March 7, 2008
Clinton, Obama Take Aim At Pennsylvania
Washington Post: But Obama Team Tries To Lower Expectations Due To Clinton's Perceived Strengths
-
Play CBS Video
Video
What's Next For The Dems?
Katie Couric speaks with senior political analyst Jeff Greenfield about where each of the Democratic candidates stands in light of the upcoming primaries that will decisively impact their campaigns.
-
Video
Dems Eye Sunshine State
Stripped of its delegates, Democrats in Florida and Michigan are demanding their votes be counted by the Democratic National Committee as the nomination race heats up. Nancy Cordes reports.
-
Photo
(AP / CBS)
-
News Tools
Campaign Calendar
The latest list of primary and caucus dates as states continue jockeying for position.
-
Timeline
Democratic Campaign Trail
Notable events in the race for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination.
Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama are mounting campaign efforts in Pennsylvania on a scale not seen since the Iowa caucuses, even as the Obama campaign attempts to cast the April 22 contest as just another in a string of more than a dozen to go.
Almost immediately after results showed Clinton winning Texas and Ohio on Tuesday night, the campaigns began mobilizing their supporters in Pennsylvania and plotting strategies to win votes across the large, delegate-rich state. Clinton will arrive full of momentum in a state whose demographics set up for her even more favorably than Ohio's, while the Obama campaign will come armed with a sizable money advantage after announcing yesterday that it raised a record $55 million in February.
"It's Iowa on steroids," said T.J. Rooney, chairman of the Pennsylvania Democratic Party and a Clinton backer. "There are a lot of Democrats today who are like the dog who caught the mail truck. They finally caught it; now they don't know what to do."
Senior Obama advisers sought to play down the importance of Pennsylvania, which is full of the same kind of white, working-class voters who supported Clinton in Ohio and other states that she won. Pennsylvania also has more senior citizens than Ohio, which favors Clinton as well.
"We're going to campaign hard in Pennsylvania," said David Plouffe, Obama's campaign manager. "It's a big, important state. We have a lot of support there. We're going to try to do as well as we can, get as many votes and delegates. They want to just say it's about this next big state. Our view is, we've got to look at the whole picture, which is 611 delegates are left. This is ultimately about the delegate math."
Plouffe noted that Clinton's slim victories in the March 4 contests could represent a smaller net gain in delegates than Obama got by overwhelmingly winning Idaho on Feb. 5, thanks to the Democrats' proportional allocation. The Obama campaign hopes to start winning back those delegates in contests in Wyoming tomorrow and Mississippi on Tuesday, while notching victories after Pennsylvania in smaller places such as Indiana and West Virginia.
"We're not a believer in symbolic wins," Plouffe said. "We have a strategy to win the nomination. And we just have to continue getting as many delegates and votes as we can, from wherever we can."
Senior Obama advisers said they learned a hard lesson about managing expectations ahead of their defeat in Texas, where they had anticipated doing better. Rather than accepting the notion that Pennsylvania will be decisive, they plan to play down their chances in the Keystone State and keep their focus on states such as North Carolina, where they expect to win.
Aside from a demographic advantage, Clinton will have the support of several state Democratic leaders, including Gov. Edward G. Rendell. "He's very engaged, and that's really important," Rooney said. "He brings a fundraising machine like no other. He brings the influence of his office and a large political following."
The state party's executive director, Mary Isenhour, is also in the Clinton camp and will run Clinton's Pennsylvania operation. Another key Clinton backer is Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter, who will try to help her offset Obama's advantage in a city that will be critical to his performance in the state. Former president Bill Clinton was scheduled to make campaign stops in Philadelphia and its suburbs today.
"We operate from the assumption that Pennsylvania is Clinton country," said Mark Nevins, Clinton's state spokesman. Nevins, who joined the campaign two weeks ago, said Clinton's operation essentially mirrors what Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) had in place four years ago when he beat President Bush in Pennsylvania.
It's Iowa on steroids.
T.J. Rooney, chairman of the Pennsylvania Democratic PartyObama is headed to Wyoming today, and Clinton traveled to Mississippi yesterday. Before leaving Washington, Clinton held a news conference in which she emphasized her national security know-how -- but also said this week's results were a sign that voters want the competition to continue.
"I think that this is good for the party and it has brought so many millions of people into this process and there are many states left to go," Clinton said. "I don't think the voters in the process who have yet to be heard from are ready for this race to be over."
Clinton's advisers fended off renewed demands by the Obama campaign for Clinton to release her recent tax returns. "I, for one, do not believe that imitating Ken Starr is the way to win a Democratic primary election for president. But perhaps that theory will be tested," said Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson.
Clinton also joined a conference call of her supporters to report that the campaign took in $3 million in the 24 hours that followed the Ohio and Texas primary wins. The Obama team declined to say how much his campaign took in Wednesday. The Obama campaign has recently held back fundraising totals and announced larger hauls after Clinton has revealed her numbers.
Obama did so again on Thursday in releasing his numbers from February, which Clinton had shared a week earlier. The Obama campaign said the $55 million one-month total came from more than 700,000 individual contributors. That surpassed the record-setting $44 million haul Kerry brought in after securing the Democratic nomination in March 2004 and will likely give the Obama campaign an advertising and organizing advantage in Pennsylvania and elsewhere. In all, the Obama campaign has raised $192.4 million.
Clinton raised $35 million last month and heralded the effort as a sign that her campaign had caught fire with Internet donors. But her top fundraisers said they knew they were likely to face another month in the shadow of someone who has rewritten the playbook on fundraising. In January, Obama raised $36 milion while Clinton brought in $13.9 million.
"For us, it was a huge month," said Hassan Nemazee, one of Clinton's finance chairmen. "But then he blew everyone away and the whole model changed."
Staff writers Shailagh Murray and Matthew Mosk contributed to this report.
By Anne E. Kornblut and Krissah Williams
© 2008 The Washington Post Company





Actually, he will stay ahead after Pennsylvania, and all of the remaining states, because Hillary can''t overtake him in delegates. She''s also unlikely to overtake him in the popular vote as long as the races are all close.
Obama should not neglect to campaign hard in Mississippi and Wyoming(?) this week because two more victories in those places reinforce his assetts and drive a few more solid nails into Hillary''s coffin...
Posted by brendlyle at 11:08 AM : Mar 07, 2008
LOOK again those small states that BO won always go republican (always)so no he could not win... and here in Ohio he got 1% of the white vote and 18% of the black vote the rest went to Hillary and McCain so being said he cannot win the big states and Ohio and Texas spoke loud and clear...check your numbers again..because when push comes to shove most Hillary supporters will flip sides to the republican party! watch and see!!!!!
When voters see and hear what each have to offer, they wil decide without the corruptions from peer attacks or ill feelings floating around inside.
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/8/21/63415.shtml
These are the same brothers who made $400,000 on two of Bill''s pardons.
http://www.telemundodallas.com/news/487765/detail.html
Do we really want the Clinton scandals back in the White House.
Barak will get a lot of votes that Hillary may have siphoned off because he is the Democratic candidate if he gets the nomination.
If Hillary pulls Michigan and Florida in for her votes or wins purely on super delegates than there will be a nasty split in the party and nobody wins.
http://archive.newsmax.com/a
rchives/articles/2001/8/21/63415.shtml
These are the same brothers who made $400,000 on two of Bill''''s pardons.
http://www.telemundodallas.c
om/news/487765/detail.html
Do we really want the Clinton scandals back in the White House.
Posted by OldAbeEagle at 11:46 AM : Mar 07, 2008
--------------------------
Oh, I dunno...do we want racists in the White House?
"New York State Senator Bill Perkins used quite explicit racial stereotyping in a speech aimed at discouraging his constituents from voting for Clinton by saying, Harlem "is not Bill Clinton''s backyard or his plantation. Underscore, plantation."
THAT IS DISGUSTING. Did Obama correct Perkins? Nope..never made it in the media.
Obama started the racial ***...he attends an all black church, his "trusted Pastor" and his daughter put Louis Farrakhan on the cover of the church magazine, gave him an award, and praised him repeatedly.
A person willing to make "fairy tale" into a racist attribute, is despicable..just to win the nomination.
And Hillary will ''do anything to win''? BS.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200801130004
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/12/obama-camps-memo-on-clin_n_81205.html
"You''ve got conservative whites here, and I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate," Rendell told the editorial board of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in remarks that appeared in Tuesday''s paper.
......................................................
Interesting Spin but this comes from Mr. Ed''s & Hillary bias mind set.
First of all, they know full well that if you are conservative white, latino, black, republican and/or independent, you are not allowed to cross over on Election day like you can in other states. Registered independents can''t vote at all in primaries. Registered Republicans only entitled to vote Republican. That will leave you with the registered Democrats that can only vote Democrat that Mr. Ed., the former president of the DNC, was encouraging to vote for Hillary.
If you pay attention to the transparency mind set of the Clintons that we''ve seen. You''ll be able to understand this SPIN & how it is supposed to work for Hillary.
You go a Fiend in Pa. I did not have *** with that woman.
First of all, her main argument for why she is more qualified than Obama is that she has more experience than he does. I guess she believes that being married to a president makes you qualified to be one because she doesn%u2019t really have much experience in any position other than First Lady; if that makes you qualified to run the country than I guess her argument holds true.
Second, Hillary had slammed Obama for his supposed contact with Canada to reassure the Canadian Government that he did not really dislike NAFTA; he was just saying he did for political gain in the presidential race and he would then go back to supporting NAFTA after the election.
Then we come to find out it was ACTUALLY HILLARY CLINTON who had contacted the Canadian government to ensure them that she would not change the trade deals the US has with Canada but she needed to be critical of NAFTA for the short run because her opponent had been making headway by not supporting NAFTA in REAL POLICY.
Third, Clinton blasted Obama for his implied connection to Rezno, who has been investigated for fraud and Hillary has cried corruption and lamented about ethics.
HELLO%u2026DOES ANYONE REMEMBER A LITTLE THING CALLED WHITEWATER!!
First of all, her main argument for why she is more qualified than Obama is that she has more experience than he does. I guess she believes that being married to a president makes you qualified to be one because she doesn%u2019t really have much experience in any position other than First Lady; if that makes you qualified to run the country than I guess her argument holds true.
Second, Hillary had slammed Obama for his supposed contact with Canada to reassure the Canadian Government that he did not really dislike NAFTA; he was just saying he did for political gain in the presidential race and he would then go back to supporting NAFTA after the election.
Then we come to find out it was ACTUALLY HILLARY CLINTON who had contacted the Canadian government to ensure them that she would not change the trade deals the US has with Canada but she needed to be critical of NAFTA for the short run because her opponent had been making headway by not supporting NAFTA in REAL POLICY.
Third, Clinton blasted Obama for his implied connection to Rezno, who has been investigated for fraud and Hillary has cried corruption and lamented about ethics.
HELLO%u2026DOES ANYONE REMEMBER A LITTLE THING CALLED WHITEWATER!!
If you use your intelligence, you''ll soon realize that Bill was a Lowly Governor of a corrupt administration in the State of Arkansas. That was the extend of his resume. He was able with the right band of PR, Press, & Spin to get The People convinced to vote for him.
No he had no prior experience compared to Hillary phoney Spin resume. The real truth is that in the 35 years that she keeps spinning she''s an authority on how to run a corrupt administration in Arkansas & Washington. What you see is what Mr. & Mrs. America will get from the Clintons.
Upon Fleeing they took with them, the whitewater records, Sandy Berger & all their fiends in low places to start all over again in Washington.
We, the people can change all that. Unless were content with the Clinton Politics of Deceit & Dishonesty.
They claim Clinton is secretive about her finances...when she has had tp release tax records year after year, and has had more scrutiny to her finances over the years than anyone else in the country.
They try to claim the Canadian NAFTA scandal is Clinton''s mess, when the Obama camp has admitted that, contrary to what they originally said, their camp did indeed talk to the Canadians and give reassurances.
They ask for her to explain her experience, and she does. And they ignore it and keep asking it as if she never resp;onded.
They ask her to back up her foreign policy experience. She does. They ignore it and keep asking as if she never responded.
They bring up a lawsuit by a spurned businessman looking for vengeance. But they never mention that the claim against Hillary was thrown out of court because of no evidence 2 years ago and was upheld in appeals court.
Obama is aksed to give specifics on his plans. He really doesn''t, (yes i have been to his website and read his white paper). instead he chants "Yes We Can" and preaches hope, and ignores the questions.
I guess it takes a lot of years, maturity and experience to learn that ignoring things does not make them go away.
Most of the anti-Obama comments I see (not all, but most) are actually questioning his credentials or policies; as compared to comments about Clinton''s family, rude name-calling and no mention of anything of substance from Obama supporters.
I addressed 5 specific Obama camp claims against Clinton about 5 posts below your last one. Now, that is my take on the facts. I don''t claim to be all knowing, but you won''t see me calling anyone an idiot or fool, or calling Obama names (other than his first or last name).
Maybe if his supporters, including a top advisor who just had to resign, did not seem so childish the rest of us would have an easier time jumping on board the hope train.
VOTE OBAMA for CHANGE!
"He said someone from Clinton''s campaign is telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt. ... That someone called us and told us not to worry," the journalist quoted Brodie as saying, according to the report.
CBS News:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/07/politics/main3917405.shtml
the state of IL. insupport of Tony Rezko for
14 million and you want me to vote for this and you
call the Clinton''s dishonest.
Dream on Hillary, Obama doesn''''t need you!!
Obama 08
Dream on Hillary, Obama doesn''''t need you!!
Obama 08
First of all, her main argument for why she is more qualified than Obama is that she has more experience than he does. I guess she believes that being married to a president makes you qualified to be one because she doesn%u2019t really have much experience in any position other than First Lady; if that makes you qualified to run the country than I guess her argument holds true.
Second, Hillary had slammed Obama for his supposed contact with Canada to reassure the Canadian Government that he did not really dislike NAFTA; he was just saying he did for political gain in the presidential race and he would then go back to supporting NAFTA after the election.
Then we come to find out it was ACTUALLY HILLARY CLINTON who had contacted the Canadian government to ensure them that she would not change the trade deals the US has with Canada but she needed to be critical of NAFTA for the short run because her opponent had been making headway by not supporting NAFTA in REAL POLICY.
Third, Clinton blasted Obama for his implied connection to Rezno, who has been investigated for fraud and Hillary has cried corruption and lamented about ethics.
HELLO%u2026DOES ANYONE REMEMBER A LITTLE THING CALLED WHITEWATER!!
Dream on Hillary, Obama doesn''''''''t need you!!
Obama 08
As a full Professor of World and Women Studies, I have come to realize that this whole process is nothing more than a misguided charade- a celebrity contest,"A PEOPLE CHOICE AWARDS"- or sadly much like the TV show American Idol. We need to limit the choosing of candidates to experts, from a spectrum of community leaders including from academies of colleges who are able to form, relate and define what is truly best not only for America but for the WORLD community. It is so foolish and parochial to have "regular people" vote for a leader with this much power. They do not have the skills or education to define what we need. Is this how we say who is a brain surgeon- by a silly "people''s vote" - absurd ! After our choosing, the WORLD would decide by members of the UN and other agencies, such as NOW, and HOOUD so that we do not run into a crazy "vote for me" high school student gov''t template. It is not that the "average America" can not think, it is that we in leadership positions can do a better job. Women leadership should be alternated each year with men, by agreement or forced reality of laws.
Hillary is the obvious choice and should be President. The SUPER DELAGATES MUST TO THE RESCUE AND BRING SOME SANITY TO THIS PEOPLES CHOICE CONTEST !
Exactly what does a "womens studies" degree qualify you to do besides act really pompus and self-inflated and wax poetic about people being "forced to put women in power. Are you sure youre talking about womens rights because it sounds likke your advocating facism
and if that is the case then youre right..HIllary is the candidate for you !!!
Barack Obama must make detour through Mississippi while he%u2019s campaigning due to bad weather. Senator Obama was scheduled to meet with the Governor of Mississippi this evening but had to cancel as the Governor%u2019s mansion was hit by an F-1 tornado. Local authorities advise that no one was harmed in the F-1 tornado only the mansion was knocked off its wheels.
Understand with the Fla and MI redo. Hillary will be ahead be a little over 100 delegates. She will also secure the remaining super-dels. This will happen as Nostradamus has written this.
knew he would not take it remember Bill Clinton
has the best plitical mind there is if Al or John
would have said hay give a hand there would be no
Bush
-
by b-easy63
March 10, 2008 9:22 AM PDT
- OBAMA DEMOCRATS AND SUPPORTERS, GET A CLUE.
-
Reply to this comment
-
See all 48 CommentsKnow what Obama means when he says he needs your help to get change: it means not just your vote--it means your support. How? STOP SAYING YOU WILL SUPPORT THE NOMINEE NO MATTER WHO IT IS. WHY?
1. If you will support the Dem nominee no matter what, why should the status quo not just put their candidate as the nominee and ignore the people''''s choice? (you''''ll vote for who they pick anyway)
2. If you will support the nominee no matter what, Why should Hillary run an honest, fair or even decent campaign? (even if she cheats, you''''ll vote for her no matter what)
3. If you will support the nominee no matter what, why should the SD not support the person who pays them the most or offers the best favors? (even if they ignore the true leader, you will elect who they tell you to no matter what)
Do you people even know who the status quo is or what it is? its not just corruption in Washington--it is YOU. It is who you choose and HOW you choose them. If you keep doing what you always do for the party--why should they change? Why should they stop the war? You''''ll vote for them no matter what.
Why should they fix NAFTA? YOu''''ll vote for them no matter what. Why should they stop backroom deals or stop fixing the elections so their best party pick can win? You''''ll vote for them no matter what. Meanwhile, you each keep doing what it takes to keep them in power.