As Keith Olberman pointed out recently, the Clinton campaign has continually dismissed the significance of states won by Obama and trumpeted the importance of states won by Clinton.
Unfortunately I couldn't find a transcript, but basically Olberman says that the Clinton campaign is only willing to concede that one state won by Obama is "significant"--the state he currently serves, Illinois.
We have seen many versions of HRC. Sometimes several in 24 hour period. We've been treated to "Stern Hillary," "Scornful Hillary," "Tuzla Warrior Hillary," "Gracious and Conciliatory Hillary," "Pander Bear Hillary," "Undead Hillary," and "Bluecollar Hillary." Now, apparently, we are being treated to "Bull Conners Hillary."
We all knew it was coming. The tentacles of race baiting snaked out of Bill's mouth, Rendell's mouth and Ferraro's mouth. Now, however, I sickens me to report that it is about the only theme left to HRC's campaign. Let's call it like it is. Her last remaining stand is racism. Pure and simple. "No you can't."
Not the actual response ad, but rather, what it should be.
The Clinton campaign spin, which actually means the Clinton campaign itself, believes that they have a political "winner" with regards to the gas-tax issue. Never mind that the McCain-Clinton proposal has been universally panned as the crassest form of short-term pandering [actually--there are so many available options for linking this sentiment, I will simply link an article and an editorial HERE & HERE].
So Obama is an angry black elitist man because of his ties to his pastor and some random guy he served on a board with who did bad things when he was 8. Right. Of course, this is a corporate media smear at its finest by not putting things in context. So, what is "news" today or, rather, what should be the "news" today given the gotcha paradigm?
Hillary Clinton thinks my name is "Samantha" and she stole my email address from somewhere. In spite of having tried to delete myself from their email list about 175 times now, they keep writing to me. So sometimes when I get Samantha's mail in my super-secret, ultra-private inbox that is totally unlisted anywhere and everywhere, I feel it is my moral obligation to write back to them.
Being a charming sort of a human being, I never turn down a request for feedback. Especially for political spammers.
Like last night when I got a phone call from Citizens United, who informed me, as I stirred my son's macaroni and cheese (Amy's) that they were the "most powerful conservative group in America," to which I replied, "well Goddamned congratulations on tracking down the least conservative family in America, and by the way Carolyn, go fuck yourself for interrupting my dinner." So okay, I admit I have a wee bitty bit of a temper with "privacy violations."
After several weeks' full immersion in what Obama calls the "silly season" of our politics, it's clarifying to look afresh at the core of Obama's case for himself rather than Clinton. Here's how he put it on April 22 in Evansville, Indiana, after congratulating Clinton on her win in the PA primary:
We can be a party that says there's no problem with taking money from Washington lobbyists - from oil lobbyists and drug lobbyists and insurance lobbyists. We can pretend that they represent real Americans and look the other way when they use their money and influence to stop us from reforming health care or investing in renewable energy for yet another four years.
The Clinton campaign is inviting feedback to an op-ed published by chief strategist Geoff Garin in today's Washington Post, arguing that it's the Obama campaign, not Clinton's, that has set a negative tone. The core of Garin's claim is that the Clinton campaign has stuck to issues when attacking Obama, while Obama has attacked Hillary's character.
Here is one more opportunity for rank-and-file Democrats to send a message to the Clinton campaign about the damage Hillary is doing to the party as a whole and her own standing within it. A sample is below the fold. Click here to send the Clinton campaign your response to Garin's argument.
Paul Loeb over at HuffPo has posted a article today called Is Hillary Clinton Push Polling?. It tells the story of David LaMotte, a North Carolina progressive who had the presence of mind to start recording a phone call when he realized it was not an internal poll from Hillary Clinton's campaign, conducted by the firm of Geoff Garin, her new campaign head, but in fact a push poll by that same firm, smearing Barack Obama.
For two years my inbox has been filling up with spam from Hillary, Bill, Chelsea, Patti Solis Doyle, Mark Penn, Maggie Williams, and now Geoff Garin. I've told them politely and, sometimes less politely that I'm an Obama supporter and please stop bugging me, to no avail. So from now on, I'm publishing my responses to them, and filling their inboxes with my favorite press clippings. If you're having the same problem, I urge you to do the same! When you forward your favorite daily articles and diaries to friends and family, make sure to cc: the Clintons... and please vote in the poll!!!
Today's Washington Post includes an op-ed from Clinton Strategist Geoff Garin entitled "Fair is Fair." In it, he argues that Obama has been unfairly attacking Clinton while Clinton tries to fight fair, and the media has skewed this reality to make it "falsely" appear that Clinton is the party at fault. Yes, this was actually published.
I can't find a decent MTP thread, so I'll post here about the shark-jump that is Tim Russert's TV empire. Today I just felt terrible for poor Geoff Garin. He's no Mark Penn.
EDIT:
Perhaps going to bat against Penn, however, brought out a very un-Obama instinct in Axelrod. Something about him, the whole time, bothered me. It's perhaps a hardening that has taken place, where once he was distinguishable from your everyday operative, now he gives off a sort of Charlie Black vibe.
Axelrod is on opposite Garin right now. While no one ever accused Axelrod of being half as articulate as Obama is, he's pushing Garin around Timmy's set.
Garin wasn't able to answer Timmy's question about HRC's debate pledge to set up a NATO-type alliance in the ME. He openly admitted that he wasn't well-informed about that subject. He didn't distinguish himself anywhere else.
I've recently gotten into the habit of hitting the reply button on Clinton fund raising e-mails and telling the info@hillaryclinton.com address just what I've thought of her primary season performance.
I was never naive enough to think they actually read any of them.
Amazingly, I received an e-mail today with the subject line: "Your Feedback."
"Oh gosh!" I thought.
Perhaps they HAD read them and composed a thoughtful response.
Alas, I was wrong.
If they had, they'd have removed my name from their e-list a long, long, long time ago.
The e-mail:
Dear Jeremiah,
Wow. I am amazed and gratified that so many of Hillary's supporters -- literally tens of thousands of them -- took the time to share their thoughts, suggestions, and words of encouragement in response to my email the other day. I think that speaks volumes about the quality of the people who are supporting Hillary's campaign and the extent of their commitment to her......
Geoff Garin, Hillary Clinton's new chief strategist, is asking those on Clinton's email list to 'send your thoughts about our campaign.' Anyone can respond here. This is s a golden opportunity for those of us who believe that Hillary is undermining the best Democratic opportunity in decades to build a working majority to tell the campaign what we think.
Nothing short of a resounding primary defeat in a major state in which she's strongly positioned is going to make Clinton drop out. But a few hundred thousand emails from committed Democrats letting the campaign know the extent to which her tactics are disaffecting large swaths of the party base and destroying her own standing might might inhibit the earth-scorching a bit.
You can "tell them what you think" here. A sample response below the fold.
