John King of CNN objectively explained why the GOP wants to run against Obama!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on May 2, 2008 - 2:49am.
Rapid Response
Hello Everyone:
Here is the Anderson Cooper 360 transcript from Thursday, May 1 where John King of CNN objectively and credibly explained why the Republicans and the McCain campaign would rather run against Obama instead of Hillary right now:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0805/01/acd.01.html
ANDERSON COOPER 360 DEGREES
Crunch Time For Hillary and Barack; Smiley Face Killers?
Aired May 1, 2008 - 22:00 ET
ANDERSON COOPER, HOST: "John, is there any prevailing wisdom among Republicans whom -- whom they would rather face, a potentially polarizing Hillary Clinton or an Obama with new baggage that they can play off?
JOHN KING, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: That's the biggest change in this election.
Back at the beginning of the year, Anderson, there was no doubt Republicans wanted Hillary Clinton. They thought, if nothing else, she would motivate the Republican base. Now, more and more, including inside the McCain campaign, they think, especially in the key states that decide who gets to be president in a key election, that they want Barack Obama.
And let me tell you why with a number and an anecdote. In the past month, Hillary Clinton's support among white blue-collar working- class people has gone up 10 points. You don't need a rocket scientist to understand why that has happened.
And, number, two in focus groups -- I talked to Whit Ayres -- he's a Republican pollster -- today. In focus groups, they often try word association to see what message might move a voter. When they say now in these working-class groups in Tennessee and other rural areas in America, when they say Barack Obama, they say, more and more, the response from voters is Jeremiah Wright."
John King in my opinion is very objective and credible when he reports on a topic. Here is his credible explanation about How Hillary won in Pennsylvania which is relevant to his explanation above:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/15365
TRANSCRIPT: John King of CNN broke down the map to show how Hillary won in PA!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on April 25, 2008 - 4:02am.
Dana Bash of CNN who is also objective and credible in my opinion reported that the McCain campaign "are beginning to think that Hillary Clinton would be a much more formidable opponent at this point than Barack Obama is:"
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0804/22/se.01.html
CNN LIVE EVENT/SPECIAL
Tracking Results and Predicting Outcomes for the Battle for Pennsylvania
Aired April 22, 2008 - 19:00 ET
DANA BASH, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: "But there's an interesting kind of addendum I think to this whole gaming it out inside the McCain camp and that is while they do think, and they have concluded that this Democratic race going on actually does help John McCain, they are saying that if Hillary Clinton actually pulls it out ultimately, and does win the Democratic nomination, they are starting to think, looking at various things with regard to the map and with regard to the kind of Democratic voters she can pulling her way in thighs primary contests, they actually are beginning to think that Hillary Clinton would be a much more formidable opponent at this point than Barack Obama is..."
Wolf Blitzer of CNN brought up these credible polls on Thursday, May 1 to show that Hillary is running much stronger than Obama is in three key battleground states:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0805/01/sitroom.03.html
THE SITUATION ROOM
Governor Mike Easley Says Clinton 'Can Deliver'; The Electability Argument; Iranian Government Responds to Hillary Clinton
Aired May 1, 2008 - 18:00 ET
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: "All right, Jack, let's talk about the battleground states, some of them, at least -- Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania. There's a new Quinnipiac University poll that shows these hypothetical match-ups -- snapshots right now that may not necessarily mean much in November. But right now, superdelegates are paying attention.
In Florida, Hillary Clinton would beat McCain 49-41. Obama would slightly lose -- 44 McCain, 43 for Obama.
Let's go to Ohio right now. Clinton beats McCain in that battleground state 48-38. Obama, once again, slightly lose, 43-42 percent.
In Pennsylvania, they both do well against McCain. Hillary does, better 51-37, Obama 47-38.
If you're a superdelegate, should you be paying attention to electability in battleground states -- Electoral College states that could make the difference between the White House or not come November?"
The answer to that question is a very strong "Yes" as far as I am concerned!
The superdelegates in my opinion are very seriously risking political suicide IF they give the nomination to Obama because the evidence very clearly shows that he is probably NOT electable in the general election under normal circumstances. Obama would more than likely need to get some kind of a very lucky break to happen in his favor in order to win:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/15297
Hillary said Obama is electable; How even I or Mickey Mouse could be electable!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on April 18, 2008 - 4:45am.
Why in the world would the superdelegates give the nomination to Obama when they know that he is a damaged candidate, when they know that he does not understand how to fight back against the GOP attack machine which will steamroll over him IF he is the nominee just like how they did to John Kerry in 2004, and when even Obama's own supporters admit that he is weak in debates?
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/15393
ANALYSIS: Reasons why Jeremiah Wright may cripple or even end Obama's campaign!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on April 29, 2008 - 4:52am.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/15387
Obama's own speech shows he has no concept about how to fight back IF nominated!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on April 28, 2008 - 5:16am.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/15340
Obama supporter Jamal Simmons said "Debates are just not his particular forte"
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on April 22, 2008 - 3:13am.
I will definitely NOT waste a minute of my time doing anything to help Obama in the general election IF he is the nominee because there is absolutely NOTHING I can see that I can do to help an unelectable candidate:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/15112
Two reasons why I will NOT lift a finger to help Obama IF he is the nominee!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on March 26, 2008 - 6:00am.
I think that there are many other Clinton supporters who probably also feel the same way:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/15327
POLLS: Democratic unity will be very hard to achieve after this primary is over!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on April 20, 2008 - 11:59pm.
The bottom line in my opinion is that the superdelegates need to very clearly understand that change is only change IF a candidate can get elected so Obama will NOT be able to change anything if he cannot get elected just like how John Kerry could not change anything after he lost to Bush in 2004!
Mitch Dworkin
http://www.securingamerica.com/
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/10756
StopIranWar.com: "War is not the answer"
Submitted by Wes Clark on February 21, 2007 - 11:40am.
http://www.securingamerica.com/ccn/node/7191
Listen to Gen. Wes Clark fight for Dems on Sean Hannity's radio program: An excellent example for all of us to follow and what we all need to be doing to help fight back against extreme right wing Neocon smear propaganda!
quickly proclaimed the winner or it's just something the commentators throw out there. I listened to the above exchange, and I've heard Gergen several times during this campaign season. I always get the impression that he's ill prepared for the discussion--and he's not the only one. It's like some of these pundits live in an O-bubble. No matter how well Hillary does, the same tired drumbeat continues. Does anyone ever suggest that OBAMA should drop out? He's mired in scandal, he's failing with the white working class, his poll numbers against McCain are tanking--and does hardly anyone on CNN or MSNBC take notice? I was also pleasantly surprised to hear John King state that the Repubs want BO. But, of course, the other commentators continued with the same old mantra. The anchors and reporters clearly state that Hillary is climbing in nearly all the polls, and yet most of the pundits--except on Fox--respond as though they didn't hear the numbers. I wonder--did they?
as I have credibly documented:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/15388
My answer to the pundits who are saying the race is over and that Obama has won!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on April 28, 2008 - 6:32am.
The superdelegates probably know that there will be a huge price to pay from the biased pundits in the media such as Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, and Jack Cafferty if they do what is in the best interest of the country and vote to give the nomination to Hillary based on the fact that she is far more tested, proven, and electable than Obama is!
While certainly no commentator is perfect, I have always respected David Gergen as being credible when he reports about what he hears people saying. That is why I was very alarmed when I heard him say about the superdelegates last night "look, we can't go the other way. Let's just go ahead and go for Barack. We know it's a risk. But let's go for it and we will fight it out..."
If the superdelegates knuckle under to racial and media pressure and vote for Obama even when they "know it's a risk," then the 2008 election is over as far as I am concerned. It is the job of the superdelegates to responsibly vote their true consciences as opposed to what is just politically convenient for them at the moment!
My old-timers has the better of me this morning, but one website has a running banner of the probable electoral totals with either Hillary or Obama vs McCain. Hillary wins handily, Obama looses handily. Why can't we brake through to the electorate and super delegates?
But with all the wool-pulling going on by MSNBC and many of the CNN pundits, you could easily think they don't. Commentators continue to harp that BO is the clear winner, that the supers will jump on board en masse any day now, that Hillary will drop out if she doesn't win IN, etc. They're trying to shout so loudly that we can't hear ourselves think. It's like magical thinking--keep screaming that it's so, and maybe it will become so. They almost totally ignore upcoming primaries like WV and KY that represent the Reagen-Democrat, middle-of-the-road electorate, where Hillary is burying Obama. All they want to mention now is NC, where of course the black vote is buoying BO. Does that impress most of those aforementioned voters in WV and KY? Yes, I would say--negatively! I keep reminding myself what superdelegate/commentator Donna Brazile said--that she will be voting with her head, though her heart is elsewhere. I've listened to her remarks many times on CNN, and it always seemed to me that she was defending BO. At one point she even angrily declared that she would leave the party (then later mitigated to step down as super) if the nomination were taken away from the person who led in pledged-delegate vote. Where would anyone think her "heart" is?
many of the SD's are politicians - and there's no loyalty in politics - or conscience, either. They'll vote depending on which way the wind is blowing, who gives them the most money, and who promises them the most favors. Sad, but true, that's the way of politics, both dem and repub. And we're stuck with the system until the revolution. :)
Reading The Shock Doctrine, I see where the majority of the takeovers, etc. by the elite moneyed corporations assisted by our shameless excuse for a government, have ended in failure. Basically due to the "people" who just wouldn't put up with it. The same has to happen here or we'll continue on being a nation of sheep. I see some signs of hope as many people are finally telling the MSM and the "knowledgeable" pundits to shove it. "We'll decide, not you." However there's much more to do.
We're electing the President of the United States, not some g.d. prom king.
to vote for Obama regardless of his qualifications and his lack of electability as a candidate:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/35516.html
Will black voters stay home if Obama loses nomination?
By David Lightman and William Douglas | McClatchy Newspapers
Posted on Thursday, May 1, 2008
INDIANAPOLIS — "Many black voters are making it very clear: They're concerned that Barack Obama is going to be denied the Democratic presidential nomination that they see as rightfully his, and if that happens, a lot of them may stay home in November.
"It would hurt me not to vote," said Charles Clark, an Indianapolis retiree. He's thinking about leaving the presidential box on his ballot blank this fall if Hillary Clinton is the Democrats' nominee.
"There was a heck of a push made so blacks could vote. I know that," he said. "But it would also be very unfair if they pushed Barack Obama to the side..."
This is definitely putting racial pressure on the superdelegates to vote for Obama as an Affirmative Action Presidential candidate in my opinion!
Most of the media mainly focuses on that. They should also report much more that Obama will have just as hard of a time getting support from many of Hillary's supporters who do not think that he is qualified to be President as Hillary will have getting support from many of Obama's supporters over the race issue:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/15327
POLLS: Democratic unity will be very hard to achieve after this primary is over!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on April 20, 2008 - 11:59pm.
There are no easy answers to this dilemma in my opinion BUT both sides of it should be equally reported. Nearly all of the news about this issue should NOT be something like "Will black voters stay home if Obama loses nomination?"
"Will women stay home if Hillary is shoved out of the race?"
They're taking women for granted - AGAIN. Many women, epecially older women, thought of this race as "Hillary's turn." This it the ultimate "second act" scenario. We've all seen it, although it used to be a lot more common. Woman puts her career on hold for her husband and kids, but the kids leave and then it's her turn. Just seeing how Hillary has blossomed as a senator, let alone a presidential candidate, has been amazing - but it's also poignant, that that brilliant mind, strong leadership and passion had to disguise itself in the tasteful navy-blue suits and pearls we demand of our First Ladies. I honestly don't know how she didn't crack up from sheer frustration.
And now that it is finally "her turn" - she's being pressured, strong-armed, baited and ordered to step aside - for a guy fifteen years younger, with less experience, less electability, less credibility, and, frankly, less inner strength and fortitude. Fortunately, she's ignoring them. Thank God.
The message, however, that the Democratic Party is coming perilously close to sending women is: It will never be your turn. Pay your dues, invest your money, your time, your soul, your self - and thanks, by the way - but when you are the next one in line, the best candidate - well, we were just kidding, and you know, you are getting kind of OLD and SHOPWORN, and there's this fabulous young guy over there who is young and charming....
If I didn't think Hillary was the best candidate, I'd say, fine, let her drop out. But she IS. The best candidate - AND the one "next in line" is a woman. We owe it to our country to nominate her. Period.
is an excellent question that you will not hear from most of the biased media!
That especially goes for that idiot Keith Olbermann who made this insulting comment about Hillary's candidacy last Tuesday at the introduction of his program:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24386638/
'Countdown with Keith Olbermann' for Tuesday, April 29
Read the transcript to the Tuesday show
Guests: Richard Wolffe, Emily Heil, E.J. Dionne
KEITH OLBERMANN, HOST: "Senator Clinton‘s quixotic quest for a nomination she cannot straightforwardly win continues..."
but I the more I read and hear, it seems like many of the Super Ds and much of the Dem leadership are dead set against a Clinton White House. Even if they can see and know O! is a risk and most likely will lose the GE, it seems like for right now at least, they are more concerned with stopping the Clintons from gaining power (why? does it diminish their own power?) than they are with actually winning the GE.
So much of the lefty blogosphere, that is also based on hating Hillary, just will not open their eyes to O!'s liabilities and the wealth of data out there to sink him against McCain. Usually the Repubs would have to make stuff up about the Dem candidate -- with O! they can just make known his shady Chicago ties, the way he was chosen and propped up to get where he did politically, not even getting in to his slick campaign tactics in which he convinced much of his AA base that the Clinton's are racists. The guy is such toast if he's the nominee, that I will never, ever forgive the Dem Party for putting us in this position, and throwing the Repubs another 4 years to continue the destruction of our country.
I also will never forgive or forget that O! used the race card to smear another Dem, which in my opinion is totally unforgivable. To say nothing of how he has lumped the Clinton presidency in with the Repubs, as if there was no difference! The guy is total slime.
Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.
will never forgive the party. I think the foolishness among some of the Dem elite, though, has more to do with affirmative action than with Clintonphobia. And I believe the race card was played by the BO folk to give an excuse to black voters who threw Hillary over to support Obama simply because of his ethnicity. I hear them calling in to Washington Journal nearly every morning, offering a smorgesbord of reasons they no longer like either Hillary or Bill. They're racists, they maintain, or liars, or "they had their chance". They sometimes even insist that BO has already won or that the Clintons want to "move the goal post". I have to wonder if they're getting talking points from talk radio. And while so many of the pundits argue that Obama must be nominated because not to do so will lose the black vote, I never hear anyone on TV argue that doing so might lose the working-class white vote. The Dems must have the latter to win against McCain!
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0805/02/sitroom.01.html
THE SITUATION ROOM
Public: Things are Going Badly; Dems' Big Push on Gas Prices; Interview With Congressman Ron Paul
Aired May 2, 2008 - 16:00 ET
WHIT AYRES, REPUBLICAN POLLSTER: "We have been doing a lot of focus groups with blue-collar whites in swing states. They're open to voting for Hillary Clinton, but there's no way on God's green earth they're going to vote for Barack Obama. They will vote for John McCain instead. So, reaching out to those people we used to call Reagan Democrats is a very smart strategy for John McCain..."
Again, Hillary can win these voters that Obama cannot win:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0805/04/le.01.html
CNN LATE EDITION WITH WOLF BLITZER
Interview With Governors Richardson, Easley; Interview With Senator Graham
Aired May 4, 2008 - 11:00 ET
JOHN KING: "We're going to learn what Barack Obama is made of here. Because all of these controversies, cumulatively -- the Jeremiah Wright, other controversies; now the whose side are you on, on the gas tax, are hurting him. If you look at Democratic polling -- I spoke to Republicans this week who are doing focus groups in rural, white swing-voting areas. They say that people now view Barack Obama -- sometimes they do mention Jeremiah Wright when they play word association at a focus group: You say Barack Obama; what do you say first?
But they're also saying, more and more, they view him as culturally out of touch with them. That has been a huge problem for the Democratic Party -- Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, John Kerry. So he needs to change the dynamic. He has time if he gets this nomination, but there's a big test for him..."
all along that Reagan-Dems will swoon at the feet of ANY politician espousing (scary)change and bringing them all together with people like John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, and William Ayers. Somehow, the bleeding hearts have believed they can shove BO down the throats of the common people, and of course they succeeded in doing so in the caucuses. Well, the Dems should realize that the great experiment is not working and will, without any doubt, lead to a disaster in November! And John King is definitely a shining star among all the darkness at CNN. I always listen to his post-election demographic analyses. He's interested in the truth, not making up tall tales to explain away BO's failings.
It should not be a surprise who Drudge and the GOP want to run against!
MSNBC's Russert: 'We Now Know Who the Nominee Will Be' (01:24)
THE NOMINEE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lklfIPBK4Zg
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0805/08/ldt.01.html
LOU DOBBS TONIGHT
Clinton Continues Striving for the Nomination; Bold Challenge by Drug Cartels: Top Mexican Federal Police Official Assassinated; Are Michigan and Florida Votes Still up For Debate?
Aired May 8, 2008 - 19:00 ET
STEVE MALZBERG, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: "But the interesting thing here is for Republicans and conservatives like me, the good news is Obama cannot win the general election..."
This is NOT "good news" for Democrats which hopefully the superdelegates will understand BEFORE they cast their final votes for the nominee!
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0805/01/acd.01.html
ANDERSON COOPER 360 DEGREES
Crunch Time For Hillary and Barack; Smiley Face Killers?
Aired May 1, 2008 - 22:00 ET
DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: "Having said that, there's no question that, in an election year when the Democrats ought to be at least 10 points ahead of the Republicans on the head and head, and it's a dead heat, that suggests that this -- these -- these fights over -- these squabbles over the last few weeks, all the different controversies, are really costing both Democrats. And it's got Democrats deeply worried.
That's why so many of the superdelegates want to get this over and why they say...
ANDERSON COOPER, HOST: Yes.
GERGEN: ... look, we can't go the other way. Let's just go ahead and go for Barack. We know it's a risk. But let's go for it and we will fight it out..."
It would be highly irresponsible in my opinion for the superdelegates to knowingly take this huge risk of just giving the nomination to Obama only to end the primary contest when Hillary is clearly the strongest candidate and when so much is on the line in this election!
The superdelegates would NOT be acting in anyone's best interest by doing that in my opinion and I would absolutely refuse to support their decision!