Hillary Clinton

Top Hillary Donors Meet With the McCain Camp

Gary Gore — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 13:49:30 -0400

Well, they do say "Politics make strange bedfellows"!

According to The Wall Street Journal, Carly Fiorina - one of the top financial and economics advisors to John McCain - met with 25 prominent Hillary Clinton supporters on Tuesday. Apparently, the meeting was initiated by the former backers of the Clinton campaign and not by John McCain's staff.

The Westchester meeting came at the behest of former Clinton supporters, some of whom have said – adamantly – that they won’t support Obama. Polls show Obama winning the majority of support from women voters while about a quarter of ex-Clinton supporters are leaning toward McCain. The meeting wasn’t stocked with typical voters, however. These were prominent activists and fund-raisers, including several known as “Hillraisers,’’ who raised more than $100,000 for Clinton during the primary season. “I didn’t ask how many of them were Hillraisers but certainly a number of them were,’’ Fiorina said.

It's apparent these Hillary backers are looking for a viable alternative to having to vote for Barack Obama after that hard-fought primary they just went through. I personally don't think it will be difficult for them to find some common-ground with McCain on several issues. The story goes on to detail some of their interest in doing just that:

Fiorina and participants said the town-hall style meeting covered a variety of issues, from health care to foreign policy to workplace rights. While many of the subjects could be described as of particular interest to women, many were not. One topic that got little attention: abortion rights. “John McCain has a very strong record of being pro-life, as do I,’’ Fiorina said. “They knew that. This was not a one-issue crowd.’’

Siskind said Fiorina agreed to provide details regarding McCain’s stances on mandating health insurance coverage for birth control pills, federal mandates for paid maternity leave and a reinvigoration of federal legislation aimed at giving women equal pay for comparable work.

Siskind said the group told Fiorina that if McCain would give some concrete assurances of support on such issues, the people in the room and the organizations they represented could help deliver “hundreds of thousands and maybe millions of votes” to the presumptive Republican nominee.

At the end of the day, I'm sure Hillary Clinton is going to tow the party line and maintain her verbal support for the nominee. But, this sort of migration to McCain by her supporters, especially with its financial implications, is the kind of thing that could help level the playing field to compete toe-to-toe with Obama and his '50 States' campaign strategy he's going to employ to try to bleed McCain of his funds.

It seems 'Nothin's easy" these days as far as Obama is concerned.

Read the full story here

Trouble in Obamaland

Drew McKissick — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 10:18:08 -0400

I wondered how long it would be before we got another dose of how the likes of Jesse Jackson (and other black "leaders") feel about Obama. Last year we had Jackson saying things like Obama was "acting white", guys like Sharpton indicating that he didn't have "real" black roots, etc.. Well now, thanks to an open mic at Fox News, we've got this from Jackson:

In a shocking blast at Barack Obama that was caught on tape, the Rev. Jesse Jackson said, “I wanna cut his nuts out.”

He made the astonishingly vulgar remark as he accused the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee of giving moral lectures to African-Americans.
“See, Barack [has] been talking down to black people . . . I wanna cut his nuts out,” Jackson said.

His whispered comments - accompanied by his hand-miming a cutting motion - were picked up by a live mike before an interview on health care in Fox News Channel’s Chicago studio Sunday.

In an effort to blunt the controversy, Jackson apologized publicly at a news conference before the tape aired last night on Bill O’Reilly’s “The Factor” show on Fox News Channel.

Also, Jackson had not plans to even admit that it was true (despite being on tape) until he learned Fox planned to air the comments.

Some are saying that this helps Obama...because he's being dissed by Jackson for saying things that should be said to the black community. But I disagree. This just reveals what we've already known was there. Dissention. Yes, the Jacksons and Sharptons will salute when needed, if just to maintain their credibility, but how hard will they work this fall? How hard wiill Jesse work the Rainbow-PUSH coalition when it comes to voter turnout for a guy that, should he win, obviates the need for guys like himself and Sharpton? I don't see it.

In the meantime, Obama's not making his peace treaty with Hillary any easier to maintain...

NEW YORK - It was all part of a careful arrangement: Democrat Barack Obama would get fundraising help from his erstwhile rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton, in exchange for his help retiring about $10 million of her campaign debt.

But Obama momentarily forgot his part of the deal at a major New York fundraiser Wednesday night, forcing him to retake the stage after he had concluded the event and said goodnight to the audience. ...

The Democratic nominee-in-waiting then wrapped up his speech and thanked the audience, moving to shake hands along a rope line.

After a minute or so, the music was cut short and Obama returned to the stage.

"This is not the speech part, but it is important," he said sheepishly, urging the group to reassemble.

"Senator Clinton still has some debt, and I could have had some debt if I hadn't won. So I know the drill," Obama said, encouraging donors to use the forms under their seats to make a contribution to help her.

"It's very important to us, and obviously Senator Clinton will be grateful as well," Obama said.

Don't think that slight went un-noticed by the Clinton folks. And don't forget, she's not the only one he has to make happy here, by helping her retire a multi-million dollar debt. And not just the hold-out Clinton supporters who "just don't like him"... But he's got to figure out what to do with the Clinton elite. The folks who've been running the Democrat party's power structure for the past twelve years. So far, they haven't been trhown a bone and don't have a spot in the Obamasphere.

***

More: Michelle Malkin - Ace

Critical Mass for the Democrats?

Gary Gore — Thu, 08 May 2008 22:32:34 -0400

The numbers do not lie. Hillary Clinton's hopes for winning the majority of the pledged delegates is now a virtual impossibility. Much to the dismay of many conservatives, including myself, she did not perform quite well enough on Tuesday to keep the nomination in doubt.

But, that may turn out to be for the best... The hand of the Clinton political machine may now be forced.

All indications show that she is going to press on and wage battle to the bitter end... and 'bitter' is exactly how things may become! If Barack thought he was familiar with that particular emotion before, he may just find out how truly bitter things may get.

As Politico reported Thursday evening, Sen. Clinton spent a part of the week campaigning behind the scenes for private commitments from some superdelegates that remain undecided.

Going all the way back to Super Tuesday, it started becoming clear that the path to a nomination for her was going to have to occur at the expense of the pledged delegate majority - the votes earned by Obama. One could theorize her efforts to gauge her possible superdelegate support could be as a means to see if there is salvageable, mathematical hope from the superdelegate count, if something dramatic was to transpire regarding Obama.

With regards to how the pledged delegates are stacking up in this race, Clinton is likely to do well over the upcoming weeks in the West Virginia, Kentucky, and Puerto Rico primaries - Puerto Rico having the highest delegate count remaining. The spin will be that the momentum is with her and has been since before Pennsylvania.

Never discount just how much weight the liberals of the Democrat Party put behind perceptions and emotions. This, of course, coming at the expense of the rational, analytical reality - the raw votes gained throughout the entirety of the democratic nomination process. Its doubtful anyone knows the Democratic Party membership, and their collective thought process, better than the Clintons.

Tossed into all of this calculating (and not many would argue that word applies anytime a Clinton is mentioned) is a wildcard - the whispers of some dirt out there regarding Obama. If this is so, the Clintons would certainly be privy to this information. Instead of the 'October Surprise' we are all familiar with, we could witness a 'May Surprise'.

Would it not be the duty of such a party devotee, as is Hillary Clinton, to spare the party an inevitable loss in November, following the Republicans releasing any information on Obama... at which point its too late?

If the Clinton campaign decides to remain in this fight with the intentions to actually win, and it is determined the superdelegate math could work by manipulating the very Democratic Party membership she would be courting, the 10 days between the May 20th Kentucky and Oregon primaries and the Puerto Rico primary on June 1st, could see some very interesting politics. And maybe some very interesting revelations, as well.

We shall see! Just some thoughts.

Hillary wins in Pennsylvania

Drew McKissick — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 11:33:22 -0400

Well, despite all the efforts on the part of the media to get Hillary out of this thing, I'd say that by winning Pennsylvania, she pretty well just guaranteed that she'll be able to be in this thing for the duration.

April 23 (Bloomberg) -- Hillary Clinton's Pennsylvania primary victory gave her campaign the boost it needed to keep going without diminishing Barack Obama's chances of ultimately capturing the Democratic presidential nomination.

Clinton got 55 percent of the vote to Obama's 45 percent in yesterday's Pennsylvania primary, with 99 percent of precincts reporting. With the race now shifting to Indiana and North Carolina, Clinton still needs a major event to loosen Obama's grip on the nomination because of his lead in the nationwide popular vote and in delegates to the national convention.

``She's in a difficult place,'' said Jenny Backus, a Democratic strategist who isn't affiliated with either candidate. Clinton needs a ``miracle'' or ``some magical negative story dropping on Obama from out of the sky.''

Obama came into yesterday with a delegate lead of 139, according to an unofficial tally by the Associated Press, and Clinton cut that margin by 14 delegates. She narrowed his popular-vote advantage in contested elections and caucuses by some 200,000 votes to about 600,000.

On the popular vote front, I'll have to say I think it's a little unfair that the press keeps reporting (and has all those wonderful graphics to demonstrate and drive the point home) that she's behind in the popular vote...when real people in Michigan and Florida DID vote for her...and when they are included, as they should be, she leads in the popular vote. I mean, yes, they don't count in terms of convention delegates due to a rules violation, but that doesn't mean those people didn't vote. What happened to "let every vote count!"?

And it's a sure thing that this win will bring a big wad of cash her way from supporters. As of this morning, the campaign claims they've brought in about three million since last night, and gained about 80,000 new donors in the process. I just checked out her site and noticed that the initial landing page for the site (www.hillaryclinton.com) isn't the home page...it's the contribution page...asking people to kick in at least five bucks. Smart move on their part.

And, as for the Obamans in the media, it's just funny to see them keep moving goal line for her every time she does what they say she "absolutely has to do" to stay in this thing. Yesterday they were saying it "had" to be by double digits, knowing that polls suggested it would be less than that. Then, lo and behold, she wins by double digits. Now they say she "absolutely" HAS to win Indiana, or else she should drop out. Hillarious.

In the meantime, the process is doing a wonderful job of diminishing both Hillary and Obama as effective general election candidates. It doesn't get any better than this.

Carville says Hillary's in trouble

Drew McKissick — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 14:19:47 -0500

Things aren't so good in Hillary-Land right now. Staff shakeups are one thing, but now actually being behind in the delegate count with only about three states standing between her and oblivion is worse. Carville points out the obvious:

Even longtime Clinton ally James Carville is acknowledging that Hillary is in trouble, saying that if she loses the March 4 primary in either Texas or Ohio, her campaign is doomed.
Speaking at the International Builders Show in Florida on Wednesday, Carville — a top adviser to Bill Clinton in the 1990s — declared:
“She’s behind. Make no mistake. If she loses either Texas or Ohio, this thing is done.”

In other words, her back's against the wall. And we all know how the Clintons act when that happens...

With her back against the wall, Clinton on Wednesday unleashed a strident attack ad against Obama, saying: “I am in the solutions business. My opponent is in the promises business. I think we need answers, not question.”

The potential benefit to the Republicans here is that Hillary's pretty much going to be forced to open her opposition notebook on Obama and throw everything they've got at him. Which means even if he wins, he'll be worse off for the general, since it will have been fellow Democrats that brought those issues up to begin with.

Democrats abandoning the Clintons?

Drew McKissick — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 18:40:35 -0500

The endorsements of Obama by the tribal chiefs of the Democrat establishment are beginning to pile up. Most notably, the biggest liberal chieftain of them all, Teddy Kennedy. From the Politico:

Rejecting a personal entreaty from President Bill Clinton, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) plans to endorse Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) for president in a joint appearance on Monday, Democratic sources said.

The embrace provides a dramatic rocket for Obama to ride into the frantic, nationwide campaigning ahead of the spate of Super Tuesday primaries on Feb. 5, the biggest day for nominating contests in U.S. history. Caroline Kennedy, the senator's niece and the daughter of President John F. Kennedy, will also appear at the rally, the sources said.

So what gives? I wrote about this last year, wondering, almost betting that, in the end, the Democrats wouldn't all commit collective political seppuku by nominating what would be the most flawed general election candidate in history. Elections are, after all is said and done, about winning. As Bill himself once said, "Losers don't govern". Well, it seems that the bulk of the bigwigs in their party are starting to take that advice to heart.

Another aspect of this may be that a lot of the liberal elitists in the Democrat party have always viewed the Clintons as interlopers on their social turf. Politics, after all, is in many ways tantamount to the social life of these people...and Bubba and Hillary never really had the right pedigree.And the language of Caroline Kennedy's endorsement of Obama is telling...

“I have never had a president who inspired me the way people tell me that my father inspired them. But for the first time, I believe I have found the man who could be that president – not just for me, but for a new generation of Americans,”...

In other words, not just does Hillary leave her cold, but she thinks her opponent is the most inspirational candidate since JFK. Not exactly something you'd say if you thought nice things about Hillary...or wanted to be friends with her in the future.In the end though, I'm still torn about how I think this thing will end up. The smart money is almost always on the establishment, which is essentially the Clintons. But now we've got significant slippage among the "in crowd". Does the rest of the party establishment begin to swing behind the supposed JFK heir, (now that he has the seal of approval from the royal family)? Do they come to see him as their best chance for victory?

The other side is the level of ferocity that the Clintons will bring to bear when necessary. And it's getting necessary. They've still got a talented cadre of hacks and hangers-on who are looking for a restoration. And they play for keeps. Race-baiting? No problem. Slanders about drug use? You got it. Thought Bill was fighting dirty in South Carolina? Odds are we haven't seen anything yet. They've obviously decided they have to get Obama off his pedestal (that the media helps keep him on) and down in the mud with them, where they excel. This then turns him into just another politician. It may work.

They've got an entitlement mentality, and they'll work to crush whatever gets in their way. The question is whether or not the rest of the party will let them get away with it.***

More over at Real Clear Politics

Who can beat the Clinton Machine?

AndrewMac — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 17:06:36 -0500

After my last post, which got stunning reviews; I thought I would follow up with another non-controversial subject.

Who in the Republican party can beat the Clintons? Now I know the gut reaction is going to be Anyone and Everyone should beat the Clintons, but I am more interested in who can actually beat them?

Huckabee doesn't seem to have the pull with the centrists. Romney doesn't have the pull with values voters. Giuliani, well, I'm less inclined to believe that he is a real candidate for President; I think he just likes a good vacation in Florida or something. McCain doesn't really seem to have conservative Republican support. Oh and most of you hate Ron Paul.

That being said, what is the winning ticket against a Hillary Clinton for President and Tom Vilisack for VP? Can Romney/Huckabee bury the hatchet? Will Huckabee's talk of amending the constitution sink them in the center or Romney's faccade' of being a human being instead of a plastic politician? At a time when the country appears to be leaning slightly to the left, and people are unsatisfied with the incumbent government - this may be the perfect opportunity for the Clintons to take Washington by storm.

Now, consider this.

A third party run by Mike Bloomberg, is the best opportunity that the country has to avoid another Clinton decade, and let me break it down for you why.

Ross Perot is often cited as taking the Presidency away from G H.W. Bush - because he ran as a center-right leaning populist. It is a known fact that many of Mike Bloomberg's social positions are center left, socially he is liberal, which means he will challenge the Democratic nod, whoever it is, even in traditionally Democratic states. Mike Bloomberg could actually win New York and California.

The way I see it, you need Mike Bloomberg to run, lest you face the Clinton Machine by yourselves, and do you really want another decade of that?

Sign the petition to encourage Mike Bloomberg to run - even if it is just an Anyone But Clinton vote.

Picture of the day

Drew McKissick — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 14:06:27 -0500

Say this today and had to pass it on.

Will have to make some of these up for the Outpost store.

UPDATE: You can now click here and get your own.

More race-baiting from Clinton, Inc

Drew McKissick — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 13:32:20 -0500

Yet another example of Hillary's supporters using the race angle against Obama...but this time, it's a black guy doing her dirty work. From Dick Morris:

Hillary Clinton, who had told Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" earlier on Sunday morning that if someone on her staff engaged in personal attacks against Barack Obama that person “would be gone,” failed to take action or to distance herself from the founder of BET when he launched such an attack.
Campaigning with Sen. Clinton in South Carolina yesterday, Bob Johnson, the founder of Black Entertainment Network, raised the specter of Barack Obama’s admitted drug use as a teenager but the senator neglected to repudiate the remark when she spoke on the same platform with Johnson or afterwards as she campaigned throughout the day.
Johnson went over the top when he said “And to me, as an African-American, I am frankly insulted that the Obama campaign would imply that we are so stupid that we would think Hillary and Bill Clinton, who have been deeply and emotionally involved in black issues since Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood — and I won’t say what he was doing, but he said it in the book — when they have been involved.”
Despite the obvious reference to Obama’s drug use (which he admitted in his book), Johnson tried to cover his tracks later in the day by saying that meant to allude to “Barack Obama’s time spent as a community organizer, and nothing else.”

Uh-huh. For all the talk about the Republicans getting into it with each other, it's nothing compared to how bad it is - and will get - on the Democrat's side. As I've said before, someone better remind Obama not to bring a knife to a gun-fight with the Clintons.

Karl Rove's take on Hillary's win

Drew McKissick — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 11:59:35 -0500

Karl Rove gives his take on Hillary's big come from behind win in New Hampshire in today's Wall Street Journal. His basic premise? That Hillary's winning the beer drinkers and Obama's winning the wine drinkers, and "there are more beer drinkers than wine swillers in the Democratic Party".

Mrs. Clinton won a narrow victory in New Hampshire for four reasons. First, her campaign made a smart decision at its start to target women Democrats, especially single women. It has been made part of the warp and woof of her campaign everywhere. This focus didn't pay off in Iowa, but it did in New Hampshire.
Second, she had two powerful personal moments. The first came in the ABC debate on Saturday, when WMUR TV's Scott Spradling asked why voters were "hesitating on the likeability issue, where they seem to like Barack Obama more." Mrs. Clinton's self-deprecating response -- "Well, that hurts my feelings" -- was followed by a playful "But I'll try to go on." ...
Her remarks helped wash away the memory of her angry replies to attacks at the debate's start. His trash talking was an unattractive carryover from his days playing pickup basketball at Harvard, and capped a mediocre night.
The other personal moment came on Monday, when a woman in Portsmouth asked her "how do you do it?" Mrs. Clinton's emotional reply was powerful and warm. Voters rarely see her in such a spontaneous moment. It was humanizing and appealing. And unlike her often contrived and calculated attempts to appear down-to-earth, this was real.
Third, the Clintons began -- at first not very artfully -- to raise questions about the fitness for the Oval Office of a first-term senator with no real accomplishments or experience. ...
For someone who talks about a new, positive style of politics and pledges to be true to his word, Mr. Obama too often practices the old style of politics, saying one thing and doing another. He won't escape criticism on all this easily. But the messenger and the message need to be better before the Clintons can get all this across. Hitting Mr. Obama on his elementary school essays won't cut it.
The fourth and biggest reason why Mrs. Clinton won two nights ago is that, while Mr. Obama can draw on the deep doubts of many Democrats about Mrs. Clinton, he can't close out the argument. Mr. Obama is an inspiring figure playing a historical role, but that's not enough to push aside the former First Lady and senator from New York. She's an historic figure, too. When it comes to making the case against Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama comes across as a vitamin-starved Adlai Stevenson. His rhetoric, while eloquent and moving at times, has been too often light as air. ...

I think he's pretty much on the nose there. And when it comes to the long haul of the campaign, I would add that the "machine" within the party is largely controlled by Hillary's supporters.

Rove then goes on to make this observation about the contests going on in both parties:

With so many states voting on Super Tuesday, no candidate will have enough money, time or energy to cover all the contests. Burning in a single television ad in every Super Tuesday state will cost nearly $16 million.
Instead, candidates will pick states where they have a better chance to win and, by doing so, lock down more delegates. They will spend their time in cities with local TV and print coverage that reaches the biggest number of targeted voters possible. And they will spend their limited dollars on TV stations that deliver the largest number of likely supporters at the least cost. ...
At the end of Super Tuesday, it won't be just who won the most states, but who has the most delegates. In both parties, party elders and voters in later contests across the country will want to start consolidating behind a candidate.

Of course, no hint about "where" he's inclined to have party elders and voters consolidate.