April 5, 2008. The woman was not refused treatment, did have insurance, and was the Manager of a Pizza Hut. But as Clinton tells it "The hospital said, 'Well, you don't have insurance.' She said, 'No, ...  more

March 6, 2008 Rove, Bush's dirty trickster, gives lessons on how to smear Obama

Voters seldom think ahead: "I like X; I vote for X." But if Clinton wins, the "vast right-wing conspiracy" will destroy her before November. An unlikely win in November would mean 4 years of bloody right-wing attacks on everything she stands for. They would take a shocking toll. It is not her fault the right will attack, but she is wrong to seek this grudge match, and she and her supporters—and all of us—will pay dearly.

The opposite approach would benefit her supporters far more. A unified front that brings new blood into the Democratic Party and disarms the angry right is what aggressive Republicans fear, and why they support Hillary.

Limbaugh says fellow Republicans want to see “Barack Obama bloodied up politically,’’ but “don’t have the stomach for it.’’ On Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor he urged Republicans in Texas to vote for Clinton to keep her campaign alive.

The Dallas News reports: TX Republicans figure that to vote for McCain: Vote for the "weaker" Democrat and keep the Democratic Party "in turmoil" through August.  more

Latest CBS News/New York Times poll: among all voters, Obama had a 45/23 percent favorable/unfavorable split. Clinton's was 35/43. That's huge.

Obama will get things done, not because he's wonkier, but because he knows how to get things done. Obama is doing in his campaign exactly what it takes to get new policies passed. Clinton is "fighting," but as in 1992, it's still not working.

Clinton ended Thursday's debate saying "I am honored, I am honored to be here with Barack Obama. I am absolutely honored." But she had known for several days all about the Obama pamphlets over which she now says "Shame on you, Barack Obama." What changed? Clinton's tactics. Nothing more.

I was wrong (see below) that being booed for nasty, and wildly applauded for nice, would teach her to stick to substance and be diplomatic. But it looks like she figured neither nice nor nasty was going to do it, so go for broke—try really nasty.

Now I don't like Obama's pamphlets, but he's right that she favored NAFTA. He's exaggerating that she wants to "force people to purchase insurance, even if they cannot afford it." But she did say that "going after people's wages" might be how she would get poor people to accept her health care plan.

Instead of saying "shame" and comparing him to Karl Rove and George Bush, she should have explained her plan to force 100% coverage. She has not. But her communications director Howard Wolfson has said that "comparing another Democrat to George Bush" is the "worst kind of tactical political maneuvering." Today, her chance of winning dropped from 19% to 15%. But I'm no longer optimistic that will make a difference. I think she's going for broke. Watch out for Monday, March 3.

Before the debate, Clinton's two top strategists: Grunwald (nice) and Penn (nasty) duked it out, but no decision. So Clinton tested one line from each. I'm speculating here, but see what you think. She attacked Obama with a Penn-prepared zinger—"change you can xerox," implying his change message is phony because a close friend helped him with a couple of lines in one speech. She was soundly booed. She ended the debate on a rather touching and conciliatory note, suggested by Grunwald, and got her best audience response of the night.

I'm betting she learned her lesson. We don't want them bickering. We want politics that stands tough on principle but unites rather than divides. That's why Obama is winning. It's too late for Clinton to win the race, but if she learns this lesson she will win something nevertheless important—respect.

I'm as wonky as they come: math, stats, econ. But I'll tell you the weakness of wonks: ignoring appearances. Take Hillary's health care plan. Not the one that blew up 14 years ago, her present plan. She claims it's 100% universal and Obama's is not. She's right. Here's why: She will force everyone in. When pressed on how, she said perhaps "going after people's wages."

Garnishing wages might be the best wonky approach. Not likely, but it's a complex question. But what's sure is that saying on national TV that you might garnish the wages of the poor to enforce "mandatory" health care is just plain dumb. Especially when you've had 14 years to think about it.

We don't need another great health-care battle, even if she could squeak by with her plan. Long-term success depends on not antagonizing half the country.

Considering he's new at this, Obama's plan scores nearly as well on the wonk meter, and it doesn't stir up the attack machines. That's big-picture smart.  more...

Clinton is rebuilding her strength--only among Dems. A Zogby International Poll of 7,468 likely voters nationwide found Obama over McCain 47 to 36 percent. But McCain over Clinton by 42 to 37 percent. That's a 16% difference."    Policy twins

Mark McKinnon, a senior campaign adviser to both President Bush and Sen. John McCain: "I met Barack Obama, I read his book, I like him a great deal, ... , and I would simply be uncomfortable being in a campaign that would be inevitably attacking Barack Obama.  ... "I will be supporting [McCain] from the sidelines."

Time Magazine proves zFacts point of Jan. 27 (see below). Obama wins 48 / 41 against McCain, but Clinton ties McCain 46 / 46 in a new Time poll. The reason is as predicted: "independents tilt toward McCain when he is matched up against Clinton. But they tilt toward Obama when he is matched up against the Illinois Senator."   more

InTrade.com (see below) now gives Obama a 62% chance of nomination. (He was at 38% before super Tuesday. Obama and McCain both appeal to independents, who are 1/3 of voters. Clinton does not. People are realizing that only Obama has a real shot at winning in November.

InTrade.com is the world's #1 prediction market. People bet real money on their predictions, so these are the best—but still far from perfect. Clinton/Obama went from $62/$48 before super Tuesday to $50/$50 after.

Can Clinton beat McCain/Huckabee? The country's about 1/3 each Dems, independents and Republicans. Both Clinton & McCain leave some in their party uninspired, so that's a wash. But McCain draws independents better than Hillary. Do the math.

No doubt the far right hates Hillary. Is that why they claim Obama is a Muslim (see below)? Can't be sure, but it makes sense they would rather run against Clinton. This would explain why they are not attacking her now.

In November, Dems will vote for either, but that's only 1/3 of the country. To win, a candidate needs over half of the 1/3 who are independents. Obama is far stronger with independents and with young voters, who normally tend to stay home. Winning in November takes Obama's broad appeal. Besides, Obama is teflon; Clinton is anti-teflon.

The NY Times reports: "Mrs. Clinton has found her campaign losing badly in a string of state caucuses that relied on a high level of on-the-ground organizational skills at which the Obama campaign excelled." Having started way early, and raised $175 million, how did she run out of money just before Super Tuesday, and why is her organization so weak? Here claim to fame is knowing how government works and how to get things done. Perhaps Obama is just a very quick study.