Lee McD Political Blog

Congratulations to Sen. Biden

Lee McD — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 10:17:15 EDT

Joplin for Hillary congratulates Sen. Biden on his selection as Obam's VP choice. Joplin for Hillary has endorsed Obama and wholeheartedly supports the Obama-Biden ticket. Let's all help put Missouri in the Obama column come this Fall. Lee McD

Joplin for Obama on facebook

Lee McD — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 13:52:09 EDT

For all those interested, I now run the facebook group, Joplin for Obama. Please join in as we work to elect Barack Obama the next President of the United States. wwww.facebook.com

Joplin for Obama on Facebook

Lee McD — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 11:50:05 EDT

For Joplin, MO, area folks, there is a new group on Facebook: Joplin for Obama. Please join and get all the latest info on the campaign in southwest Missouri. We expect a field coordinator to be named in the next week or so.

Lee McD Joplin for Obama

Joplin for Hillary

Joplin for Hillary Joins Obama & a United Democratic Party

Lee McD — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 10:57:07 EDT

Thanks to all the Joplin for Hillary supporters and volunteers. We love you and Hillary loves you. The primary season is over. And, as Hillary said in suspending her campaign, "This isn't the party I planned, but I sure like the company."

Please join our Obama and other Democratic friends as we gear up for the fall campaign. We stand ready to put a Democrat back in the White House and that Democrat is Barack Obama. Joplin for Hillary is part of a united Democratic Party with a fresh burst of life and and a general election to win. Can we do it? YES, WE CAN!

Please sign up to volunteer, donate, and follow the campaign with us.

www.barackobama.com

Lee McDaniel

Moderator

Joplin for Hillary

Hillary is the RIGHT candidate

Lee McD — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 19:21:03 EDT

Hillary is the stronger candidate and has proven so by winning more votes and by winning more primaries in the last weeks of the campaign. If we Dems want to have the BETTER chance of winning in the Fall, we should be looking seriously at Hillary's candidacy and her strengths, especially in the swing states as they compare with McCain's strengths. Uncommitted supers: commit to Hillary. Committed supers: Change your mind & support Hillary.

Hilalry can win the popular vote & persaude Supers

Lee McD — Fri, 09 May 2008 13:36:56 EDT

From my facebook friend Greg Goldsborough 5-9-08. Go, Hillary, go!

i was on a conference call with president clinton last night. he spelled out in clear terms the popular vote is in our reach. if we win the popular vote, we have a strong case for the nomination. where have we been?

After hillary won pennsylvania, she was 10 points behind in indiana and 25 behind in north carolina. we knew she had to win indiana. not only did she win there, but did so despite bring outspent 4:1 in that state and obama's "next door" chicago media market advantage. hillary's indiana win is historic and it is not getting the coverage it deserves from the pro-obama press. it was an amazing win!

Where are we now? we have strong leads in west virginia (latest polls have us up 39 points), kentucky (where we have a 35 point lead), and puerto rico (over 4 million voters with strong latino support for hillary). we expect to be very competitive in oregon, south dakota, and montana. and the dnc is meeting this month to include the certified votes in florida and michigan.

After pennsylvania, we knew hillary could win the popular vote and the nomination. none of that has changed. we are still in a strong position to win this

Now we need you and all of our best supporters out there talking up hillary, building support, and raising much needed funds to win this. this campaign is in your hands and with your help we will win this.

LET'S MAKE IT HAPPEN! SHOW YOUR SUPPORT - TEN BUCKS FOR HILLARY! https://contribute.hillaryclinton.com/form.html?sc=ac0&rc=bg

I actually AGREE with Bill Kristol

Lee McD — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 15:39:14 EDT

This is one more reason I think Hillary has a better chance of winning the big states and the swing states. That's why I think she should be the nominee. We Dems have a better chance of taking back the presidency with Hillary as our candidate. THAT should be the most important rationale for superdelegates. Lee McD http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/28/opinion/April 28, 2008 Op-Ed Columnist Hillary Gets No Respect By WILLIAM KRISTOL

I normally don’t claim to speak for other members of the vast right-wing conspiracy. After all, we’re each nefarious in our own, individual way. Indeed, we often disagree with one another.

But I do think I can speak for most of my fellow right-wingers when I say this: We once looked forward with unambivalent glee to the fall of the house of Clinton. Many of us still do. But we also see the liberal media failing to give Hillary Clinton the respect she deserves. So, since we conservatives believe in giving credit where credit is due, it falls to us to praise Hillary.

The fact is Hillary Clinton has turned out to be an impressive candidate. She has consistently defeated Barack Obama when her back was to the wall — first in New Hampshire, then in several big primaries on Super Tuesday, on March 4 in Ohio and Texas, and then last week in Pennsylvania, where she was outspent by almost 3 to 1, yet won handily.

She is, of course, still behind in the race, and Obama will most likely be the nominee. His team has run the better campaign. In particular, it realized how important the caucus states could be: Obama’s delegate lead depends on his caucus victories.

But Hillary may well be the better candidate. After all, for all the talk of Obama’s extraordinary ability to draw voters to the polls, Clinton has defeated him in the big states, including California, Texas, New York, Pennsylvania and Ohio. Obama won his home state of Illinois, but she won Florida, where both were on the ballot but didn’t campaign.

Furthermore, if you add up the votes in all the primaries and caucuses — excluding Michigan (where only Hillary was on the ballot), and imputing the likely actual totals in the four caucus states, where only percentages were reported — Clinton now trails in overall votes by only about 300,000, or about 1 percent of the total. By the end of the nominating contest, she may well be ahead on this benchmark — one not entirely to be scorned in a democracy.

Hillary has achieved this despite much disparagement of her candidacy by liberal commentators, and in the face of the media’s crush on Obama. Even those who started out being well disposed to Clinton have moved toward Obama, if only out of concern that the prolonged race is damaging Democratic prospects in the fall.

BET Founder Discusses Race, Obama, Clinton

Lee McD — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 19:16:14 EDT

BET Founder Takes On Obama, Race
by The Associated Press

Posted: April 15, 2008 - 8:00 am ET

(Charlotte, North Carolina) The billionaire founder of Black Entertainment Television says Barack Obama would not be a leading presidential candidate if he were white and that the Illinois senator's campaign has "a hair-trigger on anything racial."

The Charlotte Observer reported on its Web site Monday that Bob Johnson, one of Hillary Rodham Clinton's top black supporters, was commenting on remarks previously made by Geraldine Ferraro, another Clinton supporter.

"What I believe Geraldine Ferraro meant is that if you take a freshman senator from Illinois called 'Jerry Smith' and he says I'm going to run for president, would he start off with 90 percent of the black vote?" Johnson said. "And the answer is, probably not."

"Geraldine Ferraro said it right," Johnson added. "The problem is, Geraldine Ferraro is white. This campaign has such a hair-trigger on anything racial it is almost impossible for anybody to say anything."

Hillary on Faith: "a tour de force"

Lee McD — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 19:35:19 EDT

Hillary showed her deep sense of understanding by relating to people of faith. ALESSANDRA STANLEY described it this way for The New York Times today.

It was a tour de force: Mrs. Clinton managed to take the shiv in chivalry and stick it to her opponent, all the while looking and sounding almost saintly. Some of her aplomb may have stemmed from her campaign’s sudden reversal of fortune: Mr. Obama’s “bitter” faux pas gave Mrs. Clinton an opening to turn the conversation away from her misstatements about her 1996 visit to Bosnia and keep Mr. Obama on the hot seat. But she also was in her element, a minisession of the kind of high-minded discussions about spirituality and public office that she and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, used to conduct for fun at Renaissance Weekends on Hilton Head. Mrs. Clinton confidently addressed sensitive issues like abortion, weaving her personal opinion (she supports it but said she wants it to be both “safe and rare”) with reminders of her foreign policy experience, first in China, where women are forced to have abortions, and Romania, where in communist times abortion was treated as a crime. And she also described her faith in God in soft, humble tones — at times her eyes shone as if she were on the verge of tears as she described her reliance on God’s grace in times of trouble. She alluded to the Monica Lewinsky scandal without actually mentioning it. “Some of my struggles and challenges have been extremely public,” she told Jon Meacham, the editor of Newsweek, who was a moderator alongside Campbell Brown of CNN. “And I have talked about how I have been both guided and supported through those, trying to find my own way through, because, for me, my faith has given me the confidence to make decisions that were right for me, whether anybody else agreed with me or not.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/us/politics/14watch.html

Obama's real arrogance & bitterness

Lee McD — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 10:54:44 EDT

Despite his recent comments about people being bitter, Obama's real arrogance is deciding, basically upon election to the US Senate, to run for president, when, as everyone knew, Hillary was planning to run. His actions, then, convey the message that Hillary was not and would not be a good enough president. This is the height of arrogance and the mark of an elitist, as generally understood. I remain baffled as to why more people, particularly Democrats, have not seen this?

a little SNL humor about Clinton cash

Lee McD — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 13:28:21 EDT

You have to wait for the commercial, but I couldn't find it on youtube, so . . .

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=31821029

How, Specifically, Hillary Wins the Popular Vote

Lee McD — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 17:13:19 EDT

April 03, 2008

No Really. Hillary Has a Decent Shot By Sean Oxendine

It has become something of a pastime among polling geeks like myself to use Jay Cost's primary vote calculator to predict the outcome of the Democratic race. Most who have played with it have come up with some kind of scenario where Hillary leads in the popular vote.

Now, I don't mean to pat myself on the back, but a few days before Jay's calculator came out, I had my own estimate coming to this conclusion. But this calculator provides some more concrete ways of estimating the popular vote. Let's look at this in more detail (especially given all the calls for Hillary to drop out).

Before we do a state-by-state assessment, people who followed me from myelectionanalysis.com know about my obsession with political geography. In case you didn't know, I've hand-programmed maps for every congressional election going back to 1972, with about half the states going back to their origins. I love maps and their use at displaying political data. This Hillary-Obama race gives a perfect opportunity to analyze along these lines.

OVERVIEW

So, let's look at this map:

Take a close look at this map. It is the Hillary/Obama results on a county-by-county basis for the states that have voted in primaries east of the Mississippi and that border states that have not yet held primaries (plus AL, MS, and GA, for educational purposes). The bluest counties are counties that she carried with at least 60% of the vote; the greenest counties are counties that he carried with at least 60%.

Looking on a county-by-county basis gives us a better idea what may happen in upcoming elections than the state-by-state vote. States are large, diverse places, while counties tend to be more compact and uniform, and can hence give us a better idea what is going on on the micro level.

Hillary Stronger in Key General Election States, per new poll

Lee McD — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 14:07:59 EDT

From my FaceBook friends:

New Quinnipiac polling results in three of the largest and most important swing states in the Electoral College finds that Sen. Hillary Clinton does better than Sen. Barack Obama against Sen. John McCain in a general election match up.

Florida: Clinton 44, McCain 42; McCain 46, Obama 37
Ohio: Clinton 48, McCain 39; Obama 43, McCain 42
Pennsylvania: Clinton 48, McCain 40; Obama 43, McCain 39

A cogent argument - aka a better chance than Hart or Kennedy

Lee McD — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 16:33:08 EDT

This is an insightful and historical analysis. Hillary may well be the candidate to buck the trend of the superdelegates.

http://www.observer.com/2008/why-hillary-carries

Why Hillary Carries On by Steve Kornacki | March 31, 2008 | Getty Images

When you’ve got a 42-day gap between primaries, you’ve got to fill it with something. So now we’re talking about whether Hillary Clinton should drop out.

In reality, the Clinton-Obama contest has basically been frozen in place since Clinton’s March 4 mini-revival. Obama leads in the pledged delegate race and the popular vote race, and will almost certainly lead in both categories when the primary season wraps in early June. But his margins are close. If Clinton was justified in pressing ahead on the morning of March 5, why is there a sudden urgency for her to quit three weeks later, when nothing has really changed?

Thanks to Obama surrogates like Pat Leahy, recent news coverage has been filled with stories about whether Clinton ought to just cut her losses and drop out. Officially, the candidate himself is keeping a distance from such comments—“Senator Clinton can run as long as she wants,” he magnanimously allowed over the weekend—but that’s largely immaterial: Leahy’s suggestion was more than enough to set off the round of media speculation that the Obama campaign was looking for.

There really is no precedent for demanding that Clinton withdraw at this point. If Michigan’s and Florida’s delegations remain unseated, there will be approximately 4,047 delegates at the August Democratic convention, making 2,024 the magic number for either candidate. Right now, Obama has 1,631 (including superdelegates), to Clinton’s 1,499—a difference of 132 delegates. And in the officially meaningless but symbolically important cumulative popular vote, Obama leads Clinton by just over two points—a margin that is basically cut in half when Florida is included.

This is—easily—the tightest Democratic nominating contest in the modern primary era. Never before has a race lasted this long without one candidate building an overwhelming advantage in delegates, popular votes, or both. And in none of those previous contests did the second-place candidate hear such loud and early calls to exit the race.

Take 1984, the last time a Democratic race stretched more than a few primaries without a clear winner emerging. The calendar was more spread out back then, but at this point in that year’s Gary Hart-Walter Mondale fight—that is, at the point in the primary process when about 75 percent of all delegates had been awarded—Mondale had amassed a seemingly insurmountable edge over Hart, 1,518 delegates to 886, with 339 officially uncommitted and 303 for Jesse Jackson. That left Mondale just 451 delegates from that year’s magic number, with primaries in big states like New Jersey and California still remaining. It was clear that he would either hit that number or come within inches of it on the last day of primaries in early June, in which case he’d only need a handful of superdelegates to go over the top. (It was the latter scenario that ended up playing out.)

But despite trailing by well over 600 delegates, the calls for Hart to withdraw were muted at best. He also lagged behind in the popular vote, a metric that didn’t receive nearly as much attention (and that wasn’t as easily calculated) in ’84, by about 500,000 votes. His campaign pressed ahead, arguing that a strong finish would sway superdelegates and uncommitted delegates.

It was no different in 1980, when Ted Kennedy was walloped by Jimmy Carter in most primaries. But Kennedy won just enough big states to maintain a sense of viability. At this point in the ’80 race, Kennedy was nearly 1,000 delegates behind Carter. He, too, argued that a strong finish to the primary season would send uncommitted delegates, and those previously committed to Carter, stampeding his way. And like Hart, he faced no concerted effort to push him out of the race before the last primary in June.

Clinton is pursuing the same basic strategy as Hart and Kennedy did, except the deficit she faces is far less imposing. In fact, there is universal agreement that Obama will end the primary season short of the 2,024 delegates needed for a first ballot nomination, and that he—like Clinton—will rely on superdelegates to nudge him over the top. By contrast, it was clear at this point in 1980 that Carter would secure enough delegates in the primary process to win on the first ballot, and that Kennedy’s only hope was to pick off already-committed Carter delegates (there were no superdelegates back then). And in ’84, it was considered likely that Mondale would claim a first ballot majority in the primaries, although he ended up falling a few dozen delegates short (a problem he remedied with some frantic phone-calling to superdelegates the morning after the final primaries).

And yet Clinton is being forced to justify her continued candidacy in a way that Hart and Kennedy never had to. There are several explanations for this this. For one, our understanding of the process is far savvier now than it was a quarter-century ago, when an extended primary season was still a new phenomenon. This may explain why so much attention has been paid this year to the potential of superdelegates to overrule the “will of the people” (as expressed by the popular vote and the pledged delegate count), even though this issue was never really raised in ’84 and ’80.

And it is the currency of the “will of the people” argument that has transformed the role of the superdelegates. In ’84, it was not at all scandalous for Hart to suggest that he’d wrest the nomination from Mondale by convincing superdelegates and uncommitted delegates that he would make the best general election candidate—even after winning fewer votes and delegates than Mondale in the primaries. Making that argument in 2008, as Clinton is discovering, is far more controversial.

This means that Clinton is most likely doomed. She has no mathematical chance of surpassing Obama in the pledged delegate race and almost no shot at surpassing him in popular votes. Thus, she will almost certainly have no claim to the loyalties of the 300 or so superdelegates who will provide the winning.

But that doesn’t mean this is the time for Clinton to quit. She has won nearly as many votes and delegates as Obama, certainly enough to justify participating in the remaining nine primaries and caucuses. Maybe in that time she will catch him in popular votes. It’s not likely, but it could radically change the attitudes of superdelegates if it happened. Or maybe something else will happen. She and her supporters have earned the right to hang around and see.

If she does play out the string and—as expected—still comes up short in both key categories, there’s every reason to expect the uncommitted superdelegates will quickly flock to Obama as soon as the primary season ends. That's when it would be time for her to go.

Why quit in the 8th inning? or "It ain't over 'til it's over."

Lee McD — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 14:31:18 EDT

Bill Maher pointed out this week that, even as an Obama supporter, he wonders why the press & Obama supporters want Hillary to quit because neither Hillary nor Obama will get enough delegates to win. The superdelegates WILL DECIDE, so why is that she must get out of the race? However, I think other Obama people are not so realistic, but, rather, play the same old game of politics that the Obama campaign decries. The NY Times is a propos here:

"The Clinton campaign showed resolve in the face of the developments, rallying supporters and donors and enlisting prominent surrogates to fight back. Mrs. Clinton told aides that she would not be "bullied out" of the race.

In a conversation with two Democratic allies, she compared the situation to the "big boys" trying to bully a woman, according to interviews with them.

On the campaign trail, Mrs. Clinton said she was in the contest to stay.

"I believe that a spirited contest is good for the Democratic Party," Mrs. Clinton said in a late-afternoon news conference in northwestern Indiana, a few miles from Mr. Obama's house on the South Side of Chicago. "We will have a united party behind whoever that nominee is."

The NY Times, Endorsement of Obama Points Up Clinton Obstacles, March 29.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/29/us/politics/29dems.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

Race matters, but how?

Lee McD — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 17:48:55 EDT

I saw Obama's speech on race. I thought it was OK. It was not a defining moment in this campaign, or my political life. I've blogged about how I think it didn't change the dialogue or the dynamics of this campaign. In fact, I think he side-stepped the issue of Pastor Wright, relegating him to a few thoughts.

Yet, a predominant view of much of the (MS) media coverage has been to praise him for (ta da. . .) his HONESTY because he mentioned that his white grandmother said ("confessed") that she was afraid of black men on the street, because he mentioned his biracial background, and because he spoke about all the hues of his extended family.

Such talk to me is simply his story, his TRUE story. It doesn't make him a saint, it doesn't necessitate standing ovations, it doesn't mark a noted change in the discussion of race in this country. It's a story that many people share, in private, in small groups, at work, at the water-cooler, at (and BEFORE) family gatherings. This makes it just another story to tell over the 3 P's - pool, pizza, and a picher!.

I informed friends at a recent birthday bonfire at my parents' country home that my dad (who holds and espouses racist, sexist, xenophobic, and homophobic views) may make such remarks. True to his nature, he did, partly using the "n" word (nigger) to describe Obama, only to say "African American" at the last moment. I dont' share such views. In fact, I actively work to change those views and have little private or public tolerance for such. However, I don't deserve a medal, I don't deserve free time on tv, and I didn't change the nature of the discussion of race in this country. I simply told the truth and expressed my feelings and beliefs.

So, by the same token, why is Obama being held up (at least in some vocal circles) as a hero simply because he told a true and simple story.

World Class Change Maker

Lee McD — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 14:07:54 EDT

Change is not a new concept in America in 2008. I've long embraced and effected change, just as the Clintons - and many others - have done. The Clintons inspired people just as Obama does now. Have we forgotten the 92 election and the 96 re-election? The Clintons CONTINUE to inspire people. Hillary remains an agent of change, and is, in the words of Bill Clinton, "a world class change-maker." Obama does NOT have exclusive rights to being all about change. I believe it. I know it.

Go, Hillary, go!

Obama & Romney

Lee McD — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 12:16:20 EDT

Obama's speech today, much like Romney's much-touted speech on faith & religion, didn't do much to change the dialogue or the nature of the campaign.

Elton John's Concert for Hillary

Lee McD — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 17:39:41 EDT

March 17, 2008, 1:21 pm
The NY Times, The Caucus
Elton John Keys It Up for Clinton

By Michael Luo
Elton John Keys It Up for Clinton

Sir Elton John has a new Candle in the Wind.

Mr. John, the legendary British pop crooner who memorialized the late Princess Diana by rewriting the lyrics to his song, “Candle in the Wind,” will be holding a “one night only” solo concert on behalf of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential campaign on April 9 at Radio City Music Hall in New York.

The event, his first solo concert in New York since a 2000 appearance at Madison Square Garden, is a fundraiser for Mrs. Clinton. Tickets go on sale two days from now, with mezzanine seats going for $125 and orchestra seats for $250. For high-rollers who want to invest more in the campaign, there are also gold, platinum and diamond orchestra seats available for $500, $1,000 and $2,300.

Supporters who raise $10,000 or more for the concert will gain access to a private reception with Mr. John, Mrs. Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton.

Those on Mrs. Clinton’s e-mail list got a personal note this morning from Mr. John himself, in which he wrote: “There is nothing I like better than throwing a party for a good friend. Will you come out to support my friend Hillary Clinton at a special, one-night-only solo concert in New York? I promise this will be one night that you won’t want to miss.”

There seem to be all kind of potential anthems for Mrs. Clinton from Mr. John’s repertoire. Anyone for, “Saturday Night’s Alright for Fighting”? Or “Don’t Let the Sun Go Down on Me”? Perhaps more apt for the Pennsylvania primary season: “Philadelphia Freedom.”

How to Test a President

Lee McD — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 15:18:39 EDT

Final lines in this youtube video of Hillary are:

"The true test is not the speeches a president delivers; it's whether the president delivers on the speeches."

She continues to get everything right. Yes, she can. (credit to Obama . . .) and . . . YES SHE WILL.

Lee McD