There have been a lot of stories out there lately, including one in the conservative Telegraph that was detailed in several recommended diaries here, stating that Bill Clinton is bitter and angry with Obama. Some of the stories stated Bill was sulking, while others went further to say he was withholding his support for Obama until Obama apologized to him for something or other.
Some Kossacks seemed to take Bill's silence in reaction to the stories as a sign of their veracity, while others pointed to his lack of public support for Obama thus far.
Today, Terry McAuliffe is making Bill's stance clear.
Many people here claim that the Superdelegates are morally bound to vote for the candidate who has the most pledged delegates. If they don't, the argument goes, they're thwarting the will of the voters.
We all know that pledged delegates aren't necessarily representative of the will of the voters. In Nevada, for example, we saw Obama win more delegates than Clinton despite losing by the popular vote. Dhonig explains this point well today, using Texas as an example.
So what should the Superdelegates base their choice on? A new Rasmussen poll released today says the nomination should go to the candidate who wins the popular vote.
Survey USA is not only a great polling firm; they're also great about openly comparing their results to others. Today, they released a comparison of 2008 pollsters' average error per race.
Not only has Survey USA polled the second most races (to Rasmussen), they also have the lowest average error.
Just as in most policy areas, Clinton and Obama's health plans are much more similar than they are different. But there is a real difference, and that difference will affect people's lives. That difference is an argument about the fundamental beliefs of the Democratic Party.
This diary will explore my thoughts on that difference in three parts.
In the first section, I'll explain the three reasons why we need mandates in the absence of a single payer program.
Broadening the risk pool.
Preventing free riders.
Elevating public health.
In the second section, I'll explain how Obama's argument against mandates is more than just flawed. His public reasons for opposing a mandate are contradictory and false.
Finally, I will explain why Obama's rhetoric and policy bother me so much. I'll detail how I've seen his arguments in my personal experiences fighting for health coverage, and how they were coming from the other side.
Health care is a right, and the only way that right can be secured is through universal coverage. This is a fundamental aspect of my Democratic Party, and I hope yours too.
This is the second part of a two part series looking at pieces of conventional wisdom that have dominated the narrative of the Democratic Primary. As a reality based community, we are not simply accepting of media narratives. We like to figure things out on our own, as we know others may not always be telling the whole story.
Here are the two pieces of CW I'm looking at:
1. Barack Obama is mapchanger. He can compete and win in states Gore and Kerry could not. Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, can only hope for a "50+1 victory." She's looking at the same old electoral map, but she's hoping to flip Ohio or Florida. Her inability to compete in Red States will drag down the ticket for lower slate candidates.
2. Since New Hampshire, the primary campaign has been centered on race. The Clinton campaign has been using subtle and overt racial strategies to hurt Obama. As a result, Clinton has suffered a severe backlash among black voters. They're not only switching to Obama in the primary, but they also will not vote for Clinton if she's the nominee. They may even leave the Democratic party.
This is the first part of a two diary series that will look at two pieces of conventional wisdom about the Democratic Primary that have been oft repeated:
Barack Obama is mapchanger. He can compete and win in states Gore and Kerry could not. Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, can only hope for a "50+1 victory." She's looking at the same old electoral map, but she's hoping to flip Ohio or Florida. Her inability to compete in Red States will drag down the ticket for lower slate candidates.
Since the Iowa Caucuses, the primary campaign has been centered on race. The Clinton campaign has been using subtle and overt racial strategies to hurt Obama. As a result, Clinton has suffered a severe backlash among black voters. They're not only switching to Obama in the primary, but they also will not vote for Clinton if she's the nominee.
Follow me over the jump to examine the first claim and see if the CW represents reality...
In a new poll, Survey USA gives Clinton a 56% to 29% lead over Obama in New York, with Edwards trailing at 8%. The lead has shrunk a bit since Iowa, but is still around the 30 point mark that it's been since Clinton entered the race.
AFSCME endorsed Senator Clinton earlier this year, but the Illinois branch recently splintered off from from the national endorsement--in an admittedly "unusual step"--to support Senator Obama. Earlier this week, AFSCME started mailing fliers in Illinois critical of Obama's health plan.
Obama's camp was upset that the national organization would actually support its chosen candidate nationally, so they decided to attack AFSCME. Their tactic was to call the national organization "hypocrites," because they allegedly oppose mandated health coverage--just like Obama.
In reality, AFSCME supports federal mandated health insurance. They only oppose state mandated insurance.
The fact that Obama's team still doesn't understand the distinction is troubling.
Two new polls out this morning: a CNN poll from New Hampshire and a Field Poll from California. There's also an interesting study from the University of Washington studying the differences between people's stated candidate preferences and their unconscious preferences.
If you haven't read markw's heartfelt diary yet, please do. It likely won't change your mind, but you'll be glad to have read it.
At first glance, Kerrey's remarks seem to be just another example of an ugly pattern. Given the forwarding of the Muslim smear e-mails by Clinton volunteers in Iowa and Billy Shaheen's remarks in New Hampshire, it's easy to lump Kerrey into the bigot camp.
But I think a closer, more sympathetic, reading of Kerrey shows that his message is the opposite of those smears. His message is one of hope, of progress, of what we can become. I think Kerrey's underlying point is that a President Obama would fundamentally change the way America is viewed--both at home and abroad.
While I think it's unfortunate that Kerrey is being dragged over the coals for a well meaning statement, I think the more depressing part is that Obama supporters seem to have lost touch with that hope.
Bob Novak caused quite a stir on November 17th with a column accusing operatives of Hillary Clinton's campaign of spreading unspecified rumors about Barack Obama around Democratic circles.
Agents of Sen. Hillary Clinton are spreading the word in Democratic circles that she has scandalous information about her principal opponent for the party's presidential nomination, Sen. Barack Obama, but has decided not to use it. The nature of the alleged scandal was not disclosed.
And here's the shocker: Novak's full of shit. The Super Secret Unknown Smear was actually the Obama Hopefund PAC story that had already been publicized by the press over the summer. He accomplished exactly what he set out to do--increase the vitriol between the two leading Democratic candidates that has only increased since his smear was published. Did Obama fall for it, or did he simply take advantage of an opportunity to go on the offensive?
"When the White House continues to stick it in our eye, I say to hell with it."
--House Appropriations Committee Chairman David R. Obey (D-Wis.)
While the Democrats seemed willing to appease Bush by funding his war in return for increased domestic spending, they've now pulled their compromise offer.
Obey took the step after the White House and weekend news accounts suggested Democrats were willing to trade $50 billion-$70 billion in new Iraq war funds for just a few billion in domestic programs. He wants to break the perceived linkage, which had whipped up the liberal anti-war blogosphere.
Instead, they will push a spending bill with no money for Iraq or Afghanistan.
The Clinton campaign has started running a 60 second radio ad in South Carolina featuring Maya Angelou titled "My Girl." Angelou is not just a brilliant writer, she also worked closely with both Martin Luther King and Malcolm X in the struggle for civil rights.
Angelou endorsed Clinton back in June, releasing a video explaining her support:
There are three states more crucial to presidential elections these days than any others. Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio are the 4th, 6th, and 7th most populous states, and they've also been highly contested in recent presidential elections. There's no reason to think 2008 will be any different.
Quinnipiac released primary and general election polls in these three states today. Hillary Clinton leads in each of the primaries, and she fares better than the other Dems in the matchup polls.
The polls were conducted from 11/26-12/3, and they each have a margin of error around 3% for the general election matchups and 4.5%-5.0% for the primaries.
