Mar 28, 2008 at 5:58 PM by Political Chase
How ironic is this? As I detailed the other day, Hillary Clinton has received overwhelmingly more money from special interests than any of the 535 Members of Congress. But today Team Clinton criticized Obama for allegedly taking chump change.
Hillary leads the pack in 36 of the top 50 industries (a 72% majority) that have contributed to Members of Congress. However, the Clinton campaign released a statement criticizing Barack Obama for allegedly receiving more than $160,000 from oil and gas companies.
Whether Obama received the money in the negative context Team Clinton strongly implies is one issue, which I doubt will stand the test. But for Clinton to do mudslinging about special interest contributions is about as hypocritical as it gets considering her record.
To put in perspective, as of Dec. 31, 2007, the top 50 contributors, had given $466,051,475 to all Senators and Representatives. The alleged $160,000 from various contributors is a whopping 0.03% of the total.
Ana Marie Cox at Swampland has some of details, but what was not clarified is how the money is associated with Obama. At the time of her post, Ana Marie did not appear to know whether the funds were personal contributions by people who worked in the industry or whether it came from a legitimate PAC, which Obama has vowed not to take.
Mar 28, 2008 at 4:08 PM by Political Chase
Time has a piece on what purportedly motivates Hillary Clinton to remain in the campaign, most of which is not logical if not downright delusional.
Clinton believes Obama’s support is largely a mirage–a bunch of true believers whose passion might help him cinch the nomination, but that may prove an insufficient bedrock for winning a general election when the spell might be broken by tough questions about national-security credentials, economic-policy plans and rich experience. She can’t stop from shaking her head in disbelief when longtime friends who are elected officials inform her that they are going to endorse Obama and were chiefly convinced by their children’s enthusiasm for his candidacy.
Put aside whether Obama can win the general election for a moment. If Hillary, or any candidate for that matter, cannot win their party’s nomination (national - not like Lieberman in CT), what reasonable logic can possibly lead that candidate to believe they can win the general election? I recognize all the arguments about what the GOP can and will throw at the Democratic nominee. But its not as if Hillary has been running a campaign for the leading lay position in her church (e.g., vestry, deacons, stewards, elders, etc.).
Clinton has thrown everything she could possibly get her hands on and I’m sure her opposition research is anything but weak. But, according to Time, she is basing her logic on yet-to-be-discovered fodder for mudslinging that would be the equivalent of a nuclear meltdown.
According to those close to her, she is hoping that as spring becomes summer, the potential for finding another skeleton or two in Obama’s closet will prove him ultimately unelectable in the fall.
That possibility exists regardless of the candidate. It can never be completely ruled out. But how likely is it to happen if it has not been revealed after more than 15 months? Furthermore, is basing her campaign on that single possibility reflective of sound judgment?
It sounds much more like win at any cost than it does, as Time reported, "an obligation to her supporters to fight on." Worst of all, it is dangerously indicative of George Bush’s thinking.
(H/T to Greg Sargent)
Mar 28, 2008 at 2:24 PM by Political Chase
There is more evidence that Barack Obama has weathered the Wright dust-up and Hillary Clinton’s continuous personal attacks. Today’s Gallup Daily has Obama with an eight-point advantage over Clinton — his best lead in a month, and better than before the Wright controversy.
Click image to enlarge
Furthermore, the results (50% to 42%) have Hillary in a tie with her lowest showing in the poll in almost a month. Therefore, not only is Obama moving back up, Hillary appears to be sinking under the weight of her lies about sniper fire in Bosnia. The question then is, what correlation can be made, if any, between Obama’s rise in the poll and Hillary’s Pinocchio Awards?
Mar 28, 2008 at 12:34 PM by Political Chase
Interesting timing. On Fox News yesterday, Hillary Clinton was absolutely euphoric over the idea of a bloodbath at the Democratic convention, and today Howard Dean declares he wants superdelegates to make a decision by July 1.
This morning on CBS News’ The Early Show, Dean said:
"I think the candidates have got to understand that they have an obligation to our country to unify. Somebody’s going to lose this race with 49.8% of the vote. And that person has got to pull their supporters in behind the nominee…
"Because in the end this is not about Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, it’s about our country…I want to make sure this campaign stays on the high ground…
Although not included in the video below, Dean also said:
"There is no point in waiting. [The Democratic Party's organization] is as good or better as the Republicans’, and we haven’t been able to say that for about 30 years. But that all doesn’t make any difference if people are really disenchanted or demoralized by a convention that’s really ugly and nasty."
Watch the video.
(Ed. Note: Post revised at 1:04 PM ET to correct quote)
Mar 28, 2008 at 11:57 AM by Political Chase
Citing the damage caused by Clinton’s campaign, Sen. Patrick Leahy has called on Hillary Clinton to get out out of the race.
In an interview on Vermont Public Radio, said "There is no way that Senator Clinton is going to win enough delegates to get the nomination. She ought to withdraw and she ought to be backing Senator Obama. Now, obviously that’s a decision that only she can make frankly I feel that she would have a tremendous career in the Senate."
What will Leahy do with his 30 pieces of silver?
