To complete the hard sell, they send out an email from Patti Solis Doyle, Hillary's campaign manager. (An actual letter from Ms Hillary)
Dear David,
Here at campaign headquarters we can't stop talking about the response to Hillary and Bill's latest messages -- it seems like everyone in the country wants to sit down and have lunch with the two of them. And I know Hillary is looking forward to meeting the winner!
If you haven't participated yet, you haven't missed your chance to have lunch with Hillary and Bill -- there are still a few hours left. If you make a contribution to the campaign by midnight tonight, you could be having lunch with the Clintons at their home in Washington.
Click here to make a contribution.
...You have until midnight tonight. Make a contribution, and you could be coming to Washington, DC for lunch with Hillary and Bill. Why miss this chance?
Thank you for everything you do!
Sincerely,
Patti Solis Doyle
How often have you been pressured to "take advantage of this deal now because quantities are limited and the sale ends at midnight?"
Does this provide us with insight into how she views the people she proposes to govern and how she would conduct her presidency?
Update: Another email from Hillary today. She's so sweet. It looks like "Julie" from Milford, Ohio, will be shooting the breeze with the Clintons over tofu bulgar salad and (no doubt) home baked cookies. Even though she's hugely busy, she takes time to tell me personally who won the luncheon lottery. All is forgiven.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ya its a Ms Clinton lotto allright. It looks like people will be buying this clinton lotto ticket in more numbers as the "pot gets sweeter" by this I mean a few tears here and there, a few iron my shirt posters, a few people yelling "my wife is illegal and comebacks like, No woman is illegal" etc etc. She will minipulate the media to sell more hillary lotto tickets. Odds of winning 1 in 250,000,000.
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Friday, January 11, 2008
The cat is back and will be until she is run over
The fake tears and the staged 'iron my shirt drive' by the media propelled her to a 3% win. This is why the cat has the sly look on her face.
All she has to do is stage more mass media moments like today, for example: Jan 11, 08 Clinton spent more than an hour in the predominantly Hispanic and black neighborhood where a man yelled through a hole in the wall, My wife is illegal and Ms clinton said, "No woman is Illegal". She knows how to stage and play the mass media. Its all seems just to convenient. The public is so gullible.
http://forums.greenvilleonline.com/viewtopic.php?t=24375
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Democratic National Convention [Machine controlled convention] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegates
The Democratic National Convention, where the Democratic presidential ticket is formally agreed upon, has 792[2] superdelegates. Superdelegates to the Democratic Convention include all Democratic members of the United States Congress, various additional elected officials, as well as members of the Democratic National Committee.
A candidate needs a simple majority of the combined delegate and superdelegate votes to secure the nomination. Democratic delegates from state caucuses and primaries number 3,248. This means that the total number of votes is 4,040. The total number of delegate votes needed to win the nomination is 2,025.[2] Superdelegates account for approximately one fifth (19.6%) of all votes at the convention. Delegates chosen in the Democratic caucuses and primaries account for approximately four fifths (80.4%) of the Democratic convention delegates.
Criticism
The Democratic Party is often criticized during election cycles for conducting primary elections in a non-democratic fashion, since superdelegates are appointed by the party and not obligated to support the candidate chosen by the voters. There have been repeated calls to eliminate the superdelegates from the primaries to more accurately reflect the popular vote and lessen the party's control over the nomination process.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Isn't this amazing. 20% of the delegates a demagogue needs to be nominated are just the good ole boys in washington dc.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Contemptuous condescension of Ms Clinton
I like this rational explaination of Ms Clinton. Contemptuous condescension seems to be Hillary's default mode with any male who criticizes her or stands in her way. A sick woman using the campaign trail as her stage. Hillary is the barracuda. The piece below is the best explaination of this robot i've seen yet. Very revealing.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan. 10, 2008 | Subject: Hillary and sado-masochism By Camille Paglia
As her husband has dragged his numerous female play objects before her and has humiliated her on the public stage year after year, she still stays within the marriage.
Hillary seems to take every beating, and yet she appears to "keep on ticking." Does she thrive on this?
How would this affect one's (female) psyche? Judgment as President? General perspective?
Robert Philips
Corrales, New Mexico
A swarm of biographers in miners' gear has tried to plumb the inky depths of Hillary Rodham Clinton's warren-riddled psyche. My metaphor is drawn (as Oscar Wilde's prim Miss Prism would say) from the Scranton coalfields, to which came the Welsh family that produced Hillary's harsh, domineering father.
Hillary's feckless, loutish brothers (who are kept at arm's length by her operation) took the brunt of Hugh Rodham's abuse in their genteel but claustrophobic home. Hillary is the barracuda who fought for dominance at their expense. Flashes of that ruthless old family drama have come out repeatedly in this campaign, as when Hillary could barely conceal her sneers at her fellow debaters onstage -- the wimpy, cringing brothers at the dinner table.
Hillary's willingness to tolerate Bill's compulsive philandering is a function of her general contempt for men. She distrusts them and feels morally superior to them. Following the pattern of her long-suffering mother, she thinks it is her mission to endure every insult and personal degradation for a higher cause -- which, unlike her self-sacrificing mother, she identifies with her near-messianic personal ambition.
It's no coincidence that Hillary's staff has always consisted mostly of adoring women, with nerdy or geeky guys forming an adjunct brain trust. Hillary's rumored hostility to uniformed military men and some Secret Service agents early in the first Clinton presidency probably belongs to this pattern. And let's not forget Hillary, the governor's wife, pulling out a book and rudely reading in the bleachers during University of Arkansas football games back in Little Rock.
Hillary's disdain for masculinity fits right into the classic feminazi package, which is why Hillary acts on Gloria Steinem like catnip. Steinem's fawning, gaseous New York Times op-ed about her pal Hillary this week speaks volumes about the snobby clubbiness and reactionary sentimentality of the fossilized feminist establishment, which has blessedly fallen off the cultural map in the 21st century. History will judge Steinem and company very severely for their ethically obtuse indifference to the stream of working-class women and female subordinates whom Bill Clinton sexually harassed and abused, enabled by look-the-other-way and trash-the-victims Hillary.
How does all this affect the prospect of a Hillary presidency? With her eyes on the White House, Hillary as senator has made concerted and generally successful efforts to improve her knowledge of and relationship to the military -- crucial for any commander-in-chief but especially for the first female one. However, I remain concerned about her future conduct of high-level diplomacy. Contemptuous condescension seems to be Hillary's default mode with any male who criticizes her or stands in her way. It's a Nixonian reflex steeped in toxic gender bias. How will that play in the Muslim world?
The Clintons live to campaign. It's what holds them together and gives them a glowing sense of meaning and value. Their actual political accomplishments are fairly slight. The obsessive need to keep campaigning may mean a president Hillary would go right on spewing the bitterly partisan rhetoric that has already paralyzed Washington. Even if Hillary could be elected (which I'm skeptical about), how in tarnation could she ever govern?
The current wave of support for Barack Obama from Democrats, independents, and even some Republicans is partly based on his vision of a new political discourse that breaks with the petty, destructive polarization of the past 20 years. Whether Obama can build up his foreign policy credentials sufficiently to reassure an anxious general electorate remains to be seen.
But Hillary herself, with her thin, spotty record, tangled psychological baggage, and maundering blowhard of a husband, is also a mighty big roll of the dice. She is a brittle, relentless manipulator with few stable core values who shuffles through useful personalities like a card shark ("Cue the tears!"). Forget all her little gold crosses: Hillary's real god is political expediency. Do Americans truly want this hard-bitten Machiavellian back in the White House? Day one will just be more of the same.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan. 10, 2008 | Subject: Hillary and sado-masochism By Camille Paglia
As her husband has dragged his numerous female play objects before her and has humiliated her on the public stage year after year, she still stays within the marriage.
Hillary seems to take every beating, and yet she appears to "keep on ticking." Does she thrive on this?
How would this affect one's (female) psyche? Judgment as President? General perspective?
Robert Philips
Corrales, New Mexico
A swarm of biographers in miners' gear has tried to plumb the inky depths of Hillary Rodham Clinton's warren-riddled psyche. My metaphor is drawn (as Oscar Wilde's prim Miss Prism would say) from the Scranton coalfields, to which came the Welsh family that produced Hillary's harsh, domineering father.
Hillary's feckless, loutish brothers (who are kept at arm's length by her operation) took the brunt of Hugh Rodham's abuse in their genteel but claustrophobic home. Hillary is the barracuda who fought for dominance at their expense. Flashes of that ruthless old family drama have come out repeatedly in this campaign, as when Hillary could barely conceal her sneers at her fellow debaters onstage -- the wimpy, cringing brothers at the dinner table.
Hillary's willingness to tolerate Bill's compulsive philandering is a function of her general contempt for men. She distrusts them and feels morally superior to them. Following the pattern of her long-suffering mother, she thinks it is her mission to endure every insult and personal degradation for a higher cause -- which, unlike her self-sacrificing mother, she identifies with her near-messianic personal ambition.
It's no coincidence that Hillary's staff has always consisted mostly of adoring women, with nerdy or geeky guys forming an adjunct brain trust. Hillary's rumored hostility to uniformed military men and some Secret Service agents early in the first Clinton presidency probably belongs to this pattern. And let's not forget Hillary, the governor's wife, pulling out a book and rudely reading in the bleachers during University of Arkansas football games back in Little Rock.
Hillary's disdain for masculinity fits right into the classic feminazi package, which is why Hillary acts on Gloria Steinem like catnip. Steinem's fawning, gaseous New York Times op-ed about her pal Hillary this week speaks volumes about the snobby clubbiness and reactionary sentimentality of the fossilized feminist establishment, which has blessedly fallen off the cultural map in the 21st century. History will judge Steinem and company very severely for their ethically obtuse indifference to the stream of working-class women and female subordinates whom Bill Clinton sexually harassed and abused, enabled by look-the-other-way and trash-the-victims Hillary.
How does all this affect the prospect of a Hillary presidency? With her eyes on the White House, Hillary as senator has made concerted and generally successful efforts to improve her knowledge of and relationship to the military -- crucial for any commander-in-chief but especially for the first female one. However, I remain concerned about her future conduct of high-level diplomacy. Contemptuous condescension seems to be Hillary's default mode with any male who criticizes her or stands in her way. It's a Nixonian reflex steeped in toxic gender bias. How will that play in the Muslim world?
The Clintons live to campaign. It's what holds them together and gives them a glowing sense of meaning and value. Their actual political accomplishments are fairly slight. The obsessive need to keep campaigning may mean a president Hillary would go right on spewing the bitterly partisan rhetoric that has already paralyzed Washington. Even if Hillary could be elected (which I'm skeptical about), how in tarnation could she ever govern?
The current wave of support for Barack Obama from Democrats, independents, and even some Republicans is partly based on his vision of a new political discourse that breaks with the petty, destructive polarization of the past 20 years. Whether Obama can build up his foreign policy credentials sufficiently to reassure an anxious general electorate remains to be seen.
But Hillary herself, with her thin, spotty record, tangled psychological baggage, and maundering blowhard of a husband, is also a mighty big roll of the dice. She is a brittle, relentless manipulator with few stable core values who shuffles through useful personalities like a card shark ("Cue the tears!"). Forget all her little gold crosses: Hillary's real god is political expediency. Do Americans truly want this hard-bitten Machiavellian back in the White House? Day one will just be more of the same.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
The dark side of Mike Huckabee
Quote: "More important, Huckabee revealed an enduring weakness as glaring as that other Arkansas governor's fondness for women. Huckabee seems to love loot and has a dismissive attitude toward ethics, campaign finance rules and propriety in general. Since that first, failed campaign, the ethical questions have multiplied."
Most people do not know about his record in Arkansas which is very revealing because it doesn't portray him the in the way his ads do nor does the media reveal his true nature. He is a bill clinton type who has a weakness for money and the truth. I can't believe this guy calls himself a preacher. He has transformed himself into an angel of light so to speak. "A twisted sister who calls himself a brother".
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The dark side of Mike Huckabee
The national media seems to have a crush on our ex-governor, but here in Arkansas, we know better.
By Max Brantley
Nov. 13, 2007 | LITTLE ROCK, Ark. -- The Pony Express has reached us here in the Arkansas backwoods with the latest journals from the big cities. So the country correspondents have taken a break from hand-setting lines of type to read the Beltway boys and girls rave about our former governor, Mike Huckabee.
"Easy to like," wrote Newsweek's Jonathan Alter. "Who Doesn't Heart Huckabee?" said the headline over Gail Collins' column in the New York Times. And those are restrained commentators. If you Google the names Ronald Reagan and Mike Huckabee in tandem, I understand you get better than 600,000 hits.
OK. I exaggerate. I have a phone and a computer (and it's 208,000 hits). But you'd think from national press comments that our friendly state is unreachable by phone or Internet. Do national commentators do homework? Or is a smiling, shoe-shining parson all it takes to generate such fluff?
Come to Arkansas. You'll have to look hard to find a long-term political analyst who'd subscribe fully to the national media narrative about the latest man from Hope -- fresh face, funny, nice.
Mike Huckabee is fresh to you, maybe. Funny? If barnyard humor is your shtick of choice. Nice? Well, he did do some good things in his 10 years as governor, but ... read on.
Before we begin, though, a word of warning to any reporters who might want to repeat, on air or in print, any of the facts recounted below. Huckabee does not take kindly to journalists who practice journalism.
Even editorialists and columnists at the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, the state's dominant (and Republican-friendly) daily paper, use words like "petty" and "thin-skinned" to describe Huckabee. Then again, he's compared hard-hitting (and accurate) news reporters for the Democrat-Gazette to the press fabulists Jayson Blair and Janet Cooke. He called liberal columnist John Brummett of Stephens Media "constipated" when that early admirer commenced some gentle criticism. His administration paid $15,000 to settle a suit filed by Roby Brock, the host of a public TV news show whom Huckabee's people tried to force off the air for his critical commentary.
Then there's me. I'm the editor of an alternative weekly, but I began covering Huckabee when I was a columnist for the now-defunct daily Arkansas Gazette in 1991, and Mike and I have been on the outs pretty much ever since. He once called me and the Memphis Commercial Appeal bureau chief "junkyard journalists" for our reporting. He also compared me, in print, to serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer and, I've been told on good authority, has wished aloud for my early and violent demise.
It all began 16 years ago for Mike and me. Huckabee, in his political debut, was preparing to become the Bible-thumping, abortion-decrying Republican challenger to U.S. Sen. Dale Bumpers, the Democratic incumbent. With a playbook straight out of James Dobson, he tried to portray Bumpers as a pornographer for his support of federal grants to the arts.
More important, Huckabee revealed an enduring weakness as glaring as that other Arkansas governor's fondness for women. Huckabee seems to love loot and has a dismissive attitude toward ethics, campaign finance rules and propriety in general. Since that first, failed campaign, the ethical questions have multiplied.
In the 1992 contest with Bumpers, Huckabee used campaign funds to pay himself as his own media consultant. Other payments went to the family babysitter.
In his successful 1994 run for lieutenant governor, he set up a nonprofit curtain known as Action America so he could give speeches for money without having to disclose the names of his benefactors. He failed to report that campaign travel payments were for the use of his own personal plane.
After he became governor in 1996, he raked in tens of thousands of dollars in gifts, including gifts from people he later appointed to prestigious state commissions.
In the governor's office, his grasp never exceeded his reach. Furniture he'd received to doll up his office was carted out with him when he left, after he'd crushed computer hard drives so nobody could ever get a peek behind the curtain of the Huckabee administration.
Until my paper, the Arkansas Times, blew the whistle, he converted a governor's mansion operating account into a personal expense account, claiming public money for a doghouse, dry-cleaning bills, panty hose and meals at Taco Bell. He tried to claim $70,000 in furnishings provided by a wealthy cotton grower for the private part of the residence as his own, until he learned ethics rules prevented it. When a disgruntled former employee disclosed memos revealing all this, the Huckabee camp shut her up by repeatedly suggesting she might be vulnerable to prosecution for theft because she'd shared documents generated by the state's highest official.
He ran the State Police airplane into the ground, many of the miles in pursuit of political ends. Inauguration funds were used to buy clothing for his wife. He once took control of the state Republican Party's campaign account -- then swore the account had been somebody else's responsibility when it ran afoul of federal election laws. He repeated the pattern when he claimed in a newspaper story that his staff controlled the account to stage his second inauguration. When I filed a formal ethics complaint over what appeared to be an improper appropriation of donated money, he told a different story, disavowing responsibility for the money. He thus avoided another punishment from an Ethics Commission, which had sanctioned him on five other occasions. He dodged nine other complaints (though none, despite his counter-complaints, was held to be frivolous). In one case, he was saved by the swing vote of a woman who left the chairmanship of the Ethics Commission days later to take a state job. She listed the governor as a reference on the job application. Finally, unbelievably, Huckabee once sued to overturn the ban on gifts to him.
My newspaper chronicled all this and so much more. Since my paper wrote critically about him, I didn't often experience the "nice" Mike Huckabee that so many national commentators have enjoyed. In fact, ultimately Huckabee ended press services, which are publicly financed, to my newspaper. The Arkansas Times received no news releases from the governor's office, no notices of news conferences, no responses to routine questions. He was condemned for this by journalism organizations.
Truth is, we were happy to be thrown into the governor's briar patch. The world is full of disaffected Huckabee campaign workers, former employees and garden-variety Republicans who love to pass on tips about a governor they'd found self-centered and untrustworthy. If you think he left a well of warm feelings in Arkansas, note that Hillary Clinton had raised more money in Arkansas at last report and that a recent University of Arkansas Poll showed her a 35 to 8 percent leader over Huckabee in the presidential preferences of Arkansas residents. Only one-third of 33 Republican legislators have said they will support him for president.
Thanks to such unhappy people, we've broken numerous stories about Huckabee, from the first early word of his destruction of state computer hard drives (more fully reported by the Democrat-Gazette); to the time and place of his announcement for president; to his sale and purchase of homes; to his infamous "wedding registry." About the last: Three decades after the Huckabees' wedding, his wife registered at department stores so their new home, post-governor's mansion, could be stocked with gifts of linens, toasters and other suitable furnishings. In early 2007, our reporting also prompted the former first lady to decline dozens of place settings of governor's mansion china and Irish crystal that had been purchased with tax-deductible contributions to the Governor's Mansion Association, nominally set up to improve the mansion, not to buy going-away presents for former occupants. (Huckabee's governorship ended on Jan. 9, 2007.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Still want to vote for the huckster? This guy is a fraud just like clinton and obomba. Just a media hyped huckster. Don't let the false media lead you into believing all their hype about the huckster and other frauds in the news.
Why were the polls so wrong about Ms Clinton?
http://www.bbvforums.org/cgi-bin/forums/board-auth.cgi?file=/73/71201.html
1/08 - Diebold Accuvote op-scan ...
Why is firmware dated 99-3-14 being used in a 2008 election?
There are bags of security flaws with the system as a whole, including: the regulatory body looking at the development of the machine, the decision to allow these machines to be taken home, and poor software leaving it vulnerable to the hacks. Inside access to the machines, spoiled ballots, trusting the developer, these are all massive security issues.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEW HAMPSHIRE: This voting machine is counting 81% of the votes Jan. 8, 2008 in the presidential primary.
A sole source private contractor run by John Silvestro has inside access to the chips (maintenance, repairs, tech support) and programs the memory cards.
[This doesn't pass the smell test the clinton stench is famous for.] Clinton 39% Obama 36%. A 3% difference. Just a little maniplation of the Clinton vote could have given her the 3% margin. It does seem the voting machines they are using have big software hacking flaws. Given the "is""is" way of doing things with the clintons the voting in New Hampshire could have very well been (depending on what "is""is" means a clinton stolen election) The smell is all the polls had her losing to Obama and even the focus groups. I believe the clinton's will fail the smell test over and over again until she gets to stinking too much and "is""is" true meaning is revealed in the form of clinton losing the nomination. There will be no tears shed by Ms clinton for voter fraud only denial of any knowledge of anything.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Hampshire's Polling Fiasco
January 09, 2008 12:05 AM (ABC NEWS)
There will be a serious, critical look at the final pre-election polls in the Democratic presidential primary in New Hampshire; that is essential. It is simply unprecedented for so many polls to have been so wrong. We need to know why.
But we need to know it through careful, empirically based analysis. There will be a lot of claims about what happened - about respondents who reputedly lied, about alleged difficulties polling in biracial contests. That may be so. It also may be a smokescreen - a convenient foil for pollsters who'd rather fault their respondents than own up to other possibilities - such as their own failings in sampling and likely voter modeling.
There have been previous races that misstated support for black candidates in biracial races. But most of those were long ago, and there have been plenty of polls in biracial races that were accurate. (For more on past problems with polls in biracial races, see this blog I wrote for Freakonomics last May.) And there was no overstatement of Obama in Iowa polls.
On the other hand, the pre-election polls in the New Hampshire Republican race were accurate. The problem was isolated to the Democratic side - where, it should be noted, we have not just one groundbreaking candidate in Barack Obama, but also another, in Hillary Clinton.
A starting point for this analysis will be to look at every significant Democratic subgroup in the New Hampshire pre-election polls, and see how those polls did in estimating the size of those groups and their vote choices. The polls' estimates of turnout overall will be relevant as well.
In the end there may be no smoking gun. Those polls may have been accurate, but done in by a superior get-out-the-vote effort, or by very late deciders whose motivations may or may not ever be known. They may have been inaccurate because of bad modeling, compromised sampling, or simply an overabundance of enthusiasm for Obama on the heels of his Iowa victory that led his would-be supporters to overstate their propensity to turn out. (A function, perhaps, of youth.)
Prof. Jon Krosnick of Stanford University has another argument: That the order of names on the New Hampshire ballot - in which, by random draw, Clinton was toward the top, Obama at the bottom - netted her about 3 percentage points more than she'd have gotten otherwise. That's not enough to explain the gap in some of the polls, which presumably randomized candidate names, but it might hold part of the answer.
The data may tell us; it may not. What's beyond question is that it is incumbent on us - and particularly on the producers of the New Hampshire pre-election polls - to look at the data, and to look closely, and to do it without prejudging.
http://www.squelchhillery.com/hillery_campaign_theme.mp3
http://squelchhillary.com/
http://emptysuit.org/
1/08 - Diebold Accuvote op-scan ...
Why is firmware dated 99-3-14 being used in a 2008 election?
There are bags of security flaws with the system as a whole, including: the regulatory body looking at the development of the machine, the decision to allow these machines to be taken home, and poor software leaving it vulnerable to the hacks. Inside access to the machines, spoiled ballots, trusting the developer, these are all massive security issues.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEW HAMPSHIRE: This voting machine is counting 81% of the votes Jan. 8, 2008 in the presidential primary.
A sole source private contractor run by John Silvestro has inside access to the chips (maintenance, repairs, tech support) and programs the memory cards.
[This doesn't pass the smell test the clinton stench is famous for.] Clinton 39% Obama 36%. A 3% difference. Just a little maniplation of the Clinton vote could have given her the 3% margin. It does seem the voting machines they are using have big software hacking flaws. Given the "is""is" way of doing things with the clintons the voting in New Hampshire could have very well been (depending on what "is""is" means a clinton stolen election) The smell is all the polls had her losing to Obama and even the focus groups. I believe the clinton's will fail the smell test over and over again until she gets to stinking too much and "is""is" true meaning is revealed in the form of clinton losing the nomination. There will be no tears shed by Ms clinton for voter fraud only denial of any knowledge of anything.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Hampshire's Polling Fiasco
January 09, 2008 12:05 AM (ABC NEWS)
There will be a serious, critical look at the final pre-election polls in the Democratic presidential primary in New Hampshire; that is essential. It is simply unprecedented for so many polls to have been so wrong. We need to know why.
But we need to know it through careful, empirically based analysis. There will be a lot of claims about what happened - about respondents who reputedly lied, about alleged difficulties polling in biracial contests. That may be so. It also may be a smokescreen - a convenient foil for pollsters who'd rather fault their respondents than own up to other possibilities - such as their own failings in sampling and likely voter modeling.
There have been previous races that misstated support for black candidates in biracial races. But most of those were long ago, and there have been plenty of polls in biracial races that were accurate. (For more on past problems with polls in biracial races, see this blog I wrote for Freakonomics last May.) And there was no overstatement of Obama in Iowa polls.
On the other hand, the pre-election polls in the New Hampshire Republican race were accurate. The problem was isolated to the Democratic side - where, it should be noted, we have not just one groundbreaking candidate in Barack Obama, but also another, in Hillary Clinton.
A starting point for this analysis will be to look at every significant Democratic subgroup in the New Hampshire pre-election polls, and see how those polls did in estimating the size of those groups and their vote choices. The polls' estimates of turnout overall will be relevant as well.
In the end there may be no smoking gun. Those polls may have been accurate, but done in by a superior get-out-the-vote effort, or by very late deciders whose motivations may or may not ever be known. They may have been inaccurate because of bad modeling, compromised sampling, or simply an overabundance of enthusiasm for Obama on the heels of his Iowa victory that led his would-be supporters to overstate their propensity to turn out. (A function, perhaps, of youth.)
Prof. Jon Krosnick of Stanford University has another argument: That the order of names on the New Hampshire ballot - in which, by random draw, Clinton was toward the top, Obama at the bottom - netted her about 3 percentage points more than she'd have gotten otherwise. That's not enough to explain the gap in some of the polls, which presumably randomized candidate names, but it might hold part of the answer.
The data may tell us; it may not. What's beyond question is that it is incumbent on us - and particularly on the producers of the New Hampshire pre-election polls - to look at the data, and to look closely, and to do it without prejudging.
http://www.squelchhillery.com/hillery_campaign_theme.mp3
http://squelchhillary.com/
http://emptysuit.org/
Monday, January 7, 2008
Reality is sinking in Ms hillary
The pressure of Obama's surge at the polls may be too much for Clinton as she choked back tears during a campaign event in New Hampshire.
PORTSMOUTH, N.H. — One-time presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton was driven to the verge of tears at a campaign event during the final hours before New Hampshire voters go to the polls Tuesday.
The pressure of a surge by Barack Obama may be overwhelming Clinton as she choked up Monday unexpectedly when answering a question about how she keeps up the pace on the campaign trail.
“I have so many opportunities and don’t want us to fall backwards,” she said. “I see what’s happening, people. … Some of us are ready some of us are not. When we look at the array of problems and potential for it to spin out of control, this is one of the most important elections. As tired as I am … I believe so strongly (in) who we are as a nation so I’ll do everything I can to make my case and voters get to decide.”
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lets see what she said. The first sentence is just fluff. 2nd sentence starting to think about the fact she is being rejected. 3rd sentence is fluff. 4th sentence is fluff. 5th sentence she is looking for sympathy. All a bunch of witch brew for you.
Sunday, January 6, 2008
Is Hillary becomming a Sourpuss?
sour·puss /ˈsaÊŠÉ™rËŒpÊŠs, ˈsaÊŠÉ™r-/
–noun Informal.
a person having a grouchy disposition that is often accompanied by a scowling facial expression.
It seems she is and becoming more so every day. Obama's (the empty suit) magic train has left the station and the sourpuss syndrome becomes her. Her real personality is a sourpuss. As she is stressed you will see the sour and the puss become more vindictive and desperate to catch the Obama magic train. She will do anything at any cost to win the nomination. Another blogger said Obama better watch his back and I agree. Hell has no fury like a woman scorned!
popularism is just a snake oil salesman selling you a lie
Would you look at this! Look at those eyes. Is this the change you want. She thinks what she has done borders on genius. It borders on a concept of (popularism a more politically correct alternative term) Its Cotton candy, fluff talk, the popularism dirty tricks to get your vote. Feel good talk that is motivating you through your emotions and not your logic. Its just like putting a frog in boiling water. The frog (average feel good American) is being deceived into thinking there is no danger but the danger lies in the feel good Americans emotional response to fluff and cotton candy feel good ombama and clinton deceptions. They transform themselves into your hero and protector. I think they are just modern day snake oil salesmen. They are telling you this bottle of stuff will do anything but once you have bought it and found out it just watered down jin, the feel good feeling will wear off and you will be asking yourself, why did I let myself be suckered in to believing this crap?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rush Limbaugh is right. The word populist. What is populism? What is a populist? The dictionary definition is often, as in the case of dictionary definitions today of liberal and conservative, it is not helpful. But the dictionary definition of populist is: "A member or adherent of a political party seeking to represent the interests of ordinary people; a person who holds or who is concerned with the views of ordinary people." The root here is... Well, there was a Populist Party. It was formed in 1891 and at the time the Populist Party "advocated the interests of labor and farmers, the free coinage of silver, and a graduated income tax along with government control of monopolies." Now, the modern interpretation of populist, as I use it today, is not complimentary. A populist in this sense of "seeking to represent the interests of ordinary people," this is what people who employ populism want the ordinary people to think: that they are "one of them"; in fact, that they are from them; that they understand the ordinary, and that the ordinary are being shafted, and that the ordinary are being creamed, and the ordinary are being ignored.
So the populist comes along and says, "Not only am I for you, I'm of you, and I am going to go to Washington and I'm going to make sure that we ordinary people kick butt and we're going to kick the butts of the elites and we're going to kick the butt of the establishment! We're going to do this and we're going to do that." Most of them who do this are already from the establishment! They're elected governors. They're senators, or what have you. So it becomes a technique to relate to people on an emotional basis with a false promise, and that is that any one individual can solve all the problems of the ordinary. (Rush Limbaugh)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obama said, "One of my opponents said we can't just, you know, offer the American people false hopes about what we can get done,"
Clinton told Democratic voters they should elect "a doer, not a talker."
Both are nothing but talkers. They don't have any real records at all. Both offer false hopes both are just snake oil salesmen. I ask you, what have they done? Think about this, really nothing. Empty records of both. No real leadership, only talk. Unreal! Read the crap below. Both in reality are the same thing over and over again, just empty do nothing records. You can expect great things but what you will find is an empty bottle that was not the cure!
"The real gamble in this election is to do the same things, with the same folks, playing the same games over and over and over again and somehow expect a different result," he said. "That is a gamble we cannot afford, that is a risk we cannot take. Not this time. Not now. It is time to turn the page."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rush Limbaugh is right. The word populist. What is populism? What is a populist? The dictionary definition is often, as in the case of dictionary definitions today of liberal and conservative, it is not helpful. But the dictionary definition of populist is: "A member or adherent of a political party seeking to represent the interests of ordinary people; a person who holds or who is concerned with the views of ordinary people." The root here is... Well, there was a Populist Party. It was formed in 1891 and at the time the Populist Party "advocated the interests of labor and farmers, the free coinage of silver, and a graduated income tax along with government control of monopolies." Now, the modern interpretation of populist, as I use it today, is not complimentary. A populist in this sense of "seeking to represent the interests of ordinary people," this is what people who employ populism want the ordinary people to think: that they are "one of them"; in fact, that they are from them; that they understand the ordinary, and that the ordinary are being shafted, and that the ordinary are being creamed, and the ordinary are being ignored.
So the populist comes along and says, "Not only am I for you, I'm of you, and I am going to go to Washington and I'm going to make sure that we ordinary people kick butt and we're going to kick the butts of the elites and we're going to kick the butt of the establishment! We're going to do this and we're going to do that." Most of them who do this are already from the establishment! They're elected governors. They're senators, or what have you. So it becomes a technique to relate to people on an emotional basis with a false promise, and that is that any one individual can solve all the problems of the ordinary. (Rush Limbaugh)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obama said, "One of my opponents said we can't just, you know, offer the American people false hopes about what we can get done,"
Clinton told Democratic voters they should elect "a doer, not a talker."
Both are nothing but talkers. They don't have any real records at all. Both offer false hopes both are just snake oil salesmen. I ask you, what have they done? Think about this, really nothing. Empty records of both. No real leadership, only talk. Unreal! Read the crap below. Both in reality are the same thing over and over again, just empty do nothing records. You can expect great things but what you will find is an empty bottle that was not the cure!
"The real gamble in this election is to do the same things, with the same folks, playing the same games over and over and over again and somehow expect a different result," he said. "That is a gamble we cannot afford, that is a risk we cannot take. Not this time. Not now. It is time to turn the page."
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Lets caucus like we did last summer
Please note the over complicated way democrates elect delegates to their state convention. It is obvious the democrates want to mico manage the voter. The same way a democrate will micro manage the american citizen if a liberal democrate gets elected because of media fluff. I just saw the campaign coordinator for obama on tv and she said the country was ready for cool. I guess she means "cool" is enough to run for president and be elected to do what, be cool? If I were voting cool would not be one of the qualities I would be looking for. Cool plus empty suit equals empty suit plus cool. All I have seen is fake politicans lieing through their teeth. The only person who has any credibility is Fred Thompson, but he is not a true conservative. Slim pickins at the caucus. Lets caucus and find a real candidate who is not a fake and a real leader. One like Ronald Reagan. Is this possible? I can't think of anyone who fits this bill. If we caucus long enough maybe we could come up with someone. Its a nice thought.
The Iowa Caucus
In Iowa, the caucuses themselves are local party precinct meetings where registered Republicans and Democrats gather, discuss the candidates and vote for their candidate of choice for their party's nomination (Iowa caucuses actually occur every two years - in non-presidential-election years, participants generally discuss party platform issues). In both parties, the purpose of the caucus vote is to select delegates to attend a county convention -- each caucus sends a certain number of delegates, based on the population it represents. The delegates at the county convention in turn select delegates to go to the congressional district state convention, and those delegates choose the delegates that go to the national convention.
The Republican caucus voting system in Iowa is relatively straightforward: You come in, you vote, typically through secret ballot, and the percentages of the group supporting each candidate decides what delegates will go on to the county convention.
The Democrats have a more complex system -- in fact, it's one of the most complex pieces of the entire presidential election. In a typical caucus, registered democrats gather at the precinct meeting places (there are close to 2,000 precincts statewide), supporters for each candidate have a chance to make their case, and then the participants gather into groups supporting particular candidates (undecided voters also cluster into a group). In order for a particular group to be viable, they must have a certain percentage of the all the caucus participants. If they don't have enough people, the group disbands, and its members go to another group. The percentage cut-off is determined by the number of delegates assigned to the precinct. It breaks down like this:
* If the precinct has only one delegate, the group with the most people wins the delegate vote, and that's it.
* If the precinct has only two delegates, each group needs 25 percent to be viable.
* If the precinct has only three delegates, each group needs one-sixth of the caucus participants.
* If the precinct has four or more delegates, each group needs at least 15 percent of the caucus participants.
Once the groups are settled, the next order of business is to figure out how many of that precinct's delegates each group (and by extension, each candidate) should win. Here's the formula:
(Number of people in the group * number of delegates)/ number of caucus participants
For example, say a precinct has four delegates, 200 caucus participants, and 100 people support John Doe. To figure out how many delegates you assign to John Doe, you would multiply 100 by four, to get 400. You divide 400 by 200 and get 2. So John Doe gets two of the four delegates.
The media reports the "winner," based on the percentage of delegates going to each candidate. This isn't exactly accurate, since it's actually the state convention that decides what delegates go to the national convention, but more often than not, there's a clear statewide winner after the caucuses.
The convoluted caucus system dates back to 1796, when American political parties emerged, and it hasn't changed a whole lot since then. Most states eventually replaced this system, because as political parties became more centralized and sophisticated in the early twentieth century, party leaders or "bosses" were perceived as exerting too much control over choosing a nominee. To give individual voters more influence over the nomination process, party leaders created the presidential primary system. Florida held the first primary in 1901 marking the beginning of the presidential primary we know today.
Dramatic caucus reforms and rules that the Democratic Party instituted at the state level in the 1970s changed the system significantly. Designed to improve and open up caucuses to all party members, the requirements actually made caucuses more difficult to manage and inadvertently led to the rise of primaries. To help states coordinate the election days of both parties, the Republicans also changed their system.
You can learn more about the United States democratic process by reading the links on the next page.
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
Huckabee The Huckster
huck·ster One who uses aggressive, showy, and sometimes devious methods to promote or sell a product. To promote or attempt to sell (a commercial product, for example) in an overaggressive or showy manner.
Devious is the key word here. This guy has a potential,"it depends on what is, is type" of twisting in a devious way the facts while trying to act in a moral way. It would have been ok to run the ad on romney's flip flop's but to explain he is not going to be negative by running the ad and then displaying it for all to see at is news conference is very devious. Even the reporters laughed out loud when he explained his point! I don't believe this guy can be trusted nor do I believe he is honest. It seems most of the republican candidates are not worth voting for because they are not real conservatives just liberal or moderates repackaged as are most of the democraps candiates. I don't see any of them that I would vote for. What a mess of crap the voter has to walk through. This time around at the election not only must the voter hold his nose and vote but also bend over and grab their ankles. It seems to be all media hype with no real candidates. No real choice so here comes another ross perot to give the election to someone like ms hillery. It doesn't look good.
Huckabee pulls negative ad, vows to go positive
By Sam Youngman | Posted: 12/31/07 2:58 PM [ET]
December 31, 2007
DES MOINES – Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) told reporters Monday that he was pulling a negative ad designed to target his chief rival in Iowa, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R).
Then he showed the ad to a room packed wall to wall with reporters.
When asked if it is hypocritical to make an announcement about not running negative ads, and then show a negative advertisement to dozens of members of the national and local media, Huckabee said he had to show the ad to prove its existence.
“I want to show you that we were fully prepared,” Huckabee said.
The former governor said the ad, which hits Romney on the issues of taxes and abortion, was set to start running in Iowa Monday at noon.
He said he made the decision earlier in the morning that he does not want to run a negative campaign. As a result, he said he will not run any ads going after Romney or other Republican rivals.
Perhaps because voters in other states do not respond as adversely to negative campaigning, Huckabee refused to rule out running similar ads in other states. For now, he said he wants to see how Iowans react to his strategy.
Huckabee said the ad cost about $30,000 to make, and the original purpose of the press conference was to introduce the spot to the media.
But the former governor said he had a change of heart shortly before the media assembled. Easels outlining the attacks on Romney were still standing in the room, and Huckabee stood in front of a banner that read “Enough is Enough.”
“It’s never too late to do the right thing,” he said.
In the ad, Huckabee says that Romney’s healthcare plan in Massachusetts allowed for $50 co-pays for abortions.
At the end of the ad, Huckabee again makes the point that Romney’s attacks on him have been “desperate and dishonest.”
“If a man’s dishonest to obtain a job, he’ll be dishonest on the job,” Huckabee says in the ad.
Huckabee acknowledged that his decision not to run counter ads to Romney’s is “a huge gamble,” and he conceded that Romney’s ads targeting him had hurt him.
But, he said, “if you gain the whole world and lose your soul, what does it profit you?”
The Romney campaign responded by again going after Huckabee’s record as governor, and in one email, the campaign described Huckabee’s ploy to announce he is not running the ad then following that up by showing it to reporters as a “meltdown.”
“We’re proud that Governor Romney has run a campaign about the issues that are important to voters,” Romney spokesman Kevin Madden said in a statement. “Governor Romney has worked hard to talk about the vision and experience he has when it comes to keeping taxes low, cutting wasteful spending and securing our borders. He’s worked hard to make his case to voters about leading a Republican Party that will strengthen the American family.”
Madden continued: “Mike Huckabee’s troubling record of higher taxes and spending binges is clearly not holding up well under scrutiny. Mike Huckabee has turned from nice to very hot-tempered and volatile now that his record has been examined by voters.
“It’s Mike Huckabee's record. It’s definitely a tough record for him to defend, but it’s still a record that belongs to Mike Huckabee.”
Huckabee is quoting gospel but acting in a manner that questions his motives and honesty! He says that Romneys ads are not truthful, yet they accurately display his record. This means huckabee is lying. He says his is not going to run negative ads yet he displays one at a news conference. Again this is a bold lie. He is actually doing and saying the opposite of what he says his is doing. This is just what ms hillary and other democrates do. As soon as they open their mouth they change their position or lie about what they just said. How crazy is this!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
