home

Signs of the New Hillary: Attacks on Special Interests and Obama

Even sporting a pair of blue boxing gloves, Hillary Clinton came out swinging today at a General Motors plant in Ohio:

In a speech to General Motors workers and executives, Clinton trumped Obama's own economic plan from a day before and appeared to be channeling former rival John Edwards' populist anti-corporate message.

The Specifics of her plan:

She said she would rein in oil, insurance, credit card, student loan and Wall Street investment companies and generate $55 billion a year that would be used for middle class tax cuts, create jobs and pay for an array of domestic programs.

On Obama: [more]

Clinton went after Obama, tying him to nuclear interests and blaming for doing little to stave off job losses in Illinois.

"My opponent says that he'll take on the special interests," she said. "Well, he told people he stood up to the nuclear industry and passed a bill against them. But he actually let the nuclear industry water down his bill the bill never actually passed."

Clinton was referring to Exelon Corp., a Chicago-based energy giant and nuclear plant operator, whose executives and employees have contributed more than $200,000 to Obama's campaigns since 2004. This month, The New York Times examined whether Obama, at the behest of Exelon lobbyists, had weakened legislation aimed at tightening regulations on the nuclear industry.

We wrote about that here.

More on Hillary's new plan:

Clinton told the GM workers, "I'm announcing an agenda to rein in the special interests and save the American people at least $55 billion a year. Money that can go back into your pockets. Money we can use to create new jobs, rebuild our infrastructure, make college affordable and so much more."

She said she would force oil companies to invest some of their record profits in high-wage, clean-energy jobs. "I'll end their special tax breaks and given them a choice: Invest some of your profits in alternative energy or we'll do it for you," she said....In addition to earlier proposals to cap interest rates at 30 percent, Clinton said she would prohibit credit card companies from imposing hidden fees and sudden rate hikes.

I think the provision in her new plan that may resonate most with voters is this one:

She promised to stop insurance companies from refusing to cover the pre-existing conditions of their clients.

"They spend more than $50 billion a year trying to figure out how not to cover people," Clinton said. "I'm going to save them a fortune and a whole lot of time, because here's the new policy: No more discrimination period. So even if you have a pre-existing condition, you can get the health insurance you need no questions asked."

Update: Hillary supporters start a fundraising blog for her.

< New McCain vs. Hillary and Obama Polls | Hillary Clinton Wins New Mexico >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    zing! zap! (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:47:59 PM EST
    Kapow!

    I just wish we had another word to use other than "attack," because that has such negative connotations.  This is pointing out differences and gaffes with her opponent.  I would call it good gamesmanship.

    I love the last zinger about saving the insurance companies money.  This is the Hillary I love to see.  It reminds me of what Maxine Water said in California: "We don't need hope.  We need help."

    Notice (none / 0) (#5)
    by Jgarza on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:49:30 PM EST
    that message hasn't been repeated.  what Gaffe is she pointing out?

    Parent
    the gaffe (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:01:16 PM EST
    was saying he passed a bill that was not, in fact, passed.

    But, Jesus Christ on cheese toast, would you look at all these rabid Obama supporters!  I feel like I'm down here looking at the pretty coral and you guys are up there like sharks circling for blood.

    I'm outta here for now.  Maybe some more grown-ups will be here later.  Thanks for bringing this to light, Jeralyn.  It's good news to see Hillary taking charge.  Makes me very happy to read it.

    Parent

    Please don't leave! (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Marvin42 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:04:32 PM EST
    I think that is part of the effect (maybe even desired).

    I wish the adults would stick around.

    Parent

    Why do you think (none / 0) (#33)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:06:52 PM EST
    that all the Obama supporters are children?  It is fairly insulting considering I am 40.

    Parent
    That is not what I meant (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Marvin42 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:13:39 PM EST
    My point is not about debate, but when people just post contrary comments, trying to negate every statement it is not very helpful, enlightening or interesting. And honestly I was in no way aiming at anyone in particular.

    So let me rephrase: I hope people who are interested in informed debate stay around.

    Does that work?

    Parent

    Sorry Marvin (none / 0) (#91)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:37:02 PM EST
    I was responding to Kathy's dismissive comment.

    Parent
    You may know this reference... (none / 0) (#98)
    by Marvin42 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:42:11 PM EST
    "Oh, never mind!"

    Sorry about that.

    Parent

    you are joking right? (none / 0) (#37)
    by jdj on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:09:00 PM EST
    This is one of the most pro-Clinton sites on the net.

    Parent
    If by "pro-Clinton" you mean (5.00 / 3) (#137)
    by echinopsia on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:05:45 PM EST
    somewhere Clinton supporters can actually join a reasonable conversation without being completely harassed, shouted down, and insulted by Obama supporters, then I guess you're right.

    Not too many places like that left.

    Parent

    as well as... (none / 0) (#14)
    by jdj on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:54:25 PM EST
    "small states don't count".

    Parent
    jdj (none / 0) (#170)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:18:07 PM EST
    Or   "Florida  and Michigan  don't  matter."

    Parent
    Double Standards. (none / 0) (#175)
    by Nytecoldawn on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:46:17 AM EST
    The problem with what you are saying is that Clinton wants it both ways. If Obama points out, accurately mind you, her short comings in the Senate it is an attack. Her record is off limits, but it is not an attack when she does it to him.

    For someone that loves to claim she has been attacked and that she is a victim of unfair double standards, she certainly loves to hold other people to do them. The hypocrisy is great.

    I am not saying that Obama is squeaky clean. He is a politician after all. But I know of many more instances of Clinton lying and double talking than Obama.

    Parent

    In a perfect world... (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by sweetthings on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:50:42 PM EST
    There would be no need for negative advertising.

    But we don't live in that world. Hillary doesn't really have any choice but to start going negative at this point. She has to stop the Obama Express from gathering up too much steam before it hits her March 4th firewall. I'm sure she'll be as careful as she can about it, but if she doesn't start poking some holes in his defense, she's done for.

    The party will survive. Bush went viciously negative against McCain in '00, and the Republicans rallied. Democrats will do the same.

    And this isn't negative (5.00 / 2) (#154)
    by seattlegonz on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:53:00 PM EST
    The media said she went negative because she put up an ad that said she regretted that Obama wasn't willing to debate. Republicans run ads that make McCain out to be a traitor for being a POW, and they send out Christmas cards in Romney's name that talk about the importance of White wives, oh and Merry Christmas. Obama doesn't know negative advertising.

    It's going to take a lot for me to forgive his Harry and Louise ad. That's repug negative.

    Parent

    too late? (1.00 / 2) (#12)
    by jdj on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:52:30 PM EST
    isn't it a bit too late?

    all she can do is tarnish the both of them. herself more than him most likely.

    Parent

    Funny (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by echinopsia on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:08:51 PM EST
    all she can do is tarnish the both of them. herself more than him most likely.

    I didn't see you making that objective while Obama was on the offense against her.

    Parent

    and I didn't see people talking about leading (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:27:14 PM EST
    in delegates when Clinton was the clear victor and leading in all the polls.  Now that the shoe is on the other foot, why aren't folks giving her the benefit of the doubt like they did Obama?  (and, more importantly, why aren't people asking why he is wearing women's shoes?)

    Let's wait until all the votes are counted, folks.

    Parent

    Forgiving Clinton (none / 0) (#176)
    by Nytecoldawn on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:56:17 AM EST
    Clinton just doesn't make her case very well. Her senate record is terrible. The worse she can do is blame Obama for watering down a bill to try to get it through congress, one of which she supported, completely leaving that fact out.

    She touts her ability to cross the aisle to get things done, and she has revised as many bills to try to get them through the congress. But if Obama does it it is weakness, and if she does it, it is working for a better future.  

    Come on, give me a break. The reason that Clinton doesn't get the same benefit of the doubt as Obama is because he is at least willing to admit that he compromises. Hillary will not admit to compromising any of her bills when she has to look strong, like this week. She wants you to believe that she will take anyone to task and not compromise with the right. That is a lie plain in simple. She was just touting her ability to compromise with her republicans counter parts by compromising and finding common ground, but when Obama does the same thing it is negative.

    Sounds like she doesn't want to hold herself to the same standards.

    Parent

    It's only too late... (none / 0) (#19)
    by sweetthings on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:58:14 PM EST
    If you believe she's already lost - and I'm not quite that cynical yet. I agree that math is against her right now, but this is politics, and anything can happen. More often than not, you win simply by being able to hang on longer than the other guy. Every day Hillary survives is one more day that Obama might just shoot himself in the foot.

    But for Hillary to survive much longer, she's got to come out swinging. Is it risky? Of course it is! But you can't land a punch unless you're willing to expose your face, and right now, she really needs to land a few.

    Parent

    I am not sure math is against her (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Marvin42 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:15:50 PM EST
    I may be wrong, but I think this will come down to a very complicated set of factors. Neither candidate will have "won" outright, and the relative position of the both, what states they have one, and yes, complicated internal politics will decide the nominee.

    I wonder how the whole situation will look like IF (and its a real IF) Sen Clinton pulls off the three major states with a healthy margin.

    Parent

    Obama has won (5.00 / 0) (#68)
    by jdj on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:25:39 PM EST
    the delegate count and pop vote so far, and the remaining contests favour him greatly. Overwhelmingly. So much that catching up is nolonger realistic. the most Hillary can hope for is that Obama completely implodes, or that she can stay close enough that super delegates can eke her a slim win. If she doesn't win TX/PA/OH all by big margins even that is a pipe dream.

    Parent
    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by BDB on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:29:08 PM EST
    I think that unless Obama does get momentum out of his recent wins, which may very well happen, the rest of the schedule isn't nearly as good for him.  The states voting between February 5th and March 4th were almost uniformly friendly to Obama, with a lot of them having either caucuses or a large percentage of AA voters.

    The remaining states are not nearly as friendly in terms of process (fewer caucuses) or demos (smaller % of AA voters, more working class voters).    If he can use his momentum from his winning streak, the upcoming states aren't beyond his reach, but he needs to have expanded his support beyond his Super Tuesday base.  

    Parent

    See? (none / 0) (#70)
    by Marvin42 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:26:24 PM EST
    There you go again. Posting Obama campaign lines. What I said again is that it may come down to a game of perceptions. And the nomination is determined not by pledged delegates, but TOTAL delegates.

    I mean I could just say "the nomination is determined by if you are a woman or not." That wouldn't really change the outcome or be true now, would it?


    Parent

    Even the Clinton campagin... (none / 0) (#83)
    by sweetthings on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:30:56 PM EST
    Seems to be admitting that the math is against her. The goal is to keep the delegate count within 100. Some of that is certainly expectation management, but it also reflects the reality that Clinton taking the lead among regular delegates is looking increasingly unlikely.

    But just because the math is against you doesn't mean you quit. Things can and do change. But that only helps you if you stay alive.

    Clinton knows this. She'll do what she has to.

    Parent

    She hasn't lost (none / 0) (#177)
    by Nytecoldawn on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 08:28:01 AM EST
    She hasn't lost yet, but I think she will if she tries to hard to slander Obama. He does not have much that can be held against him. So far everything she has accused him of, she has done the same or worse.

    She wants us to go on her record, but her record is weak. She has a bad record for health care reform, but this won't be mentioned much. Her plan for universal health care requires a mandate. It is modeled off the plan that Mass. has in affect currently. It is also the same plan that was shot down in California when Arnie proposed it. It wasn't shot down by the republicans, it was done in by the Unions who learned what the cost of these mandates would be. The plan in Mass. is prohibitively expensive and the cost is increasing  faster than the national average. People are now paying NOT to have coverage as it is cheaper.

    She has a bad record on lobbying reform, but she now wants us to believe that she will take them to task. This is a person who has taken more money from lobbyist than any other candidate this year. She has taken more lobbyist money this year than Obama has taken since his entrance on the national scene. She has a bad record of ethics reform. This is not to say that all lobbying groups are bad. They aren't, but Obama does not let them package money for him. If you want to contribute you can do so as a normal citizen.

    She claims now that she wants earmark reform, but when Obama stood up and called on the congress to make sure that any earmark must disclose who sponsored it and who it was going to, she voted against it. Of course this is also because she has been using her earmarks to fund a fancy mall's construction in New York. Sounds like a worthy way to spend tax dollars seeing how we have bridges in disrepair and roads that the states can't seem to spend enough money on.

    She claims to have been duped on numerous occasions by the Bush administration, but wants us to believe that it was all his fault and that she really can stand on her own. Where is the accountability? I do know that Obama in the middle of a contentious senate race spoke out publicly against the war. Sure his record has been similar to hers in the senate since he got there, but he has also worked tirelessly to bring out troops home. Even crafting some bills asking for a time table to start bringing troops home.

    I do not think I want a senator as president that is not willing to read the bill to authorize a war before voting on it. I know it is not possible to read everything that comes across your desk in the Senate, but you would think that this was an important bill to read.

    I am sorry, but Hillary Clinton's record is suspect and found wanting.
     

    Parent

    If none of you complained about (5.00 / 5) (#10)
    by athyrio on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:51:33 PM EST
    Obama's many attacks on her lo these many past weeks then you certainly should'nt be commenting about hers....If he won't debate her in a proper forum I guess she has to point it out in these speeches and I applaud her for it!!

    more debate in this primary (none / 0) (#13)
    by jdj on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:53:11 PM EST
    than any recent other.


    Parent
    I do (none / 0) (#60)
    by Virginian on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:20:06 PM EST
    because there has only been one 1-on-1 debate.

    Parent
    Um... (none / 0) (#64)
    by Virginian on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:23:14 PM EST
    I said "I do"...so that implies that...I do? :)

    Parent
    How many will suffice? (none / 0) (#76)
    by jdj on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:29:23 PM EST
    Is there a number that you think is right?

    Parent
    at minimum (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Virginian on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:42:25 PM EST
    one per state...hosted locally, simulcast nationally...I think it allows for 2 things

    1. head to head match up
    2. ability for local issues to play a roll, even in South Dakota, or RI...it is an American president after all...not a California President or a Illinois president, or a Nevada President...etc.


    Parent
    are we (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by jdj on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:44:03 PM EST
    including states hillary is not actively contesting?

    Parent
    Yeah... (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Virginian on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:54:46 PM EST
    advantage whoever...but I think local debates are important...

    maybe its overkill, but 50 states, 50 debates...

    Parent

    Overkill is right. (none / 0) (#178)
    by Nytecoldawn on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 08:34:12 AM EST
    Have you watched the 18 debates so far? They don't say anything. There is no time to make your case for anything in these debates. They speak in tag lines and sound bites. Yeah they really work out nicely to clear up confusion on complicated issues.  

    I also grow tried of Hillary crying to the moderators, "But he just attacked me..."

    There are debates coming up in both Texas and Ohio. And after this there are certain to be more debates.

    Parent

    Hillary is poll driven... (5.00 / 0) (#15)
    by doordiedem0crat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:56:08 PM EST
    not to mention now she's biting Edwards' message.

    She is not ready to lead this country if she has to change her message every month.

    Again this is another NEW Hillary. I wonder what she'll come up with in March.

    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by BDB on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:08:42 PM EST
    Obama has spent more money on polls than Hillary.

    Parent
    No to mention his entire campaign (none / 0) (#67)
    by Virginian on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:24:17 PM EST
    seems very..."Focus group" driven?

    Parent
    Hillary guitar ad? (none / 0) (#108)
    by jdj on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:47:46 PM EST
    Was focus group manufacturing gone bad.

    Parent
    Ha! (none / 0) (#117)
    by Virginian on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:00:05 PM EST
    I haven't seen it but probably right

    Parent
    It appears (none / 0) (#159)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:10:29 PM EST
    he  has  spent  more  on  superdelegates,  too.:)

    Parent
    oh hillary changes her meaning? please! (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by hellothere on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:28:43 PM EST
    obama meant this before he meant that! yeah! right!

    Parent
    On what? (none / 0) (#179)
    by Nytecoldawn on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 08:36:04 AM EST
    On what specific idea of his are you commenting?  

    Parent
    sure! obama makes speech against (none / 0) (#182)
    by hellothere on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 09:56:37 AM EST
    iraq before being elected to the senate. afterward, he states he doesn't know but he might have voted for the confirmation that allowed bush to go forward to iraq. thereafter he supported all the bills giving more and more funds to bush to pay for iraq even though numerous organizations petitioned him not to do so.

    so don't argue about obama changing. he did and he does. all this arguing on here about what obama really meant. i say bull! he is a smart man and knows how to use english. let him speak plain.

    Parent

    Based on? (none / 0) (#31)
    by Marvin42 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:06:19 PM EST
    What exactly? Any particular fact?

    Parent
    Response and a favor (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Marvin42 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:18:19 PM EST
    I am not sure your facts are accurate. How was one US senator supposed to pass health care reform, specially as part of the minority and with a republican president?

    I also think both sides have taken quite a bit of special interest group money. I honestly don't hold it against either, it is just politics. Until the rules change its the way it is.

    And running a campaign is nothing like running a country. You could argue that George Bush ran a great campaign...

    And the favor: please don't keep repeating the same line over and over. Thanks.

    Parent

    Its called learning by experience (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Marvin42 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:28:06 PM EST
    Which honestly is my personal negative against Sen Obama. Not his talent, his vision, his leadership, etc. I don't think he is ready (I know others don't agree).

    I think Sen Clinton made a mistake in that process in 1992. And I think she learned from it.

    I am not sure I want someone to have to learn that lesson again, and essentially put off the changes of universal health care for another 16 years or so.

    Parent

    Good points (none / 0) (#63)
    by Virginian on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:21:58 PM EST
    especially on the GWB campaign/running the country into the ground comparison

    Parent
    yes 1992 (none / 0) (#88)
    by rebecca on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:34:28 PM EST
    Back when both the Clintons were as green at the executive branch as Obama will be if he manages to win the nomination and then the election.  Consider all the experience she has now about how things work that she didn't have then.  Consider how little experience Obama has that she does.  Consider also all the other health care bills she's worked on and passed.  Or just ignore all that history and hope.  

    Parent
    I Don't Know If I'd Embrace That Narrative (none / 0) (#48)
    by BDB on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:15:36 PM EST
    Because it implies that Obama is having trouble finishing off - and could still lose to - a person whose campaign has been a mess.  Not a strong narrative, that.

    Parent
    Or Simply Get More Votes (none / 0) (#65)
    by BDB on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:23:39 PM EST
    Unless you think it shouldn't matter if Clinton has more democrats vote for her than Obama does.

    I'm going to say it right now, if either of them has a significant* lead in the popular vote, including all states (but I'd give most, if not all, of the uncommitted in MI to Obama) then he or she should be the nominee.  I don't care about pledged delegates in this screwed up, unrepresentative allocation system.  I also don't care about what Super Delegates want.  Let the voters vote.

    And let the people reform the system for 2012.  No caucuses.  A revolving, regionally-based primary schedule that is fair to all states.  Pledged delegates allocated based on popular vote by state.  A reduced number of Super Delegates or perhaps no Super Delegates, I can see an argument either way, but no more than 10% of the total delegates.

    * I say significant because of all the various ways the popular vote can be counted, an incredibly close vote of say, 10,000, may not be accurate.  So I'll go for 100,000 votes or more.  If it's closer than that, then the SDs can decide it however they want as far as I'm concerned because I don't think there is a clear "people's choice."

    Parent

    Great summary (none / 0) (#77)
    by Marvin42 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:29:35 PM EST
    I don't know who could disagree with this. Only issue really is that we have to assume caucus states represent the total voters. I also acknowledge there is no clear way to solve that problem WITHOUT resorting to a method that gives advantage to one side or another.

    Parent
    Obama will stop her in Texas (none / 0) (#86)
    by jdj on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:33:49 PM EST
    I think Texas is Hillary's Alamo. Obama do well there. Obama will tie and maybe even small win, and Hillary need a big win there.

    Parent
    Maybe (none / 0) (#128)
    by BDB on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:32:05 PM EST
    If he can keep his lead in Wisconsin and pull out Hawaii (which he should, it's a caucus and the state of his birth).  

    But if he squeaks by her in Texas and she pummels him in Ohio and beats him in Rhode Island (which admittedly is not the same as winning Texas), I'm not sure she's done.  He's closer to winning then, though, no doubt.

    Parent

    Texas (none / 0) (#161)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:13:34 PM EST
    Houston  Chronicle poll  shows  Hillary  ahead  10-12 points.  

    Parent
    wow that is a big drop (none / 0) (#180)
    by Nytecoldawn on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 08:43:55 AM EST
    Last one that I saw had her up 17 to 20 points. What happened?

    Parent
    About Being Poll Driven (none / 0) (#94)
    by MO Blue on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:38:57 PM EST
    According to year-end research tabulated by the Center for Responsive Politics, Obama has spent more than $2.55 million so far in the campaign on "Polling/Surveys/Research," six hundred thousand dollars more than Clinton's $1.92 million.
    Link

    Since Obama spends more on polls then Clinton, I take it you now think he is not fit to lead the country.

    Parent

    but less on... (none / 0) (#109)
    by jdj on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:48:23 PM EST
    parking  ;)

    Parent
    Doesn't include Penn (none / 0) (#135)
    by dwightkschrute on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:44:52 PM EST
    Mark Penn is a pollster, that's his bread and butter. Hillaryland is paying him $4.3 million, which one would hope would include polling. So a decent amount of that should be added to the $1.92 million figure.

    Parent
    hard to put a negative spin (5.00 / 0) (#21)
    by jdj on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:59:06 PM EST
    on something like this... SEIU to Consider Obama Endorsement

    They endorsed him already I thought? (none / 0) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:07:24 PM EST
    Certainly it seems like every local has.

    Seems to me this is old news. What am I missing?

    Parent

    According to the article (none / 0) (#36)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:08:51 PM EST
    the local chapters were free to endorse whomever they like but the national organization was split.

    A nice pickup but nothing monumental.

    Parent

    SEIU (none / 0) (#89)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:35:14 PM EST
    SEIU allowed its' state councils to endorse whomever they chose, as the executive board of the international could not get the requisite votes for any of the big three candidates.

    Now that Edwards is out it is expected that Obama has the votes.

    Edwards received the bulk of the state endorsements, with Obama also picking up some.

    And once Edwards dropped out, California's state council dropped the Edwards endorsement and endorsed Obama.  

    But what the international originally said was that states that endorsed a candidate could only go to other states that also endorsed that same candidate.  If the international endorses Obama, that would mean that hundreds of organizers and possibly thousands of members could head to TX, OH, PA, and WI to campaign for Obama.

    Also... UFCW is expected to endorse Obama today or tomorrow.

    Parent

    I liked this though (none / 0) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:09:05 PM EST
    Should SEIU throw its weight behind Obama, it would be another piece of the party establishment puzzle falling into place for the Illinois senator.

    the spin writes itself. Obama the Establishment Candidate.

    Parent

    SEIU in CA endorsed Obama b/4 (none / 0) (#42)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:12:46 PM EST
    Super Tuesday.  

    Parent
    Do you really think Hillary (none / 0) (#52)
    by jdj on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:15:54 PM EST
    would gain anything from attacking the biggest union in the nation. Mark Penn might just be dull-witted enough to suggest it.

    Parent
    thats his specialty, isn't it? (none / 0) (#112)
    by Tano on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:49:42 PM EST
    More of Clinton wanting it both ways (none / 0) (#181)
    by Nytecoldawn on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 08:51:11 AM EST
    You can not be the establishment candidate when you were the underdog/insurgent candidate. You don't become establishment candidate when you knock off the establishment candidate from the mountain top.

    It is only recently that Obama has shown himself as a new front runner. Since 2004, it has been assumed that Hillary Clinton was the candidate for 2008.

    Obama's campaign style is not establishment either, but Hillary's is.

    Come on, repeating this over and over again does not make it true. You sound like Bush on Iraq. There are WMDs there.... There are WMDs there... There are WMDs there... Really there are...  No no really there were, he moved them...

    Wishful thinking doesn't make it so.


    Parent

    how much impact will it have? (none / 0) (#49)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:15:37 PM EST
    the SEIU in Nevada endorsed Obama. He lost there, even with the casino workers union supporting him.

    The union was always behind Edwards with some leaning to Obama...had to do with Bill Clinton and trade I think...

    I don't think this is huge. She has lots of other unions behind her.

    Parent

    Would it have been huge (none / 0) (#54)
    by jdj on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:16:53 PM EST
    if Hillary got SEIU's support?

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#71)
    by Virginian on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:26:56 PM EST
    is it huge that she got the teachers unions, or the nurses unions? No...

    In case you missed the last 8 years...Unions don't have the clout they used too...I think Nevada, who's culinary union RUNS the strip, is a prime example of how the union's influence in the views of the members (and society at large) is waning.

    Parent

    biggest union (none / 0) (#90)
    by jdj on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:35:41 PM EST
    in the US. It has some clout, and can providce a lot of feet on the ground.

    Parent
    Please (none / 0) (#102)
    by Virginian on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:44:05 PM EST
    it is a conglomerate of other unions...very hard to mobilize without an issue...and presidential endorsements for the primary aren't an issue...I'm sorry, but it just isn't something people are going to take time off of work to "mobilize" for...

    Parent
    Wrong... (none / 0) (#111)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:49:36 PM EST
    ... SEIU probably has the best mobilization in the country, at least among unions.  

    And being closely connected to an SEIU state council that has endorsed Obama, I have seen them mobilize people already.

    Further... it isn't just mobilizing members, but mobilizing professional organizers.  

    And no... it is not a conglomeration of other unions.

    Parent

    Mindfulness is right about this (none / 0) (#127)
    by rebecca on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:31:55 PM EST
    When a national union like SEIU mobilizes it's something to see.  While their regular members will tend to vote the way they want in a primary, see Nevada, when they mobilize it's impressive.  I've worked campaigning in the GE for my union.  Unions get boots on the ground like I've never seen before.

    Parent
    maybe and maybe not! (none / 0) (#151)
    by hellothere on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:30:38 PM EST
    the union leadership can say one thing and the union members feet can go the other way.

    Parent
    Specially when the hear how (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by Florida Resident on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:53:58 PM EST
    someone referred to Unions as special interest.  Remember that has always been the Republican way of equating unions with big business.

    Parent
    It is huge (none / 0) (#97)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:41:57 PM EST
    SEIU has one of the best mobilization records of any union.

    They can turn people out.  

    The Nevada endorsement came so late that it didn't matter.  But if SEIU endorses Obama tonight, hundreds of organizers and thousands of members can be mobilized to the big three (and the other states).  And there is plenty of time in those states for an organizing and message campaign along with a GOTV campaign.  It is also important to note that there is a difference between a state council endorsing (such as in Nevada) and the international endorsing.  The international endorsing means that SEIU people from all of the country can and will work to get Obama the nomination.  

    And to respond to the comment below... yes, this would be just as huge if they were to endorse Hillary Clinton.  

    Parent

    Nice Pickup for Obama (none / 0) (#130)
    by BDB on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:32:48 PM EST
    Hee hee hee (none / 0) (#158)
    by Mary Mary on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:49:09 PM EST
    I still wear my SEIU for Dean tee shirt. Yes, they worked their butts off and I have fond memories of the people in purple.

    But isn't SEIU in the coalition that's spending less on politics and more on organizing? I THINK that's right. If so, they won't have as much money to throw into campaigning.

    Parent

    Commenter Memekiller (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:37:24 PM EST
    has been banned from the site. Most of his/her off-topic chattering today has been deleted.

    and turned out to be posting (none / 0) (#120)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:02:43 PM EST
    under the name democratic hot rodder as well. Comments under both names have been deleted.

    Parent
    You are too funny. (none / 0) (#123)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:10:33 PM EST
    As an Old union man (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Florida Resident on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:52:21 PM EST
    I will say that neither of them is exactly pro-labor.

    Agree with you Florida resident (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by athyrio on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:10:05 PM EST
    but ever since Obama referred to Unions as special interests, my husband who is a life long steel worker has supported Hillary. Sadly Unions have been bad mouthed in this country (like Hillary) so much that noone in fact has a "fair opinion" of unions anymore. We just don't trust Obama getting into bed with the republicans at all in our family.

    Parent
    Steel workers are great (none / 0) (#134)
    by rebecca on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:38:45 PM EST
    When I was working I was really impressed with them. I was down in Miami a few years back when they ran the protest against the trade talks going on there.  Great union.  

    Parent
    He should concentrate on McCain (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by blogtopus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:38:42 PM EST
    It should show him what it's like to be thinking of the party first, whilst one's primary opponent throws barbs from the other side. Maybe he'll start to see how tough Hillary really is to have put up with his incessant yapping all this time while running what was essentially a GE campaign.

    Shouldn't she (none / 0) (#4)
    by Jgarza on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:48:38 PM EST
    being going after McCain?  I thought she was good at fighting the right wing.  So far Obama has been McCain's harshest critic. McCain even has Bill Clinton on his web site saying how friendly the race would be.

    Right now i think she shoudl prove that she is better suited to go against McCain, not enter a pander contest.

    Actually she has been taking on the republicans (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Marvin42 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:05:47 PM EST
    ...all along, even while being attacked by Obama and Edwards. Did you watch the debates?

    Parent
    Good point again (none / 0) (#80)
    by Virginian on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:30:13 PM EST
    people forget that her main attack was always against the Republicans...

    I think Obama's claiming victory early is his campaign's arrogance, they are taking their eye off the prize...in football we would say they are setting themselves up for a "trap" game...I think Hillary has stolen some momentum the last 3 days, Wisconsin may be an upset if Obama doesn't refocus...

    Parent

    Of course you do (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by echinopsia on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:07:29 PM EST
    But she has some catching up to do first. And since Obama has been attacking her relentlessly, I'm very pleased to see her giving it back to him for once.

    Hang in there, you'll get used to it.

    Parent

    i take that back (none / 0) (#9)
    by jdj on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:51:05 PM EST
    he should ignore hillary and focus on mccain.

    Special Interests? (none / 0) (#17)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:57:28 PM EST
    Seriously?  Hillary Clinton is trying to campaign on an "anti-Special Interests" platform?

    That is pretty funny.

    It's great to see her (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by blogtopus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:36:19 PM EST
    Ignoring the hypocritical aspects of her speeches... she's learning a lot from Obama's campaign.

    What's good for the goose...

    As per this blog being overrun with Obama folks... I don't think it's being overrun, I just think a few Obama trolls (folks not interested in real debate over real facts, just repeating rhetoric) have found this little nest and are having fun poking around. People like me came here to discuss real issues, not fake issues that distract from the real stuff. There are real Obama supporters (not fans; note the difference) here, and we enjoy talking to them.

    If you want to start throwing around the usual 'Clinton is a corporatist witch' kind of stuff, be prepared to have people throw you stuff like this. (Careful, it involves reading comprehension, and you must be tolerant of reason)

    Parent

    taylor marsh has a diary up on her blog (none / 0) (#152)
    by hellothere on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:34:52 PM EST
    about obama supporters. i found it to be interesting.

    i left here for a couple of days after some very ardent obama supporters came around. his regular supporters on here get involved in spirited debates and comments. but the other supporters just spout obama commercials. no thanks

    Parent

    You obviously... (none / 0) (#157)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:44:06 PM EST
    ... haven't been around long reading my comments, have you.  

    Don't make personal attacks.  It doesn't help your point.

    As for Hillary?  I never said she was a corporatist witch.  Don't make things up.  Again, it doesn't help your point.  It also shows that you lack the very reading comprehension and reason that you accuse me of lacking.  

    And please don't call me a troll.  It just shows that you haven't read much of anything that I have written around here.  And I also am not an "Obama fan."  I have been a supporter for years.    I also talk about the issues.  A lot.

    So seriously - stop making stuff up and stop making personal attacks that you know nothing about.  

    But as for special interests... Hillary has never been shy of playing with special interests or taking special interest money.  Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean that she is less progressive on "corporate" or labor issues.  It just means she is very willing to take special interests money, and has almost never taken a public stance against public interests.  

    FWIW... I don't necessarily find public interests bad.  They are what they are.  

    Parent

    Oh, brother... (none / 0) (#24)
    by SandyK on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:00:28 PM EST
    Like her swinging, but if she attacks nuclear energy, you can count GA and SC out (last nuclear power plant built in the USA was in my area; and SRS is a major employer for SC).

    Someone needs to brief Hillary on regional matters, especially over employment matters, before this gains traction.

    She wants the Edwards vote? Don't alienate the same Edward voters in SC and GA!!

    SandyK (none / 0) (#28)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:04:49 PM EST
    Somebody needs to brief you on other parts of GA beyond your backyard (which I am guessing is near the Savannah River?).  I was born and raised here, and divide my time between two different parts of this beautiful state, and most things you say are absolutely out of line with everything I see with  my own two eyes.

    If GA is as bad as you say, then I think you need to move.

    Parent

    Where in GA are you from Kathy? (none / 0) (#104)
    by SandyK on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:45:03 PM EST
    Because if you think the Savannah River has the only reactor in GA, you need a Georgia history lesson yourself. I don't preach here about local issues, I preach regional, and nuclear power IS regional and supplies good paying jobs.

    If liberalism is what driving that mentality, over the livihood of Georgians and South Carolinians, the Dems will ALWAYS lose here, as pocketbooks are more important.

    Then look at PA, and it's nuclear industry, and talk to THEM about the same issues.

    Shoot yourselves in the foot, but you're trying to attract the very voters that WON'T listen to Hillary's message. Look at the demographics, look at what people percieve her as -- it isn't the folks she's trying bleed off (and won't bleed off) of Obama.

    Think folks, not react.

    Parent

    I guessed Savannah River (none / 0) (#126)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:24:38 PM EST
    by the way you were talking.  I live in Atlanta and Ellijay but grew up on the southside, then worked for the dem party for about ten years specializing in outreach in rural counties (like Waynesboro), so I've got a pretty good understanding of how this state works.  Nuclear IS regional, but the regions to which you are referring do not in any way control the whims of the state (and the rest of the state doesn't care about it except to wonder why the Savannah and Altamaha aren't affected by the drought).


    Parent
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHA (none / 0) (#156)
    by SandyK on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:02:25 PM EST
    that's why the rest of the state looks at Atlanta as from Mars (and no you won't get our water!). They take most of the money, and have an attitude they are the state -- they aren't (why I like how Albany loves to kick metro Atlanta's butt, too). Can't wait until Savannah and Augusta are linked, because honey, Atlanta is going to bite afterwards.

    I used to live outside Waynesboro (dad was sheriff out there -- no, I really don't look kindly on crime), and it's a pretty place. Not so pretty now with the glow of a reactor at night, but it's home.

    But GA has more reactors than Plant Vogle, and without them, Texas will be in the dark (a lot of the electricity generated from them is shipped to TX). So it's not wise to lamblast that industry, considering it's provided well for Georgians for over 20 years, not only job but energy.

    Parent

    Sandy/Kathy (none / 0) (#165)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:05:37 PM EST
    I don't  think  Hillary's  nuclear  energy  reference   was  against  the industry.  

    I think she  was  alluding  to Obama's  so-called  support  for  Illinois  citizens   who experienced  leaks,   but  when  he  got  to Washington,  he  gutted  the  regulatory  parts  at the  behest of   the industry.   Exelon  later  donated  $200,000  to his  campaign.    

    It  was  a  swipe  at  Obama/Exelon  political  connections,  not the industry itself.

    Parent

    Not surprised at all (none / 0) (#26)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:03:01 PM EST
    When you are trailing you have to take down the frontrunner.  Now that Obama is in the lead he is focusing on McCain.  Now that Hillary is trailing she is targeting Obama.

    The question right now is, will Obama take the bait or will he continue to focus on McCain.  If I were he I would keep the focus on McCain.

    Obama should (none / 0) (#43)
    by jdj on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:12:57 PM EST
    move on to attacking McCain. We all should given Obama's numbers

    Parent
    You're wrong (none / 0) (#87)
    by Virginian on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:34:08 PM EST
    focusing on McCain is tantamount to not sealing the deal! If he focuses on McCain, Hillary sets the narrative...

    Don't claim victory till it is complete...

    Parent

    I have yet to see a path to Hillary's victory (none / 0) (#95)
    by jdj on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:40:10 PM EST
    put up anywhere. I would love to see the numbers that have her wining. What does she need to get in each state? What does she need to hold Obama down to? No one seems to be able to put these to paper.

    Parent
    Here's one (none / 0) (#100)
    by Marvin42 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:43:31 PM EST
    She stays very close to Obama in total delegate count (including pledged SDs). She wins the popular vote by a margin that matters. The remaining SDs start to fall her way (which may or may not happen).

    She wins.

    Parent

    If she keeps within 80 behind (none / 0) (#106)
    by Virginian on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:46:47 PM EST
    or pulls ahead it is very likely she will win...assuming Super Delegates continue to make their own decisions without pressure from the RW...I mean LW blogs

    Parent
    They are everywhere... (none / 0) (#105)
    by Virginian on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:45:24 PM EST
    On Kos yesterday...MyDD yesterday...Chris Bowers a day or so ago...here...there...everywhere...don't blow smoke to support your logic...thats called "subjective validation" its a logical fallacy...

    Parent
    I don't see any value (none / 0) (#107)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:47:27 PM EST
    at this stage in the game in Obama responding to mostly ineffective attacks or going after Hillary.  

    He needs to stay on message and highlight the differences between Obama and McCain.  

    Notice the narrative is already beginning that McCain has an advantage over Obama.  Focus on that.  

    Until the race shows a real change in momentum, engaging Hillary serves no purpose for him.

    Parent

    However his ignoring her may serve Hillary's (none / 0) (#131)
    by rebecca on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:36:08 PM EST
    purpose.  Assuming you are the winner before all the votes are in is one of the best ways to lose.

    Parent
    Hawk (none / 0) (#166)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:06:35 PM EST
    Well,   at  least you're no  longer  claiming   Obama  is  an "underdog."  

    That's  progress.

    Parent

    OT but New Mexico getting ready to announce (none / 0) (#29)
    by Firefly4625 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:05:26 PM EST
    winner between Clinton and Obama - per CNN - FINALLY!

    You Can Watch (none / 0) (#44)
    by BDB on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:13:16 PM EST
    The part of her speech where she takes on Obama - here.   I'd prefer to see both she and Obama go after McCain, but after his attacks on her over NAFTA yesterday, I don't think she can just focus on McCain.  (Just as I don't think he can or should do that either.)

    The thing that struck me the most is that her voice sounds like it's about to go.  Honestly, I can't believe either of them aren't collapsing from exhaustion by now.  I'm tired just reading their schedules.

    One thing seems clear, regardless of the nominee, he or she has certainly worked for it.

    Iraq (none / 0) (#47)
    by andreww on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:14:05 PM EST
    It still comes down to who do you believe will get us out of Iraq.  $55 billion?  That's a week over there.

    Obama (none / 0) (#96)
    by jdj on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:41:27 PM EST
    has more clout on that issue.

    Parent
    huh? clout? when, where and how! (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by hellothere on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:37:25 PM EST
    Uh, no.... (none / 0) (#171)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:26:07 PM EST
    His lack of military  experience  or  Armed Services  is  EXACTLY  why  my  moderate  Repub  friends think he  is  not  qualified  to  be  Commander in  Chief.

    Parent
    Hillary wins New Mexico! (none / 0) (#55)
    by Firefly4625 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:17:39 PM EST
    by about 2,000 votes - per CNN just now.

    YAY!

    Good for her. (none / 0) (#81)
    by hitchhiker on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:30:21 PM EST
    In spite of the rush to end her campaign that began on the night after the Iowa caucuses, there are still a lot of voters left to be heard from.

    Obama supporters, how about showing some class?

    Congratulations, Senator Clinton.

    Parent

    new thread on this (none / 0) (#93)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:38:31 PM EST
    agreed... (none / 0) (#110)
    by jdj on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:49:31 PM EST
    Everyone here should congradulate both of the canidates on their many wins.

    Parent
    yep... (none / 0) (#84)
    by Virginian on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:32:37 PM EST
    I think she's stolen some momentum...Obama has taken his eye off the ball...we know he's not a "closer" so its really foolish of his campaign to begin pivoting toward McCain...they are letting Hillary back in the game...hubris usually leads to tragedy

    So in 2 days (none / 0) (#103)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:44:27 PM EST
    she has managed to take momentum away from Obama and his dominant victories in the Potomac?

    Parent
    In 2 days... (none / 0) (#113)
    by americanincanada on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:51:24 PM EST
    she has managed to change the narrative. Everyone is now talking about how neither candidate can mathematically win and how Clinton can still be the nominee. Hell, some of the pundits actually are openly saying they think she will.

    Parent
    Emm ok (none / 0) (#116)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:58:33 PM EST
    I think everyone knew the math before SuperTuesday much less yesterday.

    Some pundits will continue to say that Hillary is going to win right up until she bows out.  Same is true of some pundits regarding Obama.

    Parent

    That is true (none / 0) (#124)
    by Marvin42 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:14:39 PM EST
    And I think it points to the fact that in reality neither can win in a  clear way (getting to the magic number). So pundits and talking heads will keep jabbering away until this mess resolves itself, somehow, sometime.

    Sight. And I thought this was going to be such an easy year for the dems.

    Parent

    Keep the faith, Mark. (none / 0) (#125)
    by sweetthings on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:19:11 PM EST
    It will be resolved in April, at the latest. Quite possibly sooner. The Supers will end it one way or the other.

    Heck, that's why we have Supers.

    Parent

    Hmm I wonder how the (none / 0) (#119)
    by Florida Resident on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:02:07 PM EST
    MSM is going to spin this whole thing.

    I'm so glad to (none / 0) (#129)
    by PlayInPeoria on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:32:15 PM EST
    have the old Hillary bad. She is doing what she does best .... explain it in easy terms, note the differences and state why she believes her plan is best.

    I'm so pleased... I sent her a Valentine today.... in the form of a donation.

    Opps Back not bad (none / 0) (#136)
    by PlayInPeoria on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:57:21 PM EST
    isn't that funny!

    Parent
    Glass Houses (none / 0) (#140)
    by Jgarza on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:26:10 PM EST
    Too bad the attack on him won't work since. good ole Mark Penn loves Exelon

    Did Penn (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:28:06 PM EST
    lie and say he passed a bill that wasn't passed?

    Because that was the point Clinton was making.  

    Parent

    sensative are we? (none / 0) (#144)
    by Jgarza on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:42:21 PM EST
    it isn't my fault she can't make credible attacks.

    Parent
    Are you saying (none / 0) (#145)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:50:31 PM EST
    that it is not credible to say that, while in Iowa, Obama claimed to have passed a bill regulating nuclear power plants which, in fact, he had not passed?

    Because from what I've gathered by the rules here at our beloved TL, we are not allowed to make false claims like that.

    Unless you can point to a specific link or other proof that this is factually inaccurate, then I suggest you retract your statement.

    and for the love of peeps, it's sensitive with an "i".

    Parent

    she said special interest (none / 0) (#146)
    by Jgarza on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:57:07 PM EST
    watered down the bill.  The claim was he is influenced by a special interest corp.  you are claiming he lied.  You don't have a specific link either.

    Parent
    do you possess an ounce of reading (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:06:28 PM EST
    comprehension?

    If you scroll up to the top, you'll see the quote is:

    "Well, he told people he stood up to the nuclear industry and passed a bill against them. But he actually let the nuclear industry water down his bill the bill never actually passed."

    So, you are disagreeing with her statement that the bill was watered down--am I correct?    That's your take-away message from that passage, is that she said the bill was watered down.  You have no contention with the part about him saying he passed a bill when, in fact, he did not.  Your whole beef is that she claimed the bill was watered down?

    Parent

    Obama, nuclear industry Illinois, no bill passed (none / 0) (#163)
    by noholib on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:50:27 PM EST
    See NY Times Feb. 3, 2008:
    "Nuclear Leaks and Response Tested Obama in [Illinois] Senate," by Mike McIntire
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03exelon.html?hp

    Parent
    Special interests (none / 0) (#167)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:12:36 PM EST
    DID  water  down the  bill.  Obama  gutted  the  regulations  so   they  were  "voluntary" instead.    

    And  then  that   special  interest  (Exelon) donated   $200,000  to  his  campaign.  

    And  he  NEVER  passed  the bill.  

    The Illinois  citizens  he promised  to  "take  care  of it"  got  left in the dust.

    Parent

    This is the kind of thing I was talking about (none / 0) (#143)
    by fuzzyone on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:31:01 PM EST
    on another thread:

    Of his wife's recent travails, [Bill Clinton] said, "the caucuses aren't good for her. They disproportionately favor upper-income voters who, who, don't really need a president but feel like they need a change."

    (via kos )

    She can't afford these kinds of unforced errors.  Insulting everyone who does not vote for her is stupid now and its stupid looking forward to the general election.  I have to say the number of huge mistakes her campaign has given me some real concern about how she would do in the general.

    Like saying her voters won't go for him while (none / 0) (#160)
    by rebecca on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:11:18 PM EST
    his will go for hers?  Or her husband saying he would have to think about working to support him and talking about his tone?  Or telling the voters of Michigan and Florida that she doesn't want their votes counted unless she's the winner?  Oh wait that wasn't her that was Obama who was insulting everyone who doesn't vote for him now.  Now which campaign were you saying made huge mistakes.  

    Fact is his hasn't been run so smoothly.  If he didn't have the media on his side he would be having serious problems with his own miss run campaign.  Well if he becomes our candidate he'll find out what it's like to have his every word gone over for errors and twisted into something he didn't mean even without an error.  I wonder if he can do half as well as Clinton has under this burden.  

    Parent

    If you are convinced that the media is against you (none / 0) (#172)
    by fuzzyone on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:31:00 PM EST
    then you can't afford to give them fodder.  You can cry all night about how unfair life is but that won't win you any elections.  Being smarter and better might.  That is what she has to do if she wants to have a chance.

    I personally think either one of them will win in November.  I think its a fools errand to predict what will happen this far out (as those who predicted that Hillary had it all locked up before a vote was cast have now learned).

    I think one of the most important things is that neither side tear down the other in a way that will hurt in the general election.  

    The FL/MI issue is more complicated.  The DNC made that mess and its tough to clean up.  I don't know where you get that he wanted them seated if he won.  I've asked before but I have seen no evidence that Hillary was outraged about the DNC decision before she won.

    Parent

    You were the one who said (none / 0) (#183)
    by rebecca on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:02:27 PM EST
    She can't afford these kinds of unforced errors.  Insulting everyone who does not vote for her is stupid now and its stupid looking forward to the general election.  I have to say the number of huge mistakes her campaign has given me some real concern about how she would do in the general.

    I was just pointing out that your candidate has made the same kind of errors.  He's a pol no more and no less than Hillary is.  The problem for him is that he is just that a pol.  He's trying to portray himself as better than Hillary but with every political move he makes he shows himself to be the same type of pol Hillary and all the rest of them are.  

    As for the media it's interesting that with all that favoritism at his back he hasn't blown her away.  Hillary just keeps on working away and keeps right in there.  Even with the media and others jumping on her and her spokespeople's every word she just keeps on going.  She still has a good chance of knocking him out.  What does that say for a politician who has had to fight some of the worst media coverage we've seen since Kerry or Gore.  Your guy has had everything in his favor and he still might lose it all.  

    So I'm not crying over the media coverage but I'm wondering how the Obama supporters will take it when the lovefest he's getting now turns into a hatefest if he manages to pull it off.  See the problem is that Obama hasn't had to face what Hillary has in the media so he's completely untested at running a campaign in such unfavorable conditions.  Now if he can manage it with half the grace and ability that Hillary has he might be able to win this election (presuming he wins the nomination) but seeing how little chance he's had to prepare himself get ready for a very rough ride as he has to go into a very tough learning curve.  Hillary won't have to do that.  She's had to deal with it for years.  So good luck.  

    Oh yeah sorry I can't find the link but it has been posted here in the comments numerous times.  He stated before Florida's primary that he would seat the delegates if he became the presumed candidate.  So he was always willing to seat them presuming he was the presumed candidate.  It's just when Hillary could become the winner with them that he's against it.  He's nothing more than another pol just like Hillary.  

    Parent

    Unforced errors (none / 0) (#168)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:13:53 PM EST
    You mean, like  saying  Clinton's    supporters   are   old  and  uneducated?
    Things  like that?

    Parent
    diogenes (none / 0) (#147)
    by diogenes on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:04:42 PM EST
    If Hillary wins by dealing and superdelegates, a lot of Democratic blacks and young voters are going to be really angry and are going to stay at home.  Who would get really angry if Obama won the same way?

    who would get angry? (5.00 / 3) (#149)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:07:45 PM EST
    Women, who have on average been 59% of the voting democrats so far, Asians and Latinos.

    Do you have access to the internet?  You might want to look up the US census and see which population groups are largest in this country.  

    Parent

    We really need to avoid this (none / 0) (#162)
    by Marvin42 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:45:21 PM EST
    There has to be a solution that does not cause one group of supporters or the other to feel cheated and turned off. Because honestly who cares who is the nominee if the party is shattered?

    Parent
    I agree completely (none / 0) (#173)
    by fuzzyone on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:36:15 PM EST
    but unless someone comes out of TX/OH/PA with a solid lead, and I'm not even sure what that is but at least 100+, its hard to see how to avoid it given how worked up people seem to be on both sides.  We are blessed with two excellent candidates.  Everyone needs to calm down. (I know, not much chance of that).

    Parent
    She (none / 0) (#164)
    by tek on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:52:44 PM EST
    talked about some of that in the TownHall before Super Tuesday. I remember she said she would stop predatory student loans. This is something Bill Clinton did during his administration. I don't know how anyone could believe he didn't do a lot for average Americans.

    Clinton (none / 0) (#169)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:16:16 PM EST
    And  he  didn't  just  talk  about  it or  speechify.  

    He  got it  DONE.  

    Just  balancing  the budget  so  interest rates on the  national debt  went down   helped  the middle  class.  

    Parent

    Thanks for the Shout Out! (none / 0) (#174)
    by Redstar on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:50:17 PM EST
    Jeralyn, I am one of the supporters behind The Hillary 1000 fundraising link you supplied above - I appreciate the publicity so much!!(it's all for HRC!!)

    PS: I probably shouldn't reintroduce the annoying SEIU thread from above, but here is a photo of Clinton and an 1199 member at her campaign HQ in MA on Monday night before Super Tuesday. (That is from my personal blog.)