Politirazzi

By Kimberly

Are these symptoms of an immanent Democratic Administration interfering with your life?

• Not involved with family and friends the way you used to be?
• Low energy, fatigue?
• Not motivated to do the things you once looked forward to doing?
• Not feeling as good as you used to?

The National Republican Congressional Committee yesterday announced its new “change you deserve” initiative that smacks of plagiarism from the Obama handbook, but in reality was just copped from the antidepressant Effexor’s marketing slogan. And as Jason Linkins ironically points out, Wyeth was reprimanded by the FDA for its slogan for making “unsubstantiated superiority claims […] and minimiz[ing] the risks associated with the use!”

By Meg

Hillary will win West Virginia tomorrow night by a huge margin (“Oh, really, Meg? How incredibly astute. I never would have guessed that!”). She’ll give a rousing victory speech, but the press will not bite (nor will the superdelegates). I think we all know it’s over.

Since my prediction above was so pathetically obvious, I’m going to make it up to you by throwing out a wild card prediction. After the final primary, the Holy Grail of superdelegates will have his say: Al Gore will endorse Obama, and everyone will finally shut up.

Where will this leave Hillary? As Holly Golightly said, there are certain shades of limelight that can wreck a girl’s complexion. She’ll stand with Barack at the convention, but don’t expect her to be vociferous. I think she’ll quietly go back to the Senate (unless Obama offers her a juicy spot in his administration, which he’d be a fool not to do) and start plotting Comeback 2012.

By Meg

This one’s for you, Jeff and Adrian.

It’s official: Former Congressman Bob Barr is running for president — as a Libertarian! Curious what the two of you think about this. I personally don’t know much about the guy except that he hates former President Clinton and loves marijuana.

Sounds like every philosophy professor I had in college ...

"I didn't know she was going to be here," said Obama supporter Doris Smith, Monday in Charleston, W. Va. (AP)

By Adrian

People’s perception of Hillary Clinton hasn’t changed dramatically during the primaries. The right has long portrayed her as being zealously and shamelessly ambitious — and she has only affirmed their accusations. She transformed herself from a Yale educated policy wonk into a standing-in-the-back-of-a-pickup Huey Long populist.

She has:
— Cried to win in New Hampshire
— Remained on the ballot in Michigan after other candidates had agreed to boycott the early primary
— Backed a gas-tax holiday
— Refused to cast her lot with economists (they are too elite, I guess)
— and, despite knowing that Florida and Michigan delegates would not be seated because those states violated party rules, she has sent her campaign spokesmen out to endlessly reiterate that the party cannot nominate someone (Barack Obama) with the votes of only 48 states.

(continued)

Continue reading "Should she stay or should she go?" »

By Kimberly

The writing is on the wall for Hillary, which I find a shame because, though I’ve been judgmental of her, I was actually leaning towards her proposed solutions. It’s not her major loss in North Carolina that sealed the deal, but the last nail in the coffin is the story that broke on Friday that Rasmussen Reports will stop polling people regarding Hillary’s campaign.

(continued)

Continue reading "No more "Hill" polling" »

By Jeff

Hillary Clinton is not winning the Democratic nomination. No way; no how. I soooooo need a break from the Democratic primary.

So instead, and since it appears as though I’m one of the few Politirazzi voices on “the right,” I’ll champion something that both Democratic candidates have been speaking out against: NAFTA, which has been a substantial benefit to all parties involved. But before I get into the stats, there are two major errors people make when demonizing NAFTA.

First, they assume that manufacturing jobs are all lost to “outsourcing,” when in fact many of them are lost due to either job obsoleteness or increased productivity. It’s not a bad thing to lose jobs. For instance, the buggy whip industry is dead — and isn’t everyone glad automobiles replaced horse transportation? The assembly line obsoleted even more jobs while dramatically increasing productivity. Microsoft has been the cause of mass job obsoleteness. Is there ANYONE who would argue that the technological revolution starting in the late '70s hasn’t been a historic boon to the global economy and society in general? Jobs are lost. Industries die. Economies adapt. Not only is it natural, but it’s good. The loss of manufacturing jobs is a secular change. China, where we are supposedly shipping all of our manufacturing jobs is shedding manufacturing jobs at a higher rate than the U.S., but their productivity is increasing.

(continued)

Continue reading "A case for NAFTA" »

HILLARY would loan more to campaign

Sen. Hillary Clinton is “willing” to lend her presidential campaign more money if necessary, her campaign chairman said yesterday on “Meet the Press.” When asked whether the Clinton camp would repay all the debts, Terry McAuliffe answered, “We plan on it.” To date, the former first lady has lent about $11 million to her cause, with the campaign $20 million in debt, according to CNN.

JENNA married by Obama supporter

President Bush’s daughter, Jenna, wed longtime boyfriend Henry Hager this past weekend with an endorser of Sen. Barack Obama officiating, the Huffington Post reports. The Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell, adviser to President Bush and pastor of the Windsor Village United Methodist Church, had endorsed Obama in January, saying the Illinois lawmaker “would do a wonderful job to bring people together,” according to the Associated Press.

(continued)

Continue reading "Monday's Trail Mix" »

By Matt

If Hillary Clinton were to win the Democratic nomination — in spite of the popular vote in favor of Barack Obama — the question I will be most concerned with is not what effect that will have on Democratic voters, but whether those dissatisfied with the result of the 2000 presidential election will finally stop harping on the deficiencies of the electoral college and the supposed injustice of a system in which a person who doesn’t get the highest absolute number of votes can still manage to get elected.

One cannot help but trip over the irony of the Democratic nominee potentially being decided not by the popular vote — oh no! — but by the popular vote and the votes of the party’s superdelegates. It would be ironic indeed if the precedent relied upon in such a nomination fight was the scourge of Bush v. Gore.

(continued)

Continue reading "If Hillary wins? Flashback to 2000" »

By LaShawnda

After the Indiana primary. Clinton stated in her speech that she is “running to be the president of all of America — north, south, east and west, and everywhere in between. That's why it is so important that we count the votes of Florida and Michigan.”

Yesterday, one day after proclaiming her desire to be a president for all Americans, Clinton suggested "white Americans" are increasingly turning away from Barack Obama’s candidacy. Clinton cited an Associated Press poll "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states (Indiana and North Carolina) who had not completed college were supporting me. These are the people you have to win, if you're a Democrat, in sufficient numbers to actually win the election. Everybody knows that."

(continued)

Continue reading "Clinton on "white Americans"" »

By LaShawnda

CNN quotes Rush Limbaugh as saying, “I now believe he [Obama] would be the weakest of the Democrat nominees. Barack Obama has shown he cannot get the votes Democrats need to win — blue-collar, working-class people ... He can get effete snobs, he can get wealthy academics, he can get the young and he can get the black vote, but Democrats do not win with that."

Hello, McFly! (Knocking on hollow wood to represent Limbaugh’s noggin.) Where have you been? There’s nothing ordinary about this election process. If you’re basing your erred analysis on historical statistics, wake up and take a good look at the candidates. Neither are your usual presidential candidate types. Also, Americans are coming out in record numbers to be a part o this election cycle. McCain did not inspire that. Hillary may have lit a fire under some. But the motivational star of this election cycle is Barack Obama. Nothing about his rise translates to ‘weakest link’.

An idiot with a mic and audience is a disastrous thing. People listen to him, unfortunately. Limbaugh is credited with talking Republicans into crossing over and voting for Clinton as he had previously deemed her the weakest candidate in a general election match-up with McCain. He’s probably switching his stance simply to gauge his effect. It’s too late in the game for his listeners to benefit Obama at all. Take your ego off the air, Limbaugh and make room for someone with some decency.

By Dontre

I am in perfect concert with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's statement, "A win is a win. Let's just call it what it is." So much attention has been paid to Sen. Clinton's "narrow victory" that the most important fact is being overlooked: She won!

Not only is the "narrow victory" phrasing a media headline that discredits Hillary's win, it is an effective campaign tool that attempts to erode the meaning of her victory. This slogan ignores the glaring fact that Sen. Obama's campaign would like you not see: Even when she's behind, Sen. Clinton continues to win states and garner supporters — and she has done so three different times now (coming from behind to win New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Indiana). Whether it was a difference of only 14,195 votes or seven — a win is a win. Someone prospered.

(continued)

Continue reading "Democratic Primary Race Follows Design" »

By Kimberly

By far, the biggest side show of them all has been all the hullabaloo about the superdelegates: Who they are, where they live and who they’ll vote for. This is the sideshow that spawned the pimping out of Chelsea Clinton and the idea that again the decision of president would be taken out of the “peoples’ ” hands and decided by a select elite (?) few. Enter the embarrassing Facebook picture below of 21-year-old superdelegate Jason Rae who was wined and dined by the Clintons, makes one mean chocolate chip cookie (literally!), and who accidentally outed himself during an interview with The Advocate. Aren’t you comforted by those whose hands hold the fate of the free world?

Facebook

(continued)

Continue reading "Introducing: The Nerdy-Super Delegate Freakshow!" »

By LaShawnda

The most ridiculous sideshow has been the media’s concentration on the Rev. Wright. It’s interesting that during this whole primary season, the only “negative” the media Hillary and her peeps can poke at Obama about are his associates.

They haven’t found anything about him personally that’s been bad enough to create a national uproar over. Very little to criticize about Obama’s own words and actions. So, the media created a circus act out of Wright’s career and comments.

(continued)

Continue reading "Slight of hand" »

I feel like I’m in the middle of a suspense thriller, sitting at the edge of my seat for the finale. Waiting for the twist. For the one possible thing I never expected. Like on "Law and Order" last night, where the antagonist was the prime suspects’ attorney. The attorney was also in love with her client and her final act to protect him was to yank him with her as she jumped off a roof.

The show closed on the contorted, bloody bodies of the suicidal attorney and her unsuspecting client. I wasn’t expecting that. I didn’t see it coming. My biggest fear now for this country is that Hillary’s finale will be a similar show stopper for the Democratic Party.
— LaShawnda

(AP)

By Emily

It’s so over.

Sen. Barack Obama is striding to the Democratic nomination while Sen. Hillary Clinton’s only legitimate reason to keep playing is how well she sings the blue-collar blues.

She could woe the remaining superdelegates to decide contrary to the popular vote, and she could woe the Democratic National Committee into giving Florida and Michigan a say. But what kind of Democrat would she be, defying what the people want and rewriting the rules so they suit her?

She's put up a good fight.

Amid calls for Clinton to drop her bid and quit lending her campaign cash, though, Hil is nowhere close to a loser.

Clinton’s greatest victory in this epic-length primary is her solidified image as a politician. Not a former first lady or Bill’s wife. Not a woman.

Just as a valiant fighting politician.

(continued)

Continue reading "Hillary the loser, but not the "loser"" »

Oh, snap.

Former South Dakota Sen. George McGovern was once all about Sen. Hillary Clinton, and now he's all:

"Hillary, of course, will make the decision as to if and when she ends her campaign. But I hope that she reaches that decision soon so that we can concentrate on a unified party capable of winning the White House next November."

McGovern added he has no regrets about endorsing Clinton months ago, but now throws his weight behind Sen. Barack Obama, who had a pretty sweet Tuesday.

It's time to unite the Democratic party, McGovern concluded.
— Emily

(AP)

By Dontre

Defying calls from some to drop from the race, Sen. Hillary Clinton firmly holds her ground, wins states and vows to go all the way to the convention. Her tenacity is not only rooted in her wins, but in her lead amongst superdelegates, who have the ability to cast decisive votes that may decide the Democratic presidential candidate. In much the same scare-tactic fashion that was once accused of Sen. Clinton and the "3 a.m." phone ad, many in support of Sen. Barack Obama are attempting to scare the Democratic base with claims that the African-American base (most of whom support Sen. Obama), would simply sit this election out, or vote for McCain, to show their unhappiness in the case that their candidate loses. Their premise lies in the charge that the superdelegates would "steal" the election from him if they were to vote in favor of Sen. Hillary Clinton.

Indeed, there is a passionate, divisive current running in the Democratic party that is leading many to threaten that they would vote against their interests by voting for Sen. John McCain, or simply not vote at all, in the case that their respective candidate doesn't win. Long have we known that Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama split the dependable Democratic base, with African Americans voting in his favor, and blue-collar whites voting for her. In fact, because of this deep divide, Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean has said, publicly, that one of the candidates must step down after the final votes of the primary season, so that the party can throw its support behind one candidate to beat McCain. However, Dean's tough talk not only ignores the fact that neither of the candidates will have garnered the votes necessary to win the nomination, but his call would, once again, strip (super)delegates of their right to vote for their candidate of choice, much like in Florida and Michigan.

Furthermore, his calls would not, as he supposes, heal the wounds of the party, rather it would actually add insult to injury.

(continued)

Continue reading "Divisive passion" »

Oh, Matt Drudge.

— Emily

By David

A few takeaways from last night results.

First, it’s unbelievable how badly the Clinton team played the expectations game. This has always been one of their strengths, and something the Obama folks have bungled badly. By assuming an air of pseudo-confidence along the way, they hurt their chances every time Clinton outplayed the conventional wisdom. Think how her 25 point lead in Pennsylvania whittled down to 9, but was still a “huge night” for her, or how they were able to escape Clinton must-wins in New Jersey and New York but paint them as resounding victories.

Last night the opposite occurred. Despite a big lead all spring in North Carolina, Clinton called in the last couple of days “the game-changer.” Despite built-in Obama advantages in Indiana — mainly its proximity to Illinois — Clinton folks were talking about (or at least not tamping down talk of) a big blowout there.

I would be curious to find out what happened here. For the first time the Clintonistas started believing their own press, the very thing pundits had accused Obama of doing throughout.

It turns out to have been a fatal mistake.

By Jeff

When the question was posed to me as to which ridiculous spectacle of the campaign annoyed me the most, my first reaction was, “can it be ‘all of the above'?” I finally settled on the pretty obvious Jeremiah Wright situation. First, the subject really had little to do with Sen. Obama but was given a lot of press just because of the incendiary tone of Wright’s comments. The clearly hostile-to-white America comments do not come close to sounding anything like anything ever being attributed to Obama in his life. In fact, Obama had already distanced himself from Wright in February of 2007, well before the public controversy erupted. Additionally, Obama immediately and repeatedly said that Wright did not speak for him or his campaign. So I really don’t know why people kept harping on Obama. What else was he supposed to do and say to convey the message that he disagreed with Reverend Wright?

(continued)

Continue reading "Why Wright's so wrong" »