home

Midday: Wolfson Interview With Brian Williams

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:08:37 AM EST
Tags: Hillary Clinton (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

NBC's Brian Williams just interviewed Clinton campaign Communications Director Howard Wolfson on MSNBC(noon ET.) Here's a recap:

Williams: Would a loss today end the race? A loss would be very bad indeed and that's why Obama is spending so much trying to knock us out. We feel good about today, even though he's outspent us 3:1, now its up to the voters.

On the polls: Williams: Young people don't have land lines. There's a chance Hillary will overskew in the polls. Is that a concern? Wolfson: I've learned not to believe too much in polls. Mentions New Hampshire. We don't know what's going to happen, that's the beauty of democracy.

More...

Williams: Are you operating in the red and paying vendors and contractors? Wolfson: We raised $20 mil last month, we're raising a lot online, we are paying our vendors and contractors in a timely fashion. But there's no question Obama has more money.

Willams: A "Thumbsucker": Would they be running mates? Wolfson: It's premature, this race has a long way to go, we have 9 races after today, we have to decide MI and FL and the superdelegates have yet to weigh in. We're focused on today.

< DNC Stonewalling FL and MI | The Obama Expectations Game >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Midday: Wolfson Interview With Brian Williams | 76 comments (76 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    The vendor question is insteresting (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by dianem on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:16:49 AM EST
    The Obama blogs are claiming that Clinton has been leaving a trail of unpaid vendors behind her whereever she goes. I don't know how that got started, but the fact that Williams is asking that question makes me wonder what his sources for information are.

    Mature and collected (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:17:00 AM EST
    Why am I so much more inspired by the mature and collected vs. the chanting energetic?  I guess it's a character flaw, I'll just have to deal with it somehow.

    If you would only hear (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:24:34 AM EST
    and see the truth, you too, could become a high information member of the "creative class".


    Parent
    If it is a flaw........ (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by cawaltz on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:27:14 AM EST
    I share it.  

    Parent
    Deal with it quick, before you're purged... ;-) (none / 0) (#5)
    by outsider on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:23:16 AM EST


    Parent
    Godwin's law (none / 0) (#31)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:49:21 AM EST
    Is about to be applied.

    In short, I agree.  I have always felt the same way.

    But it's not just the approving crowd.  20,000 people may cheer the charismatic rock and roll singer.

    They may even chant energetically.

    So how is the Obama crowd different?  Cause I do think it is.

    Parent

    Youth don't have landlines... (none / 0) (#1)
    by kredwyn on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:16:08 AM EST
    That is the first time this Primary Nightmare season that I've heard that brought up as a thing.

    You've haven't been paying ... (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:21:27 AM EST
    attention.  It's been brought up a lot.

    Parent
    It's also true (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by rooge04 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:24:07 AM EST
    that Hispanics tend to use cell phones as primaries. So that's a problem too.

    Parent
    telecom interoperability (none / 0) (#34)
    by TalkRight on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:52:22 AM EST
    rules have blurred the difference between landline and mobile.. the numbers these polling agencies dial can no longer be termed as landline ONLY numbers.

    Parent
    You're probably right.... (none / 0) (#37)
    by kredwyn on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:54:29 AM EST
    I tend not to pay much attention to some rationalizations about polls, which is what that claim sounded like.

    But I also tend not to think too much about polls...

    Parent

    Unfortunately.. (none / 0) (#69)
    by Chisoxy on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 01:14:07 PM EST
    We were hearing this "Young people use cell phones" stuff since 2004 with Kerry (if not before). It has yet to ever actually make a difference.

    Its not like people didnt have cell phones in all the other states.

    Parent

    IIRC That Rationale Was Used Consistently In 04 (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:26:40 AM EST
    to theorize that the youth vote was unrepresented and to predict a Kerry win.

    Parent
    Pew has done some great (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by thomphool on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:31:20 AM EST
    work on this problem.  Bottom line: Pollsters know that young are underrepresented in RDD, will overweight their responses in their sample.  While there is SOME bias within the sample of young voters who have landlines vs those who don't, it is not significant enough (usually) to throw off the results by more than about 1 or 2 points in most cases.  Now, this was based on cell phone adoption rates that are a few years out of date, so that could change, but I don't see it being a huge effect on PA numbers.  

    Parent
    How do you overweight people that don't show up? (none / 0) (#21)
    by jerry on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:40:06 AM EST
    It's not clear to me that you can overweight yutes without landlines by using yutes with landlines.  They may be two very different populations.

    I'm a lawn tender with no landline -- get off my lawn!)

    Parent

    they are different, (none / 0) (#33)
    by thomphool on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:50:08 AM EST
    and if you were simply looking at a poll of young people doing landline only would be a problem.  However, the degree of attitudinal differences coupled with their make overall composition in the voting population means that weighting is likely to only result in about a 2% in error in most cases.  Here's Pew's take on the cell only problem.  While it does make most polls non-ideal, the prohibitive cost when doing a general population survey of incorporating cell phones does not, for most pollsters justify the methodology.  Pollsters surveying just 18-25 year olds tend to use non-RDD methods because it is likely to cause skews large enough to be noticeable in this population.

    Parent
    OMG (none / 0) (#47)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 12:01:20 PM EST
    are you saying that Obama voters are OVERWEIGHT!!!111!!!

    Hillaryites are teh Devil!!

    /snark

    Parent

    It's not just youth. (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:29:24 AM EST
    A lot of people don't see the need for landlines any more.

    I have one myself, but then again, I've only been polled once in my entire 22-year voting history.

    Parent

    Yup, very true.. (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:48:10 AM EST
    When I moved to my farm, I went wireless, completely. I have satellite web access and a cell phone. The reason for this is simple. I live way out in the country in FL. When we have bad storms, the land lines can be out for up to a week. Especially during hurricane season. So, I am wireless, with a small generator. I can stay in touch, run the pump and the fridge, and not have to worry about when they get the power back up to let people know I am ok. The cell phone starts working as soon as the towers stop swaying. The sat link starts working as soon as it stops raining heavily. Which is usually long before they can get the land lines back up. Since I live alone, and a mile off the main road on a side road, being back in touch asap is important. I don't know if I have gotten any campaign calls since I don't answer calls where I am not familiar with the number. If it is important, they can leave a message. If it's not important enough to leave a message, I probably didn't want to hear it anyway.

    Parent
    That's funny because... (none / 0) (#65)
    by NWHiker on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 01:04:58 PM EST
    I was on the verge of getting rid of my landline when we had a bad windstorm here in WA state... and my little area was one of the worse hit areas(one of the last to get power back etc, Gov down the block a few times, TV trucks, spaghetti power lines, electric out for 8 days. Brrrr). Anyhow, only the phone line were working. After a few days, the cell towers lost power and it's not like you could recharge your cell phone, unless you had a car charger (which, for example, my MIL did not). This is probably OT, though.

    Parent
    I also have Skype (none / 0) (#70)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:31:39 PM EST
    so I can call through my computer if the towers are down. And everyone living in the country should have a small generator, if only to run the fridge and the pump.

    Parent
    same here (none / 0) (#61)
    by Salt on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 12:32:45 PM EST


    Parent
    it's been brought up a lot (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Josey on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:29:56 AM EST
    but don't young people have cell phones in TX, FL, OH, MA, CA, etc.??
    Has the landline theory been proven in primaries/caucuses this year?


    Parent
    Proof? We are ObamaNation. (5.00 / 6) (#15)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:32:15 AM EST
    Proof and facts are old-style politics! Out, out, infidel!

    Parent
    No poll called me and I have a landline (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:40:25 AM EST
    I got calls from the campaigns with the question. So my answer was Yes, for sure, and No Way. But these were not big time polling outfits. So in the end, they probably got the proper input.

    Parent
    I tend to miss the polls... (none / 0) (#38)
    by kredwyn on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:55:33 AM EST
    cause I don't answer the phone.

    Parent
    And this behavior may be biased ... (none / 0) (#49)
    by cymro on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 12:07:29 PM EST
    ... towards older voters. It seems to me that young people are far more likely to answer the phone. So there could be an unsampled block of phone-ignoring Clinton voters out there!

    Parent
    It comes up a lot (none / 0) (#10)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:29:20 AM EST
    And I have heard a few pollsters debunk that, saying it happened in previous races few years ago, but now they have all learned to accommodate that (there are many more people in general, young and old, who use cell phones as primary).

    So its a non issue imo.

    Parent

    Many pollsters compensated for it (none / 0) (#16)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:33:03 AM EST
    with different methodologies, per pollster.com.

    Media ought to read up on what's new rather than report what was problematic in the past but no more.

    Parent

    Maybe slightly OT (none / 0) (#42)
    by cmugirl on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:57:48 AM EST
    But how will they do they polls for next week and here on out?  This is final exam week at most colleges, so by next Tuesday,many students will be gone from campus and dispersed all over.  More overweighting?

    Parent
    Schools out so soon? Several weeks left (none / 0) (#75)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:06:30 PM EST
    here; even the earliest campuses have finals three weeks from now, and the largest campus has finals a month from now, not over until third week in May.

    Parent
    What do you all think about (none / 0) (#13)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:31:17 AM EST
    the "Dream Ticket" idea now? I was a big proponent for a while, but now I'm undecided.

    It might have to happen (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Steve M on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:34:41 AM EST
    Which is not to say that it will, but it might be the only path to victory.

    Parent
    You could be right... (none / 0) (#19)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:38:01 AM EST
    indeed, that was my original thinking on the subject.

    Clinton absolutely HAS to be on the top of the ticket, though. At first I was thinking either one would do, but now that Obama's GE flaws have become extremely evident, I think the only way for him to be on the ticket is in the VP spot. Hopefully he will get over his massive ego and realize that 16 years of Democratic dominance trumps his sense of entitlement.

    Parent

    Exactly my thinking (none / 0) (#52)
    by cymro on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 12:11:50 PM EST
    I have posted comments along those lines a few times. To me, it seems like the only way we can unite the Democratic voters and retain at least the majority of those who have voted during the primary.

    Parent
    the only solution (none / 0) (#67)
    by isaac on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 01:08:29 PM EST
    if barack doesnt take his ball and go home

    Parent
    Not A Big Fan Of It Myself (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:40:49 AM EST
    If Clinton is the nominee, I might be able to live with it.  Don't see any benefit of an Obama/Clinton ticket.

    While either might appease SOME of the other candidates supporters, you would have a ticket that would combine the negatives of both candidates also.

    Parent

    I agree but (none / 0) (#26)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:43:27 AM EST
    her negatives and his negatives cancel each other out. He will bring in the AA's and the youth voters, and she will get the white working-class voters. McCain will be toast.

    As long as Hillary's on the top of the ticket, I don't think the Republicans will be wasting their 527 money on him. And she can handle anything they throw at her.

    IMHO.

    Parent

    you had me until (none / 0) (#40)
    by angie on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:56:32 AM EST
    the line that the GOP will not be wasting 527s on him -- his negatives are too, too juicy for them to resist -- "elitist" "unpatriotic" etc (btw, I don't necessarily believe these labels to be true, but it will be very easy for the GOP to exploit them against Obama).  Contrary to the CW, I think he is poison to any ticket because whatever votes he brings will not be made up for those votes he loses.

    Parent
    Possibly...see below. :-) (none / 0) (#44)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:59:23 AM EST


    Parent
    Although I've been turned off (none / 0) (#18)
    by pie on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:35:40 AM EST
    by rabid supporters, I'm in favor of any ticket that helps achieve a victory in November.  A combination of Clinton and Obama would do that, I believe.

    Parent
    A lot of us did like that before (none / 0) (#27)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:46:13 AM EST
    Now, a Hillary/Obama ticket is not that exciting. BTD thinks it is the only way to win is with a combo ticket. 2 months ago I would have agreed. Now, if it is Hillary/Obama, I guess I could still go for it so he gets on the job training for the future.

    Parent
    That's pretty much how I feel... (none / 0) (#30)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:48:30 AM EST
    my enthusiasm for the idea has dimmed considerably.

    Still, anything but McCain for me.

    Parent

    I'm beginning to think that the only winning (none / 0) (#62)
    by Anne on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 12:45:35 PM EST
    ticket is one that does not have Obama on it.  At all.

    Whatever negatives he has - real or manufactured - will work to drag down Clinton if she is at the top of the ticket; after all, Obama as VP places him one heartbeat away from the presidency.  What I have seen from Obama tells me that it would be absolutely the wrong thing to reward his childish behavior, his smug and mean-spirited attitude, with a position from which he can launch himself into the presidency.  Better to send him back to the Senate and see if he's willing to be an agent of change, and a leader, there, before considering him again.

    So, no - I think if she is the nominee, something she will have won on the basis of her having better electability, Obama is the wrong VP for her.

    I would love, love, love to see Edwards as VP to Hillary; in 8 years, he will be 62 and prime presidential material.

    Parent

    Plus, Obama has shown ZERO ability (none / 0) (#72)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:52:49 PM EST
    as a team player. I don't see him knowing how to play second fiddle.

    Parent
    Obama & Michelle do not seem to like (none / 0) (#39)
    by felizarte on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:56:26 AM EST
    Clinton at all.  He has said so many nasty things about her that it might be counterproductive.  Besides, if he is not ready to b e CIC, why should he  be the VP?

    I prefer Edwards or Clark.

    Parent

    Edwards ain't gonna happen. (none / 0) (#46)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 12:00:16 PM EST
    Poverty czar for him.

    Clark is an excellent possibility if not Obama, IMHO.

    Parent

    Think Clark Would Be The VP Candidate Of Choice (none / 0) (#63)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 01:00:04 PM EST
    if HRC is not forced to chose Obama.

    Parent
    I still think it would be good (none / 0) (#20)
    by cawaltz on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:38:33 AM EST
    That said, I don't think Senator Obama will go for that idea. I was listening to Air America yesterday and they put Nader at 4%. Then they factored in eiher one of the candidates not getting the nomination and Nader's numbers swelled to 17%.

    Parent
    Obama should think about his future, (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by pie on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:42:06 AM EST
    which would include an excellent shot at the presidency in eight years.

    Parent
    He should have thought about his future... (none / 0) (#28)
    by smott on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:48:00 AM EST
    ...before throwing his hat in as a freshman. We would have been set up for 16 years of Dems in the WH.
    But no.

    Parent
    Interesting but (none / 0) (#24)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:41:15 AM EST
    Air Obama has lost all credibility with me. They picked sides when they shouldn't have.

    There is no way in hell Nader will get more than .5% of the vote. We've all seen that movie before.

    Parent

    The worst of the offenders is gone (none / 0) (#71)
    by cawaltz on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:46:25 PM EST
    I can deal with Rachl because most of the time he keeps her eye on the ball. MCCain. I did hear her say tat she thought drawing this out was bad because it causes the focus not to be on McCain. Quite frankly though, my position is and always will be that two talented people like Clinton and Obama ought to be able to multitask. There is absoutely no reason they can't and sholuldn't hit McCain when he spouts BS. As a matter of fact, I think how they hit McCain/or fail to ought to be criteria when making a primary decision.

    Parent
    Which dream ticket? (none / 0) (#36)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:52:54 AM EST
    Clinton/Obama is not a dream ticket. He will be attacked for everything he has not done, his friends, and I can hear it now.. Will Ayers be sleeping in the Lincoln Bedroom?? etc. He also has very little networking experience in the Congress, so as legislative help he is a zero. He whines too much. Michelle's big mouth would be a huge negative. And I can't see Michelle taking the back seat to Hillary. Can't see Obama doing it either. Obama is becoming toxic. He is not a good choice for a candidate or a running mate. Obama is about to flame out and Hillary can do better than a pile of ashes with issues.

    Parent
    That's the other side (none / 0) (#41)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:56:57 AM EST
    of the issue. I think it has validity, but...I just don't know if the Republicans will waste their time going after the VP.

    Nevertheless, she can always put someone else on the ticket if he flames out.

    Parent

    Yes, the GOP will go after the vp (none / 0) (#54)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 12:15:59 PM EST
    if it is Obama, he is easier to take down, Hillary has survived their worst already. But if she picks him, they can call into question her judgment on picking someone with his lack of experience and associations. And those associations are going to be spread all over the media, and the net, and will be discussed, analyzed, commented on in a very destructive manner. Hillary is too smart to pick someone with the kind of attackable baggage that Obama comes with. In the GE, the gloves will be off, and Obama won't be able to stand the scrutiny, either as the nominee or the vp.

    Parent
    presidential candidate stephen d macmillan 2008 (none / 0) (#32)
    by presidential on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:49:58 AM EST
    any help in this matter www.presidentcandidate.zoomshare.com see photo's crime

    Reagan 1976 (none / 0) (#35)
    by diogenes on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:52:29 AM EST
    Reagan ran it to the convention in 1976 despite no chance of winning.  The obvious retrospective plan was to let the weak Carter win and run himself in 1980.
    See a parallel here?

    You're saying Hillary is Reagan? (none / 0) (#43)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:58:41 AM EST
    LOL!

    Hillary has a clear strategy and plan for winning. She honestly believes she will beat Obama and McCain.

    The electoral map backs her up.

    I don't think Reagan could say the same in 1976.

    Parent

    Reagan did that because the idea (none / 0) (#59)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 12:26:01 PM EST
    of an actor in the White House was funny to most people at the time, including the politicos. Because he did that, they started paying attention to what he had been doing in CA, close attention. (Obama can't stand the scrutiny of what he did in Illinois. It doesn't reflect well on him. Hillary can stand on her Senate record.) That is what got him the nod in the next convention, the fact that they saw him as a good politician(gag)and not an actor. He also spent four years going around giving speeches and endearing himself to the electorate. (Obama isn't good at that. Hillary is.) He was still an actor, but could be sold as a politician. He played one very well.

    So, I don't think that this is what Hillary is doing. I think it may be what Obama may end up doing when he loses. Of course, that will entail going back to the Senate and working his butt off, which doesn't seem to be his thing. But he will, by the next election, have the chance of getting a record on paper.

    Parent

    Bill's latest stupidity. (none / 0) (#45)
    by ajain on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 12:00:02 PM EST
    I think this new thing with Bill Clinton and the race card is going hurt Hillary at the polls today, because all the radio shows will be talking about this and they will talk about how disruptive Clinton is and how crazy he is and what not.

    I dont know why he couldnt just divert the question and why he has to get right in the middle of it everytime. He really does hurt Hillary every-so-often.

    What new thing? (none / 0) (#48)
    by smott on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 12:05:55 PM EST
    Link?

    Parent
    Probably talking about this tripe: (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 12:16:42 PM EST
    The commenter does not represent what Bill C. said accurately at ALL, of course:
    Whatever

    Parent
    sigh... (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by smott on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 12:20:01 PM EST
    ...Yes that racist Bill Clinton. How many AAs did he appoint to his cabinet again?

    I forget.

    Parent

    It doesnt matter what the truth is (none / 0) (#58)
    by ajain on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 12:22:10 PM EST
    It is something that is going to go crazy all over the news and what-not and so the dominant theme is going to be Bill Clinton and how annoying he is. Once again he will be the dominant story.

    Parent
    Oh, puh-leez. (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 12:21:10 PM EST
    From your link:

    The problem is, it WAS the Clinton's who started the whole discussion. Obama had nothing to gain by raising the issue of race.

    Before Obama's camp played the race card, he was splitting the AA vote with Clinton.

    Now, he's getting 85-90% consistently.

    Puh-freaking-LEEEEEZ.

    Parent

    Only problem (none / 0) (#64)
    by CST on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 01:03:03 PM EST
    "Before Obama's camp played the race card, he was splitting the AA vote with Clinton."

    That was also before he won Iowa, and before any of them voted.  Frankly, I think it was gonna happen anyway.  Especially since that split has held up long after the issue with the Clintons was over.

    Parent

    Huh? (none / 0) (#73)
    by kayla on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:39:26 PM EST
    African Americans were eventually going to vote for Obama 9 to 1 anyway.  Clinton didn't have to compare Obama to Jackson.  But also, Obama didn't have to deem so many fair criticisms of him as race-baiting either.  Both camps have been reckless about this.

    I wish Bill had been more evasive with this question though.  Why would he not on the day of a very important primary?  What the hell?

    Parent

    Link (none / 0) (#53)
    by ajain on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 12:13:56 PM EST
    Link

    Parent
    No problem there whatsoever... (none / 0) (#66)
    by white n az on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 01:05:00 PM EST
    and Obama surrogates who try to play this into something racial or meaningful merely tip their hand.

    Guess what...Obama has the black vote wrapped up after they already branded the Clintons as racists. This isn't going to get them any more votes now.

    Parent

    It'll keep the SD's scared (none / 0) (#74)
    by kayla on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:48:06 PM EST
    I didn't want to read the article at first, but now I did.  Is it true that Bill was talking about election history in SC when he made that statement?  If so, then it's hard to believe that he was playing the race card within context.  I never realized this.

    But yeah.  Dragging this whole thing out will only help the SD's lean toward Obama.

    Parent

    I think we're weary of racism charges (none / 0) (#76)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:10:48 PM EST
    in this campaign.  They've lost their punch -- and frankly, I think they can work against Obama now.  Is this what the next four years would look like?  Everyone who disagrees with, protests against the president, etc., would be a racist?  

    This is not the path to a post-racial America, and the wiser public knows it, even if Obamans don't and think it will keep working to flog this dead horse.

    Worse, of course, is that it drives down chances of real discourse about real racism in this country.  So sad.

    Parent

    No other candidate has raised more money... (none / 0) (#50)
    by Exeter on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 12:09:38 PM EST
    ...or gotten more votes in the primaries than Hillary, with the exception of Obama. That's what Wolfson needs to say. These are BOTH historic candidacies for many, many different reasons.

    Over-represented college students, 'new' voters (none / 0) (#51)
    by Ellie on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 12:11:48 PM EST
    As was pointed out in a prior thread on PA, the registration of ~100,000 newbies isn't at all remarkable but weak in relation to the millions of boring old regular Dem voters. (Did that come up at all or did Williams work from TeamObama talking points?)

    In passing, the coverage of anticipated turnout -- led by swarms of those delectable young voters* so prized by the Dems -- has skipped rather arbitrarily between new voters, college students and "academics", usually failing to offer clues to discerning the categories (or that the report itself has any clue, period.)

    Although PA has lots of colleges, college students from that particular locale, if they are participating in the primary or the general election, could very likely be voting elsewhere in the GE. In the primary, they may already have made a showing elsewhere and are being counted twice.

    I'm sure the seasoned numbers crunchers have specific definitions and stats on this; I'm referring to sloppiness in the reporting.

    Normally, I wouldn't pay attention to horse race stuff OR the polls, which are transitory and as subject to bias as "conventional wisdom". They're interesting in HRC vs. BO contest, though, which has taken on an epic quality, and BTD's poll analyses have added fascinating background to that.

    *to hear the terms Dem braintrust use to talk about young / new voters, you'd think they were headed towards big pots to be steamed like dumplings on a Dim Sum menu.

    Better questions (none / 0) (#60)
    by Salt on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 12:29:58 PM EST
    If Obama losses another Big State Battleground today, after outspending you 3 or 4-1 will you demand Democratic leadership request his withdrawal for the good of the Party and your chances in Nov.

    The Republican narrative evolving is that of a Nominee and Party full of extremist radicals pushing a socialist's Marxist platform, if you win in PA Senator and the downstream States securing the nomination what strategy will you implore to combat these right wing attacks before they take hold and threaten down stream the down stream ticket in some districts.

    If the exit polls bear out the damage that has been wrought through the divisive use of grievance wielding Politics of Identify during this Primary what Senator will you do to unify these groups? What can you do to bring the Party back together and persuade Independents to return if some sects view themselves to have been victimized and disenfranchised as Party members?

    Senator Clinton what is your plan to seat Mich and Fla, how will you undo the damage wrought by the DNC Howard Dean and Donna Brazile orchestrated disfranchisement of these voters to elevate the momentum of Obama candidacy and the unflattering image of the Party with a foot on the scale.

    Oh and Senator Clinton we at GE, NBC. and MSNBC thank your for your Service to our Country and wish you luck today......with our missed expectations on earnings would you ask your supporters to stop avoiding all things GE as retaliation for our biases? LOL.

    horsesass.com reports (none / 0) (#68)
    by oldpro on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 01:10:09 PM EST
    today that my congressman, Norm Dicks, told a fundraiser audience yesterday that he would flip his super D vote to Obama 'to bring this to a close sooner rather than later' unless Hillary wins big (?) in Pennsylvania today.

    If true, this is a very, very bad sign...he and Murtha are close political pals in the House...

    Midday: Wolfson Interview With Brian Williams | 76 comments (76 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment