The Story Behind The Story

Story behind the story: The Clinton myth
By Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen
The Politico

One big fact has largely been lost in the recent coverage of the Democratic presidential race: Hillary Rodham Clinton has virtually no chance of winning.

Her own campaign acknowledges there is no way that she will finish ahead in pledged delegates. That means the only way she wins is if Democratic superdelegates are ready to risk a backlash of historic proportions from the party’s most reliable constituency.

Unless Clinton is able to at least win the primary popular vote — which also would take nothing less than an electoral miracle — and use that achievement to pressure superdelegates, she has only one scenario for victory. An African-American opponent and his backers would be told that, even though he won the contest with voters, the prize is going to someone else.

People who think that scenario is even remotely likely are living on another planet.

As it happens, many people inside Clinton’s campaign live right here on Earth. One important Clinton adviser estimated to Politico privately that she has no more than a 10 percent chance of winning her race against Barack Obama, an appraisal that was echoed by other operatives.

In other words: The notion of the Democratic contest being a dramatic cliffhanger is a game of make-believe.

View this entire article.

Personally, I am tired of this game, this "make-believe" world (or is it nightmare) the democratic party is living through at this point. As my 7 year old stated a week ago, "I wish this was already decided..." Me too... Me too...

I have tried not to get immersed in the infighting going on in the Democratic party, because at some point, we're all going to have to come together. Obama or Clinton will be our candidate and the objective will be to beat McCain in November. That's why I'm tired. I try to convince myself that the party will mend, but will it before November? Before it's too late to start the real fight, the one with the Republican party?

Obama, Ideas and Solutions. Plus, Gallup Poll Shows Obama Widening Lead over Clinton Nationally.

As I'm sure that you have noticed, Hillary Clinton is trying to sell us this lie that Obama doesn't have any ideas or solutions and yet in the same breath claims he has stolen her ideas. She can't have it both ways. Which one is it Mrs. Clinton? And if they both has similar ideas, which they do then what is the difference between the two?

He represents true change, a fresh face, an inspirational orator, a more electable candidate who has cross-over appeal into the Independent voting block as well as some Republicans. He seeks to run a mostly positive campaign while she has been and continues to try and drag him into fights and mud-slinging. It looks desperate and nothing turns off an electorate more than playing dirty and negative attacks.

Is it really a good idea on her part to criticize a record turn-out and support of a Democratic candidate by an inspired youth? Does she really want to disillusion them and risk them turning away from her if she wins the nomination and campaign in the general election? I don't think it's smart of her to slam every other demographic that supports Obama (the more educated, the African American community, the youth) and basically say that the blue collar Democrats tend to favor her are the only real, true Democrats. She is hitting everyone hard that doesn't support her and in doing so keeps painting herself further and further into a corner. Obama is doing the opposite, appealing to everyone and building a diverse and strong coalition. He wants to include and she mostly wants to isolate, divide and conquer. She seems to be willing to destroy the party just so long as she wins the nomination.

Other than her similar ideas as Obama's she has nothing else to bring to the table other than pessimism, the same old politics, a less chance of being elected in the general and a controversial figure who carries a lot of negative baggage that would unite a factored, less popular Republican party. Do we liberal and Democrats want to win in November and move the country forward in a new direction or do we want to get mired again in the mud of the controversial, divisive Clinton years?

As for solutions, every presidential candidate has a reservoir of ideas and solutions or else they would've been discovered as one dimensional, not serious candidates from day one of their entrance in the race. She also is throwing this desperate net out there that Obama is all talk and that talk is cheap. Well then doesn't that cut both ways? It's obvious that he has ideas and solutions so then who is the one talking cheap and in an insincere manner? They say we project onto others our own weaknesses. So if that is the case then we can't help but come to the conclusion that this accusation of Obama is nothing but cheap talk and empty rhetoric on her part.

Then there is this still stale claim that she is a better manager than Obama and that because of that she is better capable to lead on day one. Well I think that we can get a good idea of each candidates management style by the way that they are running their campaigns. Obama has run a well oiled machine from the beginning whereas the Clinton campaign has made miscalculation after miscalculation. She blew off the caucuses from the start and then whined that they were disadvantaged by the caucus system but only after they started to get spanked by Obama in them. As if we are supposed to feel sorry for her and give her another chance. She was beat by Obama's superior ground strategy and knows it.

In addition, she hasn't been able to keep track of her funds and manage a budget within her own campaign so what does that say about how she'll handle the particulars of a federal budget? It also shows that she isn't as capable of running a well balanced and smooth operating administration. To that end she can't keep control of her advisers and we keep hearing of reports of infighting and resignations. Is this the kind of chaos that we should expect from a Clinton administration from "day one"? I think it shows a lack of judgment on her part in being able to put together a well balanced, competent and professional team.

That all being said, however, I'd like to return to the idea that Obama has no solutions. Take the FDR like National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank to rebuild America's crumbling bridges, cracking highways and aging dams. Is that not a solution? It will create new jobs and invest back in America rather than investing in China's infrastructure and economy. I guess that isn't a solution to a vital problem facing us.

This is just one idea and solution that is easily found through one search with Google to find Barack's website that easily lists his ideas and solutions to vital problems in America.

Gallop Poll Shows Obama Lead Nationally Widens:

PRINCETON, NJ -- For several days, nationwide Democratic voters' preferences have been shifting toward Barack Obama in Gallup Poll Daily election tracking. Now, the Illinois senator enjoys his first statistically significant lead, 49% to 42%, over Hillary Clinton, according to the Feb. 13-15 results. Additionally, the 49% support for Obama represents the high point for him in the daily tracking program.

The tracking data reflect the Obama momentum since the Feb. 5 Super Tuesday primaries, moving from a +13 Clinton advantage in Feb. 3-5 polling to a +7 Obama lead in the latest results.

(Cross posted at Genius of Insanity).

---End of Transmission---

Hillary Clinton Blames Louisiana and the Caucus System for Her Losses.

(Cross-posted at Genius of Insanity).

Hillary Clinton is insinuating that the only reason that Obama won Louisiana was because of the African American community there. That is quite the dismissal of Latinos, Whites, Asians, Indians and other ethnic groups that voted for Barack.

It is also quite a rebuff of African-Americans in the Pelican State since she use to brag about her own support in the African-American community. As well as suggesting that African-Americans vote as a block and don't think for themselves.

However, like everyone else that dares not support her she is now dismissing those voters by basically saying that they are lemmings. That being said, if that is her argument then we can level the same charge against many women who support her. The ironic thing now is that she is bragging about her support in the Latino community.

However, Clinton has a way of dissing an entire state after losing. After her Iowa loss she snapped at a reporter's question that we all know that Iowa is a pour indicator of who wins the presidency.

She is continuing this whining about the caucus system and how terrible it is but she didn't say that when she won the Nevada caucus now did she? Nor did she make that claim before the primary and caucus season began back in January. It's never that she didn't run a good enough campaign or ground operation to get out of the vote in these caucus states. It's couldn't be that Obama beat her like a drum. No, instead she blames the system. As far as I can tell Obama hasn't been bitching about the primary system where he isn't as strong as in the caucus states.

At the same time, she is rebuffing the voters in these caucus states insinuating that the voters are party activists more than average voters like myself. Everyone in my precinct were just average folks, they are my neighbors and a sizable amount of the voters (whether for Clinton or Obama) were first time caucus goers. What an insult to suggest that it couldn't be that she is losing because people see her as a terrible candidate. No, it couldn't be that because she thinks she's "God's" gift to the world.

Then there is this message that she is tested because she has gone through the Republican attack machine and survived but she doesn't mention is that she was greatly wounded and weakened by those efforts. I don't want a candidate that is a favorite punching bag of the right-wing and one that will unite a fractured and disillusioned Republican party.

---End of Transmission---

The Hillary Clinton "Experience" Issue Debunked.

I want to address this red herring that Barack Obama isn't experienced enough to lead America. First off, it is true that Obama has only been in the U.S. Senate for two years but Hillary hasn't been in the Senate much longer, she's been in there five years--that's only a three year difference. It's not like Obama is fresh off the streets as the Clinton camp has been trying portray him. He has 8 years of political experience in the state government of Illionois. He learned there that to get things done one must compromise and have good judgment. Obama wouldn't have lasted eight years if he was seen as having poor judgment. To say that he doesn't have enough experience and understanding of important political matters and making decisions based on those matters is a slap in the face to Illinois voters who voted for him. Sure the U.S. Senate makes decisions on a bigger scale than the state level but the process of going about making a decision to base a vote upon is similar whether it is the state level or the national level.

But Hillary Clinton has White House experience you might say, well, not really. She didn't sit in on classified meetings with the President Bill Clinton and his inner circle.

Hillary may have had a front seat to her husband's presidency but in the end she wasn't responsible of the important decisions that a president must make. There is a big difference between supporting and advising a president than being the one who sees all the classified documents and has to make the difficult decisions that only a president is responsible for.

And I find it telling that the Clinton's won't release papers that would enlighten us as to exactly what Hillary did and did not do during Bill's presidency. If there wasn't anything to hide and if it would prove her talk about being so "qualified" from those years then you'd think they would want them released to help her campaign. The fact that they are being coy about these documents tells me that something stinks in those documents and isn't in keeping with Hillary's claims that she all but made the decisions for Bill.

Yet during those years she didn't hold a security clearance, did not sit in on meetings of the National Security Council and wasn't even given a copy of the president's daily intelligence briefing!! I just can't see the confident, self-important, Bill as sharing the power and prestige of a presidency with her. Bill is a great person for the most part but he loves power and feeling important so I'm pretty sure he kept Hillary from knowing too much and having too much influence/power.

In addition, during trips aboard she was limited to being a spokesperson for American ideals and not being a negotiator for important foreign policy matters. She's no more experienced in making those decisions than Obama, in fact when it mattered she voted the wrong way on the Iraq war and I'm supposed to believe she has better judgment than Barack??? I don't think so. This whole experience song and dance is dishonest and a deception of mass proportions.

The fact of the matter is that no one is fully ready for being president and every president must "learn on the job" to some degree when arriving in the White House. The important qualities that I think are important in a president are patience and the ability to compromise, listen to others and make those decisions based on the best advice and briefings available. Obama has those qualities whereas I don't see Hillary as that patient, willing to compromise and listen to others. She would most likely be a micro-manager and as anyone in business understands, that's not very effective.

The surest way to kill enthusiasm and fresh ideas from your advisers and aids is to micro-manage things. Obama understands the importance and success of delegating the vast responsibilities of an American presidency and yet the Clinton camp has doggedly been trying to spin that as a negative and proof of "irresponsibility." I think if most people are honest, they will see this quality as being one of being realistic and understanding that delegation is the best way to achieve the best results possible.

Hillary's tendency to micromanage everything risks isolating herself from those who disagree with her and isolating her from the American people not unlike our current president. Like Hillary, Bush is impatient, unwilling to compromise with anyone from across the aisle and listens about as well as a two year old.

I think the choice is clear, Obama is the only way to go.

UPDATE: Kiera Philips from CNN just called Obama, Osama. The thing that bothers me most is not the slip up but the fact that she didn't correct herself. I just emailed CNN to complain.

And isn't it convenient that Hillary "teared up" again a day before a big primary and of course the media is playing it over and over again today.

By James from Genius of Insanity.