« Joe Loconte: Mitt Romney's Step of Faith | Main | Gordon Brown shifts from Blair-Bush approach by initiating talks with Taliban »

Comments

Umbrella man

This has just appeared on Drudge (IT APPEARS THE DEMS WANT HUCKABEE):

DEMS HOLD FIRE ON HUCKABEE; SEE 'EASY KILL' IN GENERAL ELECTION
Tue Dec 11 2007 10:27:53 ET

**Exclusive**

Democrat party officials are avoiding any and all criticism of Republican presidential contender Mike Huckabee, insiders reveal.

The Democratic National Committee has told staffers to hold all fire, until he secures the party's nomination.

The directive has come down from the highest levels within the party, according to a top source.

Within the DNC, Huckabee is known as the "glass jaw -- and they're just waiting to break it."

In the last three weeks since Huckabee's surge kicked in, the DNC hasn't released a single press release criticizing his rising candidacy.

The last DNC press release critical of Huckabee appeared back on March 2nd.

[DNC Press Release Attack Summary:

Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA) – 37% (99 press releases)
Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R-NY) – 28% (74)
Senator John McCain (R-AZ) – 24% (64)
Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN) – 8% (20)
Governor Mike Huckabee – 2% (4)]

In fact, as the story broke over the weekend that Huckabee said he wanted to isolate AIDS patients back in 1992, the DNC ignored the opportunity to slam the candidate from the left.

"He'll easily be their McGovern, an easy kill," mocked one senior Democrat operative Tuesday morning from Washington.

"His letting out murderers because they shout 'Jesus', his wanting to put 300,000 AIDS patients and Magic Johnson into isolation, ain't even scratching the surface of what we've got on him."

The discipline the Democrats have shown in not engaging Huckabee has earned the praise of one former Republican Party official:

"The Democrats are doing a much better job restraining themselves than the GOP did in 2003 when Howard Dean looked like he was on the brink of winning the nomination."

A close friend to Huckabee explains: "Look, Mike is Hillary Clinton's worst nightmare. They should be squirming."

Developing...

Conservative Homer

It didnt seem to make much difference to labour in the 1980s that pretty much every public figure was anti-tory.
No amount of rent-a-celeb activity would change this. An unelectable party is still an unelectable party.

Although maybe its different in America, they voted for Arnie after all. Id hope we can keep politics and celebrity seperate here though.

Edison Smith

Ron Paul needs a few big names to raise his profile. He got a big donation from Barry Manilow (an avowed Democrat), but could do with a big name pro-actively spreading the word.

Only Paul has integrity.

RightSider

Edison Smith - this Paulbot needs fixing - it forgot its link back to RuPauls website.

Anna

Ugh!! The Paulbots have invaded.

Celebrity endorsements mean nothing to me. Obama is unelectable. HillBilly is in trouble, so Oprah is doing the Republicans a favor.

The Dems are a disgrace and pathetic to boot. Like other notorious groups, they never miss an opportunity to make bad decisions. :))

Thanks, Oprah!!

Malcolm Dunn

Is Chuck Norris a celebrity? He starred in some of the most abysmal fils I've ever seen.

Tony Makara

Certain people can generate interest in a candidate. For those of us who follow political matters its sometimes hard to understand that some people are just not motivated by political concerns. So if a favourite sports star or entertainer can lead that person towards a little political consciousness then it can't be a bad thing. John Kennedy had Marilyn Monroe on his side, kind of hard to top that one!

Matt Wright

The notion that some people would vote for someone because a celeb says say so is frightening.

Tony Makara

Matt Wright, I agree but I suppose its a means to an end with some people. The Live-Aid concerts did a lot of good back in the 1980s and made many people conscious of hunger around the world.

Denise

Matt Wright, absolutely. It tells me that they can't think for themselves.

Frogg, USA

Celebrity endorsements make very little difference in how someone would vote (that has been supported by every poll I have ever seen on the matter).

Steevo

Although celebrity endorsements can go to any party, by and large Hollywood is liberal to hard left and most of the cause-clowns will want a Democrat.

Frogg, USA

Here is a political analysis on the matter:

"Oprah's Impact On Obama Campaign Assessed
Following the massive rallies held by Barack Obama and Oprah Winfrey over the weekend, political observers are still assessing their impact, with all three national news programs last night airing pieces on the subject. The consensus is that it was a great weekend for the Obama campaign, but traditionally, celebrity endorsements haven't always translated into votes. ABC World News (Wright) reported, "More than 65,000 people in three key states turned out to see Oprah Winfrey." But will "they all heed Oprah's call?" Richard Norton Smith, ABC News consultant: "History suggests the answer to that is 'no, it doesn't mean votes.' But sometimes you are in uncharted waters. Sometimes you make new history." Wright: "Historically, celebrity endorsements don't count for much."

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_071211.htm
********************************

Political analyst, Dick Morris, did toss out an idea the other day on how Oprah's endorsement may have an effect on the Dems this time around. He said that she basically said to women....it is ok not to vote for Hillary. And, she basically said to blacks....it is ok not to vote for Clinton.

I've never seen a celebrity endorsement make a difference though.


Blue Keld

Endorsements don't necessarily turn votes - they merely amplify media coverage of the message. They raise the profile of a candidate (Huckabee is now "the guy Chuck Norris endorsed" to a swathe of YouTubers) which gives them more airtime to get their message over and also makes them more memorable.

To think an endorsement will deliver huge number of voters is a mistake; only 20% of Democrats say that Oprah's endorsement is significant to them and probably even then it won't change the minds of more than 2-3% but given how close the race is in Iowa and New Hampshire this could prove to be a very significant boost for Obama.

atheliing

Live Aid brought awareness of hunger???

Oh please... You must have been living in a vacuum.

Frogg, USA

Uh-oh! Oprah puts down her Obama pom poms and now says she could change her mind:

************************

As soon as Oprah Winfrey endorsed Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., for president, the buzz began about her potential to sway an election.

In an exclusive interview with ABC News’ Diane Sawyer, the media mogul seemed to downplay the power behind her seal of approval, saying that just because she is supporting Obama doesn’t mean she is against any other candidate.

Winfrey said she hasn’t talked to Clinton since her Obama endorsement, but she left open the possibility of changing her mind down the road.


http://michellemalkin.com/2007/12/12/gee-thanks-oprah/

atheliing

"Winfrey said she hasn’t talked to Clinton since her Obama endorsement, but she left open the possibility of changing her mind down the road."

Meaning: "I voted for Obama before I voted against him???

LOL!

mamapajamas

I would prefer to think that the implosion of the Hillary camp is what's causing Obama's current surge in the polls.

It's starting to come out in a big way that it is and probably always has been the Clinton camp producing the dirty tricks, and the leftists in the news media are now caught between a rock and a hard place.

They now have the first seriously viable black candidate running, and the Clinton Camp putting out silly "warnings" about Obama (he used cocain as a teenager, he's wanted to be president since kindergarten). But the Obama people are NOT letting them get away with it this time, and the MSM are no longer co-operating with the Clinton camp on this stuff as they did when Bill was prez or when Hillary was running for the Senate.

NOW they're being called down for their little tricks (Clinton campaign bigshot: "We've already apologized to the Obama campaign for that report that he used drugs as a teenager..." Obama campaign bigshot: "See? They're doing it AGAIN!" MSM reporter: "Yes, you are doing it again. Can't you make a statement without referring to negative things?"). It is a joy to behold the Clintons being brought to bear for responsibility for one of their very oldest campaign tricks, that of bringing another candidate's negatives to the forefront by pretending to "care" that the "Republicans might use" that in the general election when they are, in fact, the ones airing the negative at every opportunity and protesting that they aren't talking about, "... the time Sen. So and so stopped beating his wife."

Meanwhile, every single "leak" about Obama has been traced back to the Clinton camp, and the MSM is calling them on it.

The Clintons are good, but they aren't THAT good, and it's starting to catch up with them. That does my heart SO much good! :D

generic viagra

That coat is awesome! Where did you get it?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad

ExtremeTracker

  • Tracker