The Obama campaign gives Sen. Obama credit for every bill he introduced or signed on as a co-sponsor, whether or not they became law.
In her time in the Senate, Hillary has sponsored 21 bills that have become law including:
- a bill that extended the availability of unemployment assistance.
- a bill which established a program to assist family caregivers.
- a bill that provided benefits to public safety officers who were killed or injured during the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
But Hillary's accomplishments in the Senate are not limited to bill sponsorships. Among her many other legislative accomplishments:
- Hillary worked with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) to expand access to health care for the National Guard and Reserve.
- Hillary passed an amendment that created a national program for teacher and principal training and recruitment.
- Hillary used Senate rules to force the Bush administration to make emergency contraception, also known as Plan B, available
The reality is, since Sen. Obama joined the Senate (applying the same standard the Obama campaign applies to Hillary) he has sponsored two bills that have become law:
- a bill that sought to promote democracy in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
- a bill that named a post office.
~~~~~~
Sen. Obama and Hillary have almost identical voting records on Iraq:
In fact, Obama's Senate voting record on Iraq is nearly identical to Clinton's. Over the two years Obama has been in the Senate, the only Iraq-related vote on which they differed was the confirmation earlier this year of General George Casey to be Chief of Staff of the Army, which Obama voted for and Clinton voted against. [ABC News, 5/17/07]
As a Senate candidate in November 2003, Sen. Obama said he would have 'unequivocally' voted against war funding because it was the only way to oppose Bush on Iraq:
"Just this week, when I was asked, would I have voted for the $87 billion dollars, I said 'no.' I said no unequivocally because, at a certain point, we have to say no to George Bush. If we keep on getting steamrolled, we are not going to stand a chance." [Obama remarks, New Trier Democratic Organization forum, 11/16/03; Video]
But until he ran for president, Sen. Obama supported every funding bill for Iraq. [2005 Vote # 117, HR1268, 5/10/05; 2005 Vote # 326, S1042, 11/15/05; 2006 Vote # 112, HR4939, 5/4/06; 2006 Vote # 239; 2006 Vote # 186, S2766, 6/22/06, HR5631, 9/7/06]
Obama campaign advisor Susan Rice falsely claimed that Sen. Obama and Hillary have voted differently on Iraq since joining the Senate. Rice claimed these vote differences reflected Sen. Obama's "different position" on the war:
JANSING: Bill Clinton made the point that in the senate Barack Obama voted exactly the same way that senator Hillary Clinton has on Iraq, and is there a vote where they took different positions?
RICE: Yes, they have taken different positions from the beginning...Since coming to the senate, he has been very clear in pushing every year 2005, 2006, and 2007 for a withdrawal of our forces. Senator Clinton took the view for a good part of that period that it would be premature and unwise to signal that the U.S. was prepared to withdraw, to set a timeline or a deadline.
Actually, with the exception of Sen. Obama's vote to promote Gen. Casey, one of the chief architects of the war, his voting record is exactly the same as Hillary. Hillary and Sen. Obama have never voted differently on troop withdrawals, timelines or deadlines.
Full list of votes available here.
~~~~~~
Sen. Obama blasted the energy policy developed in secret by Vice President Cheney:
Washington's failure is the failure of a president who spent most of his time in office denying the very existence of global warming - of a Vice President who developed America's energy policy with a secret task force that opened the door to oil lobbyists and then shut it to every other point of view.
Sen. Obama failed to mention that he voted for Dick Cheney's energy policy, the 2005 Energy Bill.
~~~~~~
Sen. Obama claimed he voted against the amendment on the 2005 Bankruptcy bill because he thought that a ceiling of 30 percent interest for loans on credit cards was too high:
Absolutely. It is a fact because I thought 30% potentially was too high of a ceiling. So we had no hearings on that bill, it had not gone through the banking committee.
The Chicago Tribune reported that Sen. Obama was planning on voting for the measure until a colleague noted, 'thirty percent is sort of a random number':
To some liberals, the proposal was a no-brainer: a ceiling of 30 percent on interest rates for credit cards and other consumer debt. And as he left his office to vote on it, Obama planned to support the measure, which was being considered as an amendment to a major overhaul of the nation's bankruptcy laws. But when the amendment came up for a vote, Obama was standing next to Sen. Paul Sarbanes (D-Md.), the senior Democrat on the banking committee and the leader of those opposing the landmark bill, which would make it harder for Americans to get rid of debt. 'You know, this is probably not a smart amendment for us to vote for,' Obama recalled Sarbanes telling him. 'Thirty percent is sort of a random number.' Obama joined Sarbanes in voting against the amendment, but they lost the larger battle when the new bankruptcy law passed by a lopsided 74-25. There remains no federal ceiling on credit card interest rates. Obama's deferral to Sarbanes was just one example of the freshman senator learning to navigate a chamber famous for its egos. [Chicago Tribune, 6/12/07]
Sen. Obama did end up voting against a ceiling of 30 percent interest for loans or credit cards:
Obama voted against and Hillary voted for a Dayton, D-Minn., amendment that would set a 30 percent ceiling on interest rates for loans or credit cards. [Vote 20, S.Amdt. 31 to S. 256, Rejected 24-74: R 0-55; D 23-19 (ND 22-16, SD 1-3); I 1-0. CQ, 3/3/05]
~~~~~~
In 2003, Sen. Obama said that he would support a repeal of the U.S. PATRIOT Act:
Q4. Would you vote to repeal the U.S. Patriot Act?" A. "Yes, I would vote to repeal the U.S. Patriot Act, although I would consider replacing that shoddy and dangerous law with a new, carefully crafted proposal... [Illinois NOW questionnaire, 9/10/03]
In 2006, Sen. Obama to extend the PATRIOT Act:
The Washington Post said of the reauthorization, "[T]he Patriot Act fight started with promises of major changes and ended largely with the status quo." Obama himself said the bill only "modestly" improved the PATRIOT Act and failed to do enough to protect civil liberties. [HR 3199, Vote #29, 3/2/06; Washington Post, 3/7/06; Obama Floor Statement, 2/16/06]
~~~~~~
Sen. Obama suggested he made his opposition to Kyl-Lieberman clear 'at the time of the vote.' From the debate:
Blitzer : This was an important vote you missed the, you weren't present in the senate when that vote occurred.
Obama: This is true and it was a mistake - one of the hazards of running for president. What I have consistently said and what I said at the time of the vote was that we should not take steps that would increase two presences inside Iraq with an eye towards blunting the impact of Iran. I always think that's a mistake.
Sen. Obama missed the vote and said nothing at the time the vote occurred. His campaign didn't release a statement until 9 hours after the vote. The vote occurred at 12:44PM. Sen. Obama didn't issue a statement until after 10PM.
The issue also came up at a presidential debate that night, and Sen. Obama didn't mention it.
Sen. Obama voted present 129 times on a wide array of issues, including choice, privacy for victims of sexual assault, and school violence. In fact, the Obama campaign claimed that Sen. Obama's present votes were part of a legislative strategy but failed to mention that Sen. Obama was the lone present vote on a number of key issues.
~~~~~~
THE ABUNDANCE OF NON-VOTES:
Sen. Obama's Present Votes By The Numbers
Sen. Obama voted 'present' 129 times while in the State Senate. [New York Times, 12/20/07]
In 1999, Sen. Obama voted 'present' more often than he voted 'no': According to state records, Obama voted 'present' 43 times in 1999, while voting 'no' just 29 times. [ilga.gov]
At least 36 times, Sen. Obama was either the only State Senator to vote present or was part of a group of six or fewer to vote that way. [New York Times, 12/20/07]
Other Present Votes of Interest:
Sen. Obama was the only State Senator to vote 'present' on a bill that sought to protect the privacy of sex-abuse victims, and the only state senator to not support the bill. [HB854, Passed 58-0-1, 05/11/99]
Sen. Obama was the only State Senator to vote 'present' on an adoption bill that imposed stricter requirements for parental fitness, and the only State Senator to not support the bill. [HB1298, Passed 57-0-1, 5/6/1999]
Sen. Obama voted 'present' on a bill that would increase penalties for the use of a firearm within 1,000 feet of a school. The bill called for the mandatory adult persecution of a minor at least 15 years of age being tried for using a firearm within 1,000 feet of a school. [SB759, Passed 52-1-5, 3/25/1999]
Sen. Obama voted 'present' on a bill to prohibit the presence of adult sex shops near schools, places of worship, and day care facilities; bill allows local governments to regulate the presence of adult sex shops. [SB609, Required 3/5 majority, Failed 33-15-5, 3/29/2001]
I am writing today in an appeal to all Democratic Primary Voters to carefully consider their choice when selecting the candidate to support. Primaries are always hard, it's a pit of brother against brother, and the difficulty of setting yourself apart from your opponent without destroying relationships with your own allies approaches impossibility. We find ourselves in the State of Texas this year not only in the rare position of a primary that not only matters but could in fact prove decisive, but also with two exceptional candidates for office. For some time, I wavered in my support for a single candidate, trying to cut through the media bias and the inevitable campaign rhetoric, trying to discern for myself which candidate would in fact make the best President. While I certainly have been both moved and impressed by Barack Obama and his ability to motivate a crowd to action, I have to ask myself if this a great President makes. One can never dismiss the value of being able to motivate people, it's what gets people to the polls and gets people engaged both in politics and the world around them. Just words? No, words have power, there is no more effective tool than words to influence the hearts and minds of men and to motivate them to action. However, does the ability to stir a crowd make for a good judge of policy or the wisdom to develop such policy?
There is method to the Clinton campaign's mad preemptive sword rattling over the Texas primary/caucus. They want to delay and disrupt the reporting of the delegate count. They hope that if they win the popular vote, they can avoid, at least for one news cycle, news reports that even if they do so they will very likely lose the delegate fight in Texas and fall further behind Obama in the national delegate contest.
This is not speculation. This has been the subject under discussion. While I have not been part of that discussion, plenty of sources last night and this morning confirmed this as the core of the dispute.
It is widely assumed that Obama's organizational advantage will achieve in the caucus portion of the Texas election just what it has achieved in earlier caucuses: a significant victory in delegates. There are 67 delegates at stake in those caucuses. The Clinton campaign would like to delay the reporting of the caucus results, and that is why they have continually "reserved the right to challenge" Texas law and Democratic party procedures.
Throw the Texas delegate results in dispute, and win or lose the popular vote, they will have advanced their case that the contest remains close and should go all the way to the convention if necessary.
The campaign in Texas is close. Delegates selected by popular vote out of the 31 Senate districts will probably be split more or less evenly. This is due in large part to the fact that 15 of those districts have 4 delegates to award. A candidate would have to get more than 62.5 percent of the vote in those districts to win a 3-to-1 split. The most likely outcome is a 2-2 split. In addition, Obama may have a slight advantage in that the districts with the largest number of delegates, Austin and inner city Houston and Dallas, are viewed as Obama strongholds. Still, just about every model shows an even split of primary vote delegates, no matter who wins or loses the popular vote. This is just because the vote will be close.
The Clinton campaign strategy is to justify taking the fight beyond Texas even if they fall further behind Obama in the national delegate count. To do that, they must cast doubt over the fate of the 67 delegates that will be chosen at the caucus level. Hence, their tough positioning in phone calls with Texas Democratic Party officials and others involved in the primary here.
The Texas rules have been in effect for decades. Bill Clinton ran twice under these rules. They are no surprise to anyone, and both campaigns know they have to play by the same rules. There is little point to raising concerns before the election -- except one campaign finds itself running a very unique kind of effort. To remain viable, the results of the caucus in Texas must be thrown into doubt. Almost any legal challenge will do. The Clinton narrative can be maintained-- but only if their falling further behind in delegates is not reported or is at the least cast into doubt for a news cycle, or two or three news cycles.
Texas' hybrid primary/caucus would not be questioned were it not that one candidate appears to have an advantage in caucus settings. Or that in a close race, the popular vote in senate districts will probably translate into an even split of delegates. Consequently, the Clinton campaign finds Texas to be a poor place to build a firewall or mount a comeback. That's an historical accident. Attacking the state party here would be irresponsible and damaging to Democratic prospects here in both the near and long term.
The overwhelming numbers of Texas who have voted early in the Texas primary is symptomatic of the changing political tide here. Much work has been done rebuilding the progressive movement in the Lone Star State. Attempts to taint the primary, and consequently the primary and caucus decisions of Texas voters, will set this effort back.
The latest People Calling People/Call Voyager Texas Poll shows results for actual early voters. It gives Clinton the edge by 8 points, w/ MoE of 3.9%. I guess that's no surprise, you'd expect the early voters to skew older, where she has always been strong.
They've been running a series of these polls in Texas, almost every night. You can download the previous results also. Here are the highlights from the web site:
• Feb. 18 - "Loyal" Texas Democrats Prefer Obama
• Feb. 19 - Hispanic Texans Overwhelmingly Favor Clinton
• Feb. 20 - Texas Republican Crossovers a Major Factor
• Feb. 21 - Clinton narrowly leads among Texas Women
• Feb. 22 - Clinton leads among Texans who watched Debate
• Feb. 25 - Clinton holding support among Texas seniors
• Feb. 26/27 - Clinton leads among early Texas voters
• Feb. 28 - Predicted Turnout Analysis (NOT COMPLETED)
• Feb. 29 - Independent & Republican Crossover (NOT COMPLETED)
• Mar. 2 - Final Statewide Horserace (NOT COMPLETED)
Grading Clinton, MSNBC, and Obama. - listed in alphabetical order.
You may wonder why I included MSNBC to be reviewed in this report. It's quite simple, really. MSNBC is the media outlet responsible for the debate, therefore it is crucial to grade them on their integrity, fairness, and lack of bias. So first, let's look at what the role of journalism should be. This question became pertinent to me when the media came out in response to Hillary's Xerox remark. In all honesty, any of us who have ever had to write a report for school learned what plagiarism is, what is is not, and what the repercussions are. Obama did plagiarize those remarks by not citing them. No "academic" question there. So I looked it up. Each journalist has an ethical responsibility is to fully attribute sources. They can lose their job, get sued, etc. if they don't. So clearly each journalist out there knows what plagiarism is. Instead of ignoring Hillary's remark, instead of evaluating the integrity of it's content, so many in the media at large instead tried to seek out substantively similar content in Hillary's remarks and others, and then challenge her authenticity. They did manage to prove that Hillary agrees with those who have similar beliefs. They did manage to prove that she did not commit plagiarism. But that isn't what they wrote. What they did, instead, was use these common ideas as an opportunity to create a bit more mudslinging. I wouldn't have minded if they ignored her remark; I wouldn't have minded if they reported on it accurately. But for our country's plagiarism experts to pretend not to know what it is in order to submit inflammatory headlines and articles... Well, I decided they will now be included in part of my evaluative process. I am looking to elect the best candidate, not to be emotionally manipulated by my news sources for whatever their agenda may be... which perhaps has more to do with selling than reporting. Selling their product, their candidate, their ratings, their egos... I don't know, but something, clearly. Perhaps they are equally as inflammatory with Obama. Gotcha journalism doesn't service the American people. We are smart, just give us the facts, all of them, and without bias. We can take it from there.
I should note that I was unable to watch the countdown to the debate, and my recording of the debate only included the last 60 seconds before the debate began. I am tempted to evaluate the MSNBC on their closing remarks prior to the debate, but in all fairness, I decided to only evaluate all three parties during the actual debate. MSNBC did make that a challenge for me, I must admit. I also am not watching or checking any media coverage of the debate until I finish writing this. I know that I, too, could be biased by what is out there.
Although I've followed along pretty closely, I tried to prepare as best I could for this debate. -Reading each candidate's criticisms of the other, reading the media coverage, and researching each point through a variety of independent information sources.
So... beginning the recording now. I'll be back with first installment of my own personal report card on the debate. Current standings (listed alphabetically):
The Clinton campaign's mantra is that she has won all the big states except Illinois, and that's what counts the most. That's a fairly shaky claim.
There are seven very big states with 20+ electoral votes:
1) California (55): Clinton won by 9
2) Texas (34): March 4 primary
3) New York (31): Clinton won by 17
4) Florida (27): Clinton won unsanctioned primary by 17. (I'll let you argue whether that counts or not, but the demographics for a redo would probably favor Clinton anyway)
5 tie) Illinois (21): Obama won by 32.
5 tie) Pennsylvania (21): April 22 primary.
7) Ohio (20): March 4 primary.
In other words, of the 7 giant states, Clinton won two (or 3 if you count Florida) by healthy margins, and Obama won one by a huge margin. Even if you throw out the home states of New York and Illinois, the score is only 1-0 or 2-0.
There are four big states with 15-19 electoral votes:
8) Michigan (17): Clinton got 55% of the vote in an unsanctioned primary with Obama and Edwards not on the ballot. In a redo, the demographics would probably favor Obama.
9 tie) Georgia (15) Obama by 35
9 tie) New Jersey (15) Clinton by 10
9 tie) North Carolina (May 6 primary)
There are 10 states with 10-14 electoral votes:
12) Virginia (13) Obama by 29
13) Massachusetts (12) Clinton by 15.
14 tie) Missouri (11) Obama by 1
14 tie) Tennessee (11) Clinton by 13
14 tie) Washington (11) Obama by 37 (caucus)
14 tie) Indiana (11) May 6 primary
18 tie) Maryland (10) Obama by 23
18 tie) Arizona (10) Clinton by 9
18 tie) Wisconsin (10) Obama by 17
18 tie) Minnesota (10) Obama by 34 (caucus)
Clinton's supposed dominance in big states really boils down to one or two things: She won California, and some would say Florida. Those are important shows of strength, but Clinton's other signature wins are more than matched by Obama's. New Jersey is no bigger than Georgia, Massachusetts is smaller than Virginia, and in both cases Clinton's margins were a lot smaller than Obama's.
The bottom line is that Clinton has done a little better than Obama in the biggest states, getting 3% more of the vote in California, New York and Illinois combined. Obama has done better than Clinton in the states with 10-20 electoral votes, and it's been an Obama rout in the small states.
Last night, Rep. Mark Strama said something during his introduction/vamp-before-Obama-showed up that struck a chord with me. He said in part, "Someday you will think back on tonight and think that you were present and active during the most influential presidential race in history. What you don't know, is that this isn't the most influential race in history: that distinction belongs to the 2000 election." To that, I have to say that history may decide that the 2000 election had the biggest impact on the world, but 2008 has been by far the most exciting and hopeful.
Last night I was fortunate enough to be able to attend the Texas Democratic Party's Watch Party at the Hyatt, and I can tell you that it was an experience that I'm not soon going to forget.
But I'm getting ahead of myself. I parked a few blocks away from the event itself (actually, at Hooters, but let's not go into that) and walked up so that I could avoid the hassle of parking at the hotel. As I walked up, I noticed a charter bus and a group of mostly African-American Obama supporters with signs standing under the bridge and chanting Obama '08 towards the park. Naturally, I was curious, so I asked them what was going on, to which they replied that Sen. Obama was taking a walk through the park and would be coming by in a moment.
So I talked it up with the supporters and found out that they were a Congressional group that drove in from Houston just to watch the debate. Soon after talking with a few of the supporters and passersby and joining in chants, I saw crowds of people sprinting across the park to catch a glimpse and speak to Sen. Obama. I have to admit that after he came by and shook my hand and took pictures with us, I probably would have sprinted 100 yards to get the chance to do it if I had to. I would for either of the candidates, although it must seem obvious at this point who I'm supporting. But for me, actually meeting Barack Obama was like meeting a celebrity or superhero, and anyone that has met him knows what I mean. Just like you can't really know how great of a speaker he is until you go to hear him speak and see how people react to him.
Once I got my press credentials and entered the ballroom, I realized the enormity of this grand event. The ballroom was huge, and the line out the door to walk through security was wrapped around itself in the lobby. It was estimated that 2,000+ people were signed up to attend, but I honestly think that there were much more than that. The ballroom was packed shoulder to shoulder, and I heard a rumor that the Fire Marshall threatened twice to shut it down for exceeding capacity.
As is the case lately for democrats that get together in numbers, there was an electricity and affability permeating from every person in the room, just happy to be there to witness the historic event of Texas Democrats finally influencing national politics.
I won't speak much towards the debate itself, since there were many other writers at the debate that can talk more pointedly about it, but I can talk about the crowd reactions from the watch party. It seemed at first like the crowd reflected the state as a whole in splitting evenly the votes between Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton. This continued for a while, along with the typical whoops and cheers whenever either candidate mentioned a city, landmark, or person from Texas, that is, until Sen. Clinton took a shot at state Sen. Kirk Watson. That remark drew boos and jeers, and upon the "change you can Xerox" comment, firmly cemented a swing towards Obama sympathy that would last throughout the closing of the night.
The crowd seemed restless after the debate and the folksy yet upbeat Kelly Willis, although good, couldn't break the tension of the anxious mob awaiting their saviors to arrive. Hillary Clinton arrived at around 9:30 with Chelsea and gave only brief remarks (maybe 1-3 mins), noting that, "It took a Clinton to clean up after the first Bush, and it will take another Clinton to clean up after this one." Mostly, though, her brief speech revolved around the message of the debate of "either one of us that wins, it's all about [the voters]". The remarkable thing about Clinton however wasn't her speech or her demeanor, it was the reception she garnered from her fans.
I've been to a few concerts in my day, and I've been a drummer my whole life, so I know a little bit about ear splitting volumes. I've never heard screaming like that before. It was amazing and annoying all rolled into one deafening experience, but it was definitely memorable.
Sen. Obama's speech when he rolled in at around 10:35 was much longer (15-20 mins) and was somehow directed to an even more receptive crowd than Sen. Clinton's an hour before. There were camera flashes, books and signs waving in the air, a few hook 'em hands, and shouts of "we love you!", but nothing steered him from his message of hope. To be honest, I jotted down one note that I thought was memorable (something about Dr. King's "Fierce Urgency Effect" that we can't afford to wait for things to get better) before I lost myself in picture taking and hanging on every word with the rest of the crowd. My sincerest apologies for not being the reporter I should have been during the speech, but I am as vulnerable as the next person to charm and sophistication coming off of the presidency we've had for the last 8 years.
Maybe 2000 was a more life-altering election in the annals of history, but this one could be the one we remember as the election that defines our generation and one that brings hope and respect back to our country.
Update: The first of the slow-boating ads can be viewed at TalkingPointsMemo. This ad may not qualify as swift boating, and slow it certainly is...GS
There are reports that Clinton backers have formed a 527 organization for the express purpose of attacking Obama in paid advertising in Ohio and Texas.
My question is, why? The word is the 527 will have a $10 million budget. But if Clinton can't net delegates here, why trash Obama with a swift-boat style campaign? Most analysts and pundits now concede that the best Clinton can possibly do in Texas is break even on delegates. She trails Obama by 120-150 pledged delegates nationally. Still, a kind of folk theory persists that Texas can be a comeback state for Clinton. It can't.
Let me rehash the reasons for this. There are three. The first has to do with the large number -- 15 -- of Senate districts with 4 delegates. It's half the state. To get a 3-1 split of those delegates, Clinton would have to win at least half of Texas by more than 62.5 percent of the vote. Otherwise, it breaks even, 2-2.
The second reason is that the senate districts with the largest number of delegates happen to be Obama strongholds in Austin, inner city Houston and Dallas. The third reason is the 67 delegates to be chosen by caucus. Obama won another 75-25 caucus victory in Hawaii last night. Something like that will probably happen here.
Obama will gain delegates in Texas. That means the percentages of delegates Clinton must take in Ohio and subsequent primaries is something like 65 or 70 percent.
As reported in the NYTimes, Hillary Clinton called the Texas primary, or primacaucus, system "bizarre."
Mrs. Clinton said she could not begin to explain how the Texas system worked. "I had no idea how bizarre it is," she said aboard her plane flying from Wisconsin to Ohio. "We have grown men crying over it."
Well, now, that's a good way to begin currying favor here. But I guess there are many Democrats who weren't aware of how delegates are awarded here. Until I looked it up, I was one of them.
But, once you have looked it up, and seen the kind of organization Obama has put together here, the enthusiasm, the discipline, you see that Texas will probably decide the Democratic nomination once and for all. And that is not good news for Clinton. I hope they reconsider this 527 idea. It will serve no other purpose than to hurt Democrats down ballot in November by tarnishing the likely presidential nominee.
According to a new poll, the core of the Texas Democratic Party, those who vote consistently in the primary, indicated their presidential preference in a telephone poll conducted Monday night February 18. The results were surprising:
People Calling People/Call Voyager Texas Poll
Day One - Loyal Democrats
taken: 2/18/08 18:02 to 20:30
survey size: 1,600+
MoE: 2.4%
Preference: Obama - 40%
Clinton - 33%
Not Sure - 14%
Otherwise - 13%
This was taken among Democrats with a solid history of voting in the Texas Democratic party. This group appears excited about the choices, based on their expressed likelihood to vote:
Likelihood to vote: Very Likely - 95%
Not sure - 3%
Not likely - 2%
Future Poll Publishing Schedule 2/20: Latino Loyalty to Clinton?
2/21: Independents and Obamicans
2/22: Hillary Holding Women?
2/23: Did the Debate Make a Difference?
2/26: Texas Seniors
2/27: Early Voters Exit Poll
2/28: Turnout Forecast
When one campaign starts making petty, distracting, half-baked charges against their opponents, you know something is up. But what?
The latest is the accusation by the Clinton camp that Barack Obama's use of a friend's phrase -- on that friend's specific advice -- is somehow wrong, is plagiarism. Or something.
These kinds of silly charges often surface in close, hard-fought campaigns. Once, when our staff at Ann Richard's 1990 campaign got into one of these petty-offs with a Republican primary candidate, she mocked us -- publicly. "Boys and their toys," she said, in the newspaper. It stung.
Except for the gender exclusiveness, that's exactly what's going on with the accusation that Obama plagiarized his friend Deval Patrick's words. Everyone knows it's silly. Everyone knows it has no bearing on character, the substance of the campaign, the power of Obama's oratory, the originality of his thought as displayed in two books and countless speeches.
If anyone is copying anything, it's the Clinton's copying the old campaign trick of distraction. Anything, no matter how silly, how truth-stretching, how off-the-subject, is fair to throw at one's opponent when their momentum seems unstoppable. Any few minutes eaten into their time in the news cycle might make some small difference. I guess.
I don't have much patience for this childishness anymore.
Note from Phillip: One of President Bill Clinton's former speechwriters agrees with Glenn...
