The Moderate Liberal

“If Sen. Obama can’t win a big, swing state like Pennsylvania with his enormous spending advantage, just what will it take for him to win a big, swing state?” asked Howard Wolfson, Clinton’s chief spokesman.

To that, I would respond: 

“If Sen. Clinton can’t win big in a state where she’s had a 20 year head start, and having the name recognition that come along with being a first lady and married to an ex-President, and with her support eroding from a 25 point advantage to a stastical tie, and if she can’t raise the money to compete, how will she possibly beat McCain in November?”

Clinton’s campaign is in debt, possibly showing why she has become so negative. There’s nothing left in her arsenal against Obama. As usual, as Obama gets close to the goal line, Clinton tries to move it back another 10 yards.

Clinton has been outspent 3 to 1 in Pennsylvania, and her campaign is in deep debt. She has been lashing out that Obama must beat her by a huge margin to show that he can spend more and win.

I would argue the converse: if Clinton can’t raise money and if a 20 year political lead can evaporate so quickly, how can she explain to super delegates that she should be the nominee? 

The truth is that Clinton has had a 20 year head start in Pennsylvania.  She had this “firewall” all locked up with a 20 point lead.  Of course Obama needed to spend more in Pennsylvania in order to define himself. And as people have come to know him, Clinton’s lead has evaporated. 

Obama is the better choice. He is truly the candidate of change. 

I expect Pennsylvanians will echo this sentiment tomorrow, after which Clinton must resign.

Clinton is still at it. Twisting a sentence out of context from a Barak Obama speech about a bitter white middle class, she once again shows why she absolutely leave this race.  She is out of material, now only able to invent non-issues out of non-comments.  Is this all she’s got?  Is this Clinton’s main issue?  Because it appears that her main contribution is not to discussing ideas, but rather to tear apart the Democratic party.

Clinton the divider will seize upon any opportunity to destroy a perceived enemy, right down to spewing lies and inventing non-existent issues. What Clinton is trying to do is destroy Obama, at any cost. In the process she is destroying her own already-failed candidacy, and the Democratic party. 

This is why party elders must take her out, now.  John Edwards, get involved!  Al Gore and Jimmy Carter, step up!  Howard Dean, wake the hell up!

The truth is, the middle class is bitter.  And Hillary Clinton, already a confirmed elitist, is not our champion.

Meanwhile, John McCain rises in the polls.

The Clinton camp just can’t get their lies straight.  It would be funny, were it not so serious.  Here’s just the latest instance of the Clinton’s getting caught with their pants down; in this case it was Bill again.

Read here how Bill Clinton is caught telling lies about the lies his wife was telling on the campaign trail.

In their quest to steal the nomination from Barak Obama, Clintonista’s never cease to amaze me.  The bitch-du-jour comes from Sean Wilentz, writing in Salon.com as he makes his “case” for why Clinton should be the nominee.

In a nutshell, he blames the “convoluted” nomination process of the Democratic party. You see, if the rules were different, then Clinton would have received all the delegates for the states that she “won.”  This would put her ahead in the delegate count, and thereby make her the queen of the nomination.

Bull crap, Mr. Wilentz (or Ms. Wilentz).

It is a fools erand to wax philosophical about such a nonsensical scenario. If the rules had been different going into this nomination process, then Obama would have organized a strategy around those rules. Your scenario is ridiculous and contributes nothing to the process.

The Clintonistas love to say that because Obama didn’t win Texas (uh… actually he did win Texas. Read yesterday’s post) and some other “big” states, that somehow Obama can not ever win these states as the nominee. It presumes that all Clinton supporters are going to run out and vote for McCain.  Its the most ridiculous lard I have ever heard.

In their desperation to win this nomination, the Clinton camp is engaged in a slash-and-burn smear campaign against Obama.  Unsurprisingly, it has not stuck to Obama, and the fan seems to have back splattered on Clinton.

You have to read this.

I love it.  The Obama camp is being criticized by McCain because Ed Schultz, a liberal talk radio host, had the gall to call out McCain on his “warmongering.”  Schultz has no part in Obama’s campaign, and does not speak for the campaign.

With all of the conservative criticism of Liberal Talk Radio, why should McCain even bother?

The Obama camp’s reaction was predictable. A spokesperson said, “”John McCain is not a warmonger and should not be described as such. He’s a supporter of a war that Senator Obama believes should have never been authorized and never been waged,” she said.

To me, those comments sound like the pot calling the kettle a warmonger.

The truth hurts, and McCain knows it.Truth is, he is a warmonger. Schultz should stick to his guns. His label of McCain is accurate.

Moments ago, John Edwards said in Las Vegas that he would not accept the Vice Presidential spot on either an Obama or Clinton presidential ticket. 

I’ve always thought John Edwards would make a fantastic Attorney General, or Supreme Court Justice. It is easy to see one of those positions in Mr. Edward’s future.

Still unspoken is Edward’s endorsement.  John, for the good of America, please put an end to Clinton’s campaign and lets get on with the business of retaking America. Its clear that Obama’s campaign has more in common with your goals than Clinton’s.  Please endorse Obama soon.

The Clinton camp is continuing to say that “won” Texas. The truth is, according to Associated Press, Obama has won Texas.  The results of Texas’ two-step primary/caucus system only became recently known. Although Clinton initially claimed victory in Texas because the results of the primary were known quickly, in fact she has lost in total number of delegates: 99 for Obama, and 94 for Clinton.

It must be a terrible shock for Clinton, whose husband once said that she had to win in Texas, or her campaign was over. We will take Mr. Clinton at his word.

This is simply more proof, as if we needed any, that Clinton must resign for the good of the party and the nation. 

Elizabeth Edwards, aparently tired of not seeing the issues discussed that are important to her and millions of other Americans, has decided to directly take on Rebuplican candidate John McCain’s health care proposal (or lack thereof).  Read it here.

Elizabeth’s action begs the question: where the hell is John Edwards?  Why hasn’t he come out and endorsed Obama, so that the Democratic Party can move on with the business of defeating McCain? Yes, Hillary has every right to continue… blah, blah.  But while she is delaying the inevitable, Rush Limbaugh’s “Operation Chaos” campaign is clearly in full swing.

Elizabeth, respectfully, if you want to hear more substantitive debates in the presidential political discourse then please ask John to  throw his support and 18 delegates to Obama. Tell John to demand Hillary to step out of the race.  If you must, then also tell John, ‘No sex’ until he endorses Obama!

John Edwards did the right thing three months ago by stepping out of the contest and making a serious horse race out of what might have been a coronation.

Its now time for John Edwards to do the right thing again by endorsing Obama.  Do right by us, John! You always have.