I don’t pay any attention to so-called “Republican/Obama” talking points. You’re slash is misplaced. Obama is not a Republican; he’s the future Democratic Candidate.

“All the polls” do not show her beating McCain. They never have. They do currently show Obama beating McCain. There is some time to go before November however, and polls are close as to head to heads. I wouldn’t grab a snapshot of polls at this poinnt in time and extrapolate that they are very definitive–but they are fun to watch. Their statistical methodology however, leaves much to be desired.

I would be delighted to see the ones you have been reading I must have missed linked here though.

Obama Beats McCain in 9/9 Major Polls; McCain Beats Clinton in 4/5; Ties One Currently

4/5 Major Polls Show McCain Beating Clinton currently and one is tiedFifty-two percent in this ABC News/Washington Post poll have a favorable opinion of Clinton, compared with 59 percent for McCain.

Every Republican I know or I’ve seen quoted wants Clinton as the Democratic candidate with the intensity a 15 year-old boy has when he looks at Mily Cyrus–that includes the Republican Senators I’ve seen quoted on the subject that I know.

There is no more dirt to be flung.

There would be plenty of dirt flung against either candidate, and many research crews are being hired by billionaires to do just that. I’m not about flinging dirt at any potential Democratic candidate, and I’m not about flinging dirt at John McCain either. Bush did that and he did it reprehensibly and lied with Rove during the South Carolina primaries last year.

There is plenty of McCain’s record and position to attack, and plenty of time in which to do it now and after June 7 over the summer.

There are many questions Billiary refuses to answer however, and I know you can’t wait to answer them, but you’re going to need info from Billiary first.

LHP said she was all about vetting candidates, but so far her rendition of vetting here has been to vet Obama. She got a lot of response to her methodology here and on dozens of other blogs from lawyers. I eagerly await the vetting of Clinton here, but it has not come forth currently since the vetting of Obama along the lines of Tony Rezko, poker games, and misinterpreted Illinois Senate present votes.

I clarified the “Present votes” here this morning

I also linked ‘Present’ Perfect by Avner Mikvah in today’s Op Ed NYT to do it.

LHP advocated vetting the candidates in her post that alluded to Rezko, poker, and her misperception of what a present vote actually meant in the Illinois Senate.

I’m eagerly awaiting the current vetting of Clinton here with a dozen questions that I’m sure you’re eager to answer that are being asked ofher that she has so far not answered:

A Dozen Questions to Pose to Hillary Clinton (not answered yet/not vetted yet at FDL):

1) What brought about the very sudden appearance of billing records from the Rose law firm in the dining room of the White House that had been subpoenaed 18 months earlier in 1984? You can bet that would be front and center in any hypothetical general election with McCain. I do not see Christy Smith or LHP LHP sitting on their hands if they issued a subpoena when at DOJ and the party refused to answer their subpoena in 18 days let alone 18 months. I’d expect a motion for contempt. None was issued when Clinton was first lady by the Star group, including by Amy St. Eve who was on the team. I would expect that if Judge St. Eve ordered something produced or a subpoena enforced today, someone refusing her order would be shown the jail on the South loop of Chicago forthwith just as Rezko was shown it by St. Eve after Fitz’s motion he allegedly withheld funds.

2) What was the genesis of Hillary Clinton’s miraculous cattle futures trade netting her a sudden hundred grand in 1994?

1 grand to 100 grand No experience in cattle futures by Clinton

3) Where does an examination of where Hillary got the $5 million to loan to her campaign? If it was in fact from her book deal, she doesn’t have a lot left to loan herself–except for the $100,000 speaking fees her husband continues to generate world wide. Was it from something like the mining deal that garnered $31.5 million for the Clinton library, or did it come from the misty, nebulous secret dealings of Bill Clinton and billionaire playboy friend Ron Burkle?

4) An examination of the $400,000 bribe paid by Denice Rich to Bill Clinton in order to get a pardon for her divorced husband Mark who pretty much fits the word “sleazy” that LHP used–at the time the pardon was granted Rich’s husband was an international fugitive on the run from US Marshalls–that’s not quite up to the usual standards of the pardon office at LHP’s old digs–the DOJ. That’s going to be front and center in any attempt of Hillary Clinton to get elected.

It’s the classic defininition of a bribe and a Presidential pardon sold for $400,000.

5) An examination of the recent mining deal that netted Bill Clinton a contribution of $31.5 million dollars described in this article should be vetted. It’s going to be showcased in any hypothetical general election.
Clinton swings mining deal–gets $31.5 million for Secret Library Fund

6) What connections does TonyRezko have to the Clinton campaign or her campaign co-chairman? Two co-chairman took money from Rezko, and have refused to answer any questions about it.

Obama has answered dozens of questions to all Chicago newspapers.

7) Why has the word Rezko not come from Clinton’s lips and why has the accusation of working for slum lords not come from Clinton’s lips since early January in a debate? focal lesion brain/larynz that prevents this? She raised it once and never again.

8) When will Clinton learn to understand the Levin bill and the Kyle-Leiberman amendments she voted on authorizing war in Iraq in the first? Why did she mischaracterize them in the last debate, when she has had the advantage of a Yale law degree which should have insured that she can read a bill correctly? Why did she mischaracterize her vote against the Levin amendment and the amendment itself? Levin has said her explanation had nothing to do withhis amendment that she voted against.

9) Why has Clinton blocked release of over 1.5 million documents relating to a health care initiative she references all the time but refuses to detail at all no matter how many times she’s asked? This would be pressed for in any general election.

10) Why are the Clintons refusing to release the big money donor list to the Clinton library? This is a valid question for anyone who is running for any public office whether it’s a county commissioner or President of the United States. This would be front and center in any hypothetical general election.

11) Why did Clinton vote to table the earmark legislation that Obama wrote and sponsered?

12) Why did Clinton fail to know what a present vote means in the Illinois Senate when she grew up in Illinois and went to high school there as asked this morning on the op-ed page of the NYT?

‘Present’ Perfect by Avner Mikvah Former D.C. Circuit Appellate Judge and White House Counsel to Bill Clinton

13) Why is Clinton White House Counsel Avner Mikvah working on the Obama campaign, and why is former best friend to the Clintons in law school and the coordinator of Clinton’s impeachment defense, Greg Craig of Williams and Connolly LLP working for Obama? Craig’s daughter was a good friend of Chelsea Clinton all through her private high schooling at the same school, and Craig rented the Clintons the first apartment they lived together in at Yale law school for $65 per week.

“Saying doesn’t make it so.” And you can troll the Republican/Obama talking points all you want, that fact won’t change. Republican strategists will have a field day with their coded racist commentary and Barack Obama will plunge in the national polls the day after the ordination. The notion that Obama doesn’t have any baggage can only be propagated by people who haven’t done their homework or people who are looking forward to trashing him.

Either of these candidates can win in the general, but this line that Barack Obama is just going to walk up and accept the crown without a fight is dangerously nonsensical. It also must be the worst possible reason for promoting a candidate.

My preference for Clinton is based simply on the fact that she has demonstrated she can do the job. All Obama has done to date is run his yap in front of the cameras. Well, when he can’t run on his record — what else can he do? “Trust me — I know what I’m doing.” Yeah, right.

Thanks.

mp

The party leaders in those states are arrogant dumbasses

They sure are. I know very few politicians who aren’t but not all are arrogant and many I know aren’t dumbasses–they’re very sharp–even some of the ones who have a horrendous political ideology on the other side. That gets complicated, because you have to know them well before they’ll really let their hair down and air their disagreements with so much of the national party line.

I don’t know what the DNC’s position is going to be, but if you mean you hope they say Michigan and Florida are history and their delegates cannot be seated, I’m really fine with that.

Clinton is distressed when and if that happens, and I’m fine with whatever distresses her until she gets out of the way.

I hope the DNC sticks to its position. We need a strong, national party to be effective in the long term. The party leadership in some states has demonstrated that they do not care as much about winning national elections as they do about their own power. That has to change.

Thanks.

mp

I believe Clinton is clearly incapapble of winning the general. I cannot find one experienced person in my state that is a veteran of politics including the two Senators who are republican who aren’t lusting for her to be the candidate and by the same token are scared shitless of Obama.

The system is designed to prevent two things: a takeover of party machinery such as occurred in the Republican Party, infiltrated and overcome by the religious zealots; and the nomination of a candidate who is clearly unfit or incapable of winning the general election.

You know what? I don’t care if Barack Obama gets 75% of popularly-selected delegates, when, the week before the nomination, he tells an interviewer about the time space ships landed in his yard and kidnapped his wife, I want him outta there! Call me old-fashioned. And, the same goes for Hillary Clinton, if they find $100,000 in her freezer! The days when Adam Clayton Powell could get elected to Congress while powerboating in Bimini are over.

And the reason for that is simply that hypervenilating, politically unsophisticated naifs are not setting party policy the way the backroom boys would want it to be set.

Get over it. Do your fricking homework. As I often have occasion to tell my chatty 9 y/o, You can’t learn while talking.

Thanks.

mp

I would love to see a do-over in Michigan and Florida. Conventional wisdom of the experts is that those states’ legislatures who make that decision won’t pay for it. If there would be a do-over then, the DNC would have to fund that. I don’t know what the chances of that happening would be. From everything I can read on this subject that is now front and center in the MSM, DNC is hoping that a clear front runner will emerge. And I’m not going to try to make some “authoritative prediction” since I don’t know what will happen, and I’m not in any position anyway to make one, but if there is no clear winner, then I even know less what would happen but sure do fear what would happen.

The districts for determining previous voter turnout in the 2006 elections used are the 31 State Senate districts in Texas.

I haven’t gone district by district, and maybe someone in Texas can refine this better who has been a regular reader of their newspapers, but according to NYT and WaPo, in the last midterm election, voter turnout was high in African American dominated areas than in predominantly Hispanic areas.

So many media accounts and Clinton’s own campaign has intimated that they hope to garner a huge hispanic block in Texas. For one thing, Hispanic voting experts tell me that they don’t vote homogenously in herd fashion. But that aside, since Texas extrapolates depending on voter turnout in 2006, then to perceive that Clinton is going to grab Hispanics in droves in 2008 and therefore she has a big advantage in Texas, is not necessarily going to be the case.