• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF Interim Thread of Tears/Lapel Pins (ScratchingHisCheek-Gate)

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

syllogism

Member
Obama adviser Greg Craig, a former counsel to Clinton’s husband, tells National Journal she is “misleading the American public” about her experience as first lady.

“She did not sit in on national security meetings. She did not have a security clearance. She did not attend meetings in the situation room. She conducted no negotiations. She did not manage any part of the national security bureaucracy.”

“Senator Clinton and her supporters have in serious ways overstated, if not grossly exaggerated, the nature of her experience.”
Click to expand...

http://nationaljournal.com/onair/transcripts/080314_craig_greg.htm

Also Rasmussen has Obama at 50% for the first time
 
T

Tamanon

Banned
Yeah, it's starting to get some play on the news networks also, but it's not as important os Obama or McCain's pastor spouting off, apparently:p
 
S

siamesedreamer

Banned
Posted?

031308DailyUpdateGraph3.gif
 
S

ShOcKwAvE

Member
Clinton response to Craig comments:

Greg Craig Today:

http://nationaljournal.com/onair/transcripts/080314_craig_greg.htm

Q: You also say that the claim that she has passed the commander in
chief test, then, is not supported by this record.

Craig: No, I think, look — I think she would be a capable commander in
chief.

Greg Craig Tuesday:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/11/753881.aspx

To: Interested Parties
From: Greg Craig, former director, Policy Planning Office, U.S. State
Department
RE: Senator Clinton’s claim to be experienced in foreign policy: Just
words?
DA: March 11, 2008

When your entire campaign is based upon a claim of experience, it is
important that you have evidence to support that claim. Hillary
Clinton’s argument that she has passed “the Commander- in-Chief test” is
simply not supported by her record.
Click to expand...

http://thepage.time.com/clinton-campaign-response-to-craig-comments/

How does he forget an e-mail he sent three days ago?
 
S

ShOcKwAvE

Member
syllogism said:
There's nothing contradictory in those statements
Click to expand...


Um, the reporter reads back his exact quote and Craig replies "no" like it's not what he meant. The Clinton camp is pointing out that he won't stick to his own comments.
 
S

SexConker

Banned
ShOcKwAvE said:
Um, the reporter reads back his exact quote and Craig replies "no" like it's not what he meant. The Clinton camp is pointing out that he won't stick to his own comments.
Click to expand...


On Tuesday he says her record does not support that claim.

When he responds to the question 3 days later, he covers himself by saying he thinks she would make a capable commander in chief.


He's simply covering himself for the "OMG HE THINKS WOMEN CAN'T LEAD" spin.
 
K

kaching

"GAF's biggest wanker"
ShOcKwAvE said:
Um, the reporter reads back his exact quote and Craig replies "no" like it's not what he meant. The Clinton camp is pointing out that he won't stick to his own comments.
Click to expand...
You can tell he decides to change gears right after saying that, so he doesn't fully explain his "no", because he decides to go in a different direction with his response when he says "look". Looks like he just didn't want to get into a semantics fight over what constitutes a CIC test.
 
C

Cheebs

Member
50 in both? Crazy. I wonder if all this nonsense about Wright will have a hit on the weekend polls.

But I realized one good thing about it, all this talk about Wright showcases Obama is a christian to those who think he is a muslim. :lol
 
G

gcubed

Member
Qwerty710710 said:
Great the mayor of Pittsburgh is going to endorse Clinton. What an asshole.
Click to expand...

bah they can endorse whoever they want Clinton's only dim future is in a large PA victory.

That being said, damn Philly burbs. I drive through them every day, and every day i see more Hillary signs, and no Obama signs, makes me angry
 
L

Lefty42o

Banned
SexConker said:
On Tuesday he says her record does not support that claim.

When he responds to the question 3 days later, he covers himself by saying he thinks she would make a capable commander in chief.


He's simply covering himself for the "OMG HE THINKS WOMEN CAN'T LEAD" spin.
Click to expand...

his words

When your entire campaign is based upon a claim of experience, it is
important that you have evidence to support that claim. Hillary
Clinton’s argument that she has passed “the Commander- in-Chief test” is
simply not supported by her record.


he says she needs to support her claim that her experience from the white house is the basis for her being ready to be the commander chief.

next he says that her record would not support her claim to pass the commander in chief test. never does he say she would not qualified to be commander in chief.


when asked directly he says she would be qualified. the e-mail was not to attack her readiness just her stupid claim that being the wife of a sitting president makes her experienced. just as she says obama has just a speech he made against the war.

but again unlike hillary he does not say she is unqualified. only she would fail her own test
 
G

GhaleonEB

Member
Gallup and Rasmussen show the same trend in their daily - Obamabump.

Also, if you want to see the long-term Gallup trending, hit this link. The graph on the front page has not yet updated to reflect today's poll though.
 
L

Lefty42o

Banned
Cheebs said:
50 in both? Crazy. I wonder if all this nonsense about Wright will have a hit on the weekend polls.

But I realized one good thing about it, all this talk about Wright showcases Obama is a christian to those who think he is a muslim. :lol
Click to expand...


none. most of those truly offended by wright are not liberal and more conservative. Believe it or not wright s comments are very close to what you will hear in nay baptists, or prominent black church.
 
G

GhaleonEB

Member
Lefty42o said:
none. most of those truly offended by wright are not liberal and more conservative. Believe it or not wright s comments are very close to what you will hear in nay baptists, or prominent black church.
Click to expand...
And didn't it get tons of airplay yesterday and the day before? Bearing in mind the Gallup is a three-day rolling average:

Gallup said:
This is the largest advantage either contestant has had in the race since late February. Obama had a strong showing in Thursday night interviews, which added to his slim lead in interviews conducted Tuesday and Wednesday gives him his current 6-point margin.
Click to expand...
If anything he's going up, despite the "news".
 
C

Cheebs

Member
Lefty42o said:
none. most of those truly offended by wright are not liberal and more conservative. Believe it or not wright s comments are very close to what you will hear in nay baptists, or prominent black church.
Click to expand...
no one thought democrats would fall for 3 AM scare tactics, they did. There are a lot more conservative democrats than the internet gives credit for. So I dunno.
 
G

gkryhewy

Member
Cheebs said:
no one thought democrats would fall for 3 AM scare tactics, they did. There are a lot more conservative democrats than the internet gives credit for. So I dunno.
Click to expand...

I also think the average IQ of Americans somehow manages to be less than 100. Fortunately, the dumb and uneducated already skew toward Hillary, so the worst it can do is galvanize them into a froth of idiocy, whereby they're disenfranchised by getting stuck trying to enter polling place doors three at a time, side by side.
 
L

Lefty42o

Banned
GhaleonEB said:
And didn't it get tons of airplay yesterday and the day before? Bearing in mind the Gallup is a three-day rolling average:


If anything he's going up, despite the "news".
Click to expand...

not really. compared to the nafta gate crap hello no it aint get no play. and i have yet to see any real mention of it to day other than obama saying what he said was wrong.

once again its a non issue. infact the biggest play it got was from fox news, conservatives, like i was saying. and those people watching fox news are already probably not going to vote for obama.

Cheebs said:
no one thought democrats would fall for 3 AM scare tactics, they did. There are a lot more conservative democrats than the internet gives credit for. So I dunno.
Click to expand...


and i don't think many did. Nafta Gate with the impressions of flip flopping and Rush's cross over republican vote did him in. Not to mention how the media flipped over that weekend. cause they felt snl had mocked them.


there were many reasons why he struggled in ohio and lost texas. demographics and those i mentioned hold more weight in my eyes than the 3 am ad. not to mention both the 3 am ad and the nafta gate was big "the"news over that weekend. not the same with wrights comments.
 
S

syllogism

Member
If there was any doubt the hopes for a revote in Florida are fading, it's now rather clear as sen. Nelson began floating the 1/2 vote per delegate plan today.
 
G

GhaleonEB

Member
Saw this linked over at Real Clear Politics. Worth the read.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2004280786_plunkhaun14.html


Hillary Clinton, you sure don't make it easy.

Since 2005, I've written $7,100 worth of checks to the person I considered most qualified to be the junior senator from New York and, later, president of the United States. In February, I was elected a Clinton delegate in the neighborhood-level caucuses, and looked forward to trying to be appointed a delegate to the Democratic National Convention.

It would have been my second Democratic Convention. In 1992, as the volunteer press secretary to the Wisconsin delegation, I led a march of happy cheeseheads up Fifth Avenue in Manhattan to the National Republican Women's Club. We stood and chanted slogans at a Republican "truth squad" that had set up camp there. It was great, goofy fun, and the Daily News thought so, too.

I remember well the feeling on the last day of that convention, which nominated your husband and Al Gore. "I think we're actually going to win this election," I told my old friend, who as head of the state delegation had invited me to New York. "I don't know if I'm ready to be on the winning side!"

Oh, what times those were! And given what success your husband produced, and your impressive record in New York, it wasn't exactly hard for me to support you. My sister-in-law, a grocery clerk whom I brought to a fundraiser here in Seattle and who sat and chatted with you, is still in your corner. She'll be crushed when she reads this column.

Sen. Clinton, I can no longer count myself in your ranks. I've decided that, barring some stunning revelation, Barack Obama has earned the Democratic nomination, fair and square. More importantly, I've decided that your campaign's tactics have crossed a line that should never be crossed. I no longer want to be associated with your effort to become the Democratic nominee.
Click to expand...
 
F

Farmboy

Member
syllogism said:
If there was any doubt the hopes for a revote in Florida are fading, it's now rather clear as sen. Nelson began floating the 1/2 vote per delegate plan today.
Click to expand...

The Obama camp will most likely reject any plan that legitimizes the January vote in any way, lest they open the door to arguments along the lines of "Why not ratify the vote 'as is'?" from the Clinton camp.

@Ghaleon: Was about to post that very article! Vibe I'm getting is the attacks worked for the short term, but now the backlash is getting there. I guess people are getting nervous that Clinton won't win but could still damage Obama's chances in the general (the 'McCain > Obama as Commander-in-Chief' comment was way over the line in that respect), and don't want to see that happen. Could be wishful thinking though.
 
T

Triumph

Banned
Tamanon said:
WTF are you doing here? Did I just spaz out for a month and a half?
Click to expand...
I have no earthly clue. I was re-reading the mlb thread from last year, enjoying the historic Mets implosion like only a Braves fan can, when I noticed there was no "banned" next to my name anymore. So tried logging in and here I am.

Personally, I think I should still be banned and want it to be known that I didn't ask anyone to be unbanned, but the truth of Obama's victory in Texas must have simply set me free.
 
G

Gig

One man's junk is another man's treasure
Tamanon said:
WTF are you doing here? Did I just spaz out for a month and a half?
Click to expand...

Well, if you're going by delegates Obama did win Texas.
 
G

grandjedi6

Master of the Google Search
Triumph said:
I have no earthly clue. I was re-reading the mlb thread from last year, enjoying the historic Mets implosion like only a Braves fan can, when I noticed there was no "banned" next to my name anymore. So tried logging in and here I am.

Personally, I think I should still be banned and want it to be known that I didn't ask anyone to be unbanned, but the truth of Obama's victory in Texas must have simply set me free.
Click to expand...

I remember Amirox talking about unbanning you for some reason or other
 
G

GhaleonEB

Member
Triumph said:
I have no earthly clue. I was re-reading the mlb thread from last year, enjoying the historic Mets implosion like only a Braves fan can, when I noticed there was no "banned" next to my name anymore. So tried logging in and here I am.

Personally, I think I should still be banned and want it to be known that I didn't ask anyone to be unbanned, but the truth of Obama's victory in Texas must have simply set me free.
Click to expand...
amir0x unbanned you for that reason, and essentially declared all ban bets stupid as fuck and probably won't be enforcing any going forward, FYI. You got unbanned a few days ago.

Also, Obama picks up another super today.

3-14-08 - Added DNC Melissa Schroeder (WI) for Obama

http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/superdelegate-list.html

(Also on the front page of barackobama.com.)
 
G

gcubed

Member
Triumph said:
Damn, I could have been banging the drum about how Bill went on Rush the day of the Texas primary and that 24% of Hillary's support in Mississippi was from Republicans, basically screwing him out of a delegate landslide. Oh well.
Click to expand...

others picked up your torch on that front
 
S

ShOcKwAvE

Member
syllogism said:
If there was any doubt the hopes for a revote in Florida are fading, it's now rather clear as sen. Nelson began floating the 1/2 vote per delegate plan today.
Click to expand...

I just don't understand the logic in this situation. Help me out here:

Florida's government moved up their primary so "Florida's voters could be have a more important role in choosing the Democratic nominee." Apparently, they voters are more important than others? Despite other big states like Ohio and Pennsylvania waiting their turn, like the RULES specify, their gov't ignored any sense of respect for the DNC. They knew there would be consequences, but they didn't care. Why?

Then the DNC strips away their delegates. Certainly a harsher punishment than Florida expected, but well within the DNC's authority considering how much they were disrespected. Florida's gov't was well-aware there would be punishment. If they felt entitled to move up their own primary against the rules, what would stop other states from doing the same?

Obama and Hillary agree with the DNC not to campaign there, and they don't argue it because, well, why would they? The state now has no delegates to gain and they'd face punishment themselves. They're both disappointed that Florida voters won't get their say, but neither makes a big fuss.

All (hopefully) Florida democrats know now that their primary is nothing but a beauty contest. Most cast their vote anyway, but many choose not to bother since they know it won't make any difference. I'm not really sure why they held the primary at all.

After it becomes clear that the Obama/Hillary war will not end anytime soon, Florida democrats become more vocal about their disappointment in being left out of the entire process. Rather than apologizing to their residents for causing the problem in the first place, the Florida gov't somehow convinces residents that the DNC deserves the blame.

Now we're in this mess of waiting for them to figure out a new voting process and how to pay for it. Florida's is pressuring the DNC, despite being the CAUSE of this entire clusterfuck. How are its residents so apathetic about this complete lack of logic?

Suddenly, Hillary is all for seating them "as is" since it helps her and hurts Obama. Even if the Florida gov't agrees to seat all delegates with a 1/2 vote, Hillary essentially gains "free" delegates since she didn't spend a dime to earn them. No rational person would consider this a fair primary, and I highly doubt she would want them seated if Obama had won.

Someone calm me down...
 
G

gcubed

Member
good post though shockwave... and what a lot of people fail to realize when they speak about the Fla vote is that they knew it wasnt going to count. I am sure more people wanted to vote, but didnt because it didnt count. So you want to seat them as is because they are being disenfranchised, well what about the people who iddnt get a chance to vote because they thought the first primary was meaningless.
 
G

GhaleonEB

Member
ShOcKwAvE said:
I just don't understand the logic in this situation. Help me out here:

Florida's government moved up their primary so "Florida's voters could be have a more important role in choosing the Democratic nominee." Apparently, they voters are more important than others?
Click to expand...
And they voted in favor of the schedule as well. So they decided to break with the DNC rules after agreeing to it specifically.

Despite other big states like Ohio and Pennsylvania waiting their turn, like the RULES specify, their gov't ignored any sense of respect for the DNC. They knew there would be consequences, but they didn't care. Why?

Then the DNC strips away their delegates. Certainly a harsher punishment than Florida expected, but well within the DNC's authority considering how much they were disrespected.
Click to expand...
Apparently, they knew well before moving it up that the DNC would strip the delegates - they were warned well in advance and chose to go ahead anyways.

Someone calm me down...
Click to expand...
It's fucked up. The DNC doesn't want to back down because it would signal to the rest of the states that they don't have to follow the rules either, and the next primary would be even more crazy, when it needs to get more organized. Clinton wants the delegates seated to get as much of an advantage as possible. Obama doesn't want to cede that kind of advantage to her, but he also needs to come across as supporting the will of the voters in FL.

The idea to seat 1/2 of the delegates is a good compromise.

1) It punishes the state for violating DNC rules with reduced influence at the convention.
2) Still honors the results of the primary, in which a whole lotta people voted despite knowing it was a "beauty contest".
3) Clinton will pick up another "victory" in a "big state".
4) But she won't gain very many delegates on Obama, not nearly enough to impact the race. And the nature of the primary nerfs her argument to undecided super delegates that her "victory" there shows she's more electable.
5) Cutting the delegates to 1/2 vote each is what the Republican party did as well, so the Democrats won't come out of it looking worse for the ordeal; both parties would get the same treatment.
 
M

maynerd

Banned
ShOcKwAvE said:
I just don't understand the logic in this situation. Help me out here:

Florida's government moved up their primary so "Florida's voters could be have a more important role in choosing the Democratic nominee." Apparently, they voters are more important than others? Despite other big states like Ohio and Pennsylvania waiting their turn, like the RULES specify, their gov't ignored any sense of respect for the DNC. They knew there would be consequences, but they didn't care. Why?

Then the DNC strips away their delegates. Certainly a harsher punishment than Florida expected, but well within the DNC's authority considering how much they were disrespected. Florida's gov't was well-aware there would be punishment. If they felt entitled to move up their own primary against the rules, what would stop other states from doing the same?

Obama and Hillary agree with the DNC not to campaign there, and they don't argue it because, well, why would they? The state now has no delegates to gain and they'd face punishment themselves. They're both disappointed that Florida voters won't get their say, but neither makes a big fuss.

All (hopefully) Florida democrats know now that their primary is nothing but a beauty contest. Most cast their vote anyway, but many choose not to bother since they know it won't make any difference. I'm not really sure why they held the primary at all.

After it becomes clear that the Obama/Hillary war will not end anytime soon, Florida democrats become more vocal about their disappointment in being left out of the entire process. Rather than apologizing to their residents for causing the problem in the first place, the Florida gov't somehow convinces residents that the DNC deserves the blame.

Now we're in this mess of waiting for them to figure out a new voting process and how to pay for it. Florida's is pressuring the DNC, despite being the CAUSE of this entire clusterfuck. How are its residents so apathetic about this complete lack of logic?

Suddenly, Hillary is all for seating them "as is" since it helps her and hurts Obama. Even if the Florida gov't agrees to seat all delegates with a 1/2 vote, Hillary essentially gains "free" delegates since she didn't spend a dime to earn them. No rational person would consider this a fair primary, and I highly doubt she would want them seated if Obama had won.

Someone calm me down...
Click to expand...

Don't think about MI cause that will just get you more pissed. :)
 
T

Triumph

Banned
I think the Florida compromise is a good one. Of course, then there's the question of "what do you do about the popular vote?"
 
G

gkryhewy

Member
Triumph said:
I think the Florida compromise is a good one. Of course, then there's the question of "what do you do about the popular vote?"
Click to expand...

It essentially doesn't matter anyway, so you'd have Clinton still counting the FLA votes, Obama still ignoring them, and the press hopefully citing both, an average, or neither. There's really no way she can make up a 1 million popular vote deficit by the end of days anyway, so the popular vote argument will be pulled out from under her anyway.
 
C

Cheebs

Member
Triumph said:
I think the Florida compromise is a good one. Of course, then there's the question of "what do you do about the popular vote?"
Click to expand...
Thats why I like it. It will great a opening for Obama and the media to continue not counting the FL popular vote which Hillary NEEDS counted or re-voted on to win the popular vote.

With the 1/2 delegate counting it is still impossible for her to win the pledged delegate count AND it creates wiggle room to still not count the popular vote which shuts the door on her ever winning the popular vote total.

It's a win-win for Obama despite the fact she'll gain about 50 delegates (19 from FL .5 counts and all the supers from MI & FL which overwhelmingly favor her).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom