[US2008] Primaries #19 - To the streets of Philadelphia

quote:

Why Hillary Supporters Might Abandon Obama
Jennifer Rubin - 03.27.2008 - 08:27

Many commentators are buzzing over a Gallup poll (and a similar NBC/Wall Street Journal one) showing that 28% of Hillary Clinton supporters would support John McCain if Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee and that 19% of Obama supporters would do the same if she is the nominee. Gallup explains:

It is unknown how many Democrats would actually carry through and vote for a Republican next fall if their preferred candidate does not become the Democratic nominee. The Democratic campaign is in the heat of battle at the moment, but by November, there will have been several months of attempts to build party unity around the eventual nominee — and a focus on reasons why the Republican nominee needs to be defeated. . . Still, when almost 3 out of 10 Clinton supporters say they would vote for McCain over Obama, it suggests that divisions are running deep within the Democratic Party. If the fight for the party’s nomination were to continue until the Denver convention in late August, the Democratic Party could suffer some damage as it tries to regroup for the November general election.

If you consider who a typical Clinton voter is the poll makes quite a bit of sense: older, white, and working-class voters who place a premium on experience and may have bought her “3 a.m.” argument. Sound like potential “gets” for McCain, right? (Then, of course, there are the voters offended and scared off by the Reverend Wright affiliation, but liberal bloggers say that’s all behind us so we won’t worry about them. For now.)

In most elections you see “Republicans for [fill in the name of the Democratic nominee]” groups spring up. They usually are not terribly Republican to begin with and profess that “never before” has the Republican party offered someone so extreme, so conservative, etc. This election there may be groups, real groups, of “Democrats for McCain,” who simply conclude that Obama is too liberal or too inexperienced to be president. Even if the final number isn’t 28%, a fifth or a tenth of that figure may spell trouble for the Democrats, if he’s the eventual nominee.

How long before Clinton’s team starts making this very argument to superdelegates?

quote:

Op donderdag 27 maart 2008 17:23 schreef Monidique het volgende:
Bekijk deze YouTube-video

quote:

Op donderdag 27 maart 2008 15:33 schreef Perico het volgende:
na alle primaries staat ze misschien minder dan 100 pledged delegates achter en dan weet je nu al dat ze het daarop zou verliezen?

quote:

Op donderdag 27 maart 2008 17:56 schreef matthijst het volgende:
Heeft Lee Harvey Oswald niet ergens een kleinkind rondlopen

quote:

Factory-Sized Deception
Obama, freely trading in dishonesty.

By Stephen Spruiell

In the days leading up to the March 4 Ohio primary, Barack Obama’s presidential campaign aired a TV ad that featured a man named Steven Schuyler standing in front of a Delphi Packard Electric plant in Warren, Ohio. In the ad, Schuyler says he worked for Delphi, an automotive supplier, for 13 years until NAFTA enabled the company to ship his job to Mexico. “Barack Obama was against NAFTA,” Schuyler says, adding, “We need a president that will bring work into this country.”

The Delphi ad might qualify as the most deceptive of the 2008 race. First, Delphi did not exist as an independent company when Congress passed NAFTA in 1993. It was part of General Motors until it was spun off as an independent supplier in 1999. Second, foreign competition did not drive the company to eliminate American jobs. It declared bankruptcy in 2005 because the legacy labor costs it inherited from GM made it impossible to compete against other U.S.-based suppliers. Third, workers at the Warren, Ohio plant were offered generous buyouts and early-retirement packages. Its employees were not just kicked to the street.

When Delphi became an independent company in 1999, it inherited GM’s high-wage, high-benefit autoworkers’ union contracts. Addressing reporters after Delphi declared bankruptcy in 2005, then-CEO Robert S. “Steve” Miller explained, “other U.S.-based suppliers, many of which were organized by the same unions . . . were paying less than half the automaker wages and benefits [that Delphi was paying].” Contrary to Obama’s ad, domestic competition played a bigger role in Delphi’s downfall than did competition from Mexico.

Even with its legacy costs, Delphi might have managed. But its relationship with GM harmed it in other ways. When Delphi declared bankruptcy, GM was still its biggest customer, responsible for about 50 percent of its sales. When GM’s market share tanked in 2003, so did Delphi’s profits. Delphi’s fate and the fates of its U.S. employees are tied to the fate of GM, which for multiple reasons has struggled, along with Ford and Chrysler, to stay afloat in recent years.

In his 2005 remarks to reporters, Miller argued that the U.S. auto industry’s problems have little to do with import competition. “Toyota, Nissan, and Honda are competing from assembly plants in our back yard,” he said, “but without the crippling work rules and social costs embedded in [GM, Ford, and Chrysler’s] labor contracts.”

The example of Honda is particularly relevant to any examination of Ohio’s economy. The Japanese automaker opened its first plant in Ohio in 1979, and since then it has opened three more and become one of the state’s top employers. Workers in Honda’s Ohio plants don’t belong to a union, but the company pays competitive wages and benefits and has never laid off any of its Ohio employees.

As for Delphi Packard Electric in Warren, Ohio, it was downsized as part of the corporate restructuring that followed the bankruptcy, but — unlike other Delphi plants in the U.S. — it wasn’t shuttered or sold. All but 700 of the plant’s 3,800 employees took buyout offers or early-retirement packages. Those who stayed on accepted a new labor contract that brought wages and benefits closer to the prevailing rates in the supply business.

In April 2007, the Youngstown Vindicator ran a story about a former Delphi employee named Karole Kowalski who took a $140,000 buyout and invested it in an associate’s degree at Youngstown State University. “She’s excited about her plan,” according to the report, “and is hopeful the cutbacks at Packard were the best thing that could have happened to her. She couldn’t work as a laborer any more because of her back, and the buyout has given her the chance to retrain.”

If all ex–Delphi Packard workers were offered buyouts or early-retirement packages, it stands to reason that Steven Schuyler, the man in the Obama TV ad, took a similar deal. The Obama campaign ignored National Review Online’s repeated requests for more information about Schuyler, but a Delphi retiree told the Vindicator, “Schuyler took the buyout and got a good cash sum to quit his job.” When I spoke to Vindicator editor Todd Franko, he said he still hadn’t been able to contact Schuyler to confirm this.

Kowalski and Schuyler offer dramatic contrasts for participants in the debate over free trade in this country. Kowalski’s approach speaks of a willingness to embrace the changes that are occurring in the U.S. economy and view them as opportunities. Schuyler’s approach — the one Obama has apparently embraced — is characterized by bitterness that things had to change, and rank dishonesty about why they did.

quote:

HILLARY: SWIFTBOATED!
March 26, 2008


Hillary is being "swiftboated"!

She claimed that she came under sniper fire when she visited in Bosnia in 1996, but was contradicted by videotape showing her sauntering off the plane and stopping on the tarmac to listen to a little girl read her a poem.

Similarly, John Kerry's claim to heroism in Vietnam was contradicted by 264 Swift Boat Veterans who served with him. His claim to having been on a secret mission to Cambodia for President Nixon on Christmas 1968 was contradicted not only by all of his commanders -- who said he would have been court-martialed if he had gone anywhere near Cambodia -- but also the simple fact that Nixon wasn't president on Christmas 1968.

In Hillary's defense, she probably deserves a Purple Heart about as much as Kerry did for his service in Vietnam.

Also, unlike Kerry, Hillary acknowledged her error, telling the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review: "I was sleep-deprived, and I misspoke." (What if she's sleep-deprived when she gets that call on the red phone at 3 a.m., imagines a Russian nuclear attack and responds with mutual assured destruction? Oops. "It proves I'm human.")

The reason no one claims Hillary is being "swiftboated" is that the definition of "swiftboating" is: "producing irrefutable evidence that a Democrat is lying." And for purposes of her race against matinee idol B. Hussein Obama, Hillary has become the media's honorary Republican.

In liberal-speak, only a Democrat can be swiftboated. Democrats are "swiftboated"; Republicans are "guilty." So as an honorary Republican, Hillary isn't being swiftboated; she's just lying.

Indeed, instead of attacking the people who produced a video of Hillary's uneventful landing in Bosnia, the mainstream media are the people who discovered that video.

I've always wondered how a Democrat would fare being treated like a Republican by the media. Now we know.

It's such fun watching liberals turn on the Clintons! The bitter infighting among Democrats is especially enjoyable after having to listen to Democrats hyperventilate for months about how delighted they were to have so many wonderful choices for president.

Now liberals just want to be rid of the Clintons -- which is as close to actual mainstream thinking as they've been in years. So the media suddenly notice when Hillary "misspeaks," while rushing to make absurd excuses for much greater outrages by her opponent.

Liberals are even using the Slick Willy defense when Obama is caught fraternizing with a racist loon. When Bill Clinton was exposed as a philandering, adulterous, pathological liar, his defenders said that everybody is a philandering, adulterous, pathological liar.

And now, when B. Hussein Obama is caught in a 20-year relationship with a raving racist, his defenders scream that everybody is a racist wack-job.

In the Obama speech on race that Chris Matthews deemed "worthy of Abraham Lincoln," B. Hussein Obama defended Wright's anti-American statements, saying:

"For the men and women of Rev. Wright's generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table."

So in the speech the media are telling us is on a par with the Gettysburg Address, B. Hussein Obama casually informed us that even blacks who seem to like white people actually hate our guts.

First of all: Watch out the next time you get your hair cut by a black barber over the age of 50.

Second, Rev. Wright's world wasn't segregated.

And third, what about Wright's wanton anti-Semitism? All the liberals (including essence-besplattered Chris Matthews) have accepted Obama's defense of Wright and want us to understand Wright's "legitimate" rage over his painful youth in segregated America.

But the anti-Semitic tone of Wright's sermons is as clear as his rage against the United States. Rev. Wright calls Israel a "dirty word" and a "racist country." He denounces Zionism and calls for divestment from Israel.

In addition to videos of Rev. Wright's sermons, Obama's church also offers for sale sermons by Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, whom Rev. Wright joined on a visit to Moammar Gadhafi in Libya in 1984. Just last year, Obama's church awarded Farrakhan the Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award, saying Farrakhan "truly epitomized greatness."

What, pray tell, is the legitimate source of Wright's anti-Semitism? I believe Brother Obama passed over that issue entirely in his "conversation," even as he made the obligatory bow to Israel's status as one of our "stalwart allies." Why does crazy "uncle" Wright dislike Jews?

Will liberals contend that these remarks were "taken out of context"? Maybe Wright's church was trying to say that Farrakhan isn't great when it said he "epitomized greatness." Who knows? We weren't there.

Can liberals please educate us on the "legitimate" impulses behind Rev. Wright's Jew-baiting?

quote:

Will liberals contend that these remarks were "taken out of context"? Maybe Wright's church was trying to say that Farrakhan isn't great when it said he "epitomized greatness." Who knows? We weren't there.
Can liberals please educate us on the "legitimate" impulses behind Rev. Wright's Jew-baiting?:
[..]

quote:

Op vrijdag 28 maart 2008 01:41 schreef Diebold het volgende:
De Democraten weten altijd heel goed hun kansen te verspelen. De Clintons zijn allang niet meer bezig met 2008, maar met het voorkomen dat Obama hun in 2012 in de weg staat, met de hulp van CNN, MSNBC, FOX, ABC ea.

quote:

De aanvallen van het Clinton kamp op Richardson en nu Clinton's Wright-aanval op Obama in een interview aan de Tribune-Review

quote:

Op vrijdag 28 maart 2008 02:49 schreef Perico het volgende:

[..]Kijk jij wel eens CNN en MSNBC? Die zijn echt zwaar op de hand van Obama...
[..]

quote:

[b]Beetje gezeur, Bill Clinton zei het gisteren nog op campagne: hij vond dat er NIEMAND ontslagen hoefde te worden van de campagne, niet Samantha Powers die Hillary een monster noemde, niet Geraldine Ferraro (wat wel meteen gebeurd was)..

Je moet kunnen uitdelen en incasseren, dat hoort er bij en iedereen is het erover eens dat het qua advertenties een hele milde campagne is. Obama pakt niet uit met video's over Tuzla en het vermeende sniper fire, Clinton heeft geen enkel Wright commercial gemaakt.

Feit is, dat Obama vrij slecht is in het terugslaan. Waar denk je dat de Republikeinen mee gaan komen?
Die compileren gewoon een video met de vraag, of iemand die niet opstaat tegen zijn dominee die God Damn America zegt, wel kan opstaan in de wereld tegen vijanden van Amerika.

En da's dan nog een beschaafde. Ze kunnen ook op de proppen komen met de frauderende Tony Rezko, de terrorist Ayers bij wie Obama in de jaren 90 op bezoek was, Michelle Obama met vrij kortzichtige uitspraken... Echt, als Obama hier al niet tegen kan, dan houdt het op...

quote:

What do - Code Pink, Move On, The Nation, The Progressive, In These Times, and the liberal intelligentsia have in common?

They all see clearly that the Democrats will not get us out of Iraq. They all see clearly that the Democrats will not crack down on corporate crime. They all see clearly that the Democrats will not support a single payer national health insurance system. They all see clearly that the Democrats will not cut the bloated, wasteful military budget. And yet, they refuse to stand up to the Democrats and say - out!

Get out! Get out now! We are going to start new.

You are a corrupt party. And your time has passed.

quote:

Op vrijdag 28 maart 2008 03:46 schreef Qomolangma het volgende:
Om ook Nader aandacht te geven:
[..]

Hele artikel: http://www.votenader.org/blog/2008/03/24/corrupt-democrats-blog/

Een Democratische opvolger van George W. Bush is lang niet meer zo vanzelfsprekend als een jaar geleden door vrijwel iedereen werd gedacht. Beide partijen hebben geen ijzersterke kandidaten, en de voortslepende strijd tussen Obama en Clinton helpt de Democraten ook niet. Hoewel het waar is dat nare incidenten uit iemands verleden niet meer als verassing komen in oktober hebben ze nu wel een half jaar de tijd om uit te groeien tot een onomkeerbare beeldvorming. Bovendien raakt de achterban van de Democraten steeds dieper verdeeld.

quote:

Op vrijdag 28 maart 2008 10:10 schreef Monidique het volgende:
Clinton doet in ieder goed haar best het te verpesten voor Obama in november, ja.

quote:

Op vrijdag 28 maart 2008 10:10 schreef Monidique het volgende:
Clinton doet in ieder goed haar best het te verpesten voor Obama in november, ja.

quote:

Op vrijdag 28 maart 2008 14:58 schreef Monolith het volgende:
Daar had o.a. Max Westerman het laatst nog over in P&W. Hij opperde volgens mij dat Hillary liever zag dat McCain won, want dan had ze bij de volgende verkiezingen tenminste weer kans.

quote:

Op vrijdag 28 maart 2008 15:01 schreef PJORourke het volgende:

[..]

Vraag ik me af. Dan moeten een heleboel mensen vergeven en vergeten. Dit wordt haar nog lang nagedragen.

Ik denk eerder dat ze denkt: als ik het niet krijg, dan hij ook niet.

quote:

Op vrijdag 28 maart 2008 15:10 schreef Monolith het volgende:
Ach ja, vier jaar is een lange tijd. In Nederland zijn er ook genoeg kabinetten die aan het begin van hun regeerperiode dramatisch stonden in de peilingen en uiteindelijk gewoon weer de verkiezingen wonnen.
Ik ben in ieder geval allang blij dat Huckabee of Romney niet de Republiekeinse kandidaat is geworden.

quote:

Op vrijdag 28 maart 2008 15:02 schreef popolon het volgende:
Wat mij nog het meest weet te verbazen is dat de DNC er als een stelletje hulpeloze slachtkippen dom voor zich uit zit te staren en er niet opgetreden wordt.

Typisch voorbeeld van politieke zelfmoord.