Keith Olbermann is reporting that Howard Wolfson and Patti Solis Doyle are currently negotiating book deals about their time on the Clinton campaign. As Olbermann notes, you don’t negotiate for book deals in primary season if you think you’re going to be working a campaign in the fall.
Archive for the 'Hillary Clinton' Category
Has she said anything about it since Indiana? Certainly not to the extent she did leading up to Indiana/North Carolina.
That, my friends, is what we call a pander.
The last throes are pretty messy.
Hillary Rodham Clinton vowed Wednesday to continue her quest for the Democratic nomination, arguing she would be the stronger nominee because she appeals to a wider coalition of voters — including whites who have not supported Barack Obama in recent contests.
“I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on,” she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article “that found how Sen. Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.”
“There’s a pattern emerging here,” she said.
Indeed, a pattern has emerged some time ago. Boy, did we dodge a bullet.
“[W]orking, hard-working Americans, white Americans”. She really said that. Wow.
Congratulations, Hillary Clinton, you win the prize for the first Democratic Bigot Eruption since I’ve been keeping track of this. Even professional haters like Pat Buchanan and his ilk aren’t so balls-out about racism. You’ve been getting your ass handed to you and especially among black voters. This shows me once again that we - who are apparently lazy and shiftless non-Americans based on your definition - have yet again been a leading indicator.
There was maybe a slight chance Barack Obama might have been pushed to pick you as his running mate, but we can’t have someone spouting Klan-style talking points on the ticket. Heck, there’s a good shot with language like that you won’t win back your senate seat in 2012. I mean, a lot of those apparently lazy and shiftless non-American blacks helped you to win and they’d just as soon vote for someone else in the primary or the Republican in the election rather than someone echoing Bull Connor’s language.
“Working, hard working Americans, white Americans”, indeed.
UPDATE: Thanks for the link Americablog, and to make clear what I consider Clinton’s Klan-style talking point is her assertion that the hard working Americans are white Americans. That’s what I take offense to, and I don’t think you have to be black to feel that way.
WASHINGTON - After a daylong meeting between Senator Hillary Clinton and her campaign’s top advisors and staffers, this reporter has learned of a decision to portray the mathematically certain nomination of Senator Barack Obama as the byproduct of a time traveling DeLorean car that has created, in the words of communications director Howard Wolfson, an “alternate timeline.”
In extended comments Wolfson said, “we intend to show that sometime in late January of 2008 this time traveling DeLorean somehow altered history. In the original, true timeline Senator Clinton won all the states on Super Tuesday and quickly became the Democratic nominee for president. Yet, right now Senator Obama is going to be the nominee and that disruption of the space time continuum is clearly to blame.”
Top advisor Harold Ickes plans to show superdelegates a Powerpoint presentation set to a Huey Lewis soundtrack with what he claims is irrefutable evidence of a disrupted timeline. “On the left is Gov. Bill Richardson before the incident, and on the right is the more evil more bearded Bill Richardson now claiming to have endorsed Obama.”, Ickes said, “It’s obviously a paradox.”
In addition to the public relations outreach, Senator Clinton herself plans on Monday to introduce The Zemeckis Act into law. The bill is formally known as S. 1985 Authorizing the creation of a clock tower with which to harness the 1.21 Jigowatts needed to power a DeLorean in order to create some “serious shit”.
Attempts were made to contact former advisors James Carville and Paul Begala but friends and family reported that they had faded away as if ghosts. Mary Matalin repeatedly insisted she had no idea who James Carville was, acting almost as if the pundit and guru had been erased from history due to meddling in the time stream.
Senator Clinton refused to speak about the issue on the record, but her office issued a short statement indicating that she “gotta get back in time”.
That’s the latest - and probably last - b.s. excuse from Team Clinton on why they didn’t really lose the nomination. As I discussed with a friend last night, the Clinton campaign decided that in order to win they would throw the black vote aside and drive up their vote among white voters. What they didn’t calculate was that black voters weren’t going to sit by and let that happen, while at the same time many white voters did not fall for the trickery.
You gotta be kidding me.
Mary Bunger, a 44-year-old single mom from Abington, emerged from the town’s general store on Wednesday, the only place to purchase a snack in a 10-mile radius.
“I am definitely going to try to go with Hillary,” she said. “I almost feel like (Obama’s) the anti-Christ from the Middle East.”
Bunger reads news online about the election and has been “trying to talk everybody into voting, especially this year because I’m really scared for Obama to get it.”
(via)
It’s kind of like the math Bush pushed back in 2000. Keith Olbermann explains:
In 1992, the Clintons weren’t so digusted by economists. But they have a losing campaign to prop up, so things change.
This is the kind of thing Bush always does. Dismiss the experts, put down people with intelligence and expertise, deride them and ignore them in favor of short term policies with slightly populist overtones that turn out to be a mess. This is the same sort of thing she pulled when she voted for the Iraq War.
“I’m not going to put my lot in with economists,” the New York senator said when asked to name a credible economist who supported her proposal.
“We’ve got to get out of this mind-set where somehow elite opinion is always on the side of doing things that really disadvantage the vast majority of Americans,” said Clinton, a former first lady who would be the first woman president.
Ron Suskind detailed this sort of world view back in 2004.
In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn’t like about Bush’s former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House’s displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn’t fully comprehend — but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.
The aide said that guys like me were ”in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who ”believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ”That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. ”We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”
With this move - and many others - Clinton continues to move away from a reality-based view of the world.
Slate’s Tim Noah issues a challenge to journalists.
Here’s a rule I would like every political reporter, campaign official, TV talking head, and politician in the United States to follow. Go ahead and say, if you like, that Hillary Clinton retains a serious chance of winning the Democratic nomination. If you say this, however, you must describe a set of circumstances whereby this could happen. Try not to make it sound like a fairy tale.
This is what caused Mark Udall (an undecided superdelegate) to lash out at the Clinton/McCain rhetoric on the gas tax. She issued a challenge on the trail saying that members of congress are either “with us or against us” on the issue.
Note: I’m not denying that politically Clinton’s position is probably the more popular, but as President Bush has shown us the politically popular thing to do isn’t always the right thing to do for the country.
“The so-called ‘temporary gas tax holiday’ that Senators Clinton and McCain propose won’t deliver this needed relief. This will not create the economic relief they say it will, because prices will continue to rise until we address the real source of this problem. We do need to provide immediate relief for families hard-hit by spiraling gas prices, and we can do that by demanding the President stop adding to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. This will ease the production crunch that is causing these skyrocketing gas prices.
“Senator Clinton claimed yesterday that I either stand with her on this proposal or stand with the oil companies. To that I say: I stand with the families of Colorado, who aren’t looking for bumper sticker fixes that don’t fix anything, but for meaningful change that brings real relief and a new direction for our energy policy. We can’t afford more Washington-style pandering while families keep getting squeezed.
“It is exactly the kind of short-sighted Washington game that keeps us from getting real results to our energy problem. Experts across the ideological spectrum agree that it will increase the deficit, drain money away from Colorado roads and bridges, and hurt the environment, all without actually making prices lower for drivers.”
Well, she already acts like one, so at least she finally said it.
Clinton called her base of support “broader and deeper” than Obama’s, and said, “At the end of the day, that’s what it should be about for Democrats. You know, it is who can better win. And I’ve won the big states. I’ve won the states that we have to anchor. If we had the Republican rules, I would already be the nominee.”
Ah, but you see Senator Clinton, you made the mistake of running for the nomination of the Democratic party.
Howard Wolfson tries to deny Joe Andrews coming from Indiana, but the criteria he uses would disqualify Clinton’s claims of coming from New York, Pennsylvania, Arkansas, etc. It’s like blowback.
Josh Marshall notices this as the latest Clinton spin gone wild and dumb.
Superdelegates with no need to interact with us unwashed masses support Clinton, while those who have to actually answer to voters have gone more for Obama. And more will likely come.
Among elected officials, Sen. Obama leads in endorsements from governors and senators. He is behind among House members by one, but both camps expect him to pull ahead unless he does badly in next Tuesday’s Indiana and North Carolina primaries. If he doesn’t stumble, enough elected Democrats are expected to back Sen. Obama after the last primaries June 3 to give him the delegate majority needed for nomination.
Many of them see Sen. Obama as more electable than Sen. Clinton. But even those who don’t have been impressed by his grass-roots organizing and fund raising and the legions of new voters he has attracted, particularly younger and African-American voters.
Clearly the preference is for them to just do it, but it will come in due time.
Now, I don’t buy the conservative yammering about earmarks. I think one of the integral parts of congress is requesting money to bring back home and that’s never changing. But, em, you think Sen. Clinton would be a little less grabby.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) has requested nearly $2.3 billion in federal earmarks for 2009, almost three times the largest amount received by a single senator this year.
The Democratic presidential candidate’s staggering request comes at a time when Congress remains engaged in a heated debate over spending federal dollars on parochial projects.
Something something personal impulses something something impulse control issues something something psychological demons something something self destructive behavior something something.
Mr. Clinton has placed several of his own aides at headquarters, including his former lawyer and a bevy of strategists. Known as a bad loser, Mr. Clinton privately buttresses his wife’s drive to push on, telling her, according to aides: “We’re not quitters.”
On his own daily message calls, advisers say, he implores: “We’ve got to take him on every time.” At the Clintons’ Washington, D.C., home recently, these people say, he reviewed possible TV spots and told ad makers to be more hard-hitting, faster and harsher.
Something something legacy destruction something something introduction of toxicity something something flailing failing campaign something something.
