Hillary rallies for McMahon

via AP

Sen. Clinton endorses McMahon

via the NYTimes;

“Mike McMahon has a proven record of building bridges, and bringing people together to solve tough problems,” Senator Clinton said in a statement. “He has never been afraid to make hard choices, and his experience is exactly what we need to help bring change to Congress.”

Tom Wrobleski, Concern Troll

via Wikipedia;

The concern troll posts in web forums devoted to its declared point of view and attempts to sway the group's actions or opinions while claiming to share their goals, but with professed "concerns". The goal is to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt within the group.

Tom starts off telling us that presidential candidate Sen. Obama has not raised as much money in Staten Island as Sens. Clinton or McCain. Thus;

Which could mean trouble for borough Democratic candidates -- especially those who are aiming to run against GOP Rep. Vito Fossella -- if Obama wins the party nomination.

The fundraising totals from Staten Island are;
Clinton - $111,348
McCain - $48,820
Obama - $33,762

more Tom;

In other words, congressional hopefuls Steve Harrison and Domenic Recchia had better hope that Hillary finds some way to win the Democratic nomination.

So Harrison and Recchia are in trouble if Obama is the nominee according to Tom because McCain has raised more money on the island and thus has more support. Thus the concern trolling. Tom wants us to believe he is just stating some facts and raising concerns for the public to think about but he stops well short of presenting his case in an unbiased fashion. Why does Tom not continue that line of thought to say Fossella and McCain are in trouble if Sen. Clinton is the nominee seeing how she clearly blew McCain away in fund raising on the island?

Instead Tom pulls out his infamous "source" whom he never attempts to show has any knowledge or credibility and hopes you don't question him. This source goes on to lay out the argument that Republicans are just going to win Staten Island even if Sen. Clinton is the nominee, it is how the island works we are told. Aside from that continued lack of credibility this line of reporting has, should it be true what is the purpose then of this article? Why is his slant that Obama will hurt Harrison and Recchia instead of simply writing an article that Staten Island votes for Republicans. It seems the biggest thing stopping that is that it wouldn't be news worthy.

Tom Wrobleski is pushing biased anti-Democrat articles

Have you seen any pieces by Tom Wrobleski that talk about how the Chris Ward scandal may harm Fossella's campaign? How about how declining Bush approval and declining Republican party affiliation by voters across the country will hurt Fossella's re-election changes? Chances are you haven't because Tom hasn't written any articles about that.

He didn't write articles about how the Mark Foley scandal could hurt Fossella in 2006 or how Tom Delay and his contributions could bring down Fossella. Recently though multiple articles he has written talk about how various wide ranging circumstances will only hurt Harrison or Recchia's chances this fall without similar comparison to Fossella's campaign. Aside from partisan bias they are almost all absurd in their reasoning.

In a previous article Tom actually addresses the possible negative impact of Obama or Hillary a top the ticket on this Congressional race. He includes quotes like this;

"Would Hillary or Obama be enough to tip the congressional race?" he said. "Probably not. A race like that usually comes down to the local candidate and local issues."

So after we have seen primary voters come out in overwhelming numbers for the Democrats, Hillary alone had more votes than all of the Republicans combined, we should expect them to not have the same impact this fall? If you want more indicators try The Hill which has a whole piece on the coattails of Obama on down ticket Congressional races. Of the 21 paragraphs looking at the benefits and drawbacks of Barack or Hillary, only one paragraph touts how McCain will help Fossella. So then Tom tells us in his own words how Spitzer could damage Democrats this fall;

But now you've got Hillary and Barack Obama ready to tear the Democratic Party apart for the presidential nomination, and you've got the shining light and de facto head of the state party preparing to slink out of office in disgrace. How do Democrats like state Sen. Diane Savino convince voters that the entire state government apparatus should be handed over to them?

snip

And the new Spitzer mess could even hurt the Democrats this November.

Naturally there needs to be a tie into the Spitzer story for what ever reason. So in the first article we are told it is about local issues and not other candidates on the ballot and now we are told that its other elected officials that will effect this race and not local issues. Then we are told Obama or Clinton will do nothing for the race even though they are on the ballot, but Spitzer who is not will only drag down Democratic candidates. Tom questions why voters would give Democrats their vote following Spitzer's fall from grace but that really pales in comparison to the numerous Bush administration scandals and yet there is no question about voters supporting Fossella or other Republicans. Not quite sure I am buying that desperation on Tom's part. Now if you want to take this all a step further Tom tells us that Rep. Reynolds, a Republican congressman from upstate New York retiring is bad news for Harrison and Recchia;

More potential bad news for Democratic congressional hopefuls Domenic Recchia and Steve Harrison: Upstate GOP Rep. Tom Reynolds, who squeaked to re-election with just 51 percent of the vote in 2006, is retiring.

His premise, which may be difficult to understand is that with Reynolds retiring and this becoming an open seat that nationally Democrats may put money into this race and thus thinning out what is then available for them to contribute to Harrison or Recchia. This is simply stupefying. Despite this being the second New York Republican retiring rather than face a difficult election, this is somehow bad news for Democrats. Even though this is a much more heavily Republican favored district, R+3 PVI compared to the D+1 PVI here in the 13th, this is again somehow bad news for us. Despite the DCCC having $38 million cash on hand compared to the NRCC having $5 million with $2 million in debt, this is bad news for Democrats.

Did Tom choose to write any articles on how Bush is bringing down Fossella? No.
Did Tom choose to write any articles on how not having Giuliani as the Republican nominee is bad news for Fossella? No.
Did Tom write an article on the $33 million cash advantage the Democrats hold and how that could be bad news for Fossella. No.

While Fossella's margins of victory have been going down cycle after cyle, and while he is having one of his poorest fundraising cycles and while every week it seems there is a new scandal he is connected to, Tom manages to put all of that aside and imagine up a troublesome scenario for Harrison and Recchia. Tom Wrobleski is toeing a dangerous partisan line in his reporting and this should not be tolerated.

Hillary Clinton alone beats entire Republican total in Staten Island

via Tom;

At the GOP vote counting operation in Midland Beach, Rep. Vito Fossella (R-Staten Island/Brooklyn) said the Island is a "pretty good reflection of how the whole country goes, at least on the Republican side of things."

Rep. Vito Fossella couldn't be more right that the island is a good reflection of how the whole country goes. Democrats had larger voter turnout this year in Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, New Hampshire, Iowa, Missouri, North Dakota, and Alaska, all states that Republicans won in 2004 presidential election. But we don't have to look across the country to know that, now you can add Staten Island to that list.

approximate Presidential Primary votes in Staten Island

Democratic: 28,366 (Hillary Clinton: 17,760)
Republican: 12,500

Good thing Fossella throws that disclaimer that the island should only be predictor for the Republicans, because otherwise it looks like by his own standards he and McCain are going to have a difficult time attracting voters this fall.

Vito Fossella's Giuliani Problem

I was preparing a post on Rudy's demise and histortic departure from his presidential race when I came across a similar post on the Albany Project that went a step further and clarified the implications of Rudy dropping out on the state. Via the NY Daily News, h/t to the Albany Project;

The effects of Rudy Giuliani's departure from the presidential race are rippling into the upcoming battle for control of the state Senate.

Republican state lawmakers banked on the former mayor's White House bid to stimulate the party base when New Yorkers head to the polls and stave off Democratic rule at the Capitol.

snip

Baruch College political science Prof. Doug Muzzio agreed Republican domination of the Senate is jeopardized by the double whammy of Giuliani's quitting the race and Clinton's potential ascension as the Democratic presidential nominee.

While the article is focusing on the control of the state senate the result is just as bad for Rep. Fossella. He endorsed Rudy Giuliani, in spite of the International Association of Fire Fighters opposition to his candidacy, with some hopes that New York City's favorite Republican son would be atop the ticket driving Republicans to the polls. Now not only will Rudy not be on the ballot but now Sen. Clinton may top the Democratic side doing the opposite of his desires, driving Democrats who may only be interested in the Presidential race to go to the polls and vote, potentially voting for the Democratic Congressional candidate as well.

AARP, Sen. Clinton and SCHIP

The AARP has released a statement thanking Rep. Dingell (who introduced the SCHIP bill Vito Fossella voted against) and Sen. Clinton "for working to ensure America’s children have access to affordable health care."

Not surprising Rep. Vito Fossella is not mentioned anywhere in that statement, in fact the AARP has gone so far as to criticize Fosssella and others;

We are disappointed by New York representatives who voted against strengthening health care for children and improving Medicare. As Congress leaves for vacation, some lawmakers chose to reject the opportunity to strengthen Medicare and provide health insurance for millions of eligible children who are without health coverage.

I mention all of this because had you not known, and if you are a reader of the SI Advance you may have been mislead after reading their recent article;
Clinton, Fossella unite in opposition to health benefit guidelines for poor, August 29. The article claims that Clinton and Fossella "unite" in some manner on this issue, which is true in only that they both are critical of new federal obstacles in place to prevent the implementation of SCHIP expansion. What the article fails to mention is that first the two are in no way working together despite being "united" and second, a point I have harped on for a bit now, Vito Fossella voted NO on the SCHIP bill. Sen. Clinton on the other hand supports the Senate version. How can the Advance claim they are united when they have exact opposite voting records on this? Both small details one might expect to be included in article had it been actual reporting as opposed to more free positive press for the Congressman.