May 02, 2008

5/2: Overlapping Goals

Hillary Clinton's rising poll numbers have produced diverse reactions around the political blogosphere. Clinton supporters are buzzing about their candidate's momentum, hoping that a win in IN and a close second in NC (or, even better, an upset victory) will further the narrative that Barack Obama has been irreparably damaged by the Jeremiah Wright controversy. Obama supporters, meanwhile, are focusing on "the math" (i.e., the delegate race). They're urging the undeclared superdelegates to state their preferences and pushing the idea that the first candidate to reach 2024 delegates will clinch the nomination. In fact, the influential liberal blog Daily Kos has placed a delegate counter at the top of its homepage that displays the number of delegates that Obama and Clinton each need to reach "the magic number" of 2024 (Obama is currently 130 delegates ahead of Clinton).

As we've noted before, many conservative bloggers seem to be rooting for Clinton, either because they legitimately prefer her to Obama or because they want the Dem primary to last as long as possible (or both). Consequently, liberal bloggers who support Clinton and conservative bloggers are often making similar arguments, whether they're praising Clinton's performance on The O'Reilly Factor or pushing the idea that she's more electable than Obama. However, the majority of liberal bloggers support Obama, and they're doing their best to defend their candidate, whom they still consider the likely Dem nominee. Liberal bloggers are also criticizing John McCain and (especially) Clinton for their support of the gas tax holiday.

DEM FIELD: Heading Toward Oblivion?

Open Left's Chris Bowers takes a look at the NC and IN polls: "The most likely outcome now appears to be the most annoying outcome. Clinton will probably win Indiana narrowly, by 4-5%, and pick up either two or four delegates in the process. Obama will probably win North Carolina by single digits, and pick up nine delegates or so. Overall, this will give Clinton the CW justification to keep going, even though Obama will net delegates on the night, and in fact have netted pledged delegates from March 4th through May 6th. Further, the Obama margins will be close enough that the Clinton camp will claim they lead in the popular vote, even though that just isn't true."

Bowers continues: "I would prefer a sweep by one candidate or the other on May 6th, which would serve as a pretty severe blow no matter who landed it. This is particularly the case for Obama, since he is winning and because the established media is basically demanding a Clinton Indiana victory in order for them to keep covering her seriously. However, if Clinton sweeps North Carolina, it is going to be a pretty bad stretch for him coming up, and with only negative momentum. If he loses North Carolina, it is possible he will lose every single state the rest of the way, which will cause real problems for him in winning the nomination. If Clinton sweeps the rest of the states, look for her to start performing much, much better against McCain than Obama, and possibly for some superdelegate defections. It could be that North Carolina is a firewall state for Obama, and Indiana is a firewall state for Clinton. Then again, since nothing else has been decisive so far, why should those two sates be?"

Meanwhile, conservative bloggers continue to enjoy the protracted Dem primary:

• Pejman Yousefzadeh: "The math still favors an Obama nomination. But just as Clinton cannot win the nomination outright, neither can Obama. And even though a number of superdelegates are moving towards him, that movement may slow if they perceive any further signs that Obama possesses a glass jaw. Behind as Clinton is, she can still wreak havoc on the process and if there is power to be had, rest assured that she will. And thus, this lumbering and clumsy primary continues. Not that I am complaining; this is The Greatest Show On Earth and I certainly do not want to see it end anytime soon."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "The DNC has fallen far behind the RNC in contributions for 2008, exacerbating a problem that began last year. At the moment, the Republicans have almost six times as much money in the bank as the Democrats, and continue to outraise them on a month-to-month basis. Why does the GOP lap the DNC every month? Everyone's cash goes to the primary meltdown instead of the general election. [...] Small wonder Howard Dean wants commitments from superdelegates by the second week of June. That leaves him eight weeks to raise enough money for the DNC to overcome months of failure. The aroma of desperation has begun to hover over Denver, and over Dean, and over the Democrats."

DEM FIELD II: Do You Believe In Magic Numbers?

MyDD's Jonathan Singer agrees with Marc Ambinder's claim that Obama "needs 283 [delegates] to clinch the nomination": "While technically there isn't a whole lot of difference between adding from the bottom up rather than subtracting from the top down, rhetorically there is a difference. Talking about the magic number -- the remaining number of delegates a particular candidate needs to receive in order to secure the Democratic nomination -- suggests an end game in sight. [...] Ambinder's way of looking at the race does, at the least, provide a concrete reminder that, in the end, this is about delegate math, and Obama is a whole lot closer to securing the Democratic presidential nomination than Clinton is."

TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat disagrees: "Jonathan Singer cites Marc Ambinder's declaration that Barack Obama needs 283 delegates to clinch the Democratic nomination. I like the concept but I question the number. Ambinder assumes the magic number is 2025, which excludes Florida and Michigan. That is simply unacceptable. 2209 is the magic number, which means Obama is 468 delegates away from the magic number. Clinton is about 600 delegates away. Florida and Michigan must be resolved before we declare that someone has clinched the nomination."

It appears that the Daily Kos editors agree with Singer and Ambinder, as they have installed a delegate counter at the top of the homepage that presents 2024 as "the magic number." The counter uses the delegate counts provided by DemConWatch, which currently lists Obama at 1733 delegates (or 291 delegates away from clinching the nomination) and Clinton at 1603 (or 421 delegates away from clinching the nomination).

Obsidian Wings' publius isn't sure that Clinton will concede if Obama reaches this magic number: "The million dollar question is whether Clinton will actually drop out in June if Obama hits the magic number through superdelegates. I've always thought that she would, largely because the political pressure would grow unbearable to stay in. But you can see how Clinton's Indiana victory would ease that pressure just enough to allow her to justify staying in until August. Looking at the calendar, an Indiana victory would be followed by some major losses [for Obama] in West Virginia and Kentucky (though probably not in Oregon). More importantly, it would fuel a month-long media narrative of 'Obama is wounded', 'Obama can't win whites', 'Obama ordered a Whopper Junior from a guy with a Louis Farrakhan tattoo but failed to denounce the pickles,' etc. And that gives Clinton just enough wiggle room to stay. [...] Don't get me wrong, the political pressure will be turned up a notch in June. But maybe not enough. In fact, it's not even clear the superdelegates will make a decision in June. On balance, I still think she'll get out in June. But the odds are increasing that the Death March will continue all the way to Denver. Kill me now."

Meanwhile, The Huffington Post's Sam Stein reports: "One of the nation's largest Black American grassroots advocacy organizations is drawing a line in the sand for Democratic leadership: if Hillary Clinton is awarded the nomination by overturning the pledged delegate count, there will be a political price to pay. Color of Change, which has a reach of more than 400,000 people, is organizing a petition campaign to persuade superdelegates and congressional leaders that a Clinton win through the hands of party insiders would 'disenfranchise millions,' and constitute 'a shocking attack on voting rights and democracy.'"

DEM FIELD III: Make Up Your Minds, Superdelegates

Obama's online supporters are focusing on getting the undeclared superdelegates to announce their preferences:

• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "At this point, this is no longer a race about regular votes. Obama will win the pledged delegate, popular vote, and states won counts. The only race left is the one for the supers, and [ex-DNC Chair Joe] Andrew's defection is probably a fatal blow to Clinton's chances on that front."
• The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "Over a dozen superdelegates have declared so far this week. Remaining ones -- especially the six governors, seventeen senators, and sixty-five representatives who are directly accountable to constituents -- should be encouraged to do so as well, in as timely a manner as possible."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "2008 Democratic Convention Watch is doing amazing work keeping on track of the superdelegates. Here's their list of supers who haven't endorsed yet. What are they waiting for? Jed wrote a post earlier this week titled 'Superdelegates to blame for enabling destructive campaign.' Maybe the superdelegates need some intervention."

As is his habit, Big Tent Democrat pushes back: "Obama needs to beat Clinton, not have the Superdelegates drive Clinton from the race. It will make him look weak."

Meanwhile, TPM's Josh Marshall understands the superdelegates' reluctance to endorse: "If you're out there running a competitive race yourself and you need to raise money (or think you'll need to do so in the future) the endorsement game is a dicey business. By definition, when you endorse one or the other you piss off roughly half the Democratic party -- or at least half the big funders, the people write and bundle the big checks. So that's really not productive. And it's a good reason to keep your powder dry."

DEM FIELD IV: She's Got The Mo'

Pro-Clinton bloggers are buzzing about Clinton's momentum:

• MyDD's Jerome Armstrong: "I usually stay away from the tracking polls, but Rasmussen's numbers are just shocking. [...There has been] a 10 point swing which includes 2 days of polling after Obama having held a press conference and spoke about Wright without defending him again, but instead, joined the average American in being outraged. [...] In North Carolina, the race is polarizing [along racial lines], but Clinton appears to have a ceiling of support and would need undecideds to break her way again, and in Indiana, Clinton appears to pulling away."
• Armstrong also notes that Clinton now leads Obama by 4% in Gallup's tracking poll: "Gallup confirms the Obama slide. The poll movement [is] clearly going in Clinton's favor on both tracking polls. [...] What seems most noticeable about the polling is that Obama didn't start tanking until after he 'denounced' Wright. Why is that?"
• Taylor Marsh: "Whether Democrats like Joe Andrew and others want to admit it, Obama and Wright are inextricably linked. Just look at the North Carolina headlines. But in poll after poll Obama's slide continues, while Clinton clearly has the momentum going into the weekend."

Big Tent Democrat: "These are days of danger for the Obama nomination. Today he is the likely nominee. But what happens if next Tuesday he loses by 10 in Indiana and wins by 5 in North Carolina? Despite the decree from the now supposedly all important Joe Andrew, the race will continue. And what is up after Indiana and North Carolina? West Virginia on May 13. Clinton leads by 2-1. On May 20, Kentucky and Oregon. Clinton leads by 36 in Kentucky and Obama leads in Oregon in the last polling there. Will he still on May 20? Oregon will become Obama's firewall. His must win I think. Right now, it seems unlikely that Obama can be be out of the woods until May 20 and Oregon. And only if he wins. If he loses Oregon, all bets are off I think."

DEM FIELD V: Electability, Schmectability

Pro-Clinton and pro-Obama bloggers are discussing the recent Quinnipiac Univ. polls showing Clinton out-performing Obama against McCain in PA, OH, and FL:

Beeton (who supports Clinton): "According to the latest Quinnipiac University polls, taken April 23-29, not only does Hillary Clinton crush John McCain in these two states, but Obama comes up just short within the margin of error against the Republican. [...] Now, I've said before that, while it makes it more difficult, either Democrat can win without Florida or Ohio. You add New Mexico and Iowa to the states John Kerry won and the Democrat would need only 6 more EVs to reach the magic number of 270. Clinton could deliver that in Arkansas (6 EVs) and Obama in Colorado perhaps (9 EVs.) But when you're living in world in which the nomination is essentially in the hands of superdelegates who are likely to be swayed by traditional electability arguments, I suspect Florida and Ohio matter indeed."

Moulitsas (who supports Obama): "Given that Obama is going through perhaps the worst two weeks of his candidacy right now, the fact that he runs even with McCain in Florida is shocking. Pennsylvania looks fine for both candidates, better than would be expected given its been a dead-even state for a while now. And Ohio? Of these numbers, those have to be the most worrying for Obama. While his path to the nomination doesn't necessarily have to run through Ohio, taking the state would make single-handedly slay McCain given that the 71-year-old Republican seriously threatens only one Kerry state versus Obama -- New Hampshire. With Clinton at the top of the ticket, McCain threatens the Kerry states of Washington, Oregon, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, and Michigan (49 electoral votes), which make Florida and Ohio (47) that much more critical to win the White House. Both the Obama and Clinton paths feature serious potential pitfalls. I still prefer Obama's, especially if -- as Q tells us -- Florida is truly in play."

In a separate post, Moulitsas links to a Monmouth Univ. poll showing Obama out-performing Clinton against McCain by 10 points in NJ: "What has Clinton told us? That only she can win the 'big states'? That Wright has irreparably harmed Obama? That she's 'more electable'? That independents like her more? [...] They both win [NJ] handily, but Obama's extra 10 points will come in handy in a state that will feature multiple hot House races. [...] After Wright, after 'bitter', after all the nonsense in this campaign, the very people who gave Clinton a solid victory on February 5 now prefer Obama."

CLINTON: More Love From The VRWC

Many conservative bloggers are buzzing about Clinton's momentum and praising her performance on The O'Reilly Factor:

• Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "Her best moments came on illegal immigration, when she sounded both tough on enforcement (she says she favors border controls and employer sanctions) but reasonable. She was perhaps less in command and less amusing than in Part 1 of the interview. Still, my take is essentially the same: she is a capable, impressive candidate who has gotten better with time and will come across as eminently reasonable to many less ideologically-motivated voters. What's more, she's smart enough to go on Fox, tangle with [Bill] O'Reilly, and look like she's enjoying it. (Better than a dreary, disengaged performance on a fluff morning show.)"
• NRO's Andy McCarthy: "Sen. Clinton did herself a lot of good by [going] toe-to-toe with O'Reilly with good cheer and shrewd feistiness. She says things that are ridiculous...but such things will be meaningless to most people. They'll see that Hillary seemed comfortable, confident, occasionally funny, and never let O'Reilly throw her off stride. With Obama reeling and appearing to reel, she looks increasingly in control."

Some conservative bloggers are also explaining why they prefer Clinton to Obama:

• Rubin: "The [Indianapolis Star] editors write 'Clinton offers a clear-eyed view of the way things are.' That is not a bad encapsulation of the difference between her and her opponent. She does believe that there are bad guys in the world impervious to our charms, that politics is a tough and conflict-ridden business, that $75,000 isn't 'rich' if you live in expensive places, and that sometimes it's best not to be specific about intractable problems (e.g. social security) which in the end are going to get decided by hard bargaining at midnight in a conference room in the Capitol. [...] She at least understands that disparate factions and viewpoints must be addressed to deal with issues the public cares about. Her stance on immigration (let illegal aliens report crimes without retribution, imprison or deport those who are criminals, build a fence where needed and deal rationally with 12 million people here) is a case in point. She also knows better than to promise to 'throw out all the lobbyists' and 'get rid of special interests.'"
• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "It's hard to see Clinton being a good president, at least from my perspective. However, there probably are limits as to how bad she would be. Hillary seems to understand that the world is a dangerous place; that our enemies make it so; and that therefore, at a minimum, we should not be in a rush to accommodate them. Obama may or may not grasp these basic realities. If he does not, then he will be another Jimmy Carter. Yet, in contrast to Clinton, one can imagine Obama turning out to be a good president. That's because there's some evidence that he's intellectually open to deviations from orthodox liberalism in ways that Clinton isn't. In addition, there may be something to his (admittedly self-serving) claim that he's temperamentally better suited than Clinton to working with his political adversaries. It's difficult to see how he could be more poorly suited [than Clinton]. In sum, Obama seems to have both a larger upside and a larger downside than Clinton. Being risk averse when it comes to politicians, I'd probably rather see Clinton in the oval office."

AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein remains opposed to Clinton: "All of the recent conservative love for [Clinton] is nauseating. She remains a vile, contemptible, figure who will say anything that suits her political needs at any given instant."

CLINTON II: Who Cares What The Quote-Unquote Experts Think?

Liberal bloggers continue to criticize Clinton for attacking Obama over the gas tax holiday. Bloggers are particularly critical of Clinton strategist Howard Wolfson's explanation of why Clinton supports a gas tax holiday that most experts disagree with:

"'There are times that a president will take a position that a broad support of quote-unquote experts agree with,' spokesperson Howard Wolfson said. 'And there are times they will take a position that quote-unquote experts do not agree with.'"

• Yglesias: "[This] seems eerily reminiscent of a certain least-popular president ever's attitude toward governance. What happened to the idea that Clinton is the candidate of policy substance, competence, and experience?"
• The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "Now policy experts aren't to be taken seriously? What on earth has gotten into the Clinton campaign this week? [...] What we're likely to see is a split -- high-information, well-informed voters who see the Clinton-McCain proposal as crass pandering, and low-information voters who never hear about the evidence and falsely believe a gas-tax holiday might put a few extra bucks in their pocket. Clinton seems to hope there are just enough people in the latter group who'll buy into the nonsense and give her a political boost. It's cynical politics at its most disappointing. Worse, since low-information voters vastly outnumber high-information voters, this demagoguery might even work."
• The New Republic's Jon Chait, unlike Benen, thinks Clinton's position will hurt her politically: "[Clinton's] political strength is her wonkiness, and her weakness is her reputation for dishonesty and ruthlessness. This issue cuts away at her strength and reinforces her weakness."

CLINTON III: Elitism Alert!

Several conservative bloggers are mocking Clinton after watching a video of her struggling to work a coffee machine:

• Michelle Malkin: "Have to admit, I snickered heartily at the video clip of Hillary Clinton struggling to operate the coffee machine at a South Bend gas station mini mart yesterday. [...] When the phone rings at 3am, you can be sure that Hillary's minions will have her coffee already poured so she doesn't have to fiddle around with all those damned complicated buttons again. Hillary also deigned to get out of her vehicle to observe the common practice known as pumping your own gas -- unfamiliarity with which she and Nancy 'Blink Blink' Pelosi share. Afterwards, she eagerly expressed interest in seeing a local family's 'pigs and chickens.' Next up: Hillary munching down fried Spam sandwiches on white bread slathered in ketchup."
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "Video: Smartest woman in the world tries to work the coffee machine. [...] The beauty of this footage? It was apparently taken during Her Majesty's common-man joyride/photo op this morning, replete with choreographed pit stop for gas and java. I guarantee you, right now somewhere in Indiana, some poor lackey is being berated for failing to brief her on how to work the self-serve. Thank goodness the working class has an alternative to this out-of-touch poseur, one who appreciates them for the xenophobic, Bible-thumping gun fetishists they are."

Liberal blogger John Aravosis, who supports Obama, also links to the video: "[Clinton's] coffee machine debacle harkens back to George Bush, the elder, and how he expressed amazement on first seeing a grocery scanner that the rest of us had seen for years. The video made Bush look out of touch. Kind of like not knowing how to make yourself a cup of coffee...Elitist, heal thyself."

MCCAIN: Certain Questions Are Not Appreciated

Conservative bloggers are furious that a a 45-year-old Baptist minister (who's also a former Joe Biden staffer) attended a McCain rally in IA and asked the AZ senator if he had ever called his wife a "c---" (an anecdote that liberal blogger Cliff Schecter reported in his book The Real McCain):

• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "Oh, the screeching, the wailing, the wall-punching outrage if a conservative had put a question this obnoxious to a Democrat. HuffPo, bless its withered heart, describes our interrogator as a 'Baptist minister' but read further into their blockquote and you'll see he's a former campaign worker for Joe Biden. The peg here is an anecdote from lefty journo Cliff Schechter's book, 'The Real McCain,' alleging that Maverick once dropped this term of non-endearment on his wife in front of reporters. The story's been circulating in nutroots circles for months, decked out in the trappings of a 'legitimate' campaign issue to disguise its real purpose. They do the same thing when outing closeted gay Republicans, framing it as a question of hypocrisy when what they're really after is the salacious public humiliation that comes with any sex scandal. Same with this: They're hot to show that Maverick's a prick and a bad husband, but rather than just circulate the story with that explicit goal, they adorn it with the stupid 'substantive' pretext that it speaks to McCain's temper, as if him acting boorishly towards his wife means he might fly off the handle one night as president and push the button."
• Michelle Malkin: "Crude, dumb, and useless. If they really wanted to push his buttons and address a real policy issue, they would press him hard about his open-borders Hispanic outreach director Juan Hernandez and his anti-assimilation campaign finance co-chair Jerry Perenchio, challenge his coziness with La Raza, and expose his border security double-talk. But they're the nutroots. So never mind."
• Townhall's Matt Lewis: "I thought McCain handled it very well (so much for having a bad temper). If this was an attempt to demonstrate that McCain has a bad temper, it failed miserably. After all, if that sort of question doesn't make you irate, I'd say you're pretty unflappable."

Schecter, naturally, has a different view of the incident: "Today an audacious member of a McCainiac townhall audience Iowa finally asked McCain 'the question.' It was a query he has been able to avoid so far, simply by besmirching my character and hiding behind his bevy of underpaid hacks. Did he or did he not refer to his wife with an expletive in 1992 in front of the press and male aides of his, as I reported in my book The Real McCain? Well, today McCain's media holiday on this subject came to end, with an everyday person taking democracy into their own hands and asking him to answer for his behavior. Not that he would lower himself to being held accountable -- it was at best a non-denial."

MCCAIN II: Veepstakes

Several conservative bloggers are discussing a recent post by RedState's Dan McLaughlin, in which he proposes 15 "don't" rules and 4 "do" rules regarding McCain's VP choice, and concludes:

"If you are guessing that I think [SC Gov. Mark] Sanford and [MN Gov. Tim] Pawlenty remain the logical frontrunners, the only two guys who really sweep through all the check boxes unscathed, you are right -- but while I wasn't ready to back [Mitt] Romney as a presidential candidate, he also should not be ruled out of the veepstakes, as there's no one consideration that really knocks him out, either."

• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "[McLaughlin] knocks off a few of my favorite choices along the way: Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal ('No rookies') and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin ('No new mothers,' pointing out how much she has going on on the home front right now). He contends former Ohio congressman Rob Portman's tenure as [George W.] Bush's Trade Representative and then Budget Director might run afoul of the 'no Bushies' rule. [...] Allow me to offer a dark horse candidate way below the radar: Rhode Island Governor Don Carcieri. Two term governor, pro-life Catholic, tough on illegal immigration and corruption in his home state."
• The Club For Growth's Nachama Soloveichik: "Dan McLaughlin at Redstate has a good post on the dos and don'ts of VP picks. [...] The one point I disagree with the most is the exclusion of people like [SEC Chair] Chris Cox and Rob Portman, who while appointed by Bush, are not perceived as being an extension of the administration. More importantly is where this list leaves us. If you agree with most of the dont's -- and I do -- the process of elimination narrows the pool to very few candidates. McCain himself has ruled out picking a pro-choice candidate, which eliminates a lot of names you tend to hear bandied about -- [Sec/State] Condi Rice, [ex-PA Gov./Homeland Security Sec.] Tom Ridge, [FL Gov.] Charlie Crist, [TX Sen.] Kay Bailey Hutchinson, [CT Sen.] Joe Lieberman. The most logical choices left are: Tim Pawlenty, Mark Sanford, and Mitt Romney. Talk about a short shortlist.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Is Obama Bringing A Knife To A Gunfight?

Geraghty:

"Moments ago, Rush Limbaugh was addressing the Obama campaign with a 'pep talk' of sorts, pointing out that the Clintons have gained ground by pointing out that Obama is associated with crooked, extreme, and unsavory individuals like Tony Rezko, Jeremiah Wright, and William Ayers...Rush pointed out the towering mountain of ethical questions, unsavory characters, run-ins with the law, and examples of bad judgment in the Clintons' past. He recalled the Chinese money ending up in Bill Clinton's reelection coffers, renting out the Lincoln Bedroom, the millions Bill Clinton has collected since leaving office, sometimes from foreign sources...Marc Rich, Hillary's brothers...

He referred to this Politico story on 'What Obama Wishes He Could Say' and pointed out that this is a presidential campaign; you don't get elected on what you wish you could say; you get elected on what you say. It is interesting that Hillary Clinton and her campaign have absolutely no problem echoing lines of criticism of Obama that we're sure to hear from Republicans this fall, but that so far, Team Obama is much less willing to utilize Republican lines of criticism against Hillary. (I suppose untrustworthiness, exemplified by the tale of the Tuzla Dash, would be the exception.)"

LEST WE FORGET: Potential Employee Uprising Quelled With Free Pizza

From The Onion:

"NEW YORK -- A massive employee backlash over low wages and increased workload was narrowly averted this week when company management arranged to have eight large pizzas delivered to the design firm Cobalt Media, instantly quelling months of mounting resentment and dissatisfaction.

The pizzas -- topped with pepperoni, mushroom, and extra cheese -- effectively cooled down the angry mob, which had reportedly reached its boiling point. According to Cobalt sources, the free Italian pies arrived approximately 20 minutes after a company-wide e-mail detailing upcoming cutbacks was sent out late Friday morning.

'Everyone's been fed up and ready to explode at management for weeks,' production designer Carolyn Wurster said. 'But then all those pizzas showed up, and it just didn't seem like the right time to start demanding a legitimate healthcare plan or salary raises that reflect the amount of work we do.'"

Posted by Ian Faerstein at May 2, 2008 12:45 PM