nate Silver, over at FiveThirtyEight, which is now a part of the New York Times, has released his latest distillation of polling number in the way that only he can, with immense detail, verifiable facts, intelligent opinon, and overall the best in political coverage bar none. so… based on his latest rollup of polling data, here’s a chart graphing the preference of the candidates across the conservatism spectrum of Republicans. It’s got one rather interesting feature I want to just point out real quick. Herman Cain’s support is VERY heavily loaded towards the uber-conservative side, which would tend to indicate that his current fidelity scandal may affect his numbers to a greater degree that it would affect him were he more popular with the moderate Republicans. Maybe he shouldn’t have targeted quite THAT far towards the right?..
A New York Daily News reporter, Errol Louis, revealed that Rev. Barbara Reynolds, who is also a journalist, is a Clinton supporter who suggested Rev. Wright as a speaker to the National Press Club awhile back and was recently asked to organize his appearance there this week.
Since Louis broke his story, the relevant February entry on Barbara Reynold’s blog has disappeared — just vanished. In addition, neither Rev. Reynolds nor the Clinton campaign, as of the posting of this news alert, have responded to queries about whether Reynolds suggested and organized Wright’s appearance at the National Press Club with the knowledge of the Clinton campaign or go-betweens for the Clinton campaign.
Using cache recovery and other techniques, a BuzzFlash reader recovered the key blog entry that Errol Louis quoted from before it was deleted.
These are, allegedly, Rev. Reynolds’ words of support for Clinton and explanation as to why she voted for Clinton in Maryland:
Using Google’s cache and examining the source code of the deleted entry, I have been able to reconstruct the posting from Barbara Reynolds’ blog (http://reynoldsworldnews.blogspot.com/) dated February 14, 2008, titled "HOPE", in which Barbara Reynolds, the person who supposedly organized Rev. Wright’s appearance at the National Press Club, praises and thanks the Clintons.
The URL of the Google Cache is here:
and the text I retrieved is here:
February 14, 2008
Never before has the political clout of African-American women been so crucial as in this presidential race when they make up as high as two-thirds of registered black voters. Black women voters are the primary reason why Senator Barack Obama pulled Oprah and Senator Clinton garnered Maya Angelo and the majority of the black women in the Congressional Black Caucus in their respective camps.
As expected Sen. Barack Obama trounced Sen. Hillary Clinton in the Chesapeake Trifecta of Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia.
With most of my Maryland and DC friends beating the drum for Sen. Obama, I tried to join the parade. Usually I am a drum major, leading momentum, but not this time.
Like many African American women, I have struggled with the dilemma of selecting a black man or a white woman to go against warmonger Sen. John McCain. My problem was that both Senators Obama and Clinton are darn good.
Finally I voted for Senator Clinton. My first reason was that as seductive as Obama’s mantra of hope, the Clintons legacy of help is more substantive and stronger.
Hope by definition is not based on facts. It is an emotional expectation. Things hoped for may or may not come. But help based on experience trumps hope every time.
How do you abandon someone like Hillary Clinton, who at every opportunity worked for causes benefiting the poor, especially children? Her work began in her early days with her mentor Marian Wright Edelman, founder of the Children’s Defense Fund and at Yale Law School, where she pursued children’s studies. Early on her stated life’s goal was to be a "voice for America’s children."
Look how different things would be that before any policy, rather foreign or domestic, could be advanced, the fate of our children would be the first consideration, a value that I believe Clinton would bring to the table as president.
Under Bill, this nation championed diversity. With Bill and Hillary as first Lady in the White House, black unemployment declined, small business loans to African-American doubled, there was strong support for affirmative action and more blacks in his Cabinet and in high positions than ever before. In addition, Hillary made history by selecting a black woman, Maggie Williams, as her chief of staff. To offset plummeting election returns, Williams has been promoted to head her campaign staff.
In fact during the Clinton years, the nation experienced the longest economic boom in history: unemployment dropped from 7.5% to 4%, the Dow Jones Industrial Average of stocks rose from 3,200 points to over 10,000, and the federal budget rose from a quarter-trillion-dollar deficit to a surplus of nearly that much.
Now since one Clinton cleaned up the first mess created by Bush I, why not let another Clinton clean up the mess created by Bush Light and why not a woman?
Traditionally, I have sympathized or cast my lot with the "underperson," the one needlessly being picked on or ridiculed. Media treatment of Senator Clinton has been degrading.
Much of the news media have gone bonkers over Senator Obama, pandering and refusing to ask tough questions, while intensely and sometimes nastily grilling Senator Clinton. Pundits continue to stress that Clinton is "polarizing," and that 41 percent of voters say they won’t vote for her as if to cement a self-defeating prophecy.
When the Clintons were in office, I worked at the executive levels of journalism. It was overwhelming to see how many white men, even liberals, detested Hillary not only because she is a woman but because she did not play it safe and took on controversial issues, such as trying to win health care for the more than 44 million people who can’t afford it. She lost the fight, but it took courage to start it and I believe she deserves another chance to win it.
Atty. James Walker, a law professor at the University of Connecticut, explains the disparate treatment this way: "In light of issues like the Don Imus firings, neither politicians nor the press want to go near anything racist. The public environment has been sanitized toward political correctness, but there are no holds on sexism. That is why there can be open season on Senator Clinton."
"Hillary is getting the benefit of Bill’s baggage, his dirt from the Monica Lewinsky scandal, but Obama is getting a clean slate because of the guilt recently brought to the forefront of how America has treated blacks. That means an easy walk for Obama and the opposite for Senator Clinton," Walker said.
I also find it troublesome that so many influential Republican conservatives are confessing their love for Senator Obama. When people who are my enemies become friends of my friends, I am just naturally suspicious.
In any event, Sen. Obama, tall, brilliant, handsome, with a wonderful wife and a message of hope would make a good president, but I embrace Clinton because at the highest levels they have helped make life better for African-Americans. My vote for Hillary in the Maryland Primary was my way of saying Thank You.
Could all be a coincidence, but that’s one heck of a Clintonian coincidence to be sure.
Clinton says… "I didn’t get the coin toss so, life is unfair, and Obama has a ‘magical’ advantage. Really. you get the choice anfdformation for every argument during this debate. I guess you’re more comfortable attacking Barack than arguing salient points… Better attac him based on words said by people he has denounced…
Hillary says that if an person is not politically feasible supports you, you should both denounce and reject their support. isn’t that the same thing as saying that if someone says you are a good candidate but that person is politically bad for you, you should renounce their statement, and that you are in fact NOT a good candidate?. come on now. renouce their views and rhetoric, and leave their opinions well enough alone………. people ARE still allowed to hold opinions aren’t they?
Michelle Obama, wife of Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama, Friday called questions early in the campaign about whether her biracial husband was "black enough" to appeal to African-American voters "silly."
A Harvard-educated attorney and vice president at the University of Chicago, Michelle Obama, 44, said the question — raised most famously in a New York Times article — wasn’t hurtful to her.
"That has nothing to do with me or Barack — that has to do with the challenges we are facing in this country and we shouldn’t be surprised by them because we still haven’t worked through this stuff," she said.
"I don’t think there is a person of color in this country that doesn’t struggle with what it means to be a part of your race versus what the majority thinks is right."
The question about Obama, who was born in Hawaii to a Kenyan father and a mother from Kansas, was raised early in the presidential race, when rival Sen. Hillary Clinton was polling well among black voters and landing endorsements from high-profile black political leaders.
Since then, Obama’s support has vastly increased with black voters. He took 78 percent of the black vote in a South Carolina primary he won handily and 73 percent of the African-American vote in Florida, although delegates from that contest, which Clinton won, won’t count because of a scheduling squabble between state and national Democratic officials.
Obama, a senator from Illinois, and Clinton, a New York senator and former first lady, are the two remaining challengers for the Democratic nomination and remain locked in a tight race. Obama won the season-opening Iowa caucuses and the South Carolina primary, while Clinton won New Hampshire, Nevada and no-delegate contests in Florida and Michigan, which also got in trouble for pushing ahead in the primary schedule.
While she said she initially tried to talk her husband out of running for president, Michelle Obama said she doesn’t share the concerns voiced by Alma Powell, wife of former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who is black, that her husband’s safety might be threatened over a quest for the White House. Powell had been mentioned as a possible candidate, but did not run.
"There are inherent risks for all people, but particularly for people of color, so, you know, I can’t live my life worrying about what might go wrong," she said. "What we are going through, Barack and our family, is nothing compared to our leaders who pushed through on the civil rights movement.
"When I think of Martin Luther King and Coretta Scott King and true fears that they had and true sacrifices that they made, I think I don’t have any right to hesitate for doing something that I think is important out of fear."