home

Whoopi Goldberg Switches From Obama To Hillary

By Big Tent Democrat

This is a silly, absurd story:

Yesterday on "The View," Whoopi Goldberg switched her endorsement from Barack Obama to Hillary Clinton. Whoopi cited Clinton's statement that she would end tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas. Whoopi previously believed that Obama had made that pledge first, but apparently she was mistaken.

Who cares who Whoopi Goldberg supports? And what a dumb reason for switching. So why am I posting about it? To ask you a question - do you think this would be big news if it was the other way around? You think there would be a lot of blog posts about it? Remember that silly precinct captain in Iowa who kept switching? Need I say more?

(Update (TL): Comments now closing, we're at about 200.)
< The Battle Of Establishments | Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I can only say. . . (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:09:57 PM EST
    uh. . . "whoopy"?

    You Beat Me To That One n/t (none / 0) (#4)
    by MO Blue on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:15:00 PM EST
    Well now (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Steve M on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:15:37 PM EST
    Clearly this makes Hillary the Establishment Candidate once again.

    The mo is leaving (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:17:05 PM EST
    When people pay attention they switch.

    We are true "Clintonistas," (none / 0) (#24)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:33:50 PM EST
    [not a derogatory term, in my opinion].  I thought:  Whoopi has seen the error of her ways.  Good on her.  On the other hand, Michael Moore says he is morally compelled to vote against HRC due to her AUMF vote.  Not sure how he'll rationalize supporting Obama, if he, in fact, is.  

    Parent
    My friend's husband (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by jen on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:43:01 PM EST
    came up with this one which I think is hysterical (and perfect):

    Since Obama supporters have taken to calling themselves Obamacans, we can be the Obamacan'ts. LOL!!

    Parent

    Hilarious! (none / 0) (#183)
    by tek on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:33:02 PM EST
    Well at least (none / 0) (#63)
    by Steve M on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:07:16 PM EST
    he's forgiven her for voting for the war in Afghanistan.

    Parent
    Shouldn't the purveyor of Sicko (none / 0) (#70)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:12:10 PM EST
    be supporting HRC, or at least not dissing her?

    Parent
    The same Michael Moore who voted Nader (none / 0) (#130)
    by lily15 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:46:01 PM EST
    over Gore?  He bought the media hype about Gore..

    Parent
    i like some things about moore but that (none / 0) (#196)
    by hellothere on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 11:37:17 PM EST
    doesn't include his political choices.

    Parent
    I dunno, BTD (5.00 / 5) (#10)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:18:13 PM EST
    Usually I agree with you on your take of all things political, and if Whoopi wasn't on the View, I would say that this wouldn't matter a hoot, but what I think it does is two-fold:

    1.  Tells women that it's okay to switch back to Hillary
    2.  Tells folks that you're not a racist if you support Hillary

    also, let me add a three: it's issue driven, not personality driven (her change, I mean)

    Remember the Rosie fueds, and how much media that got?  It was even on the "real" news.  The View is extremely important to pop culture.  I don't see this as having a huge impact, but I do see it as the beginning of a groundswell.  This story will be picked up in all the media outlets, and it'll get Hillary out there with positive stories instead of negative ones (though, if there is a way to spin this as negative, I'm sure some Obamites will find a way).

    This might be pro-Hillary trend in the entertainment biz, too--I heard something on an entertainment show about Hillary being sent an invitation from the producers of Dancing With the Stars because she said on Tyra Banks that that's the only show she loved or something like that.

    Like it or not, a great many women are reached through the View.

    Watched her video (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:25:04 PM EST
    She said that the first person who said they would tax companies who took jobs away she would support. So she stuck to what she said. Whoopi is no bubble head. She is very thoughtful and has done lots for the Homeless. What it also tells me people are being diligent about issues.

    Parent
    She is a moron...can you say NAFTA (1.00 / 1) (#25)
    by georgeg1011 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:34:58 PM EST
    Hmmmm, trying to think who was the person that came up with that...oh, yeah, her HUSBAND.  Come on, just because someone has done work for poor and impoverished children can't mean that she can't make a mistake. Which she obviously did...

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:40:43 PM EST
    I do not disagree but J does not let me call people morons so you do not get to either.

    Parent
    How is Hillary responsible for NAFTA? (none / 0) (#159)
    by echinopsia on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:43:54 PM EST
    Obviously she can't control EVERYTHING her husband does!

     Senator Hillary Clinton, the front-runner for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, wonders why the North American Free Trade Agreement is ``continuing to drive hundreds of thousands, even millions, of people from Mexico into our country,'' she said in an interview. ``We just can't keep doing what we did in the 20th century.''

    Somewhere along the Clintons' ``bridge to the 21st century'' -- their 1996 campaign mantra -- they parted ways on trade. Bill was a champion of the global economy and prodded Congress to approve Nafta in 1993 and China's entry into the World Trade Organization in 2001. Hillary, 59, says new deals may need to be put on hold pending a review -- an idea she calls ``a little timeout.''

    Parent

    wow (none / 0) (#161)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:47:12 PM EST
    it's almost like Bill and Hillary Clinton are two different people!

    Bernstein has gone on record saying that, at the time of NAFTA, Hillary yelled at Bill that he was using republican thinking by pushing it through.  She was NOT for it.

    Of course, we can't really prove that's what she was thinking at the time since she didn't actually vote on it, right?  I don't think any candidate should be able to say, "This is how I felt about this issue" unless they are forced to vote on it at the time...

    Parent

    So (none / 0) (#184)
    by tek on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:35:06 PM EST
    you think Barack Obama hasn't made mistakes? LOL

    Parent
    Right On! (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by felizarte on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:45:45 PM EST
    many women watch this show.  After the Rosie O'Donell controversial stint on the show, Whoopi has proven to be an effective moderator.  And they have some really lively topics of interest to women, mostly.  Her support of Hillary can only help her with the women's vote; not unlike Cong. Maxine Waters' endorsement as far as the mostly AA constituents in her district.

    Parent
    Re: (none / 0) (#12)
    by Steve M on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:20:42 PM EST
    Who do the other panelists on the View support?

    Parent
    Never watched it, but, according to HuffPost, (none / 0) (#13)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:22:39 PM EST
    all the View-ers were making fun of calls they got from Chelsea Clinton.  

    Parent
    Joy Behar says they weren't (none / 0) (#20)
    by Grey on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:28:44 PM EST
    They weren't.  At HuffPost today, the new View video shows that they were ticked off that anyone would think they were making fun of Chelsea.  Joy Behar actually read from yesterday's item and was not amused.


    Parent
    Huffpost (none / 0) (#48)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:49:48 PM EST
    Turning into a rag. The Entertainment news better than the real news. I love what Whoopi says to Ariana on this clip, can I get that to be my phone ring?

    Parent
    arianna the panderer (none / 0) (#133)
    by lily15 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:48:48 PM EST
    what clip about Arianna?

    Parent
    Haha (none / 0) (#73)
    by Steve M on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:15:24 PM EST
    Both that video and the original one were hilarious.

    I think Chelsea is an adorable young lady and personally, I would not tolerate any mocking of her!

    Parent

    Call from Chelsea (none / 0) (#186)
    by tek on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:37:05 PM EST
    Not true. HuffPo misrepresented that segment. The View contacted Arianna Huffington and made retract what she posted and told her tone down her anti-Hillary rhetoric. There's a correction up on the HuffPo site now.

    Of course, I expect that any day now we'll start seeing clip on HuffPo of Obama walking on water.

    Parent

    Steve (none / 0) (#22)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:30:50 PM EST
    I'm not sure, but I think we can safely assume that Elizabeth Hasselbeck will come out strongly for Satan.

    Parent
    That wasn't nice. (none / 0) (#62)
    by OrangeFur on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:05:39 PM EST
    Hilarious, but not nice.

    (Also, I think it's Elisabeth with an 's'. I'm embarrassed to know that.)

    Parent

    Orangefur (none / 0) (#115)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:14:59 PM EST
    you watch it, too, don't you?

    Parent
    Elizabeth Hasselback (none / 0) (#136)
    by lily15 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:52:50 PM EST
    Believe or not, a while back, she said very nice things about Hillary.  Told everyone Hillary sent her a personal note when her baby was born....was touched. I bet she votes Hillary in the privacy of  the voting booth...as I believe a lot of Republican women will do.  Between McCain and Hillary, a lot Republicans will go Hillary...because they think she is as good on national security as McCain or better (and they will all have a problem with a 100 year war)...and better on the economy.  

    Parent
    wow (none / 0) (#138)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:59:05 PM EST
    I am truly surprised.  thanks for telling me that.

    I wish I felt worse for saying what I said, but then I remembered all the other things that made me not like her and I was good again.

    Parent

    I couldn't quite remember (none / 0) (#27)
    by carolyn13 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:35:17 PM EST
    Exactly what was said about Dancing with the Stars either so I googled it. Don't ask me why I bothered.

    Clinton, the wife of former president Bill Clinton who is now a candidate for the Democratic nomination in the 2008 presidential election, appeared on The Tyra Banks Show last Friday to reveal which reality show the presidential hopeful would want to appear on.

    "In my dreams, I would be on America's Next Top Model, but in reality I would have to chose my limited talents and of them, dancing is better than singing.  You do not want me to sing," Clinton told Tyra Banks, who is also the host of America's Next Top Model.

    In the end, Clinton announced her decision.

    "I think it would have to be Dancing with the Stars, especially if I could have one of those really good partners."

    Parent

    Don't do it Hillary. (none / 0) (#95)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:49:57 PM EST
    Pledge your Stimulus checks... (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:37:55 PM EST


    Haven't even thought of Whoopie in years, (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:37:56 PM EST
    is she sill eyebrowless?

    It's about the Dems, not me (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:46:26 PM EST
    I think this is what I like about Hillary. Yesterday Obama squandered his big win, by taking jibes at Hillary. Today Hillary, hits on McCain on the economic policy. Eye on the real prize abcnews

    beautiful (none / 0) (#54)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:00:16 PM EST
    thank you for posting that, Stellaaa.  She sounds like a president to me.

    Parent
    I'm glad (none / 0) (#146)
    by PlayInPeoria on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:17:44 PM EST
    she is hitting McCain's ECONOMIC POLICY! She needs to hit that one hard and start explaining her own plan that is much better.

    Parent
    My advice: just make a mental note (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:22:45 PM EST
    of whose comments to skip past.

    Look (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:27:30 PM EST
    There are obnoxious commenters who support both candidates.

    Let's not think only Obama supporters can be obnoxious.

    And as far as the FPers are concerned, there is no doubt I am in a league of my own. If J did not keep me on a tight leash all of you would be running for the hills.

    Name one, just one, obnoxious (none / 0) (#87)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:35:31 PM EST
    Clintonista.  Well excluding last night's discussion of rioting in the streets.  That was really obnoxious.

    Parent
    Oh, well, (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by spit on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:50:47 PM EST
    I personally find those arguments that some used to put forward about how we should never vote for Obama because "other people" will never vote for a Black guy to be a little obnoxious, to say the least.

    But I haven't seen that in a while. Could just be that I tune a lot of stuff out now.

    I agree with BTD on this one. What I value, personally, isn't necessarily people agreeing with me (though that's, you know, a clear sign of their brilliance :p), but people being intellectually honest and thinking critically and responding to different viewpoints from a reasonable place. Sadly, vehement support for candidates tends to cloud people's ability to do that, and then you wind up with a lot of mindless assertion and true-believer spin.

    I haven't seen as much coming from Clinton folks, but there are fewer of them in general on the blogs, and they don't have as many echo-chambers online. I think in general that extreme candidate support can sometimes lead people to lose a lot of perspective, at which point they often begin to look for info that supports their views -- the access to the echo chamber throws it over the edge, maybe.

    Parent

    That's fair. Perhaps you should specialize (none / 0) (#101)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:54:57 PM EST
    in blog criticism, if there is such a field.

    Parent
    Hah (none / 0) (#104)
    by spit on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:00:52 PM EST
    I'd be willing to bet just about anything we're all being studied by a set of tired, hungry sociology and political science grad students right now.

    Hi, guys!

    Parent

    I wish we could ban everybody (none / 0) (#177)
    by echinopsia on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:43:52 PM EST
    No names but you know who I mean - who says every teensy criticism of The One is a smear tactic planted by the Clinton campaign.

    I mean, if there's a blast-fax list, put me on it. I WISH the Clinton campaign could come up with ten or twelve of these "smears" every day. just to even things out.

    Parent

    Lets see... (none / 0) (#103)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:00:37 PM EST
    ... I could name several.

    One of virtually flipped me off because I asked how a comment from a woman support of Obama could have come from Obama.  

    There are many others.

    Don't get me wrong - there definitely are obnoxious Obama supporters.  But there are obnoxious Hillary supporters too, and this site has more than it's share of them.  

    Parent

    I am the one who flipped you off (none / 0) (#109)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:07:14 PM EST
    but for the life of me, the rest of your sentence makes no sense, so I'm not quite sure how to respond.

    Hey, I  bet that's why I flipped you off to begin with: what you said didn't make sense.

    So, you see, I'm really the victim here.

    Parent

    I know... (none / 0) (#113)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:10:14 PM EST
    ... you are the one.  

    I was avoiding naming names.

    And you are right - my sentence didn't make much sense.  It has been a long day.  And it doesn't matter anyway - we don't need to go back to that comment.  I was using it to prove a point.

    Regardless, my point remains: There are obnoxious "Clintonistas" around here.  

    Parent

    Does that figurative flip off count though? (none / 0) (#132)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:47:26 PM EST
    it counted in my heart (none / 0) (#137)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:57:25 PM EST
    if that matters.  flip-flip-flip!

    I think what prompted the flip was a discussion about online voting, and I was questioned on the fact that I said that Florida's infrastructure was crap and that people were mostly rural and poor.  My cousin works in a school in Sarasota that is 100% free or assisted lunch.  Some of the kids steal food because they don't get meals at home.  She washes clothes for some of them because their parents don't have time or don't care.  On home visits, she finds some trailers that don't have running water inside (they use a hose outside)  And before you ask about social services, remember this is the state that LOST three kids in foster care, two of whom wound up dead.  They give the bare minimum of funding.

    Meanwhile, tourist dollars come in and line the pockets of the republicans who run the state.

    Parent

    Take a deep, deep breath. (none / 0) (#147)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:21:19 PM EST
    There is a reason lots of states do have a state income tax, expensive as it may be.  

    Parent
    nah... (none / 0) (#162)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:48:48 PM EST
    ... you flipped me off before that.  good try though.

    and I NEVER questioned you when you said Florida's infrastructure was crap.  I questioned you on your justifications for the poor infrastructure, along with your claim that many people in Florida wouldn't even know what "online" was.

    but once again... I NEVER questioned whether or not the infrastructure was bad.

    do you need to give you the link?

    Parent

    "Do you need to give you the link?" (none / 0) (#181)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:06:44 PM EST
    Why would I need to give myself a link?

    I'm fairly certain that the big problem last night was that you were being as clear then as you are now.

    Florida's infrastructure is crumbling for two reasons: 1. The republicans give contracts to their friends, aka, their big money donors. ("A Rezko," as Stellaaa might call it)  These contracts end up doing what contractors with friends in high places do: they screw things up and waste the money.  2. The state has been so overdeveloped (see 2) that roads and bridges, etc, meant to carry X number of cars are now carrying XXX number of cars.  The state is not using any money to fix this.  

    Now, as for the question about the internet, I refer to my cousin who works in a very poor area of central Florida. I visit her often.  I spend a lot of time down there on vacations and such, and I am telling you that of the 38 kids she teaches, none of them have computers in their homes.  The majority of them see the internet as something only rich people have access to.  there are three computers in the library in her school and the building is so old that the wiring cannot handle more.

    Purely anecdotal, but it's more than I've seen you offer.

    And with that, another nice try by me: I am flipping you off again.

    Flip!  Flip!  Flip!

    Parent

    once again... (none / 0) (#187)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:38:55 PM EST
    Why would I need to give myself a link?

    I'm fairly certain that the big problem last night was that you were being as clear then as you are now.

    Woo!  Lets attack typos and people instead of what they are saying!
    Florida's infrastructure is crumbling for two reasons
    I never questioned whether the infrastructure was bad.  

    Nor did I ever question any of the reasons you just gave.  

    But those are not the reasons you gave last night.  you gave one reason:  because Florida did not have a sales tax.

    And with that, another nice try by me: I am flipping you off again.
    Stay classy.

    Oh... and once again, you flipped me off because I challenged your ludicrous assumption that Barack Obama is somehow "hijacking" Hillary Clinton's womanhood.    

    Parent

    The good news never gets covered for Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by lily15 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:28:10 PM EST
    This is the first I have heard about it.  And yes, it would be very big news if it was a switch to Obama and not the other way around.  The View is seen by millions of women...it is very popular...A lot of people need perceived leaders or trendsetters who give them cover or validation...Whoopi is female and black and that demographic is going heavy for Barack,especially the creative class. It helps that she is  very likeable, popular and credible..and appears independent. But she is also a  woman with big crossover appeal in the sense that Oprah is.  She is demonstrating that her gender is important to her(the opposite of Oprah)...more important than her race...( that who the candidate is matters most)...It is a big statement considering what has been happening. Which is why Maxime Waters was also a huge endorsement for Hillary, but in the political world. Also, the female demographic is critical for Hillary...it is critical to build and expand it.  This helps.  Every little bit helps given the black out in good media coverage for Hillary.

    I am shocked there was no mention of it. But consider...there WAS mention of Robert De Niro backing Obama....and no TV mention of Jack Nicholson for Hillary (he announced  on Rick Dees radio in L.A.)  I think Jack Nicholson is a great endorsement...he has such an iconic character...very cool image...no one ever attacks him...ever...Wish he would make a commercial for Hillary..

    But Whoopi used to have a radio show where I believe she talked politics...The main import of this is that there is a changing of the narrative...slightly...I hope.  Not that I think anyone can let up for a moment.

    Jack Nicholson made robo-calls (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by RalphB on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:04:05 PM EST
    for Hillary for Tsunami Tuesday.  When you're endorsed by the coolest guy alive, what other endorsements matter  :-)


    Parent
    Jack Nicholson (none / 0) (#188)
    by tek on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:40:33 PM EST
     Don't you just love that Jack is supporting Hillary? I was shocked. I assumed he was probably a macho sexist sort of guy, not at all.

    Parent
    No,,, (none / 0) (#180)
    by echinopsia on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:52:21 PM EST
    She is demonstrating that her gender is important to her(the opposite of Oprah)...more important than her race..

    She's demonstrating that an issue is most important.

    Parent

    Totally Disagree (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by BDB on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:29:50 PM EST
    Without dissent, you get an echo chamber.  That's what has damaged those other sites, IMO.  It's not that they have so many Obama supporters, it's that they've allowed a small number of the supporters to bully and attack the non-Obama people, which drives the non-Obama people away from the site, which leads to less and less critical thinking and discussion because no one challenges anything written.  Pretty soon there's only the shallowest discussion of issues, with most comments consisting of little more thought and analysis than "Obama Rocks!"  

    It's not that I think there are no Obama supporters who can intelligently talk about why they support him (and admit his weaknesses in the process), it's that they don't have to because nobody offers any counter-argument.

    As a newcomer here (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by stillife on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:43:08 PM EST
    and a Hillary supporter, I agree with you.  A certain amount of debate is necessary like oxygen, or a blog will just die.  I find TL to be one of the few healthy spots on the blogosphere, allowing debate but not descending into flame wars.

    Parent
    Personally (none / 0) (#178)
    by echinopsia on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:49:41 PM EST
    I like to read articles and blog entries and posts PLUS comments, but the first time some Obamaphile posts the freakin' FULL TEXT of his (expletive) 2002 speech, I'm gone.

    On some sites it doesn't take very long.

    Parent

    The difference with this site (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:38:26 PM EST
    is they tend to nip the nastiness in the bud.

    The "other sites" just let it go.

    Speaking as an Obama supporter, (none / 0) (#121)
    by byteb on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:24:15 PM EST
    I have to say that almost everyone here has been respectful and thoughtful in their responses to my posts. I know full well how unpleasant it is to be attacked just because of supporting a particular candidate having experienced it..believe it or not...by a group of Clinton supporters over at Dkos a few months ago when the field was wide open.
    My only observation about this site's 'nipping nastiness in the bud' policy is that it's not even in application. Maybe, that's to be expected since this is a place where Hillary supporters gather but a great deal more latitude is given to someone who supports Hillary and gets carried away than to someone who supports Obama and treads over the line.

    Parent
    That might be compassion to refugees (none / 0) (#124)
    by rebecca on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:33:40 PM EST
    Obama supporters have many blogs to return to the other side not so much.  

    Parent
    Meanwhile, Rush says he'll fundraise (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:48:25 PM EST
    for HRC for the purpose of uniting the Republicans, since Hillary hate is the only thing they all agree on.

    And, Obama says he can't be swiftboated.  

    That Must Be Why (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:50:19 PM EST
    Her coffers are suddenly bulging.

    Parent
    do we really care (none / 0) (#108)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:04:57 PM EST
    Who Rush Limbaugh is trying to get nominated for the Democratic Party?

    To me, this sort of guess-work is silly.  "By endorsing Hillary, Ann Coulter is sneakily trying to help Obama win because she knows the repubs can beat him!"  "O'Riley took  up for Hillary so people will feel sorry for her and give her their vote!"

    I mean, come on.  O'Riley is a tool, and when did we start thinking that Coulter is that smart?  After years of deriding her, we're going to start trusting her now?  This is the woman who bashed the 9-11 wives.  Do we really think she's got her finger on the pulse?

    Parent

    Ann Coulter is a smart (none / 0) (#140)
    by lily15 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:02:11 PM EST
    promoter whose made millions with her schtick. But secretly, no one knows what she'll do...  But it's hard not to be impressed with the way  Hillary is battling all the forces attacking her...and most women know exactly what sexism feels like.  Hillary is having an effect...a powerful effect...and I would bet anything that every single power broker is aware of the female vote for Hillary.  It is big...and it crosses all demographics that matter in an election...The hate and venom directed at Hillary is in direct proportion to the fear of her as a general election candidate.

    Parent
    Hillary as tough survivor (none / 0) (#144)
    by lily15 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:11:28 PM EST
    I'm not sure how apropos this is...but we all want the biggest toughest lawyer for ourselves (if the need arises)not some nice get along go along type... Hillary is the tough guy ...even if some might not like her...Hillary is perceived as  strong, smart, ruthless (to some), determined...but gets the job done.  People are really concerned now about the economy and our global positioning.  They don't want a lightweight.

    Parent
    Oh please (none / 0) (#191)
    by tek on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:42:54 PM EST
    He'll have to run out and get Edward Kennedy and Rahm to go to Newseek and say: We told John McCain to just shut up, just stop criticizing Obama. It's unseemly behaviour for a senior senator.

    Like they did with Bill Clinton.

    Parent

    Doesn't top my favorite headline from recent days (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Shawn on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:02:45 PM EST
    LMAO! (none / 0) (#110)
    by stillife on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:08:06 PM EST
    In other news, Cher announced her support of Hillary today.

    I agree, these celebrity endorsements are silly and irrelevant, but I have to admit I'm not immune to them.  When a celeb announces in favor of Hillary, I automatically think of them in a more kindly light.  For example, the gossip blogger Perez Hilton, whom I loathe, endorsed Hillary.  I still hate him, but not quite as much. ;)

    Parent

    does it bother anyone else (none / 0) (#116)
    by independent voter on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:15:15 PM EST
    that based on the ABC article she outright lied to her supporters?? Now suddenly she did not need to loan her campaign any money, and her staffers are not going without pay.
    WOW

    Parent
    yeah (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:43:10 PM EST
    I was really troubled that that's how they made it sound.

    Anyone who says that the press does not attack her should look at that piece.

    You don't float 5mm bucks of your own money into your campaign for the fun of it.  This crap talk on NBC makes it sound like her contributors were duped.  Really disgusting spin by a network known for putting nasty spins on all Hillary stories.

    Parent

    look no offense (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by english teacher on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:44:41 PM EST
    but you should have been a lot more skeptical about the original reporting.  remember how they all said gore claimed he invented the internet and mocked and ridiculed him for making the claim?

    then, couple years later we find out that he never made the claim at all, but that someone made it up and put it out there and the media all ran with it knowing it was false.  and yes they knew it was false when they ran with it.

    or stole the w's from all the computer keyboards and trashed the white house?

    like i said, this one smelled fishy from the beginning.  

    the fact that people are now calling her a liar based on questionable press reports from "inside sources" is a case study on how anti clinton media spin operates.  

    dems need to quit falling for this kind of garbage, that's my point.  too bad so many fell for the "clinton is a racist" bunkum but that train has already left the station.

    Parent

    Here's what she actually said (none / 0) (#185)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:36:02 PM EST
    as opposed to what the ObamaKos and the Obama Post blew out of proportion:

    Link

    A tip:  If you get your information from rags, guarantee that it will be distorted.  She said she had GREAT fundraising, that things were going well.  (She did borrow the money, but it was most likely to ensure that she wouldn't have any cashflow problems.)  Her people offered to go without pay.  No where did it say that they actually DID go without pay.

    It is only the Hillary-haters that spun that she must be going down the tankers.

    Now when the distortions don't prove out, that means Hillary was lying?

    I call that concern trolling brought to a whole new insidious level.  Dirty politicking at it's best, except from the Obama side of things.

    Parent

    She didn't lie to anyone (none / 0) (#192)
    by tek on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:45:14 PM EST
    The media started saying she was broke, she said she had loaned her campaign 5 mil, because you have to disclose that, she had made the loan earlier and then put out a call for a fundraiser.

    Parent
    kindly light (none / 0) (#145)
    by lily15 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:15:23 PM EST
    exactly...it operates on an unconscious level.  We all want to be validated...even if we are sure of our choice. It's nice to have company. I feel like ..they are one of us...our crowd...Thought your point was good.

    Parent
    HAHAHAHA! (none / 0) (#111)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:08:21 PM EST
    He'll have to go Obama because of the legalized pot thing.

    ABC gave both Clinton and Obama a nice bump  on raising campaign cash.  George Snuffuluffagus says that her troubles are over as far finances.  Nice to hear.

    Parent

    I have to disagree (none / 0) (#122)
    by Steve M on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:25:47 PM EST
    Nothing can top this headline.

    Parent
    I liked that too...Snoop Dog (none / 0) (#151)
    by lily15 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:26:54 PM EST
    became interesting...it was thoughtful actually.

    Parent
    Correction? (none / 0) (#2)
    by Grey on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:13:12 PM EST
    I suppose it's good that Whoopi correctd the record on who said what first.  Other than that, eh.

    do you think this would be big news if it was the other way around?

    Yes, absolutely.

    On a separate note, I'd like to see an update here on the money race; you have a post about Clinton having raised $4 million in 24 hrs but, in fact, she has raised $6.5 million in 24 hrs.

    That's IT! (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:15:32 PM EST
    in fact, she has raised $6.5 million in 24 hrs.

    I'm getting in the race tonight!

    Parent

    ok, she had 3M in 24 hrs... (none / 0) (#19)
    by georgeg1011 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:28:13 PM EST
    she is going for 6M in 72...Obama has almost 8M in less than 48 hrs...please stop from hyperventilating...

    Parent
    He was making a joke (none / 0) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:37:15 PM EST
    See if you can get it.

    BTW, Hillary blew through 6 million in 36 hours, persumably they will go for 10 MM in 72.

    I'm hearing they have accelerated their donations since yesterday.

    Parent

    it is interesting with the Clinton (none / 0) (#41)
    by georgeg1011 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:42:44 PM EST
    raising all this money and "news" of her giving herself a loan and her people going without pay (which turned out to not be true).  Interesting what this has done to the fund raising on our side...wonder if the Old Man is even coming close...probably not...which means if we can figure this out by November, we should really kick their asses...because our side (all of it) seems very "motivated"...wouldn't you say?

    Parent
    Good news all around (none / 0) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:55:21 PM EST
    I see you as a likely participant (none / 0) (#52)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:54:53 PM EST
    in the on-line betting as to Dem. primary.  Obama is up; lots.

    Parent
    intrade doesn't agree. (none / 0) (#105)
    by hellothere on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:01:08 PM EST
    Oh really. Does that explain why (none / 0) (#129)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:44:53 PM EST
    in trade graph is no longer prominently displayed at HuffPost?  

    Parent
    oculus (none / 0) (#135)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:50:30 PM EST
    no longer on huffpo?  HAHAHAHAHA!!!!  J'ACCUSE!

    Parent
    I'm now addicted to Huff Post also, although (none / 0) (#149)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:22:48 PM EST
    it is rather disappointing to read the headline and then the article when they differ so dramatically.

    Parent
    it's becoming ridiculous isn't it? (none / 0) (#157)
    by lily15 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:31:29 PM EST
    Surreal...don't they worry about losing credibility?
    Or are they like The Star or National Enquirer?

    Parent
    Plus, they still have an article and photo up (none / 0) (#163)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:50:36 PM EST
    of HRC "crying" when introduced at her alma mater.

    Parent
    What are you talking about? (none / 0) (#141)
    by andrewwm on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:02:21 PM EST
    Obama moved up +13 since Super Tuesday to take the lead 58-42

    Parent
    andrewww (none / 0) (#148)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:22:08 PM EST
    please read my post again and cite your sources.

    Parent
    Which post? (none / 0) (#152)
    by andrewwm on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:27:16 PM EST
    I only saw your post about oculus about huffpo something or other.

    The intrade graphs are available on their front page:

    www.intrade.com

    Parent

    CNN (none / 0) (#153)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:27:56 PM EST
    Tsuper Tuesday delegate results:

    C: 840
    O: 831

    Parent

    Huh? (none / 0) (#155)
    by andrewwm on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:29:03 PM EST
    He said the online betting markets. There's only one that I know of. Intrade. They bet futures on which candidate will win the nomination. Obama is up there by about +10% or so.

    Parent
    USA Today (none / 0) (#194)
    by tek on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:48:20 PM EST
    has Hillary's delegates at over 1000.

    Parent
    Also (none / 0) (#154)
    by andrewwm on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:28:02 PM EST
    It's a bit confusing; there is another poster named andreww (I didn't realize that someone had the same name as me when I signed up). Are you referring to him?

    Parent
    andrewwm (none / 0) (#160)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:45:18 PM EST
    you are right.  I did not realize that you were not him.  Sorry!

    (though, someone please look at the assigned delegates.  According to CNN, without the superdelegates, Clinton is still ahead by 44.  Am I wrong?)

    Parent

    It's right... (none / 0) (#165)
    by andrewwm on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:53:59 PM EST
    but they aren't done counting yet. Most of the remaining super-delegates yet to be awarded from 2/5 are in Obama-heavy states. Most estimates, factoring in those yet to be awarded, put him up by about 0 to +10 for the night.

    Parent
    Do you think Obama supporters play it? (none / 0) (#156)
    by lily15 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:29:58 PM EST
    Maybe Obama supporters are gaming it...like Ron Paul supporters were gaming all those popularity contests in online and TV polls. But there are Iowa markets too...what did they say?

    Parent
    It's about the same (none / 0) (#158)
    by andrewwm on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:32:44 PM EST
    link

    The volume on Intrade right now is much too great for anyone to game it I think. You'd have to be splashing out something like $50,000-$100,000. And only for a few percentage points?

    Parent

    Intrade is worthless as a predictor (none / 0) (#171)
    by RalphB on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:11:33 PM EST
    The numbers there flipped over 30 points on the day of the Iowa Caucus and then flopped back within 8 hours.  


    Parent
    It's just a measure of the sum of CW (none / 0) (#173)
    by andrewwm on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:23:57 PM EST
    It's a trailing not a leading indicator. That said, if you think you know better than anyone else, well, there's money on the table at Intrade right now if you think you can outsmart them.

    Parent
    It'll get better than that (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:18:24 PM EST
    I can not keep updating a running number.

    Clinton is having and amazing fundraising day.

    Parent

    a ton of money (none / 0) (#14)
    by andreww on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:23:20 PM EST
    They are both brining in insane amounts of money.  Since 2/5 the two of them have brought in almost $15 million.  Obama's at like 7.5 and I think Hillary is near that as well.

    Crazy - who would have thought that a primary could end up costing $200 million?

    Parent

    Amazing is right (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:25:24 PM EST
    Yes (none / 0) (#75)
    by BDB on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:20:23 PM EST
    The Dems fundraising is absolutely stunning.  Combined with voter turnout and it's amazing the enthusiasm for both Dems.  Which I'm sure the Democratic party will find a way to destroy in the nomination fight, but until then I'm going to enjoy it.

    What Clinton really needs now is volunteers (Obama may too for all I know).  For those of you who live in upcoming primary and caucus states or next door to them, I urge you to volunteer and get involved, even if it's not for Hillary.  I've done it for Clinton in New Hampshire and California and it has been such a wonderful experience.  On Tuesday, I sat in LA with democrats from all walks of life, including cute young men in bright red shirts that said "Hot for Hillary", and talked to Californians of every type.  Not quite as much fun as knocking on doors in New Hampshire, but a lot warmer and still a great way to spend a day.  And even if you don't live in upcoming primary/caucus states, you can phonebank for Clinton from the comfort of your very own home (I believe Obama's campaign has the same capacity).  

    Parent

    This sucks (none / 0) (#17)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:25:58 PM EST
    Money not going to Congressional and Senate races.

    Parent
    Don't Bet on That (none / 0) (#86)
    by BDB on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:33:38 PM EST
    The Dem Committees for the House and Senate have been raking it in, they have much more than their Republican counterparts.

    Parent
    andrewww (none / 0) (#18)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:27:48 PM EST
    Unfortunately, from what I am hearing, it's running closer to 1 BILLION for the primary season across both parties.  Absolutely shocking.  So much for McCain-Fiengold, huh?

    This is interesting from MyDD (and for new folks, the light blue word is the link to click to see the story):

    "Obama, whose campaign claims to have almost 500,000 donors in 2007, raised 54% of his $97.2 million from $1,000 and over donations (mostly in $2300 checks)."

    (Less than a third, only 32%, of his money in 2007 came from $200 or less contributions.)

    So, yet again, another graceful Obama spin.

    Parent

    donors vs. dollars (none / 0) (#26)
    by andreww on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:35:11 PM EST
    more money comes from large donors - more donors give smaller amounts.  $2,000 for example.  if $1,000 comes from one person and 1000 comes from 9 people, both the following statements are accurate:

    Half the money came from donations of $1000
    90% of donors gave $100

    It can be spun positively and negatively both ways.

    Parent

    Thank you! (none / 0) (#118)
    by stillife on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:18:31 PM EST
    That's very interesting.  I have a co-worker, a fellow Hillary supporter, who walked into my office today and said, "Can you tell me one thing?  How does Obama get that kind of money?"  I just threw up my hands and said, "Oprah?"  Which was a facetious answer, obviously, but the small donors just didn't jibe with the enormous amount in his war chest, particularly when balanced against the popular vote we've seen thus far.  

    This makes far more sense.  I should've known that it was all about spin.  Which would be fine, ya know, if Obama wasn't styling himself as a non-politician.  

    Parent

    And what percent of Clinton's money do you think (none / 0) (#123)
    by andrewwm on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:31:44 PM EST
    came from those giving $1000 or more? I don't think you want to start framing the comparison like that.

    Parent
    correct me if I'm wrong (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by stillife on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:46:25 PM EST
    (and I'm sure you will) but I haven't heard that Clinton's campaign has made any claims re: small vs. large donations, as has the Obama camp. It's all about the hypocrisy.

    Parent
    andrewww (none / 0) (#134)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:49:02 PM EST
    rhetorical reasoning, lesson #1:

    Premise:  You like A and do not like B.  You feel B is bad and evil.  A is good and the exact opposite of B in every way, which is what makes A so wonderful.

    So, when someone says something bad about A, and your response is,  "well, B does it, too!" you are, by default, saying that A is as bad as B.  You are not defending A on the merits.  You are saying, in effect, that it is okay for A to be bad and evil because B is.

    Dog chases tail

    Parent

    I'm saying (none / 0) (#168)
    by andrewwm on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:05:52 PM EST
    that no matter how you measure it, Obama is getting more of his money from small-time donors.

    Obama got 50% of his money from those donating $1000 or more. Clinton got 91% of her money from those donating $1000 or more.

    It's not even close. Obama is the person who gets the widest base of donors from the largest groups of people.

    Sources:

    Clinton
    Obama

    Note: incidentally, what's your source for Obama's number? OpenSecrets has different formats for the Obama and Clinton's numbers, so I couldn't verify it. I'll take your word for it though.

    Parent

    haha... (none / 0) (#190)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:42:20 PM EST
    ... careful.  

    sometimes people don't like facts very much.

    Parent

    and i think you would do (none / 0) (#139)
    by english teacher on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:59:41 PM EST
    better to make your case against hillary based on something other than innuendo!

    i mean if you've got evidence to support your claim that would be great and you should share it.

    even though i agree with the previous reply that the size of the donations she has collected is completely irrelevant.  but, no one is saying you can't bring it up.

    but what i am saying is if you are going to bring it up, you should have the decency to do so in a way that rises above mere innuendo.  unless of course innuendo is all you've got.  

    Parent

    Tally (none / 0) (#21)
    by Grey on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:30:38 PM EST
    I suppose you're right about it being too hard to keep on updating the number, but I was only referring to the updated 24 hours amount, not to a general tally of fundraising.

    Still, your point is well taken.


    Parent

    I rcommend two competing United Way (none / 0) (#46)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:49:17 PM EST
    type thermometers over somewhere to the right amongst the women's undies ads.

    Parent
    BTD (none / 0) (#23)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:32:09 PM EST
    Does Clinton's fundraising momentum alter what you discussed yesterday?  I remember your earlier Super Tuesday predictions about who would really win this thing being tempered by the news of the loan.

    Parent
    Yes it does (none / 0) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:35:35 PM EST
    that's all I get?! (none / 0) (#40)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:42:40 PM EST
    Come on--so, you're back to the pre-announcement statement or what?  Elucidate!

    Keeping this on topic, the more I think about Whoopi changing, the more I see that it's a good thing.  I think that people who don't obsess about this crap all day like both Obama and Clinton (I know, it's shocking), and they look at the 50/50 split and think, "Well, he's doing well and people are embracing him and it's all good, so maybe it can actually be her turn, then he can have it in eight years."

    Parent

    Pretty much back to the pre-announcement (none / 0) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:54:37 PM EST
    fair representation BTD...how about (none / 0) (#29)
    by georgeg1011 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:35:59 PM EST
    Obama...last count it was close to 8M.

    Parent
    Obama will raise as much as he pleases (none / 0) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:39:30 PM EST
    If Hillary does 10 he will do 15.

    But the real story is Hillary getting the 10.

    Money has diminishing returns after a while.

    This is big for Hillary. Obama has all the money he could possibly need.

    Parent

    I agree (none / 0) (#39)
    by andreww on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:42:27 PM EST
    By the way, BTD, have you read freakanomics?  There's a chapter where he talks about campaigns and makes that exact point.  Money matters up to a point - but only up to a point.  After that the numbers show it doesn't have an impact.

    Parent
    Exactly (none / 0) (#59)
    by OrangeFur on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:03:55 PM EST
    Once you have enough bombs to blow up the world, you don't really need to keep building more.

    Parent
    The Most Important Thing Money Buys (none / 0) (#78)
    by BDB on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:22:38 PM EST
    Is staff.  Clinton would've been a lot better off had she been able to contest some of those smaller, caucus states.  I think they decided not to because of money.  Caucuses are expensive.

    Parent
    Money for Staff (none / 0) (#167)
    by lily15 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:04:32 PM EST
    You are exactly right.  That is precisely the difference...and the money to open offices and do outreach...to get a presence.  Plus he is better able to organize because his campaign has a grasp on internet networking...with networking sites like facebook...she was late to the game...and still doesn't match him there..

    Parent
    Do you know (none / 0) (#71)
    by standingup on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:12:18 PM EST
    what the FEC rules are for excess cash at the end of the primary?  Can the nominee transfer any balance into their GE fund?

    Parent
    You know, the "who said it first" (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:13:26 PM EST
    question is pretty stupid. But I have to give her props for making a decision on an issue that she cares about.

    Based on the coverage of where the Edwards (none / 0) (#7)
    by andrewwm on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:16:25 PM EST
    Super Delegates went, I'd have to say, no, I wouldn't expect there to be much coverage. And those people actually mattered.

    Where did the Edwards superdelegates go? (none / 0) (#34)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:38:08 PM EST
    Exactly my point (none / 0) (#89)
    by andrewwm on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:41:12 PM EST
    They went about 50-50 to each campaign. No huge number of blog posts touting it one way or the other.

    Parent
    How do you know this? (none / 0) (#98)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:51:20 PM EST
    Ugh (none / 0) (#102)
    by andrewwm on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:58:12 PM EST
    I have to admit that I've basically read every single post of "The Establishment" blogs since  1/28 or so. It's a sickness.

    Parent
    Stellaaa and I are setting up an on-line (none / 0) (#125)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:39:47 PM EST
    non profit accepting PayPal for those, like us, who are soooo addicted to this Primary battle.  

    Parent
    I'll chip in to that! (none / 0) (#143)
    by andrewwm on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:08:14 PM EST
    I can't wait for this thing to be over so I can have a life again <sniffs>

    Parent
    Have you read this? (none / 0) (#150)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:26:15 PM EST
    the fact that Chelsea called her had nothing to (none / 0) (#9)
    by georgeg1011 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:17:16 PM EST
    do with her switching her vote.  All these celebrities like to be wooed and courted like it was some huge thing.  It is pretty stupid that this is the reason that she is switching her endorsement.  I am pretty pro Obama, but for me to switch my support it would take something more substantive than this.  It's like this is an excuse as to why she is switching.  Comes across as disingenuous and trite...

    chelsea had nothing to do with Whoopi's change (none / 0) (#169)
    by lily15 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:06:41 PM EST
    that was a different subject.

    Parent
    Why shouldn't it? (none / 0) (#30)
    by felizarte on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:36:39 PM EST
    Whoopi Goldberg is one of the most intelligent personalities in entertainment and I am really glad she is a Clinton supporter.  I am however not surprised because I remember she emceed the birthday bash for Hillary last year.

    I am sure that she would also be criticized for supporting Hillary. If Chris Matthews were to announce tomorrow that he is supporting Hillary, it will be news and no one would question why it is newsworthy.

    Felizarte get a prize for being the only (none / 0) (#64)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:07:55 PM EST
    commenter so far to answer BTD's question.

    I'll have to check DK b/4 venturing a response though.

    Parent

    An Argument Hillary (none / 0) (#35)
    by bob h on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:38:43 PM EST
    can make to superdelegates is that Barack's fully resourced underperformance (a thumping, actually) in CA leaves that State vulnerable to McCain if Barack is the nominee.  She can also make the same point about the non-binding vote in Florida, where all candidates were on a level playing field, and Barack performed poorly.  Barack leaves two must-have states open to St. John.

    i thought (none / 0) (#38)
    by andreww on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:41:01 PM EST
    hillary was supposed to say she or Bill would campaign for obama in california if he won the nomination to make sure he didn't lose it. That seems to be what they think Michelle should do for Hillary if she wins.

    Parent
    Nonsequitor. (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:52:48 PM EST
    People have different priorities (none / 0) (#42)
    by mexboy on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:43:00 PM EST
    Just because Whoopi's priorities are not the same as yours doesn't make hers trite.

    You can chose to believe it was Chelsea's call that changed her mind, but I happen to think Whoopi has integrity, and if she had switching because of the call, she would have said so, after all,  the purpose of those calls is to get voters to vote for your candidate. I and millions of voters get calls from the Obama camp at home.

     How about believing the source and not denigrating her choice, even if it looks bad for your candidate?

    I find your comment arrogant and egocentric.

    People have different priorities (none / 0) (#43)
    by mexboy on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:45:44 PM EST
    Just because Whoopi's priorities are not the same as yours doesn't make hers trite.

    You can chose to believe it was Chelsea's call that changed her mind, but I happen to think Whoopi has integrity, and if she had switched because of the call, she would have said so, after all,  the purpose of those calls is to get voters to vote for your candidate. I and millions of voters get calls from the Obama camp at home.

     How about believing the source and not denigrating her choice, even if it looks bad for your candidate?

    I find your comment arrogant and egocentric.

    Arrogant and egocentric (none / 0) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:52:53 PM EST
    Guilty.

    Parent
    Firing squad at dawn. (none / 0) (#55)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:01:34 PM EST
    But wait, usually analytical and calm.

    Parent
    that too (none / 0) (#56)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:02:46 PM EST
    well, here at least, but doesn't J (none / 0) (#68)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:08:58 PM EST
    get the credit for the calm part?

    Parent
    You mean the blame no? (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:28:24 PM EST
    From my perspective, no. But I'm (none / 0) (#84)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:33:26 PM EST
    a meta-type person usually.

    Parent
    arrogant and egocentric? (none / 0) (#66)
    by georgeg1011 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:08:26 PM EST
    I have always been a big supporter of Whoopi...but it is my OPINION that it is pretty shallow to change your mind on the basis of who was first for something...like it's kindergarten...but oh, well, I am not going to lose sleep over whom Whoopi endorses, that's for sure

    Parent
    not speaking for Whoppi (none / 0) (#117)
    by mexboy on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:15:27 PM EST
    But what I understood is, that she would support the candidate who fist publicly supported this particular position, on an issue of paramount importance to her.

    I find it valid. Since candidates don't always show the courage to state their position on an issue they think might hurt them politically.

    It seems we have different takes on it though.

    Parent

    I think she was looking for some cover (none / 0) (#170)
    by lily15 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:11:12 PM EST
    some rationale on a specific issue...so no one would be alienated.

    Parent
    I am sure (none / 0) (#47)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:49:28 PM EST
    On less civilized cites, this is being turned into something having to do with Whoopi being a woman.

    I did a little investigoogling--looks like the View gets around 4 million viewers a day.  Nothing like Oprah's almost 10 million, and not anywhere near her brand, but it's good press, and I stand by what I said earlier about this indicating a groundswell.

    (though, anyone who has paid attention knows that I have been wrong on several things--though not wrong, thankfully, when I said that the 25/75 exit polling in GA was totally wrong.)

    Whoopi = "groundswell"? (none / 0) (#57)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:03:01 PM EST
    Are you serious?

    Parent
    Whoopi (none / 0) (#58)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:03:36 PM EST
    has done a great deal of charity work (rather than just throwing money at things), and has always struck me as an intelligent person. She's also a talented person, a deep person.  Anyone would want her on their side.

    However, I agree, celebrity endorsements are no big deal.  I said the same no-big-deal thing when Oprah ("The Secruuuuut") endorsed Obama and I'm still putting out the flames.

    Don't See Whoopi Endorsing Clinton (none / 0) (#60)
    by MO Blue on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:04:06 PM EST
    to be any more silly than all the stories about Oprah endorsing Obama.

    Of course, neither would influence the way I cast my vote.

    Exactly (none / 0) (#67)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:08:38 PM EST
    What do I care what Oprah thinks?

    Parent
    That's because you are Latino (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Steve M on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:17:32 PM EST
    I was told millions of Latinos determine their votes solely by reference to the Ted Kennedy endorsement.

    Parent
    Only if Ted's photo hangs next to the Pope's. (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:21:14 PM EST
    In my Grandmother's kitchen (none / 0) (#91)
    by BluestBlue on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:43:25 PM EST
    JFK was at the same level as the pope. True of many Boston Irish of her generation.

    Parent
    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by mexboy on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:43:25 PM EST
    And who is the authority on Latinos who told you we determine our votes solely by reference to the Ted Kennedy endorsement?

    Damn it, I never get the memos!

    Parent

    I don't recall (none / 0) (#99)
    by Steve M on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:51:34 PM EST
    but I'm about 99.9% certain it was some white dude on TV.

    Parent
    can you please check for me? (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by mexboy on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:20:04 PM EST
    I was about to tear my latino membership card!
     I mean come on, they need to send me the memos, so I know what I'm supposed to think and do.

    Thank God for the blogs that enlighten me about why I do what I do.

    Why is it that I'm the last to know?

    Parent

    I think I just remembered (none / 0) (#174)
    by RalphB on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:23:58 PM EST
    Wasn't it the ridiculous Chuck Todd on NBC who pulled that gem out of his butt?

    Parent
    Might have been (5.00 / 2) (#176)
    by Steve M on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:35:40 PM EST
    All white people kinda look alike to me.

    Parent
    Then the chances are high that it's (none / 0) (#120)
    by rebecca on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:20:39 PM EST
    Chris Matthews.  He of the off the top of his head remarks which are remarkably stereotyping of people.  

    Parent
    ROTFL n/t (none / 0) (#76)
    by MO Blue on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:20:51 PM EST
    Whoopi has gone from Clinton estab. (none / 0) (#61)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:04:26 PM EST
    to non-Clinton estab. to Clinton estab.  

    Don't underestimate pop culture (none / 0) (#65)
    by OrangeFur on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:08:03 PM EST
    The people who watch this show get to vote, too.

    As did all those Oprah fans who (none / 0) (#69)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:10:20 PM EST
    voted for HRC in CA.  

    Parent
    Oprah is different--she was damaged (none / 0) (#172)
    by lily15 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:16:59 PM EST
    Her show is about women primarily...she voted race over gender and is thus vulnerable to a charge of abandoning many of her viewers...I think her endorsement damaged her credibility and damaged her image and perhaps her ratings.  And it was divisive.
    She will never have the same credibility again.

    And the California vote put an emphasis on that.

    Parent

    ugh... (none / 0) (#189)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:41:26 PM EST
    she voted race over gender
    Please.  You do know that some people vote on things other than what race or gender people are, right?

    Parent
    Pathological States (none / 0) (#85)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:33:33 PM EST
    The eye cannot see itself, the ear cannot hear itself, the nose smell itself, nor the skin feel itself.

    Just so some of you guys know (none / 0) (#93)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:44:34 PM EST
    saying "She can't even manage her own campaign.  How can she manage the economy?" is ticking a LOT of women off.

    Think about who normally controls the household checkbook.  How many women have been blamed when money comes up short despite trying to make ends meet?


    It's a bad angle to try (none / 0) (#100)
    by spit on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:53:51 PM EST
    for a few reasons, IMO, but I haven't seen it in the more major press, just on the blogs, unless I've missed something (I don't have a TV, so that happens a lot).

    Now, I think the media has been picking stuff up from the blogs, but there's a lag, and some things even they aren't dumb enough to touch.

    I think she very effectively ended her money woes today. People hammer on it at their peril, IMO.

    Parent

    small minds will always find something to (none / 0) (#114)
    by hellothere on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:10:43 PM EST
    grouse about in their posts. i personally think it is very important to get the attention of business about american workers. i won't support anyone who want to go to the mat for the american worker myself.

    Parent
    Uh (none / 0) (#142)
    by andrewwm on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:06:04 PM EST
    She raised 120 million dollars and is now coming up short in cash. There were stories about how she would fly two jets to every event - one for herself and one for the press (unlike every other candidate). She paid record consulting fees. She had complete control over both the input and output sides of the checkbook. She gambled big that she could knock Obama out on Super Tuesday. It didn't work. Bad judgment on her part.

    It's not a damning indictment of her but at the least its poor campaign strategy.

    Is there any attack on her that wouldn't be considered sexist?

    Parent

    Where did you hear that about record consulting (none / 0) (#175)
    by RalphB on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:35:05 PM EST
    fees?  She has a different agreement with her media people etc than the other democratic candidates used.  Hillary used the republican model where they were paid more of a flat rate whereas traditionally democrats pay a percentage of media buys to the consultants.  

    By the way, Obama supposedly uses the percentage arrangment that Kerry used in '04.  Can you say he made Bob Shrum a lot richer?

    If she paid more than the other candidates, then someone is getting shafted.


    Parent

    He'd have to buy a lot of media to make up the gap (none / 0) (#179)
    by andrewwm on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:52:10 PM EST

    Broken down by purpose the Penn, Schoen & Berland Associates's receipts read like this:

    • $1.7+ million for consulting, roughly $530,000 of which have come in the last quarter;
    • $2.6+ million for mail expenses;
    • $15,000 for travel;
    • $7,000 for printing;
    • $4,500 on photography.

    As for AKP [Axelrod's firm], the rough tallies breakdown as such:

    • $17,000 for mail services;
    • $530,000 for media consulting;
    • $140,000 for activities deemed "miscellaneous media;"
    • $335,000 for broadcast media.

    So Penn's firm has earned about $3.5 million more than Axelrods. Looks like Penn is taking a percentage of mailers but not media and Axelrod vice versa.

    link

    Parent

    sexist comments (none / 0) (#164)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:50:38 PM EST
    Why is that you blame almost every attack from men on "sexism," yet you attack the Obama campaign for allegedly turning everything into a race issue.

    Parent
    haha... (none / 0) (#106)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:02:14 PM EST
    I wish the Obama supporters would stop posting on this blog.
    You do realize that you are being incredibly obnoxious yourself when you ask all Obama supporters to leave this site, right?

    To ask you a question - do you think (none / 0) (#112)
    by rilkefan on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:08:38 PM EST
    this would be big news if it was the other way around?"

    I try to live by the motto (paraphrased Wittgenstein), those things we can't know about we should shut up about.

    Actually (none / 0) (#182)
    by tek on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:31:44 PM EST
    I think Hillary's economic plan is big news. I watched the National Townhall Meeting and her plans are very impressive. I just looked at C & L where John Amato has is saying that Hillary supporters just want the  90s back, but that is a lie. Hillary has a very different plan from Bill because the times are different.

    Bill told voters that he could not stop their manufacturing jobs from going overseas because of global economy. Hillary said that America must start manufacturing again and become productive again. She has the plan to make it happen. I think that's big news.

    I also hear an NPR program at 7:00 that interviewed leading economists on the ideas of all the presidential candidates and they concluded that Hillary has the best plan.

    seems kinda important (none / 0) (#193)
    by Judith on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:46:19 PM EST
    to note that the issue Whoopi was talking about has a lot ot do with companies moving their labor pools out of the US and job loss here.  Several people I spoke to this week - taxi drivers, airport workers - raised job creation etc as the very reason they wanted Clinton.

    It's all ridiculous (none / 0) (#195)
    by dutchfox on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 11:01:28 PM EST
    Hollywood image people count? As much as we may admire Goldberg's and Winfrey's accomplishments in their respective fields, in our consumer-driven world, they are just another product celeb & are only one of many used to pitch a candidate. Unfortunately a lot of people are dumb enough to be swayed by what they say. It's this image thing that has nothing to do with democracy. So why even give it attention?

    Comments Now Closing (none / 0) (#197)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 12:56:15 AM EST
    we're just about at 200, thanks for your thoughts.