Tag Archives: Hillary Clinton

OK, About That Election…

As for election news in California, the final two polls have been wildly divergent.  SurveyUSA shows a 10-point Clinton lead, while Reuters/Zogby has a 13-point Obama lead.  The final Field Poll (the gold standard, as everyone knows) went with a one-point lead to Obama two-point lead to Clinton, almost exactly in the middle.

Of course, this only tells part of the story, as Marc Ambinder picked up on my caveat that the district-level delegate system will skew the results, particularly in those even-numbered districts, where a high bar is needed to be scaled to get anything beyond an even split of delegates.  And if you expect an early answer about them, think again:

So much for having a hard delegate count on Super Tuesday, we’re hearing that CA Dems won’t have final delegate tally ready until Friday.

Debra Bowen’s mantra has been that she’d rather get the count right than get it fast, so everyone’s going to have to wait.  I think it’s a small price to pay for voting with a paper ballot.  By the way, DTS voters, fill that bubble!

The Cook Political Report did the same district-level analysis that I did yesterday, and found a considerably larger amount of variance.  Cook thinks that Clinton can get over the 63% bar in those heavily-Latino districts (I’m not so sure).  I understand that the 6-delegate seats require 58.3% of the vote to get a 4-2 split, which seems to me to be possible in Barbara Lee’s CA-09 and Nancy Pelosi’s CA-08, so Obama could be in an even stronger position than I thought.  And as Councilman Garcetti said last night, they are paying attention to this stuff, on both sides I would imagine.

Finally, we have somewhat neglected the Republican race.  The chic pick is that Romney has come all the way back and will take California.  John McCain is apparently worried about it, since it would mean that Romney has an argument to stay in the race.  Both candidates scurried back here today for extra bits of campaigning.

And yet McCain’s people fear he may lose the popular vote in California to Romney — even if they haul in the same number of CA delegates — and that the Super Tuesday story will therefore NOT be the crowning of McCain but rather his failure to put away the game, a failure born of his fractious and sometimes unloving relationship with conservatives, especially those millions of conservatives who listen to and abide by Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, not to mention Limbaugh and Hannity themselves, and a failure that in turn will be viewed as both a symptom and a cause of the historic crack-up of the conservative coalition that has sustained and nourished the Republican Party for a couple generations.

Which would be fantastic, since it would be desirable for their race to be as screwed up as ours.  Could the relentless Rush Limbaugh attacks be having an impact?  We’ll soon find out.

UPDATE: Harold Meyerson has further thoughts, and they’re good.

Super Tuesday in San Diego

OK, I’m up and ready to rock. Not entirely sure what sort of trouble I’m gonna kick up today, but at least some of it should be interesting.  I’ll be cruising parts of North County with CA-50 candidate Nick Leibham and I’ll be watching at least some of the results at Drinking Liberally San Diego.  There’s another results party hosted by the San Diego Dems in Hillcrest and the Young Dems will be following along in PB at The Shore Club.  So if I can stick to tonic for a while, I might just hop a bit.

In the meantime, snapshots (literal and rhetorical) from polling places around town, any interesting media reports, probably at least one stop at Hillcrest Mardi Gras which has its own results tent (“Cast your vote before you come to the party, then watch the Primary Voting Results in the Mardi Gras Election Tent.”> and…hell I don’t know what else.  Feel free to make suggestions.  But while you’re at it, check in with your own experiences. We’ll try to keep things updated regularly all day and night.

Update 6:58am: Governor Schwarzenegger and McCain will be at a San Diego rally at 1pm. Hangar at Jim’s Air Aviation 2904 Pacific Highway.  Governor at 1pm, McCain newsconference at 1:50pm. Obama‘s campaign will watch results starting at 8pm at East Village Tavern and Bowl (which I love).  Romney folks will be at the Westgate Hotel starting at 8pm in tandem with the official SDGOP party.  And finally, Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner will be at SDGOP headquarters today and “available” as president of the No on 93 Campaign. (h/t Capitol Morning Report).

Update 7:33am: Arrived at the polling place around 7:10.  Light turnout, about 5 people ahead of me in line, same number arrived while I was voting.  Precinct head said that something like half the precinct had already voted by mail. I assume that was exaggerated, but given the turnout, who knows.  If there’s more (relatively) early voting, that would likely benefit Clinton.  Or my experience could be entirely anecdotal.  Or I might have been lied to.  And check out the bad picture of Ron Paul signs across the street from the polling place.  Pretty slick. yeah.

Update 8:58am: I’m cribbing some wifi from the UTC Apple Store.  Touring North County polling places with Leibham is at least temporarily on hold as they’ve discovered the realities involved in trying to meet and greet in a congressional district with a ton of permanent absentees and over 1000 polling places- the people aren’t exactly congregating.  Other stuff may come up still, and if nothing else I’ll swing by the McCain event and the parties later.

Update 10:39am: MSNBC just reported that hundreds of people are trying to vote in Virginia only to discover that, surprise, the Virginia primary is next week.  Can I renounce my home state now?

LIVE: Deadheads for Barack Obama – San Francisco Reunion Concert

Barack Obama’s endorsement by the Grateful Dead showed the extent to which he is bringing voters out of the woodwork. Typically in campaigns, you start with 1/3 supporting your side, 1/3 supporting the other side, and 1/3 ready to be convinced. The middle is the battleground (unless you buy into the DLC playbook of pissing off the base to try and win over the other side’s base, which is why no Clinton has won 50% nationwide). The other option is to not buy into the voter pool as a zero net sum game and bring in new people. To date, Barack Obama has excelled at expanding the pool and bringing in young voters and first time voters and boosting turnout.

When it comes to the Grateful Dead, it is almost a joke when it comes to getting Deadheads to care about politics. It might be the least friendly demographic for increasing participation in electoral politics. The Dead didn’t step up against Nixon or any other major threat to America since. But they have been inspired by Barack Obama to come together for a reunion concert to Get Out The Vote. I’m proud to be there and will be updating below the fold, you can listen to a Live stream here (beginning at 7:30 pacific + Dead time).

Deadheads for Barack Obama

Talk about contrast. Hillary’s event was a huge pain to get media credentials. Top down, the was seating for less than 100 stanch supporters as part of a simulcast in dozens of cities with her endorsers. Meanwhile, Obama’s grassroots campaign inspired the Dead to get back together and they sold out the Warfield for Obama in less than twenty minutes.

It is now 45 minutes past the start and hundreds are still waiting in line while the bar is stacked five deep.  

Pics from the venue will be found here.

Clinton events highlighted by the Big City Mayors

The Clinton campaign will host “Voices Across America” town hall rally for US Sen. Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. 4 p.m., Ferry Building. In LA, it's led by Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, 4:30 p.m., Pico House.

UPDATE: Bob got some photos, as you can see some here. It looks like they got plenty of media coverage. Pres. Bill Clinton is scheduled to appear on that big screen about now. Townhall now on HillaryClinton.com.

Over the flip, you'll catch the photo he picked up on the way to the event and a few more pics of the event.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Plouffe lowers the Obama expectations

In an effort to decrease the expectations, and increase the momentum, Senator Barack Obama’s campaign manager has released a memo (over the flip) highlighting all the reasons he is going to lose. Senator Clinton has been in the state longer, has both big city Democratic mayors and the Speaker of the Assembly, and leads national polls.

At this point, this might be a wild ride to Denver, with both candidates trying to amass delegates. Fun! Check the flip for the letter.

February 4, 2008

To: Interested Parties

From: David Plouffe

RE: Putting Tomorrow into Perspective

Two weeks ago, a Clinton campaign adviser told CBS News that they believed they could “wrap up” the nomination on February 5th. As the “inevitable” national frontrunner, tomorrow should be the day when she sews up the nomination or builds a formidable delegate lead. But because of Obama’s growing momentum across the country, the Clinton campaign is now unlikely to reach their stated goals of wrapping up the nomination tomorrow.

Senator Clinton is certainly the favorite on February 5, given the huge leads she has held in many of these contests throughout the course of the campaign and the political, historical and geographic advantages she enjoys in many of these states.

For example, California, which Clinton led by 25 points in October and 12 points two weeks ago, was once seen as the Clinton campaign’s firewall and where they planned to run up an insurmountable lead in delegates. Former Governor Gray Davis, a Clinton supporter, said on MSNBC last week, “I am pleased to be for Hillary Clinton and I expect her to do very well in Super Tuesday. I expect her to win California by a sizable amount, at least double digits, do well in New York and New Jersey and Connecticut.”

Based on her huge head start, Hillary Clinton should still win California, but is unlikely to achieve her goal of getting a sizeable share of the delegates.

Our path to the nomination never factored in a big day for us on February 5. Rather, we always planned to stay close enough in the delegate count so that we could proceed to individually focus on the states in the next set of contests.

We fully expect Senator Clinton to earn more delegates on February 5th and also to win more states. If we were to be within 100 delegates on that day and win a number of states, we will have met our threshold for success and will be best positioned to win the nomination in the coming months.

A performance that exceeds those benchmarks, while unlikely, would put is in a surprisingly strong position heading into the rest of the February contests.

While the Clinton campaign is furiously trying to spin the expectations game, it is important to look at where they were in some of the key states just a few weeks ago.

ALABAMA

Less Than Two Weeks Before February 5th, Clinton Led Alabama By 15 Points. According to polling done by Rasmussen released on January 25, Clinton led Obama by 15 points, 43% to 28%. [Rasmussen, 1/25/08]

ARIZONA

Less Than Two Weeks Before February 5th, Clinton Led Arizona Obama By 21 Points. According to a poll done for the Arizona Republic that was released on January 23, Clinton led Obama 45% to 24%. [Arizona Republic, 1/23/08]

CONNECTICUT

Hartford Courant: Two Weeks Before February 5th, Clinton Led Connecticut By 14 Points. According to polling done for the Hartford Courant released on January 20, Clinton led Obama by 14 points, 41% to 27%. [Hartford Courant, 1/20/08]

DELAWARE

October 2007 Poll Found Clinton Leading Obama By 24 Points. According to polling done by Farleigh Dickinson that was released on October 10, Clinton led Obama by 24 points, 41% to 17%. [Fairleigh Dickinson, 10/10/07]

GEORGIA

In December 2007, Clinton Led Georgia By 7 Points. According to polling done by Strategic Vision released on December 12, Clinton led Obama by 7 points, 34% to 27%. [Strategic Vision, 1/22/07]

MASSACHUSETTS

Survey USA: Two Weeks Before February 5th, Clinton Led Massachusetts By 37 Points. According to polling done by Survey USA released on January 24, Clinton led Obama by 37 points, 59% to 22%. [Survey USA, 1/24/08]

MINNESOTA

October Poll Found Clinton Leading Obama By 25 Points In Minnesota. According to polling done by Mason Dixon released on October 2, Clinton led Obama 47%-33%. [Star Tribune, 10/2/07]

MISSOURI

Less Than Two Weeks Before February 5th, Clinton Led Missouri By 19 Points. According to polling done by Rasmussen released on January 25, Clinton led Obama by 19 points, 43% to 24%. [Rasmussen, 1/25/08]

NEW YORK

Before February 5th, Clinton Led New York By 28 Points. According to polling done by USA Today and Gallup released on January 28, Clinton led Obama by 28 points, 56% to 28%. [Gallup, 1/28/08]

NEW JERSEY

Less Than Two Weeks Before February 5th, Clinton Led New Jersey By 17 Points. According to polling done by Quinnipiac released on January 22, Clinton led Obama by 17 points, 49% to 32%. [Quinnipiac, 1/23/08]

OKLAHOMA

Three Weeks Before February 5th, Clinton Led Oklahoma By 20 Points. According to polling done by Survey USA released on January 14, Clinton led Obama by 20 points, 45% to 25%. [Survey USA, 1/14/08]

TENNESSEE

Less Than One Week Before February 5th, Clinton Led Tennessee By 33 Points. According to polling done by Insider Advantage in Tennessee on January 30th, Clinton led Obama by 33 points, 59% to 26%. [Insider Advantage, 1/30/08]

The Junkie’s Guide To The California Primary

(Brian touched on the quirks of the primary process here; I ran the numbers.)

We hear a lot about the back and forth of the Democratic primary in California.  We hear about various campaign rallies, some of it useful and interesting.  Heck, I’ve written about them myself.  What I see less about is the actual nuts and bolts of the California election, and what its quirks will mean for the delegate counts for Obama or Clinton.  The AP came close the other day.

The Democratic rules provide for delegates to be awarded proportionately on the basis of the popular vote. It wasn’t always that way, but a change designed to weaken the control of party bosses was ushered in after the riotous Vietnam War-era 1968 convention […]

In a race with two equally matched rivals – Obama and Clinton are both running well-funded national campaigns – that tends to leave the winner of the popular vote with only a narrow delegate advantage over a loser who runs a strong race.

Multiply that across dozens of congressional districts – 53 in California – and predicting the winner of the delegate struggle is a virtual impossibility.

Then it gets harder.

For the Democrats, in a congressional district with three delegates, two go to the popular vote winner, and the loser gets the third as long as they win 15 percent of the popular vote.

But in a congressional district with four delegates, the winner and loser in a two-way race are likely to divide the spoils evenly. The winner must receive nearly 63 percent of the vote to get a 3-1 split in delegates, and 85 percent of the vote to win all four.

This is generally very true.  But the author neglects to mention that there are only two Congressional districts in California which offer 3 delegates.  The real prizes are the five-delegate districts, because the majority of the districts offer even-numbered delegates which almost guarantee an equal distribution.  And because of the particular breakdown of delegate allocation, Barack Obama actually has a built-in advantage in winning a majority of the delegates, regardless of the popular vote.

Here’s the list of delegate allocation in California.  As you can see, there are 370 pledged delegates up for grabs, and 241 of them will be pledged at the district level.  The other 129 will be allocated to candidates based on their share of the statewide vote.  Given what we know about the closeness of the race in California, I simply can’t see much more than a 10-point spread in that allocation.  So the other 241 from the district races will end up being a significant factor.

There are 26 districts which allocate four delegates, all of which are almost certain to split evenly among Clinton and Obama. Significantly, these include some of the most heavily Latino districts in the state, including CA-21 (Nunes), CA-31 (Becerra), CA-32 (Solis), CA-34 (Roybal-Allard), CA-38 (Napolitano), CA-39 (Linda Sanchez) and CA-43 (Baca).  Clinton’s perceived advantage among Latinos is neutralized by the high bar needed to cross to gather extra delegates in these districts.  The likely scenario is an even 52-52 split.

There are 6 districts which allocate 6 delegates, where it is still likely to be an even scenario, but where a strong showing could give a 4-2 split (I think a candidate would need close to 60% of the vote for that to happen).  These districts, the most Democratic in the state (the allocation is based on Democratic turnout in primaries), are CA-06 (Woolsey), CA-08 (Pelosi), CA-09 (Lee), CA-12 (Lantos), CA-14 (Eshoo) and CA-30 (Waxman).  As these are districts populated with liberals, and given that some of them are high-income (06, 08, 12, 30), they seem to trend toward Obama.  I think CA-09, Barbara Lee’s district serving heavily African-American Oakland as well as some other East Bay cities, offers the best chance for a 4-2 split.  Let’s say that Obama gets one of these.  The number is now 71-69 Obama.

As I said, there are two districts with 3 delegates: CA-20 (Costa) in the Central Valley, and CA-47 (Loretta Sanchez) in Orange County. (As an aside, this means that these two districts turn Democrats out to primaries at the lowest rates.  And they both have Democratic Congressmen.  Way to go, Bush Dogs!)  I project that CA-47 will go to Clinton, and think that CA-20 is up for grabs.  There are a decent amount of campesinos in that area, but rural districts in Nevada went strongly for Obama.  So let’s hold off on that for now.  The number is now 72-71 Obama, with 3 delegates outstanding.

Now we come to the real electoral prize: the 19 districts which offer 5 delegates.  There are quite a few advantages for Obama in these districts.  First, all three heavily African-American districts in Southern California are in this group: CA-33 (Watson), CA-35 (Waters) and CA-37 (Richardson).  Obama should be able to attract a majority here.  Then there are two districts in the far north of the state: CA-01 (Thompson) and CA-04 (Doolittle).  Based on how their Nevada neighbors voted, I project them to Obama.  Third, there are three districts in the Bay Area that fall into this category, and in the most recent Field Poll, Obama was stronger in the Bay Area than Southern California.  I expect him to take CA-07 (George Miller) and CA-13 (Stark), but lose CA-10 (Tauscher) because that’s a more suburban district.  That’s so far a 7-1 split for Obama.

Clinton’s strength is in the suburbs and in Southern California, as well as among Latinos.  But very few of those districts fall into this grouping.  There are three in the San Fernando Valley: CA-27 (Sherman), CA-28 (Berman) and CA-29 (Schiff).  But Adam Schiff has strongly endorsed Obama, and his Pasadena district is more liberal and upscale.  I see a 2-1 split for Clinton here.  NONE of the Orange County districts offer 5 delegates.

Going into the wild cards, we have 8 districts for Obama and 3 for Clinton.  The rest include CA-05 (Matsui) in the Sacramento area, CA-15 (Honda) in the San Jose area, CA-17 (Farr) in Monterey, CA-23 (Capps) in Santa Barbara, CA-36 (Harman) in the South Bay of Los Angeles, CA-50 (Bilbray) in the San Diego suburbs, and CA-53 (Davis) in San Diego.  If I were to guess, I’d say that CA-23 and CA-36 have some built-in advantages for Obama (upscale, highly educated, “wine track” liberal), making it an 11 to 3 split, with 5 outstanding.

So, before the polls close, we can reasonably project a 111-102 split for Obama, with 28 delegates up for grabs, as well as the 129 that will go proportionally to the winner.  If you split the rest of the district-level delegates evenly, I think you end up with anywhere from a 7 to 12 delegate advantage that Clinton would have to make up in the popular vote.  At the lowest level she would need 53% of the vote or a 6 percentage-point victory to make this up; at the highest level, 55-56% of the vote or a 10 to 12-point victory.  Given the polling recently, and the fact that there has been an unusually slow rate of return of absentee ballots until after the South Carolina primary, I think the final result is likely to be narrower.  And so, despite the possibility of Hillary Clinton winning the popular vote in the Golden State, I’m not sure she’s favored to win the majority of delegates, given the reality of the allocation.

Now, the question becomes, how will this be spun?  Will the media only report on the popular vote, or will they look at the delegate counts?  Probably the former; it’s simply easier for the format of broadcast news.  But they’d be missing out on an important story, that this is a race for delegates, and the candidate who takes advantage of the system is the most likely to reap the benefits.

Polling, Turnout, The Presidency and the Props

Tomorrow, we’ll get the numbers that really matter, but for today we are awash in polls, polls, and more polls. We have national polls, which might actually have some meaning this time around as around half the nation will be going to the polls today. We have state polls, and they all seem to vary a lot.

I have a hunch about this. Turnout will be mysterious this election cycle.  Field and other pollsters are used to presidential elections, used to primary elections, but this is different. This is the first time that there will be real GOTV operations trying to get people to the polls. There were doubts about past and present Field Polls overestimating Latino vote or underestimating youth vote, yada yada. The thing is that this is mostly an experiment in guesswork. Sure, I think Field has played these kinds of games before, especially with the 2005 special election, but this is all still educated guess work. In fact, if you dig down in my archive (Diary # 199 to be exact, we’re over 5000 now) you can find some data on the 2005  election accuracy.

Let’s look at the presidential candidates first. Zogby has Obama with a 46-40 lead over Senator Clinton. That’s just barely within the margin of error, but quite different from Field who has Clinton leading by two points. Rasmussen has Obama leading by 1: 45-44. What does this mean? Well, if I’m running either campaign, I’m going all out on GOTV efforts, especially in the odd-delegate districts where you can pick up an extra delegate.

One more word on how this is going to work for us, delegate wise. And, I’m completely open to correction if you think I’m wrong, as it’s entirely possible. But as I understand it, the big pot (around 130) of statewide delegates get doled out based on proportional voting statewide. Then the Congressional Districts all have between 3 and 6 Delegates depending on the Democratic turnout in the district. But, any candidate who gets 15% gets one delegate. To get a 3-1 split in 4-delegate districts, the winner would need well over 60%.  So, the odd # districts are going to be crucially important.  Strange stuff.

And to the propositions, (Brian’s Disclosure)  well, the polling is all over the place on those too. The Field poll just came out with No leading on 93 and Yes on 94-97, but just last week, the LA Times came out with their poll showing 93 up 50-46. (They didn’t poll 94-97, methinks).

We’re going to be dealing with this election for a while because of the Diebold issues, but it will be nice to have some real numbers. After the election, I’ll compile lots of the polling data and see how the pollsters did. Until then, you have your choice of burying yourself in polls or doing GOTV work for your favorite cause or candidate. Have fun!  

My Closing Arguments for Hillary

(A great diary about Senator Clinton. – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

Cross posted from my dKos diary with my permission.

New material and lots of stuff I need to say again.  This is my final argument for Hillary.

I think Democrats are good people.  I have friends in every campaign and we treat each other with respect.  The Democrats here are no different.  

You are good people and respectful.  Those tr's who frequent every candidate's diary's are trolls.  They are tr's sent by the right, maybe employed by the right.  They are here to do what they do.  Disrupt discourse and direct our conversations away from where they should be.  I don't have time to waste trying to convince the republican tr's here.  

I'm am working hard for Hillary just as she has worked hard for us for 35 years.

Please join me now in my final argument.

From one of my previous diaries:

Does anyone think our Hillary was foolish to call them what they were and are, “The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy”?

I believed it then and after Cleland, Gore and Kerry I believe it even more.

Can a thinking person believe that they've packed up their bags like Karl, gone home and said, “it was fun for 35 years, let's relax and leave the Democrats alone this hunting season”.

I too was and in many ways I am still idealistic.  My first campaign work was for George McGovern, when the rethugs were just trying out some new hunting tools.  They were still amateurs back then.

They are no longer amateurs.

The wrong wing wants this election more than any other, ever.  

They can smell the scent of 3 maybe 4 Supreme Court seats.  They are hard on the trail of a Court majority that may last until the last ice melts on Mt. Everest.

Those in the pin stripe camouflage have barely begun the privatization of the U.S. Government.  Blackwater is just the beginning.  The God Reagan wanted to tear down the government from the inside and his plans have only partially been implemented.  We only see the lack of toy safety inspectors and meat inspectors.  Unless you've broken a law you don't see the private prisons, the next step being a private FBI.  A private and profitable IRS.  A privately run FAA accepting real time bids for priority landing rights at La Guardia.

They are building the Fascist Corporate State with a cunning twist.  This time around it isn't based on anti-religious Nazi thugs.  This time the front is Christianity itself.  

I do not want to live in a Christian version of Iran.  

The only Democrat who will fight them tooth and nail is Hillary.  The only Democrat with the thick skin of 20 years is Hillary.

The Democrat I trust to do right by us once elected is Hillary.

In our representative democracy trust is what matters.  We hire those we trust then send them to DC to do the job.  

I trust Hillary Rodham Clinton with my future and my children's future.

Qouted from my previous diary with my permission:

The Hillary I know went straight from Law School to Fall River, Mass. to work for the Children's Defense Fund.  Not to the high paying corporate jobs she was offered, but to where she could help the most helpless of our society.

As a law student, Hillary represented foster children and parents in family court and worked on some of the earliest studies creating legal standards for identifying and protecting abused children. Following graduation, she became a staff attorney for the Children's Defense Fund.

The Hillary I know worked to bring down the most corrupt presidency in American history.  She was still young and may have made a mistake or two, but she was on the side of the good guys.

 

After serving as only one of two women lawyers on the staff of the House Judiciary Committee considering the impeachment of Richard Nixon, Hillary chose not to pursue offers from major law firms. Instead she followed her heart and a man named Bill Clinton to Arkansas. They married in 1975 and their daughter Chelsea was born in 1980.

The Hillary I know continued to work for children after her marriage.

Hillary ran a legal aid clinic for the poor when she first got to Arkansas and handled cases of foster care and child abuse. Years later, she organized a group called Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families. When she was just 30, President Carter appointed her to the board of the United States Legal Services Corporation, a federal nonprofit program that funds legal assistance for the poor.

The Hillary I know took on the mantle of the Woman's movement and worked tirelessly around the world to bring the horrible treatment of women into public awareness.

When her husband was elected President in 1992, Hillary's work as a champion for women was recognized and admired around the world. She traveled the globe speaking out against the degradation and abuse of women and standing up for the powerful idea that women's rights are human rights.

The Hillary I know spoke in 1995 to The UN Fourth World Conference On Women, Beijing, China

I want to speak up for mothers who are fighting for good schools, safe neighborhoods, clean air and clean airwaves . . . for older women, some of them widows, who have raised their families and now find that their skills and life experiences are not valued in the workplace . . . for women who are working all night as nurses, hotel clerks, and fast food chefs so that they can be at home during the day with their kids . . . and for women everywhere who simply don't have enough time to do everything they are called upon to do each day.

If there is one message that echoes forth from this conference, it is that human rights are women's rights . . . And women's rights are human rights.

The Hillary I know spoke once again at the 5 year follow-up to the Beijing meeting.  When she finished her speech the 1000's of women at the U.N. began to hold hands and sing the anthem of freedom, “We shall overcome”. This is an inspiring woman and republican's don't like that.

The Hillary I know is in it to win.  She's in it to win the nomination and she's in it to win the Presidency.

Quoting Markos:

What's more, Clinton was the only top-tier candidate to refuse the ultimate Iowa and New Hampshire pander by removing her name from the Michigan ballot. That makes her essentially the de facto winner since Edwards and Obama, caving to the cry babies in Iowa and New Hampshire, took their name off Michigan's ballot. Sure, the DNC has stripped Michigan of its delegates, but that won't last through the convention. The last thing Democrats can afford is to alienate swing states like Michigan and Florida by refusing to seat their delegates.

So while Obama and Edwards kneecap their chances of winning, Clinton is single-mindedly focused on the goal.

The Hillary I know has an awesome record in the Senate.  She came to the Senate, rolled up her sleeves and learned the ropes better than most Senators ever do.  She's worked across the aisle more than any and she has fought the rethug controlled Senate to keep our progressive agenda out front.

The Hillary I know has not only fought the wrong wing smear machine for 20 years, she knows how to successfully stand up and fight their crap now.

Once again quoting Markos:

Clinton, by far. No one has taken more shit from the VRWC, not by a long shot. Edwards earned valuable campaign experience in 2004. It makes me wonder why he'd go through it all again a second time, but still, it's something. Obama has never had a competitive race against a Republican. His best experiences comes from winning primaries. But he's never been in the crossfires of the GOP. Maybe that's why he can pretend that he can move beyond partisanship. Because he's never had to run a partisan race.

The Hillary I know is a progressive whatever that means and a lifelong fighter for our liberal beliefs.

Markos once again:

Clinton isn't horrible on this front, but Obama has made a cottage industry out of attacking the dirty fucking hippies on the left, from labor unions, to Paul Krugman, to Gore and Kerry, to social security, and so on. People think I was being ticky tack with the Gore thing, and in isolation it would've been but a minor non-event. But it was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back for me, yet another in a pattern of attacks against Democrats and their constituencies. He is the return of Bill Clinton-style triangulating personified.

The Hillary I know is a funny, likable woman.  She admits she is uncomfortable talking about herself but she can speak to the issues better than any candidate in this race.

Even Markos likes her:

In other words, I'd have a beer with any of them. But I do love the idea of breaking a new barrier this year, whether it's by having a woman president or an African American one.

The Hillary I know is a Woman.  She is the best spokesperson the woman's movement has ever had and republican's don't like that either.  Women, over 50% of the population, may not always like her policies but they respect her and admire her fighting spirit.

The Hillary I know is the greatest threat the GOP has ever faced.    Why have they relentlessly attacked her for all these years?  Because they know what will happen to the GOP if Hillary is nominated for the Presidency of the United States.

Women.  Single mothers.  Working women. Feminists. Housewives. Women.  Bartenders, Convenience store workers, mill workers.  Women.  Hookers, Strippers, Black Jack Dealers. Women.

Women. who have never voted.  Women. who have voted Republican.  Women. who are independents.

The Hillary I know when nominated will unite these women into the greatest force for freedom that the world has ever seen.

The Hillary I know when nominated will cause the largest voter registration the country has ever seen.  All those women voters standing with their sisters to see the first Woman President will be registered as Democrats.

If you are not threatened like republican's are, you will support this incredible woman.

The Hillary I know is the greatest threat the GOP has ever faced.  She is a Woman.

What’s the deal with this polling on behalf of Hillary?

The LA Times is reporting that there is some form of push-polling in the field that favors Senator Clinton. From the Top of the Ticket Blog.

every question about Clinton was curiously positive, Coghlan recalls. … Every question about the other candidates was negative.

***

“That’s when I caught on,” said Coghlan. He realized then that he was being push-polled. That malicious political virus that is designed not to elicit answers but to spread positive information about one candidate and negative information about all others under the guise of an honest poll had arrived in Southern California within days of the important election.

Someone who obviously favors Hillary Clinton is paying an unidentified company to spread this material phone call by phone call among independent voters, who can, according to California party rules, opt to vote in the Democratic but not the Republican primary on Feb. 5, when nearly two dozen states will choose a large chunk of the delegates to the parties’ national conventions next summer.

Coghlan said he was offended by such underhanded tactics and knew he was going to get out a warning about this dirty trick, but he said he played along for the full 20-minute “poll.”

“The guy was very slick, very personable,” Coghlan told the Ticket. “He never fell out of character as a pollster the entire time. He seemed interested in my answers and just kept going through his list of questions as if he was noting my answers. He was very good, very smooth.”

The post further notes that they contacted the Clinton campaign for a response, but none was forthcoming in the following 8 hours after initial contact.

At this point, it is not clear who is paying for these. My guess would be one of the pro-Clinton 527s that have been quite active in favor of the junior Senator from New York. I would be hesitant to point the finger at the Senator’s campaign itself, however.  The push-poll is a tremendously effective tool if used properly, but the only problem is that if you get caught, there can be serious blowback. These folks just happened to hit on a former journalist who knew the score on push polling. It’s a big risk at this point of a campaign.

Given that this will spread rapidly, I’d expect to see a statement from the Clinton campaign shortly.