http://capitolfaxcom.disqus.com/NoneenTue, 08 Jan 2008 18:12:23 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2008/01/08/question-of-the-day-448/#comment-18137932<p>I'm gonna close this thread becase I've opened a <a href="http://thecapitolfaxblog.com/2008/01/08/new-hampshire-open-thread/" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://thecapitolfaxblog.com/2008/01/08/new-hampshire-open-thread/">fresh one here.</a></p>Rich MillerTue, 08 Jan 2008 18:12:23 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2008/01/08/question-of-the-day-448/#comment-18137931<p>Leave a Light - The Rezko story in-state is a big deal, as his close ties to the Governor are obvious. But Obama had nowhere near that kind of connection with Rezko. He didn't benefit politically from Rezko. He didn't hurt the state or taxpayers, no pay to play, etc. He bought some property. He said it was a mistake. Let's keep in mind that Rezko hadn't been indicted yet - who cares if it was widely thought that he might be under investigation? It's widely thought now that the Governor is, or should be, under investigation - are people supposed to ignore him as a result?</p><p>I just think if the story gets any more than 3 days play in the national media then the entire system is broken. Plus, I still think that young voters won't give a crap.</p>Bill S. Preston, Esq.Tue, 08 Jan 2008 18:01:45 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2008/01/08/question-of-the-day-448/#comment-18137929<p>Hilary has spent $80 million of $100 million. Shades of Howard Dean. He blew all his money before New Hampshire, too.</p><p>Doesn't speak too well for her whole experience/competence argument. Lot of fat and happy staff, though.</p>wordslingerTue, 08 Jan 2008 17:29:07 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2008/01/08/question-of-the-day-448/#comment-18137928<p>Ghost may have been right. <a href="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/063095.php" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/063095.php">Tom Edsall</a>:</p><p>===A panicked and cash-short Clinton campaign is seriously considering giving up on the Nevada caucuses and on the South Carolina primary in order to regroup and to save resources for the massive 19-state mega-primary on February 5.===</p>Rich MillerTue, 08 Jan 2008 17:23:34 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2008/01/08/question-of-the-day-448/#comment-18137927<p>Bill S. Preston - Rezko is a rinky dink story? It is going to take down the Gov. of Illinois. I think it could do some real harm to a presidential candidate. Hell Gary Hart just had a girl sit on his lap for a picture and he was gone.</p>Leave a light on GeorgeTue, 08 Jan 2008 17:22:09 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2008/01/08/question-of-the-day-448/#comment-18137926<p>YDD, in sum, we used to have Reagan Democrats, now we can have Obama Republicans.</p>GhostTue, 08 Jan 2008 16:57:34 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2008/01/08/question-of-the-day-448/#comment-18137925<p>She doesn't stop him. She can't run from her past it will find her and has. Obama isn't killing Hillary, Hillary is killing Hillary. Clinton has so much negative baggage she can't even get out of the starting gate. One thing she might do is muzzle her husband his old song and dance will send voters racing to Obama. In the end Edwards will be the big surprise and Obama will get run over by the Democrat political machine.</p>Thinking without the boxTue, 08 Jan 2008 16:41:17 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2008/01/08/question-of-the-day-448/#comment-18137924<p>Rich-</p><p>Some great quotes for you:</p><p>"The price of doing the same old thing is far higher than the price of change."</p><p>"For too long we've been told about 'us' and 'them.' Each and every election we see a new slate of arguments and ads telling us that 'they' are the problem, not 'us.' But there can be no 'them' in America. There's only us."</p><p>- Bill Clinton</p>Yellow Dog DemocratTue, 08 Jan 2008 16:37:15 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2008/01/08/question-of-the-day-448/#comment-18137923<p>As I wrote over on <a href="http://ilyellowdogdem.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://ilyellowdogdem.blogspot.com/">Yellow Dog Blog:</a></p><p>WHAT NEXT FOR HILLARY</p><p>Hillary Rodham Clinton can try to change the subject back to experience, but that hasn't been working so well. Casting herself as change plus experience hasn't worked to well either, nor has redefining herself as the real change.</p><p>Now, she can try to tear Obama down over the next four weeks. George H.W. Bush tried to tear down Bill, and we all saw how well that worked. This election is not about who inhaled and who didn't. And as Clinton proved in 1992, it isn't about resumes or platforms either.</p><p>A real Catch-22.</p><p>Hillary Clinton is a great partisan, and if she really cares as much about beating the Republicans as we all know she does, she should recognize that Barack Obama's candidacy is the best thing that could happen to the Democratic Party, not attack him, and let the chips fall where they may on Feb. 5th. He can unite Democrats, Independents, and even moderate Republicans. Next to her (but probably not for long), he's the best fundraiser in the country, and a much better campaigner. By his very persona, Obama embodies the hope and future of the Democratic Party and the nation.</p><p>By supporting Obama, she can reinvent her own public image, and would be next in line to assume Ted Kennedy's role as the conscience of the Democratic Party in the U.S. Congress. And that's not such a bad gig.</p><p>Read the rest <a href="http://ilyellowdogdem.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://ilyellowdogdem.blogspot.com/">here.</a></p><p>BTW, if you want to read a great story, read <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/id/84540" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://www.newsweek.com/id/84540">Jonathan Alter's "Obama: Bill Clinton's Real Heir"</a> in the next edition of Newsweek.</p>Yellow Dog DemocratTue, 08 Jan 2008 16:35:41 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2008/01/08/question-of-the-day-448/#comment-18137922<p>Extreme makeover</p>DaaaTue, 08 Jan 2008 16:33:09 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2008/01/08/question-of-the-day-448/#comment-18137921<p><i>go back to Obama before the current packaged,<br>air brushed version. </i></p><p>I am sure a TON of Clinton people have been doing that already. All the way back to Kindergarden :)</p><p><i> Bail on SD</i></p><p>Not a bad idea, but she should have declared it by now. If she loses NH and then bails, it looks like desperation.</p><p><i>Super delegates</i></p><p>And you think these super delegates will dump a vote winning Obama to shore up Hillary? More likely they'll bail on her to climb on the bandwagon.</p><p><i>biggest issue for African-Americans was can he get white people’s votes. Given Iowa went for him</i></p><p>So, lily white Iowa isn't such a bad thing after all? *^^*</p>Pat CollinsTue, 08 Jan 2008 16:17:18 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2008/01/08/question-of-the-day-448/#comment-18137920<p>She's going to try and wedge him from the Hispanic vote on Super Tuesday.</p><p>Something like a Dukakis 1988 long march but against a much tougher candidate and with no spoilers winning key states.</p>HappyToasterTue, 08 Jan 2008 15:57:23 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2008/01/08/question-of-the-day-448/#comment-18137919<p>Actually, Obama should win South Carolina unless he's completely incompetent--and that was true before Iowa--Iowa just cemented it. The biggest issue for African-Americans was can he get white people's votes. Given Iowa went for him and all indications are New Hampshire is going for him, that problem is taking care of.</p><p>The African-American vote had been breaking his way in South Carolina, it started breaking harder over the weekend and I'd expect that to continue until election day there. African-Americans make up about 51% of the Democratic electorate so South Carolina is the last place I'd challenge Obama if I were her.</p>ArchPunditTue, 08 Jan 2008 15:57:20 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2008/01/08/question-of-the-day-448/#comment-18137918<p>Sacks, cnn is reporting that HRC has 169 total delegates so far (to Obama's 66) to somehwat highlight this super deleate effect.</p><p>Setting aside Bill, who is definetly a part of it, most of the superdelegates are your establishment cor democrats. That is HRC big base and support group. She can potenialy get the nod from the core dems, and only have to bring in a few big state wins to carry the day.</p><p>However if she wins this way, look for a lot of pot shots about how she never had the dem support, and a number of voters voting repub over anger at such an outcome. Like Obama or hate him, he is not juct turning out the vote, he is churning out voters in huge numbers. Something the dems should be looking at and considering as important if they want to beat the repubs. Both Bill Clinton and Kennedy were critized for their lack of exp, and both won their elections.</p>GhostTue, 08 Jan 2008 15:56:49 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2008/01/08/question-of-the-day-448/#comment-18137917<p>Well, from the comments here, I will start the effort to craft a golden statue of Barak. You can send to me the donations it will take to build it. Only cash or credit cards, please, and minimum donations are $500. Thanks.</p>Papa LegbaTue, 08 Jan 2008 15:43:19 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2008/01/08/question-of-the-day-448/#comment-18137916<p>Ghost mentions something that may not stop Obama's momentum, but would do well enough to stop his nomination: Superdelegates.</p><p>Superdelegates are people like elected officials and other "special" democrats whose vote is equal to any delegate bound through a primary or caucus. Now that may not sound like much. So big deal if a Mike Madigan equivalent or a Dick Durbinesque official from another state gets to be a superdelegate to the DNC. Haven't they earned that right through their years of service to the party? Except here's the kicker, OVER 40% of the delegates at the DNC are superdelegates. OVER 40% of the delegates at the DNC are completely unbound by any primary or caucus result, ie the will of the voters.</p><p>And this is where Bill comes in. His cute speeches for his wife may not be putting her over the top at all the campaign stops, but what superdelegate is going to resist doing a favor for a former president and soon-to-be first-husband. Or maybe they already owe a favor from several years back, that time the president came through and endorsed them, helping to launch or further their political careers.</p><p>Needless to say it's a hugely undemocratic system (irony!), and something the media completely ignores and forgets about when talking about the primaries. Clinton could theoretically lose to Obama by 10% in every state, but if she has 15% more superdelegates, she still wins the nomination.</p>Sacks RomanaTue, 08 Jan 2008 15:41:09 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2008/01/08/question-of-the-day-448/#comment-18137915<p>Wow, so now I've read in the comments section that Obama is both a Regular Democratic Machine candidate, and a puppetmaster for John Kass.</p><p>The Obama story as told by some on this blog has more plot twists than an episode of Scooby Doo. I'm on the edge of my seat waiting to see what happens next. I've got my fingers crossed that the Illuminati and the World Bank are involved.</p>Jon Shibley FanTue, 08 Jan 2008 15:35:07 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2008/01/08/question-of-the-day-448/#comment-18137914<p>Amy, I seriously doubt that Kass is taking marching orders from Obama.</p><p>Ghost, that's a good idea, but she was claiming she'd win S. Carolina just a few weeks ago. Still, it's a thought.</p>Rich MillerTue, 08 Jan 2008 15:21:16 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2008/01/08/question-of-the-day-448/#comment-18137913<p>Rich yah I think he will torunce her in S. Carolina as well. her best strategy is to not fight him there. She can spin it as not having been present in the state to fight him, which gives her the best chance to call hisvictory hallow and downplay it. Its not, but this is her best was to handle and spin it. Abandon S Carolina and Nevada and let him roll through unopsed. She can use the time to work the SDTues States.</p>GhostTue, 08 Jan 2008 15:18:56 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2008/01/08/question-of-the-day-448/#comment-18137912<p>what, you've been missing the references to tired<br>and old for weeks now? how about the [deleted by Miller] <br>anger that she's trying to play the woman card?<br>what that means is the media follows<br>the lead of his campaign and goes on about<br>"cackle" (wonder who came up with that) and<br>Kass is allowed to expound about the White<br>Witch.</p>amyTue, 08 Jan 2008 15:13:51 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2008/01/08/question-of-the-day-448/#comment-18137911<p>Hillary's best chance is to simply tread water through January. After Obama is frontrunner for a while the media will get bored and look for ways to bring him back to earth. The story will shift to his lack of experience or connections with Rezko and his ilk.</p><p>McCain stayed afloat as Republicans flirted with Giuliani and then Huckabee and now they appear headed back to the safe choice in McCain. I see the same with Dems and Hillary if she can live through January.</p>IndependentTue, 08 Jan 2008 15:07:38 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2008/01/08/question-of-the-day-448/#comment-18137910<p>Ghost - Even the HRC staff says Obama wins SC by a lot; half the Dem voters are black.</p><p>And wasn't there a funny moment at one of the recent Dem debates where someone pointed out that there are a lot of old Clinton Establishment campaigners on the Obama staff?</p><p>What Obama's early success will do is allow the people who signed up early for Clinton (and Edwards) to back out of that commitment and save face in their local community. During the last year I've been asking the people who are party activists around the country about their candidate preference. Everyone one said their first choice is "unity behind a candidate" over any given individual. That doesn't mean the individuals aren’t helping a specific candidate now but it is weak support compared to “get rid of the right-wing Republicans for good.”</p><p>Thus, back to Rich’s original question: To beat Obama, Clinton and Edwards have to look like they are bigger winners than he is. The fact that Clinton’s Inevitability didn’t play out takes her out of the race. And if Southerner Edwards can’t win in the southern states, it makes it hard to explain how he can win elsewhere.</p><p>While the younger voters may be in a Obama-or-nobody mindset, the middle-aged Dems just want to win.</p>RBDTue, 08 Jan 2008 14:59:32 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2008/01/08/question-of-the-day-448/#comment-18137909<p>thomas paine, she can't do it, but you can bet the GOP will if he gets the nomination.</p>wordslingerTue, 08 Jan 2008 14:59:26 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2008/01/08/question-of-the-day-448/#comment-18137908<p>===bash him for his ageist sexist stuff===</p><p>Please expound.</p>Rich MillerTue, 08 Jan 2008 14:56:27 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2008/01/08/question-of-the-day-448/#comment-18137907<p>if it's words he wants, words he gets. go<br>back to Obama before the current packaged,<br>air brushed version. what did he say, what<br>did he do on issues that matter to average<br>people. Clinton is starting to do this by<br>looking at Obama and crime. he's a far left<br>politician from the people's republic of<br>Hyde Park who goes old school good old boy<br>when it comes to deals.....the Alison Davis stuff<br>is good too....when he wants to get money.</p><p>limo liberal, not man of the people. and <br>bash him for his ageist sexist stuff. we<br>should not forget that his consultants <br>did this.</p>amyTue, 08 Jan 2008 14:50:27 -0000