The story that broke on Huffington post tonight highlights an audio tape at a Clinton fundraiser in which she's berating moveon.org, accusing them of interfering with her supporters at caucuses.  By distancing herself from the far left, she's more appealing to undecideds and independents closer to center.  It's just too stupid a ruse to think otherwise.  That's just my opinion, I could be wrong.  

Posted today, Friday, right before the PA primary:
what is the purpose of this story?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-ridley/obamas-ayers-issue_b_97477.html

ABC's debate, in my opinion, had an immense bias.  With four days left until the PA primary, keep an eye out for bomb-droppers over the weekend.  Not only in the national media, but also the local PA. stations and newspapers.  
If the past is prologue, they'll be unfound accusations that drop in time for the primary but not in time for them to be discredited.  
I hope there aren't any, but there is a lot on the line here. 

You'd think Pennsylvania is the only state in America.
All this excitement and suspense--four days of non-stop spinning, bomb-dropping, and hacking away until the primary WE haven't all been waiting for but the Clintons have.   
Why is it that the entire nation and MSM only get transfixed on the states the Clintons say are so critical to winning the nomination?  
The Obama campaign has always known Hillary would take Pennsylvania.  Likely, in a big way.  
It's one state in a nation that's already leaning toward Obama.  
Every state is critical, but before you buy the propaganda that a democratic nominee MUST win certain states, certain voters, and beat the republicans in others, keep in mind that old models of demographics and red states and blue states and percentages of independents needed has been changing rapidly.  
There are millions of democrats and independents and even some republicans that are going to be voting for the first time in 2008.  
And hundreds of millions of people are going to ask themselves if they're better off now than they were in 2000.  
The answer to that isn't good news for John McCain.  
We all seem to have this larger than life fear of what used to be the omnipotent indestructible Republican majority.  
We shouldn't underestimate them, and their tactics, but they are more fragile than you think.  

Does anyone recognize the double standard?  Bill holds no punches when the media goes negative on Hillary.  Just google "Bill Clinton slams media" or "Angry Bill".
Of course when the media attacks Barack Obama, there's no sign of Bill's maddening red face and wagging finger.  Instead we get mild-mannered Bill:
"Hey I don't know what Obama's complaining about, this is just politics....there's pressure, ya just gotta handle it."I don't know what all he's whinin about, this is a rough game. 

I'll take criticism for this. I'll be told that numbers don't lie. And yes, I understand most polls show a close race in PA.  But my gut feeling hasn't changed about the broad margin Hillary will win by in PA.  I hope it doesn't happen but I've stuck with their original projections.
Not because of quantitative reasons, but rather qualitative reasons.  The arc of the narrative.  
Sometimes when you downplay expectations, like Governor Rendell and the Clintons have been doing since they made claims that Hillary would win by 15-25pts in PA, there's some truth to it, but more likely, it's marketing.

The Clinton campaign has led the election narrative going into this primary with the assertion that Obama can't win blue collar workers and that "the road to Pennsylvania Avenue goes through Pennsylvania."
Think what you want about Wednesday's ABC debate, but from my perspective, it's as if the Clinton campaign wrote the script for the moderators, and hammered away at three  "media-leavened" issues they think would resonate most negatively with Pennsylvania voters;
1)  Obama is elitist and condescending2)  Obama can't represent the "real" values of "real" Americans (My opinion is that this is deliberately charged with racist tones and plays on Governor Rendell's long-held assertion that there are still white people in PA. that won't vote for an African American.)  A big component of this is painting Obama as unpatriotic.  (Flag pin)
3) Obama has a sordid history with black racists and terrorists.
This strategy is tailor-made for the state of PA.  and the unelectable argument has been shoved in the face of the superdelegates since late December 2007/ January 2008.
Obama's "bitter" gaffe was unfortunate.  It was his mistake.  Something the Clintons have been waiting for with baited breath.
From the debate perspective, it's fair to bring up issues that are relevant to PA. voters.  
What was so suspect about the ABC debate though was the complete absence of any discussion about the Colombia Free Trade controversy or free trade in general.
There's more going on with the dynamic right now than I believe the polls are letting on.  
  

There were three issues that George S. and Charles Gibson pressed Obama on during the debate two days ago:
-The William Ayers connection -The Rev. Wright connection-flag pin "controversy
Sean Hannity was responsible for the  William Ayers question.  
And I remember hearing Sean Hannity once claim that he was the one who first broke the Rev. Wright controversy.
And no one pushed the "flag pin" story more often than Sean Hannity.   
He's also parrotted the false accusations about Barack being a Muslim and having attended a Madrassa, not having his hand over his heart during the national anthem, and he drove the Michelle Obama isn't proud of America story into the ground.
For the last year, I would argue that no MSM broadcaster has called into question Obama's patriotism more than Sean Hannity.
I know.  Not a big surprise.  
In my previous post about the debate (link below) I pointed out that the Colombian Free Trade issue wasn't brought up at the debate at all but that it was very relevant to the good folks of Pennsylvania.  
I don't know how moderators choose issues to bring up. But one thing's for certain.  The one's chosen were all relevant to Sean Hannity.  
And they initially became issues because of him.




http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/04/the-gaping-hole-in-george-ss-d.php

The attempt to lump all Obama supporters into one pile of maniacs that will denounce any criticism aimed at Barack is inane. Let's talk about the free pass the media has given Obama.
Here's what I've learned about Barack from the media; he's a cocaine dealer, he's a muslim, he attended a madrassa, he's a black racist, he's a plagiarist, he hates jews, he and his wife hate America and are unpatriotic, he refuses to say the pledge of allegiance, he only does well because he's black, he's too black, he isn't black enough, he's in business with a slum landlord, and he has ties to Hamas.
Try to imagine the humility he must have in order to return to a place where he delivered one of the most difficult historic and inspiring speeches on race only to face a moderator that implies he's a terrorist. I've never seen a man's character assailed with such a barrage of perpetual hate.
Yes, the Republicans are going to kick the crap out of him with the same stuff in the General Election.  

The Muslim stuff, the terrorist stuff, the anti-American stuff, all of it.  

That's politics. Worse, that's politics for a black man.
If you don't think this election is tainted with unadulterated underhanded bigotry, re-read the accusations listed above.  
Yep. That's Obama's "free media pass".
The debate is over and the chorus of pundits have sung.

"He was lackluster last night." "He looked off." "He looked bored." "He just isn't tough enough."  
Gee, maybe they should just urinate on him, drag him by a rope attached to the back of a pickup and see if he responds more presidentially.

Criticize his inexperience, his policies, his ideas, his leadership skills, his legislative record, his perceived elitism. And go ahead, question his ability to stand up against John McCain and emerge victorious. Say you just don't like him and you never will.
But check the dignity-crushing stuff at the door.
Yes, he got beat last night.  

Yes, he lost.
But he wasn't defeated.


(Please feel free to email this or post it elsewhere.)

 

George Stephanopoulos defended the content of last night's debate.  Essentially, he said it was important to discuss issues that had yet to be vetted in a debate.  
Fair enough.
Yet he left out the Clinton campaign's Colombia Free trade controversy.

Oops.
Hillary's chief campaign strategist has been privately lobbying in favor of it. Bill has been quietly championing the same deal and getting paid big bucks for it. Meanwhile Hillary's been going around every small town in America professing her strong opposition to the very idea of free trade.
Just so we're clear.
George Stephanopoulos managed to skip over an issue that was most relevant to the good folks of Pennsylvania.  
As a substitute, he covered the issue most important to Sean Hannity.  A tenuous connection Obama had with someone when he was 8 yrs. old.
Hey, maybe George just couldn't fit everything into one debate.
He only had two hours.

Yes.  No need to go back to the 90s.  Since January, Hillary has built quite a stockpile of weapons Republicans will use against her.
-breaking the MI and FL agreement, thinking rules don't apply to her.  If her own party can't trust her, who can?
-she feels so entitled to the presidency, she tried to have the voice of the people overturned by party elites.
-she ran a dirty negative campaign against a member of her own party.  And forged ahead and divided the whole Democratic electorate.   If she puts herself before her own party, where will she put the American people?
-the lie about "sniper fire" in Bosnia.  If she can't be honest with herself, she can't be honest with America.  Not the best case against an American war hero.   
-a multi-millionaire blaming other people of being elitist.
-While she was giving a speech opposing Colombia free trade, her chief campaign strategist was in Colombia lobbying in favor of it.   Her husband got $800,000 for supporting it.  
-she takes more lobby and special interest money than any other presidential candidate in the race.
-She endorsed John McCain as Commander in Chief.
-she tried to steal delegates who were pledged to Obama

If future presidential debates take ABC's lead, and ABC takes its lead from Fox, and Fox takes its lead from 527s, who benefits?  Corporate media and special interests and lobbyists.  
Plenty of hit men are in the business of swift boating.  It's their job. So it's not like anyone is being deprived of good solid character assassinations.
There will always be voters who take that stuff at face value.  
But do we have to cater to them?
  

Hillary is going all negative, no holds barred, painting Obama as un-american.  
Comments about Rev. Wright, Farakhan, Hamas are coming directly from her.  Character assassination.  
It's pathetic.  

So structured, cheesy, and old-style.  

The Clinton's have gathered their surrogates, their pundits, their supporters, their donors, their circle of governors, representatives and party big-wigs,  their private Library donors, their researchers and their researcher's researchers their most ruthless knee-cappers and bat-wielding G.Gordon Liddys and unleashed them for a pre-PA primary all-out Obama-bashing.
It is with great pleasure that the Clintons bring you "The Unified Symphony of Blunt Instruments.

Never before has their been a collection quite like this. You'll get:
The Rezko-reload. 
Old writings by Obama's father from the 60s.
The elitist's "Obama is an elitist" bandwagon. 

These and a whole lot more:

Rev. Wright unplugged.

The "out-of-touch" argument, as voiced by the most out-of-touch.

CNN's Democratic"Bitter" forum. 
It's an all-inclusive compilation of hits from:
The lovely and talented "He-can't-winners" chorus.
The anti-Obama small-town-America parade.
The Obfuscationers.
The Neocon cons.  

The pre-debate bombshell quartet.  
You'll also get the "We can't beat Obama but we can beat Obama out of context" entire volume.
And the "No, we can't" chants.
This entire repertoire is now available everywhere.
So sit back, relax and bask in the sounds of The Unified Symphony of Blunt Instruments.  

Made possible by the people who put the "phony" in symphony.  

(VIDEO:  HILLARY ARRIVING IN BOSNIA)
VOICE OF A MOTHER:  Hillary Clinton may not know the difference between a "mis-statement" about sniper fire and "real" sniper fire.   But I do:  

(CUT TO VIDEO OF MOTHER STANDING AT DAUGHTER'S GRAVE )
ANNCR:  We can't afford to have another president who isn't honest with America.  

I'm John McCain and I paid for this message.  

(VIDEO:  HILLARY ARRIVING IN BOSNIA)
VOICE OF A MOTHER:  Hillary Clinton may not know the difference between a "mis-statement" about sniper fire and "real" sniper fire.   But I do:  

(CUT TO VIDEO OF MOTHER STANDING AT DAUGHTER'S GRAVE )
A "mis-statement" can't take the life of your 18 yr. old daughter.  


ANNCR:  If Hillary can't be honest with herself, she can't be honest with America.   
I'm John McCain and I paid for this message.  

That's just one commercial the Republicans will run to show how elite Hillary thinks she is.  
No need to dig into her past.  Her behavior in this election alone is enough to paint her and Bill as party elites who don't care who voters across America want as their president.

 

That's just one of the "elitist" commercials the Republicans will run if Hillary ends up with the nomination.  
And you thought the Republicans could make Rev. Wright look like a racist?  Wait until they start clipping together all her comments about how Obama can't win in a general election.  
I personally don't advocate this, I'm just offering a perspective no one seems to be thinking about.

That will be John McCain's first commercial in the general election. You think Kerry and Gore were accused of being elitist? Wait til the Republicans get their hands on Hillary.
Here's the next John McCain commercial:
VO: The democratic candidates signed an agreement that if Michigan and Florida broke primary rules, the results wouldn't count. Well, those states broke primary rules. And every candidate honored their agreement but one: Hillary Clinton. She doesn't think rules apply to her. If her own party can't trust her, how can America trust her?
Here's another:
VO: Hillary Clinton feels so entitled to be President, she was willing to tear apart her own party. Would you rather have a President that puts the needs of herself first, or someone who puts the needs of this country first?

e can't cling to our sons and daughters who died in Iraq.
We can't cling to our jobs. We can't cling to our paychecks.We can't cling to our healthcare.
We can't cling to our homes. We can't cling to our savings. We can't cling to our social security. We can't cling to our right to privacy. We can't cling to our crumbling roads and bridges.We can't cling to our kid's college education.We can't cling to our polluted environment.We can't cling to our reputation around the world. We can't cling to our constitution. We can't cling to our justice system. We can't cling to our drug-infested neighborhoods.We can't cling to our country's moral high ground.
We can't cling to our bitterness. It's unpatriotic.

We can cling to our faith but without everything else, many of us are starting to lose that too.

Just pick up the phone and ask them why George Bush and Dick Cheney are still in office.
AK Lisa Murkowski 1-202-224-6665
AK Ted Stevens 1-202-224-3004
AL Jeff Sessions 1-202-224-4124
AL Richard Shelby 1-202-224-5744
AR Blanche Lincoln 1-202-224-4843
AR Mark Pryor 1-202-224-2353
AZ Jon Kyl 1-202-224-4521
AZ John McCain 1-202-224-2235

CA Barbara Boxer 1-202-224-3553
CA Dianne Feinstein 1-202-224-3841
CO Wayne Allard 1-202-224-5941
CO Ken Salazar 1-202-224-5852
CT Christopher Dodd 1-202-224-2823
CT Joseph Lieberman 1-202-224-4041
DE Joseph Biden 1-202-224-5042
DE Thomas Carper 1-202-224-2441
FL Mel Martinez 1-202-224-3041
FL Bill Nelson 1-202-224-5274
GA Saxby Chambliss 1-202-224-3521
GA Johnny Isakson 1-202-224-3643

HI Daniel Akaka 1-202-224-6361
HI Daniel Inouye 1-202-224-3934
IA Charles Grassley 1-202-224-3744
IA Tom Harkin 1-202-224-3254
ID Larry Craig 1-202-224-2752
ID Mike Crapo 1-202-224-6142
IL Richard Durbin 1-202-224-2152
IL Barack Obama 1-202-224-2854
IN Evan Bayh 1-202-224-5623
IN Richard Lugar 1-202-224-4814
KS Sam Brownback 1-202-224-6521
KS Pat Roberts 1-202-224-4774

KY Jim Bunning 1-202-224-4343
KY Mitch McConnell 1-202-224-2541
LA Mary Landrieu 1-202-224-5824
LA David Vitter 1-202-224-4623
MA Edward Kennedy 1-202-224-4543
MA John Kerry 1-202-224-2742
MD Benjamin Cardin 1-202-224-4524
MD Barbara Mikulski 1-202-224-4654
ME Susan Collins 1-202-224-2523
ME Olympia Snowe 1-202-224-5344
MI Carl Levin 1-202-224-6221
MI Debbie Stabenow 1-202-224-4822

MN Norm Coleman 1-202-224-5641
MN Amy Klobuchar 1-202-224-3244
MO Christopher Bond 1-202-224-5721
MO Claire McCaskill 1-202-224-6154
MS Thad Cochran 1-202-224-5054
MS Trent Lott 1-202-224-6253
MT Max Baucus 1-202-224-2651
MT Jon Tester 1-202-224-2644
NC Richard Burr 1-202-224-3154
NC Elizabeth Dole 1-202-224-6342
ND Kent Conrad 1-202-224-2043
ND Byron Dorgan 1-202-224-2551

NE Chuck Hagel 1-202-224-4224
NE Ben Nelson 1-202-224-6551
NH Judd Gregg 1-202-224-3324
NH John Sununu 1-202-224-2841
NJ Frank Lautenberg 1-202-224-3224
NJ Robert Menendez 1-202-224-4744
NM Jeff Bingaman 1-202-224-5521
NM Pete Domenici 1-202-224-6621
NV John Ensign 1-202-224-6244
NV Harry Reid 1-202-224-3542
NY Hillary Clinton 1-202-224-4451
NY Charles Schumer 1-202-224-6542
OH Sherrod Brown 1-202-224-2315
OH George Voinovich 1-202-224-3353
OK Tom Coburn 1-202-224-5754
OK James Inhofe 1-202-224-4721

OR Gordon Smith 1-202-224-3753
OR Ron Wyden 1-202-224-5244
PA Robert Casey 1-202-224-6324
PA Arlen Specter 1-202-224-4254
RI Jack Reed 1-202-224-4642
RI Sheldon Whitehouse 1-202-224-2921
SC Jim DeMint 1-202-224-6121
SC Lindsey Graham 1-202-224-5972
SD Tim Johnson 1-202-224-5842
SD John Thune 1-202-224-2321
TN Lamar Alexander 1-202-224-4944
TN Bob Corker 1-202-224-3344
TX John Cornyn 1-202-224-2934
TX Kay Bailey Hutchison 1-202-224-5922

UT Robert Bennett 1-202-224-5444
UT Orrin Hatch 1-202-224-5251
VA John Warner 1-202-224-2023
VA James Webb 1-202-224-4024
VT Patrick Leahy 1-202-224-4242
VT Bernard Sanders 1-202-224-5141
WA Maria Cantwell 1-202-224-3441
WA Patty Murray 1-202-224-2621
WI Russ Feingold 1-202-224-5323
WI Herbert Kohl 1-202-224-5653
WV Robert Byrd 1-202-224-3954
WV John Rockefeller 1-202-224-6472
WY Michael Enzi 1-202-224-3424
WY Craig Thomas 1-202-224-6441

ne of the more under-reported events this weekend is the reaction of North Carolina voters to Hillary's speech about Barack Obama being elitist and out-of-touch. Less than a smattering of applause.

The Clinton campaign printed up stickers for everyone to wear that said "I'm not bitter".

Once again, the Clinton campaign got it all wrong. Few people wanted to wear the stickers.

They are now out in full force saying Obama is elitist and out of touch.

Really?

They thought they would take Iowa. Wrong. They didn't even come in second. They came in third.

The Clintons thought that the election would be over by February 5th. Wrong.

They thought they could win with the "Hillary has 35 years of experience" strategy. Wrong.

They thought they could win with "Only Hillary is ready to be Commander in Chief" strategy. Wrong.

They thought they could change the rules and get the DNC to count the original results from Michigan and Florida. Wrong.

They thought the Culinary Worker's Union in Nevada would endorse Hillary. Wrong.

They thought they could get a court order to prevent that union from holding a caucus. Wrong.

They thought the line "that's not change you can believe in, that's change you can xerox" would hit Obama like a ton of bricks. Very wrong. Instead, they got booed.

They thought Rev.Wright would annihilate Barack's candidacy. Wrong. He came back and gave an historical highly-intelligent speech on race. (To this day, Hillary claims she didn't listen to it. And won't comment on it.)

They thought Bill Richardson, out of loyalty, would endorse Hillary. Wrong.

They thought they could get away with telling the Bosnia sniper fire story. Wrong.

They thought they could just say Hillary mis-spoke. Wrong.

They thought they would win Texas. Wrong.

They thought they would blow Obama away in terms of fundraising. Wrong.

How many times can you be wrong and still call someone else out-of-touch?

So now the Clintons are desperately trying to spin it because they haven't been able to win it.

They can't say Obama has no chance of winning the primary. That ship sailed as soon as the primary started.

So now, they're coming out in full force with scare tactics.
The talking point being repeated over and over again this weekend and on the Sunday talk shows is that there's no way Obama can win the general election.

Why?
Anything and everything they can fit into the kitchen sink. He's elitist and Republicans will tear him apart. He's associated with Rev. Wright and the Republicans will tear him apart. The kneecapping he's facing now is nothing compared to what the Republicans will do. They'll tear him apart. White blue collar workers will never vote for him because he doesn't represent the values of "real" Americans. And the Republicans will tear him apart.

Meanwhile, they'll tear him apart to prepare him for when the Republicans tear him apart.

They're trying to scare everyone into voting for Hillary.

Why?

Because Hillary can't win on her own merit. Her own experience.

The Clinton campaign is now 100% behind the following campaign strategy:

Hillary will win because her opponent won't.
That's priceless.

The candidate that is losing is saying that Obama has electability problems.

These are the same people who said this would be over on February 5.

Scared yet?

I think they're spot on with this one.  The more they try to define Obama, the more they end up defining themselves.