burkefile

Love it.

noreply@blogger.com (lauren victoria) — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 17:24:00 +0000

Ch 9 piece on Eliot Spitzer

noreply@blogger.com (lauren victoria) — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 12:53:00 +0000

Featuring Jonathan Alpert, star psychotherapist in New York.

Why Eliot Why?

noreply@blogger.com (lauren victoria) — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 22:51:00 +0000

You know what is so utterly shocking about the Eliot Spitzer debacle: That he did all of this on Valentine's Day. Why that day of all days? When the week before he was in Washington DC and presumably two weeks ago he was at the National Governor's Association meetings. Why Valentine's Day? Why Eliot why? What are you doing? What are you thinking? Get a hold of yourself man you are the governor of New York State not the mayor of some small town no one has ever heard of. Amazing.

Obama's Media Advantage and Why

noreply@blogger.com (lauren victoria) — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0000

AP: "Walter Shorenstein, a prominent San Francisco-based real estate developer, Democratic fundraiser and longtime supporter of Hillary Clinton penned a memo to Democratic party "superdelegates" and other activists criticizing media coverage of thepresidential campaign."

So let me explain to everyone out there, including Mr. Shorenstein (who has obviously not attended a HRC or Obama event) why Sen. Obama has better media coverage than Sen. Clinton. BECAUSE HIS CAMPAIGN TREATS THE PRESS BETTER. Yes. That's right. When you have regular press avails and Q&As, and your staff doesn't exude guarded, aloof, and paranoid behavior you get better press coverage. When a person running for office doesn't behave as if they have already won the office they are running for and begins to treat the press much like her ex-President husband did year prior that leads to unfaviorable coverage.

And this why Sen. McCain enjoys good press as well. Forget the NYT story - everyone accept 5 people on 8th Ave knows that piece was a bust - McCain gets great press because he is open and because his staff doesn't play games. Period.

Obama v McCain and a Quick Reaction

noreply@blogger.com (lauren victoria) — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 03:24:00 +0000

Like that quick reaction Sen. Obama gave to McCain's assertion that he didn't know al-Qaeda was in Iraq? Sure beats the speed of the response the Kerry camp made to the Swift-Boat-veterans doesn't it? Moreover, Sen. Obama's reaction sound bite simply followed McCain's on the news in the ultimate in bada bing quick responses.

Debate 20: Obama v Clinton

noreply@blogger.com (lauren victoria) — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 03:10:00 +0000

I was really hoping that Sen. Obama would pop out in traditional Somali garb for last night's Ohio Debate. Oh well. Just a few points:

1. We really need Tim Russert and NBC News to decide what their debate format is. Is it a debate or is it a long episode of Meet the Press? If it's a debate then letting the candidates argue on regarding their health care policy should not be met by Brian Williams with a sigh. If it is a long episode of Meet The Press, fine, just tell us that. Then we know to get ready to hear more of the voices of the moderators than the candidates.

2. I thought Russert was harder on Sen. Clinton than he was on Sen. Obama. Problem is, the Clinton camp has pitched a fit about so many foolish things that complaining on this would be a waste and no one would listen.

3. Odd that Sen. Clinton complained of always getting the first question. Just odd. Does she think there is a vast journo conspiracy to do this? There would have to be since CNN, FOX, Politico, NBC, and ABC have had very different debate parameters. It's really 50/50 when you only have 2 people -- just odd that she complained about that. These are the things that convey a personality. In this case a paranoid personality.

4. Russert tosses us back to the olden days: Why does Sen. Obama have to explain Louis Farakhan endorsing him any more than Hillary Clinton would have to explain an endorsement from, say, David Duke. Will McCain have to explain that wack job radio host whateverhisname Cunningham repeating the words "Barack Hussein Obama," again and again? Of course not. And just think: That guy INTRODUCED McCain.

5. It's over. Barack won. Sen. Clinton did as well as she could do but it is coming down to desperate attempts by her campaign to manufacture issues.

See you in Texas and Ohio.

Love it

noreply@blogger.com (lauren victoria) — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 14:12:00 +0000

This proves it once and for all everyone -- Obama is a member of al-Qaeda! Just look at this photo at left. The desperate hours are here. What is probably the last seven days of the Hillary campaign for the presidency for the presidency brings us s*** like this. Brace everyone, for the pictures from first lady Hillary Clinton's trip to the same region 15 years ago.

Oscar Observations

noreply@blogger.com (lauren victoria) — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 16:38:00 +0000

I thought it was a good show. I am not going negative -- the Oscars are an American tradition. And Edith Piaf rocks.

-- I loved the constant use and flashbacks to the old Oscar broadcasts. It was done for the 80th Anniv... they should do it every year.

-- I loved that Jon Stewart had that Irish lady who was part of the duo that won best song come back out and say her thank yous. She then she said something really good and didn't blow it.

-- The Coen Bros can kiss my ass. I think they are way overrated and the little one, Ethan, is a nut. Also Scott Rudin (producer-director) is known to be one of the biggest asses in Hollywood. I did like his shoutout to his gay partner though.

-- Tilda Swinton with the red hair and ex stripper Diablo Cody winning Oscars was great. They are both so un-Hollywood in their look and behavior. And an ex-stripper winning an Oscar? Love it.

-- Jon Stewart did fine. The only issue I had with him is that when he said something serious and complimentary you couldn't tell whether he was joking or not at first -- so he took some getting use to.

-- You could tell by the clips -- just the clips -- that Daniel Day-Lewis would win best actor... though I thought Johnny Depp would win.

-- Ruby Dee had no business being nominated and everyone knows it. She was in American Gangster or all of about 6 mins total. She did look fantastic last night though.

-- George Clooney looked fantastic. Like an old style Hollywood movie star. Like Cary Grant-William Holden-Gregory Peck blended into one man. Remember he was on The Facts of Life? Amazing.

-- No matter how big the dance number or fat the orchestra string section the best original song category could not be saved.

-- I still like the big fat crazy chesire cat Jack Nicolson in the from row. The joke Stewart made regarding Nicholson impregnating someone by show's end was very funny.

-- The Heath Ledger clip at the end of the obit reel should have been waaaay longer. And they forgot Brad Renfro.

Can HRC's Consultants Ask a Question: Is Our Plan Working

noreply@blogger.com (lauren victoria) — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 14:34:00 +0000

One of the most spell binding thing to watch with regard to the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton is that no one in her campaign, included her, seems to realize that these negative attacks against Sen. Obama are not working.

For the first time in my life I sit here agreeing with Bill Kristol: Instead of attacking Obama on experience and qualifications she continues to attack him on campaign tactics. Why? It CLEARLY is an attack plan that is not working and gets nothing but boos during debate. So as her million dollar consultants continue to advise her to behave in this matter the results continue to show that the attack plans are not working. (photo of Sen Clinton at Washington & Lee HS by lvb)

Time to State It Clearly and Plainly on Nader

noreply@blogger.com (lauren victoria) — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 14:31:00 +0000

Ralph Nader is running for President again. And with that info it is time to say it: Ralph Nader is completely crazy. We are either watching a slide into mental illness or an individual so completely consumed and self centered that a comprehensive mental evaluation is in order.

For get the platitudes that everyone has the right to run for president there can only be one plausible reason for him doing this: the inability to gain control of his big fat ego.

AP: "The consumer advocate made the announcement Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press." He says most Americans are disenchanted with the Democratic and Republican parties, and that none of the presidential contenders are addressing ways to stem corporate crime and Pentagon waste and promote labor rights."

1970 - Aretha

noreply@blogger.com (lauren victoria) — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 02:05:00 +0000

A contestant on American Idol sang this last week and, I don't care what the judges said, I thought she was great. But anyway...

Yes

noreply@blogger.com (lauren victoria) — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 02:01:00 +0000

Break Time: What Makes YouTube oh so Perfect?

noreply@blogger.com (lauren victoria) — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 01:43:00 +0000

This Piece on Clinton Campaign Spending is Far More Scandalous than McCain Piece. Far More.

noreply@blogger.com (lauren victoria) — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 15:20:00 +0000

This is the real story that should have been hyped by Drudge and the NY Times. Not that McCain piece that hypes and doesn't deliver the goods. No, it's the piece on Hillary Clinton 's campaign management stylings. Styling of which will surely prevent any reasonable person from ever donating money to a political campaign -- let alone to one of a millionaire Senator and her multi-millionaire ex-President husband. Can you get past the first paragraph without cringing? Go ahead and try:

Nearly $100,000 went for party platters and groceries before the Iowa caucuses, even though the partying mood evaporated quickly. Rooms at the Bellagio luxury hotel in Las Vegas consumed more than $25,000; the Four Seasons, another $5,000. And top consultants collected about $5 million in January, a month of crucial expenses and tough fund-raising.

What? Rooms at the Bellagio? Consultants who have jacked up the whole campaign charging FIVE million dollars in a one month period? Now if you were foolish enough to donate money to such an endeavor (in the faint hopes of becoming Postmaster General) you'd feel like a big chump reading this. If the campaign was successful maybe you could get past these facts. But spending $100,000 for party platters on the night the campaign lost the Iowa caucuses?

Go ahead and try and read the whole thing.

NYT McCain Piece

noreply@blogger.com (lauren victoria) — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 03:24:00 +0000

I'm not going to deny it: I saw the link on Drudge, read half the piece, yawned, and continued watching American Idol. Then it happened: my phone rattled off the table with text messages, emails arrived and voice mails landed. This because several friends who are way smarter than I read the NYTimes piece all the way to the end.

And what they found at piece end was three paragraphs that are a table setter to a potential blockbuster. Right now Mitt Romney is someplace kicking himself for his quick exit aware of the fact that he mysteriously received over 20,000 votes last night in Washington State after exiting the race for the White House two weeks ago.

The meet and greet in Perrysburg, Ohio tomorrow just got a little more interesting. I should have known that four names on a NY Times piece (and with David Kirkpatrick as one of them) is a always a sign of trouble. But what it all boils to is this: Can the dots be connected between Vicki Iseman (above), her work as a lobbyist and specific legislation. Period. The piece doesn't exactly connect all the dots but it sure as hell gets the pen and paper out on the table. I have a feeling there will be a follow up piece that could blow the doors off.

The McCain folks need to get out in front and get out in front fast.

What Is Mike Huckabee Doing?

noreply@blogger.com (lauren victoria) — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 03:41:00 +0000

You can stay on stage too long. It's true.

Think Speeches Don't Matter? Listen to McCain

noreply@blogger.com (lauren victoria) — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 02:52:00 +0000

Words don't matter right? Great speeches are not that important -- action is. Yeah right. If you think that craziness is true you need to start listening to Sen. McCain. Go ahead I dare you: challenge yourself and attempt to sit though an entire McCain speech. And don't just pick any speech. Pick one on a night after he has won a major primary. Trust me you will believe to the pit of your soul that speeches matter after listening. Listening will make you long for a good speech. You will run (not walk) to the computer to find audio of the FDR December 7/Pearl Harbor address to Congress and long for I Have A Dream.

Sen. McCain is not a good speaker. No, he is REALLY not a good speaker. Now I'm not saying he has to be Winston Churchill in 1940. Let us review:

"We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France,
we shall fight on the seas and oceans,
we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be,
we shall fight on the beaches,
we shall fight on the landing grounds,
we shall fight in the fields and in the streets,
we shall fight in the hills;
we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old." --Winston Churchill

Does anyone have to be that good? If the circumstances of history dictate YES, you may have to be that good. The one thing McCain does do very well is humor. If he sticks with that he can make it. But I actually think that the American people may consider the fact that they may have to sit through four years (or even eight) istening to his speeches which almost clinches a Democratic victory in the White House.

Wisconsin

noreply@blogger.com (lauren victoria) — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 02:36:00 +0000

OK so now we know for sure. We pretty much knew after New Hampshire and South Carolina but now we really know for sure: Negative campaigning visited upon Sen. Obama by Sen. Clinton does not and will not work. Period.

Of course the latest non issue, that Sen. Obama is a plagiarist, was silly BS anyway. We know that. But the thing that these strategic blunders by the Clinton camp really put the spotlight on is that everything is still about attacking Obama rather than holding up Sen. Clinton as the better of the two.

And so, the Clinton campaign continues to move along without giving voters a clear reason why they should cast a vote in favor of her instead of him. No, they still want to focus on why voters should be against Sen. Obama. A third grader could tell you the theme of the Obama campaign: Change. Can anyone explain what the central theme of the Clinton campaign is? At this point I believe she would be far better off running a carbon copy of her 2000 campaign for the Senate. She would be better off on another "listening tour" rather than embark on yet another week of sillyass games and foolish October surprise attempts.

The Desperate Hours

noreply@blogger.com (lauren victoria) — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 03:57:00 +0000

Get ready. Brace.
Prepare yourself for what you know is coming. These are the desperate hours. The time at which one campaign completely understands that the tipping point is upon them and that without a major shift in the opinion of the electorate they will lose and be cast into oblivion. And so we have the campaign of Hillary Clinton. And even though a win in Wisconsin (or maybe even a close loss...) can easily change the landscape and give her yet another to claim she is the "comeback kid," the desperate hours are still governing her campaign's desperate behavior.

With no underlying campaign theme, and apparently no issues to tackle, the latest "issue" being focused on is a plagiarism charge issued from the Clinton camp onto the Obama camp. Interestingly, when ABC News World News Tonight and NBC Nightly News reported this they included clips of Hillary Clinton borrowing liberally from others in the same way she has accused Obama from borrowing from (Obama endorser) Deval Patrick. So let me get this right: Her campaign makes an allegation. Fine. But then they don't even bother to check to see if that same allegation can be leveled on their candidate. Brilliant.

And ask yourself: Do you think the voters of Wisconsin, Ohio, Vermont and Texas will care about this when they walk to their polling places? What do you think? (photo above by lvb and was taken at a Capitol Hill presser on disparities in health care).

Speeches vs Substance

noreply@blogger.com (lauren victoria) — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 15:03:00 +0000

We're back in New Hampshire again with Hillary Clinton vs Barack Obama Martin Luther King made a few speeches but Lyndon Johnson was substance and had to do the real work. This is why I wonder why it is that these candidates spend millions on consultants. First off it's becoming more and more obvious shes taking her own advice -- once again. Also, if the consultants ARE coming up with these themes than the campaign is REALLY wasting money on them and time listening to them.

This Advice Costs A Million Dollars?

noreply@blogger.com (lauren victoria) — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 18:27:00 +0000

Mandy Grunwald and Mark Penn need to process those invoices as fast as they can. Of course it is the candidate, not the consultants. But still: To the extent that these two are battling it out and crafting the latest way forward against Sen. Obama they should share the blame.

You want to process the invoices fast because your candidate and her husband are bound to figure out that a 7th grader on a playground can put together the same campaign stategy your million dollar consultants are, "putting together." Indeed, it is not working and not even close. You mean to tell me your latest mind blowing idea is "Barack is all speeches and we are substance..." That's it? A return to he's all fluff and air and we are the real thing? To quote Dr. Phil: "How is that working for you?"

See, these ideas of attack, as usual, tell us more about Hillary Clinton and her handlers than it does Sen. Obama, and not by just a little bit. They continue to be in the Fairy-Tale phase. The I can't-believe-this-young-wet-behind-the-ears Senator from Illinois is beating us/me. Well believe it. Or don't believe it and keep telling yourself how shocking this all is (that someone dare compete against you and win) and continue to lose.

Ready On Day One

noreply@blogger.com (lauren victoria) — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 05:01:00 +0000

I didn't think I'd have to bring this up because by now, with panic time firmly underway, I figured the Clinton campaign would have changed the mantra. But no.

So let's do it: Let's talk briefly about the phrase Ready On Day One.

This was obviously supposed to remind us of how young and inexperienced Sen. Obama was. Not a bad thing to point out but two problems: 1. The voters don't care, 2. The person saying it. If Jimmy Carter or George H.W. Bush could run for President again and they used the mantra Ready On Day One then OK, YES, You got me. If your name is Al Gore, Henry Kissinger, James Baker III, Dick Cheney or Colin Powell, fine, your ass is as Ready On Day One as anyone in the country. And those years of long experience against a young Senator would be a stark contrast.

But Hillary Clinton has 8 years in public office. Sen. John Edwards had 6 years in public office. Sen. Obama has 12 years in public office. Sen. McCain has 24 years in public office. I guess we could rest assured Ready On Day One wouldn't be used against McCain in the general. See, it's not like Clinton has tons more years holding public office than her opponents. Sens. Joe Biden (39 years in public office) and Chris Dodd (33 years in public office) must have been rolling on the floor when they heard that line.

PS: Unless you think Laura Bush or Rosalynn Carter would be Ready On Day One don't try and count the years as first lady.

Wake Up Maggie I Think I Have Something...

noreply@blogger.com (lauren victoria) — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 04:35:00 +0000

Obviously Maggie Williams has yet to apply her foot to the brake pedal of the Hillary campaign "strategy." The old one continues in earnest. None of what is in this NYT piece will matter because the Clinton campaign under Mark Penn and the gang is being run so poorly that Obama is going to increase the delegate margin past what any super delegate can reasonably go against.

Where is she today? Texas? Why? Isn't the next contest in Wisconsin? Why do they continue to concede states? Particularly with proportional delegate rules. Why? The Clinton camp gave up on Kansas, Idaho, Alaska, Minnesota, Nebraska, Utah, Maryland, and North Dakota and LOST HUGE. Where was Obama today? Wisconsin. They take it one state at a time. None of this Giuliani-skip-a-state business.

Obama campaigned in UT, ID, MN, ND, NE, KS and it the showed in the results. They didn't say "will never do well in Utah," and walk away.

Now the Clinton plan is to win big in TX (228 del), OH (162 del), and PA (181). Well she has to win REAL big now. At least 55% in each. At least.

Why are you running again?

noreply@blogger.com (lauren victoria) — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 03:46:00 +0000

You know the problem with the Clinton campaign is what it has been since the beginning: There is no reason given BY HER, in a coherent consistent fashion, as to why she should be elected President of the United States. Barack = Change. Hillary = ?. You may know the answer to this question should you attend an actual HRC rally. Most voters won't get to attend such an event. Instead, they have to get the message of the campaign through mass communication. If you can avoid seeing the word CHANGE in any TV piece involving Barack Obama let me know.

The central reason at first was simple: ascendancy. Funny as it may seem, the Clintons may have been fine with a shameless "bring back the good 'ol days" theme. Hell, most Dems might have been fine with it. But ascendancy? No way. That theme was not to far from the Giuliani-Thompson approach which, essentially, was: Do you really need to be convinced of how amazing I am? Do I really need to actually campaign for this s***. Come on, just vote for me.

Meanwhile Sens. Obama and McCain were out campaigning.

The Decider in Texas ... and Ohio

noreply@blogger.com (lauren victoria) — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 03:29:00 +0000

The real decider is Texas not that dude they sent us who has been in the White House for eight years. Hillary Clinton spoke to 10,000 people in Texas tonight as Barack Obama spoke to 20,000 in Wisconsin. Whoever wins Wisconsin that won't be the decider. The decider will be Texas and Ohio - but really Texas. Could she win Ohio and lose Texas? No. Could she win Texas and lose Ohio, well ... maybe.