joke is that IOWA stands for Idiots Out Wandering Around. Rather apropos.

Posted at March 11, 2008 9:34 AM in response to Steve King: Obama Would "Certainly Be Viewed As A Savior" To Al-Qaida

What a gyp. Power was a definitely an intellectual asset to the Obama campaign.

Man, what Hillary as President if Chavez started riffing on her? Demand the UN fire him?

BO needs to get a hold on the ridiculousness coming out the HRC campaign or he is going to continue to get beat up. But, like have been saying, he shouldn't fight ridiculousness with ridiculousness, but with contempt - a side-to-side comparison the BS that the HRC is wasting its time on and the issues that are really at stack.

Posted at March 7, 2008 12:15 PM in response to Power Resigns Over Hillary-Is-Monster Comment

This is where BO needs to stand up and knock this story down. The HRC camp lofted up this BS demand, and it is perfect opportunity for BO to hit it out of the park. "You want to worry about your image? Fine, I'll worry about getting the American people affordable health care. You want play tit-for-tat school yard name calling games? Go ahead, I'll be getting us out of Iraq." and so on. No parsing of worried, no apologizes (let Sarah apologize for her own words, which she did), and move on.

Posted at March 7, 2008 11:22 AM in response to Hillary Campaign Calls On Obama To Fire Adviser Who Called Hillary A "Monster"

I agree. It is offense vs. defense not negative vs. positive. I don't know if they have completely caught on to that though - even after Tuesday, I heard Axelrod say something to the effect that if HRC wants to talk real estate deals, then we will talk real estate deals - implying that there is more dirt on HRC than BO as concerns shady power brokers. Yet, that is a defensive, follower strategy. What I think he ought to have said is that 'if HRC wants to talk real estate deals fine, we've got nothing to hide, but we are talking about faulty mortgages, we are talking about economic hardship. You cannot fix these problems if you are busy digging through your opponent's trash' ... or something of a similar nature. And they need to be dogged about it. Don't back off a point like the "say anything" hit. They haven't yet shown that assertiveness in a fight, but they need to. they cannot mistake assertiveness for negativity though. That would play in HRC's favor.

Posted at March 6, 2008 2:02 PM in response to Hillary Spokesperson Compares Obama To...Ken Starr!

What amazes me is how incessant the Clinton attack campaign is. The Hillfact website - which is basically a litany of anti-Obama attacks - is updated several times a day with video links and all. This is not to say these "Hillfacts" are necessarily consistent amongst themselves or that they are substantiated, they are just voluminous. The Obama campaign does not generate nearly as much volume - they haven't updated there 'fact' site since March 2nd. I think because of this, they are being drowned out and overwhelmed.

Yet, this is exactly the kind of politicking that the Obama campaign is built around rejecting. So, it is difficult for him to hit back in kind. The question is, does he have to? I think people are starting to say yes. I am not so sure though. It is true that he needs to control the message - rather then respond to the message of the Hillary campaign -, but I don't necessarily think he needs to go negative. Indeed, I think it would be best to make a commanding (and I emphasize 'commanding', to the point of 'contemptuously') argument that negativity doesn't work in the long-term. That we have had a president obsessed with politicking and it distracted him. So, do you want a president who is could at barking back at the dogs outside or a president who will tune-them out? In short, his message needs to not only rise above the web of Hillfacts, least he get entangled, but reject the notion of web-weaving itself.

But I would be interested to hear what other people think about such a strategy.

Posted at March 6, 2008 12:58 PM in response to Hillary Spokesperson Compares Obama To...Ken Starr!

Can we not attach a embellished prognostication to every little poll that comes out. "Obama's lead vanishes!" is a bit melodramatic, don't you think?

Posted at February 19, 2008 3:08 PM in response to Gallup: Dem Race A Dead Heat

Super-delegates who are undecided March 4th should vote to support the winner of national pledged delegates. Simple as that. Then, the DNC should end the super-delegates in the primary process.

Posted at February 13, 2008 5:25 PM in response to Hillary Camp: No One Is Winning This Race Without Super-Delegates

this is what we are tired of Hillary! It is bad enough when it is between the parties, but within the party... what do you take us for? its not even a negative ad of substance. i am sorry, but if you want to go back to the 90's, rent My So Called Life.

Posted at February 13, 2008 12:45 PM in response to Hillary Hits Obama With New Ad In Wisconsin

I come to the same conclusion as Fineman. Basically, I roughly allocated delegates by voter percentage by state and projected the percentages for the remaining primaries. (I assume this is what fineman did too, given that no one but the grand blue ass knows how delegates are really proportioned). Doing this, HC can win TX, OH, PA, RI, KY, VT, WV, and WI by 10 points each, and BO will still be ahead in pledged delegates by ~80 (assuming he wins the remaining states by 15-20 points, which he will likely due because they are all Mt/prairie or Southern states). It sounds crazy, but it is true. However, HC is not likely to win all of the states I just listed, in particular WI, VT, and maybe PA. So, BO is looking pretty good in terms of pledged delegates.

This is why I never bought the OH-TX firewall story. It simply doesn't add up. But then, apparently math isn't a popular major these days.

What worries me is not so much super-delegates, but MI and FL. There is some legitimacy to the argument of including them, which is starting to be talked up by certain HC supporters. Their inclusion, as the results stand, would definitely favor HC. And, of course, BO never campaigned there, so that favored HC as well.

Posted at February 13, 2008 12:18 AM in response to Is Fineman Right?