No matter which way you slice it, this looks bad for Hillary. Doesn't she employ people to check these things before she goes around spinning yarns about Bosnian sniper fire?
I chose to run for the presidency at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together – unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction – towards a better future for of children and our grandchildren.
Full text here.
Click here for a live stream of today's speech.
Posted by Christopher Arnold at 10:11 AM
It's a wise choice for Barack Obama to address Clinton's joint ticket idea directly. The entire notion is ridiculous, and as Obama points out here, it makes no sense for Clinton to cry out about how inexperienced he is, only to claim days later that he would make an outstanding vice president.
Posted by Christopher Arnold at 7:11 PM
It's a wise choice to address this joint ticket issue directly. In this clip, Obama points out the absurdity of Clinton's desire to have him as a VP. If he's so inexperienced, then why would she want him as a running mate?
Posted by Christopher Arnold at 6:59 PM
It's a wise choice for Barack Obama to take on the joint-ticket issue directly. It basically undermines Clinton's entire "he's too inexperienced" line. He's too inexperienced, but she wants him to be one heartbeat away from the presidency?
Posted by Christopher Arnold at 6:59 PM
Congratulations to those volunteers in Wyoming who helped the Obama campaign to a 20 point victory Saturday!
Meanwhile, Bill Clinton echoed his wife's calls for a joint ticket Saturday, saying that a Clinton-Obama ticket would be "almost unstoppable." Quite the change of tune from just a couple weeks ago when the Clintons were saying that Obama should be ashamed of himself.
Why are the Clinton's suddenly making such a big fuss about a joint ticket after their wins in Ohio and Texas last Tuesday? If those two wins were so big, wouldn't they be more fervent than ever about attacking Obama? Not quite.
After Tuesdays results, and especially after today's Obama win in Wyoming, it is painfully clear to the Clinton campaign that a pledged delegate lead is next to impossible. At this point, the best they can hope for is a mass exodus of super-delegates from the Obama side to the Clinton side. They are hoping to encourage such change of hearts by harping about what a great joint ticket Clinton-Obama would be. Their hope is that if we end up with a brokered convention, then the powers-that-be will see the "wisdom" in having Clinton on the top of the ticket.
What they fail to see is that votes for Obama are votes against the same old politics that the Clintons represent. A Clinton-Obama ticket would disenfranchise the millions of voters who have been participating in the Obama campaign precisely because it represents a new direction in American politics. Likewise, if Obama were to choose Clinton as his running mate, it would undermine his calls for change.
The joint ticket conversation is a last ditch effort on the part of the Clintons to wheel and deal their way into the White House. Fortunately, pledged delegates and super delegates are already making their choice, and in record numbers: In 2008, change is the name of the game.
Naturally, the Clintons are clamoring to have the Michigan and Florida delegates seated at the convention. The latest discussion surrounding the issue includes the potential for the state parties to hold "re-votes."
"Let's let all of the voters go again if they are willing to do it," Clinton adviser Terry McAuliffe said Tuesday night on MSNBC. "Whatever we have to do to get people in the system, let's do it."
For the love of God, how has our Democracy become so warped that talk of "do-overs" enters the discourse? Is this a kindergarten tetherball game, or a presidential primary?
But wait, we're dealing with the Clintons, who are accustomed to having things their way. As Democratic party overlords, they expect the rules to be re-written for them. Without those delegates, Clinton's only chance of winning the election is to recapture hundreds of superdelegates who have turned their backs on her, pledging their support to Barack Obama.
While Obama certainly has the momentum and financial resources to wage successful campaigns in both states, at this juncture, any further delays in choosing a nominee only emboldens the opposition. For the sake of unity, and consistency, let's not waste time with "do-overs." New contests in Michigan and Florida likely wouldn't take place until June, giving the Republicans nearly two more months to prey on the indecisiveness of the Democratic party.
If the Clintons were winning, would we be hearing about "do-overs?"
Posted by Christopher Arnold at 8:55 PM
Welcome to the start of a potentially historic week in U.S. politics. Top Democrats continue to pressure Clinton to drop out of the race if fails to win Texas and Ohio, fearing that a stubborn push could damage the party's chances in November.
Hillary's 3 a.m. ad, a desperate ploy to scare up votes before Tuesday, has spawned a cottage industry of edits and spoofs on YouTube. Here's on of my favorites.
It's been quiet around here lately as I've been taking care of some school and work related business, but tune in on Tuesday for Texas and Ohio.
Enjoy your weekend.
Posted by Christopher Arnold at 2:28 AM