May 12, 2008 at 5:55 PM by David Pleasant
Never mind the 7.8 magnitude earthquake in China that has killed more than 8,500 people. Obama is wearing a flag pin in his lapel today.
Barack Obama, who labeled discussion of whether he wears a flag pin in his lapel a false issue in a debate with Hillary Clinton, was wearing one Monday as he campaigned in West Virginia ahead of Tuesday’s primary vote there.
As an aside, but genuinely serious note, anyone that has studied geology can attest to this (or debunk it) — an earthquake that measures 7.8 on the Richter scale is massive. The atom bomb that was dropped on Nagasaki in 1945 would generate underground energy roughly equivalent to 5.0 on the Richter scale.
May 12, 2008 at 5:21 PM by David Pleasant
Just an FYI.
The feature that TPC uses for sharing (Digg, Facebook, etc.) and emailing of posts has been temporarily disabled. I discovered some rather significant technical issues with the software and could not let it remain operational until it was "fixed" or replaced.
I’m fairly confident the "product" will have to be replaced, so it may take a day or two.
Update 5/12, 5:21 PM ET: Just to clarify — this does not apply to sharing and email features in RSS syndication feeds. It only applies to features on TPC’s actual web site. So, for those of you that use a reader or receive TPC by email, the features listed at the end of each post should still work.
May 12, 2008 at 12:40 PM by David Pleasant
McClatchy has impeccable journalism standards and some of the best journalists in the business, all of which adds substantially to the credibility of this piece on the force behind the Hillary for VP movement.
A group called VoteBoth has been leading the charge for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to team up on the Democratic ticket.
But the people behind it come from just one of those camps — Clinton’s — and one of their goals may be keeping Clinton’s White House prospects alive.
The group’s founder, Adam Parkhomenko, until recently worked as an assistant to Patti Solis Doyle, who was Clinton’s campaign manager until February. Parkhomenko in 2003 founded the Draft Hillary for President Committee.
VoteBoth’s spokesman is Sam Arora. He’s a law school student who in recent years worked for Clinton and for former Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe, Clinton’s presidential campaign chairman.
VoteBoth’s Facebook page lists three others as administrators, all with Clinton connections.
One is a Richmond-based Democratic technology consultant, who was quoted in a New York Times story about the Iowa Democratic Party’s 2006 Jefferson-Jackson dinner, where he was passing out "Hillary for President" stickers. Another appears online in a photo with Hillary Clinton and others at a summer leadership program from 2006.
A third is a history professor and campaign contributor whom Clinton named earlier this year in a press release of prominent Virginians who’d endorsed her.
VoteBoth first filed with the Federal Election Commission on April 8, two weeks before the Pennsylvania primary that Clinton won and that was considered a crucial window for her comeback. The group’s original mission promoted the idea of Clinton as the nominee, with Obama as her running mate.
On May 1, days after the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s latest divisive remarks and Obama’s renouncement of his former pastor, VoteBoth amended its mission. It now would support a joint ticket in either order, so long as Clinton’s name was on the ballot.
Last week, as Obama’s strong showing made him all but certain to clinch the nomination, VoteBoth leaders began putting themselves in the spotlight, sending regular press releases, posting blogs and appearing in interviews.
May 12, 2008 at 2:40 AM by David Pleasant
Hillary’s campaign admitted she is $20 million in debt. And guess what? It’s going to get considerably worse. There are approximately 23 days left in the primary season and it costs roughly $1 million per day to run the campaign. She may have gotten that $10 million bump after the Pennsylvania primary, but they haven’t been touting any windfalls lately. Instead it’s been "go to hillary.com" They have no momentum, especially since last week’s primaries, and this news story will not help.
There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that she has even the slightest chance of winning the nomination. So, what is Hillary’s objective? What does she think she’s going to get in return for continuing to take on more debt at such an enormous rate?
Combine this news with her last report to the FEC and it’s easy to understand why Hillary didn’t think she needed the advice of an economist on her gas tax plan. Haven’t heard much about that lately either, have you. Funny how that all-important issue dropped, isn’t it?
May 12, 2008 at 12:08 AM by David Pleasant
Newt Gingrich advices Barack Obama, in a Newsweek op-ed, he should further clarify "Change you can believe in." Of course, Newt knows the basic rules — don’t "complain" without providing a solution. The solutions Newt offers are the foundations of the GOP’s 1994 "Contract with America" or the "five popular themes" he developed in 1980. Just what America needs – more disastrous Republican ideas and policies.
I agree Obama will have to focus more on specifics in his speeches. Not everybody is going to take the time to read detail policies at his web site. However, based on comments he made yesterday regarding John McCain, I firmly believe his strategy is to roll them out at the appropriate time.
I believe there are a couple of points to consider here. First, who in their right mind is going to follow the failed strategies of Newt Gingrich and the Republicans? They may have won elections in the short-term, but the long-term negative consequences have been substantial.
Newt Gingrich and his fellow Republicans inflicted incredible damage on virtually every aspect of the United States government — from foreign to domestic. Corruption in Congress soared during those years and every agency was politicized. Moreover, the Republicans crippled the economy, devastated our international standing, abandoned the war against Al-Qaeda, and invaded Iraq on false premises resulting in a five-year-and-counting quagmire.
All of the tragedies and failures associated with the Republican “Golden Years” resulted in overwhelming distrust of government leaders. The first order of business for Barack Obama has been to gain the trust of the American people and then to get them motivated. Not an easy task after George Bush, Dick Cheney, Newt et al. but he has managed to accomplish it.
Many have whined about Obama not being specific enough. “Just words” has been their battle cry. I wonder how many have taken the time to read his policies. That notwithstanding, I believe Obama’s strategy all along has been to provide details and strategy incrementally at the appropriate time.
A candidate’s strategic plans are no different from a company’s trade secrets. The duration of this election season is unprecedented. Does anybody believe a comprehensive rollout of detailed plans a year or even six months ago would not have been just handing over the crown jewels to the competition?
Ask John Edwards. He was the first to roll out an excellent and detailed health-care plan. Within just a few weeks, Hillary copied it and put her name on it.
There must be a delicate balance between providing sufficient information for voters to make decisions and protecting the future value of those plans. Why should Obama or any other candidate give the Republicans or Hillary eighteen months or more to scrutinize every detail? It would not matter how good the policies or plans were, the political game would be to discredit them or to make them “their” plans as Hillary did to Edwards.
McCain needs surprises in June, not Obama’s strategic plans a year in advance.
