Obama Campaign: We're On The Verge Of Wrapping This Thing Up
On a conference call this morning, Obama advisers sounded as confident a note as they ever have, arguing that yesterday's victories have left them with an all but insurmountable lead in delegates.
Obama adviser David Plouffe argued that yesterday's wins netted them an astonishing 50 delegates yesterday, leaving them with a lead in pledged delegates of 136.
He also said that the only way she can prevent them from winning the nomination is by winning remaining contests in "blowout form." He said Hillary needs to win Ohio and Texas "by well over 20 points" to remain in contention, adding that "we see no evidence that that's going to happen."
What about Hillary's big lead in the polls in those states? Plouffe suggested that those wouldn't hold once Obama hit the trail in both of them. "We're looking forward to a relaxed calendar, so Senator Obama can spend a lot of time in these states campaigning," Plouffe said. "Any time Senator Obama spends time with voters, we profit from that."
Getting a bit ahead of themselves with this overconfident "We're On The Verge Of Wrapping This Thing Up". Yep, just like after Iowa I suspect...
February 13, 2008 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Definitely confident. But can you dispute the fact that the Clintons need to blow him out in Ohio and Texas? Especially if he wins Wisconsin and pulls out Hawaii (which I understand from TNR is no easy task given the Clintons insitutional support there) by large margins.
But I'll agree with one thing you said: Remember New Hampshire (that should be the rallying cry for every Obama supporter over the next three weeks).
February 13, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton only beat Obama by 3 points in NH and he had the same number of delegates. If he ties in delegates in OH, TX, PA he still wins. So it's not comparable. They're going to have to fight in those states, but as long as Clinton isn't really fighting in HI and WI, well...
February 13, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think this is a bit different than Iowa.
February 13, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nobody in the Obama camp said it was all over after Iowa. But now, after winning the lion's share of the country's states so far, and with no Hillary wins for a long time?!
Yeah. It's almost over. It's time for Hillary Clinton to get prepared to drop her campaign, so that the Democrats can start to save up for the big election.
February 13, 2008 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's pretty obvious what's going on here. You may not want to see it, but Iowa is long past us and Obama's wins and forward momentum are now undeniable. He has had few stumbles in this race. Look at the Pollster.com graph on the right-hand side of this page. This isn't a single poll. This is an aggregation of well over a hundred polls, starting in 2007. And Obama's rapid rise - beginning in the last quarter of last year - is undeniable and, I believe, unstoppable. Ignore the floaters and look at the trend. Time is on Obama's side. The more voters get to know him, the more they like him.
February 13, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
You mean, like Hillary did when she predicted before Iowa that this would all be over after Super Tuesday?
Like that, you mean?
February 13, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is certainly a possibility. If he stays as close in Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania as he did in California, it could be over. I think the so-called super-delegates will be looking carefully at the underlying demographics of the results in those states, and of the results in Wisconsin. They may discount the Republican and Independent crossovers and rely on the Democratic base votes to decide whom to back.
February 13, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Where can I find a video of Obama's speech in Madison last night?
February 13, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's on the Obama website - www.barackobama.com
February 13, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is a bit premature (I know I'm tempering my excitment as best as I can) but his analysis seems accurate: Clinton needs blowouts in OH, PA and TX to have a chance.
February 13, 2008 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think Obama has to win Ohio (or Texas but that's much less likely) to really knock her out of the race. Even if she wins the two states by a thin margin, the statement would be made that she won the big states and the delegate count would remain painfully close.
The other thing to watch is her cash on hand and fundraising. Will these 8-10 consecutive losses mean her donors rally to her or do they hold back on checks?
The expectations are huge now for Obama now - and now he's got to keep meeting them. Can he? Yes he can! (I hope)
February 13, 2008 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not sure if your analysis makes sense. If she "wins" a big state by a thin margin, then the pledged delegate count probably doesn't change at all (or by a minor amount).
Plus this whole notion of winning "big states" misses the mark. She's lost an overwhelming majority of the states where they have both campaigned. Think about: he's 23-11; she's 11-23. And none of the big states she's won are in ANY threat of going red in the fall. In the end, these "big states" only seem to matter because she won them.
February 13, 2008 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
here
February 13, 2008 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know. Sooner or later, Obama would have to start campaigning as the front-runner, not as the scrappy underdog. I'd say the timing is pretty good, since all signs show him winning in the next two contests without much trouble, right? So for the next three weeks at least, his front-runner status won't be in doubt.
And the so-called super-delegates are looking for a winner. They don't want to anger the Clintons, but they want this contest over. Most of all, like most politicians, they just want to have joined the winning side. The Obama campaign is just saying that it's time to jump on the bandwagon. Politically, I'd say this is good timing.
But I'd be interested to hear any contrary arguments.
February 13, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would say that the Obama camp has been shifting into frontrunner gear since day after Super Tuesday. It's been a transition that began with him spinning the post-Super Tuesday money battle and was finalized last night in his Madison speech where he started to make this about him and McCain. I wouldn't say that Obama has been playing the "underdog" at all--that approach was mostly Edwards. The elegant thing about the Obama campaign is that there doesn't need to be a tone or message change now that he's the perceived frontrunner--he keeps on the message for change, simply shifting focus toward McCain.
February 13, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking of timing, check out the timing on Obama joining the Red Room, an online community for writers. Check it out, there's some good content: http://www.redroom.com/author/barack-obama
February 14, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well,
Here is Maryland
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21225985
Total Clinton Obama
White 53 52 42 2
Black 37 15 84 1
Hisp 4 55 45
So how Obama is going to win the rest of the primaries of he loses white and latino vote by 10%
February 13, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
And last night for the first time since NH he lost the vote of those who made up their minds at the last minute. To me that says he's been riding the crest, and the wave is beginning to die.
February 13, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, he lost the last day by a whopping 3% (51/48). And frankly, he's lost those "making up their minds that day" in every contest.
But yeah, the wave is beginning to die. Not sure how much longer he can keep having landslide victories and think about staying the race. Seriously, he's deluding himself if thinks victories matter.
February 13, 2008 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is just ridiculous. The same stats are reversed in Virginia where he actually won women, men, those with degrees, those without, blacks, hispanics, whites, purples, ...everyone.
How's he gonna win without winning whites and hispanics? Probably the same way he did it last night and he's been doing it all along. He's got wins in North Carolina (90% as big as Ohio and will be a bigger margin of victory than Ohio), Mississippi, South Dakota, Montana, Oregon, Wisconsin, Vermont, and Hawaii not to mention others still on the Horizon. Those will make up most, if not all, of what he loses in TX, OH, and PA. She's just got no chance at this point of making up the pledged delegate disadvantage. And the only way she can with the overall popular vote is by counting Michigan and Florida which will look patently transparent. The writing is on the wall, and March 5 (if not the evening of the 4th) will be resignation day for her. Mark my words.
February 13, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
he's Deluded? Victories don't matter right. Is this Hillary Clinton's new campaign strategy? You Hillaries sound deluded, let it go. Hillary has lost this. She had her chance of running in 2004 against Bush and she decided not to, missing her opportunity. Now she finds herself up against a new generation of politics.
Obama/Edwards '08
February 13, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Read what he wrote again. I'm pretty sure it was satire. (I sure hope it was satire.)
February 13, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, clearly Obama's momentum is fizzling out. I don't know how he can find the strength to go on...sigh
February 13, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see any waves. The contest stays static.
Clinton and obama has own support that doesn't waves that much:
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday
Obama now leads Clinton 64% to 9% nationally among African-American voters while Clinton narrowly leads among white voters 47% to 43%. Clinton has a ten-point advantage among voters of other racial and ethnic groups (primarily Latinos).
Assuming that most Blacks already voted, she still has some chances to recover.
February 13, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
You should probably look up the census data on Ohio and Texas. I think there are one or two African-Americans living in those two states. I could be wrong though.
February 13, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
What the hell are you on?. He slaughtered Hillary by huge margins in all three contests, and you think that means he is in trouble. Are you one of the four new blog hit men that Hillery added yesterday? I
February 13, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
The only troublesome state is Texas, but he doesn't need to win it. He just needs to be close. And Obama's relatively even level of support from whites and latinos, and hugely disproportionate levels of support from the black community keeps him competitive.
By my estimate, his wildly lopsided win in Washington, D.C. alone should counteract any possible pro-Clinton margin in Texas, up to about a 7% margin of victory for her.
February 13, 2008 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Umm...the same way he won everywhere else? Oh, by the way, nice to cherrypick the exit poll numbers, he won the Latino vote by 10% in Virginia, along with women and the working class, and even people 65 and older. You are just desperate now...c'mon..
February 13, 2008 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
He also won the white vote in Virginia, although by a miniscule 1% (50-49). Nevertheless, he did win it, which is definitely better than losing it.
February 13, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
The same happened in CA.
My point is that so far there was a very little movement in support for Obama or Clinton.
February 13, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Statistically that can't happen 'til early March in Pennsylvania. There are three weeks until "verginess" can be invoked . . . But I will give Obama the riding the wave all the way to the beach thingy.
February 13, 2008 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here is your answer…
February 13, 2008 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
That was meant as a response to tnathan above, but the "in reply to" got lost when I had to sign in.
February 13, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama won his base (blacks, white men and rich dems) AND Hillary's base (latinos, women and working-class dems).
February 13, 2008 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, the large number of white, affluent voters who turned out in the northern part of the state inflated the numbers in those other demographics. The Latino vote is too small to make a judgment, within the margin of error.
February 13, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Would those be the affluent people without a college degree?
Education level Clinton Obama HS graduate 37 62 Some college 37 63 College graduate 33 66 Postgraduate 35 64 (I'm hoping that table comes out correctly—too bad we can't preview…)I'm not seeing how you can claim the affluent vote changed things much…
February 13, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Publicus,
Her Royale Crownship is invoking the strategy of her intellectual equal Rude-ee Fooliani. Clinton is planning on conceding the next twenty or so states and be coronated Queen of America.
February 13, 2008 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
The media narrative that Obama "needs" to win Ohio and Texas is misleading. I sense this has more to do with maintaining ratings than reality. His leaked projections memo indicate that his campaign is anticipating losses in those states.
Obama can win the nomination without taking any of the three states deemed critical by the media. The question, of course, is how significant the losses are. I suspect that even if Hillary win's OPT, that it won't be by a margin greater than 10%, which keeps Obama ahead in delegates.
This notion of only so-called "big states" counting disproportionately to all the "little" states Obama has racked up is nonsense. Obama has won the majority of the contests thus far, is ahead in delegates, and leads significantly in the popular vote. All Obama has to do is remain competitive and he wins the nomination.
Of course, I think Obama is likely to win two of the three upcoming "big" states anyway. One mustn't discount the power of momentum. Obama looks and feels like a winner, and people like to vote for a winner. Period.
February 13, 2008 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bingo. I hate when people make the media to have a pro-Obama bias or a pro-Clinton bias (or a liberal bias). They have a pro-let's make as much money as possible bias. That bias suggests that everything they're going to be reporting on next could decide the fate of the free world.
February 13, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clearly, Hillary has to blow Obama out in the remaining states. I mean, the Obama camp says so, and they're pretty unbiased, right? But they're not from the "old school" of politics, so they must be telling the truth. There's no chance they'd be in the managing expectations game, is there? Just like the Clintons are the only ones arm twisting the superdelegates. The Obama campaign would never stoop to such crass political maneuvering.
Funny how playing the inevitabilty card was simply despicable when the Clinton campaign did it, buut is now the cause for celebration when the Obama camp tries it.
February 13, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well by all means ChrisO, give us the unbiased scoop on HRC makes up the pledged delegate deficit over the remaining contest. Even that hyper-biased Chuck Todd calculates that HRC needs to win upwards of 56% of the remaining delegates. Sounds to me like narrow victories won't fit the bill.
But the floor is your's to explain how narrow victories in the remaining contest produces a Clinton lead in pledged delegates.
February 13, 2008 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nobody ever said playing the "inevitability" card was despicable - I did say it was dumb, but not despicable. If you want to know how big a margin she needs, look at that leaked Obama memo that was floating around the internet last week. It had him winning the delegate race despite losses in OH, PA, and TX, and with much more narrow victories, or even some losses, in this last run of states. He's got a nearly insurmountable lead, and we're nearing miracle territory here. Given the fact that Dems need to start campaigning for the general election, the pressure from inside the party on Hillary to resign is going to start growing. I'm telling you, she's out March 4/5.
February 13, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I see Matthew is still doggedly shilling for Hillary.
Matthew, will you be able to be so reliable for Obama once he secures the nomination?
February 13, 2008 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Should I answer with the Obama family answer?
February 13, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mattie, I hope you don't back obama. You have no credibility. You should write in the clintons in november.
February 13, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
VOTERS---How's YOUR judgement????
http://youtube.com/watch?v=vjg6_KXYLEI
February 13, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
so here is this freshman senator... 2 yrs under his belt in the Senate and a community organizer with 8 yrs in the state senate back home, and he's all set to be president... no doubts about his experience or preparedness...
what if the freshman senator with 2 yrs under his belt had been organizing evangelicals and had just spent 8 yrs in the KS or IA state senate? would he/she have the experience needed to become president?
oh yeah, and both of them have great oratorical skill...
or how about the candidate who spent over 20 yrs working on behalf of the poor and was an advocate for both women and children. has devoted most of her adult life to issues such as healthcare, childcare, and women's rights and human rights? oh yeah, and she was the closest advisor and confidante of the president of the united states for 8 yrs... followed by a full-term in the u.s. senate with a post on the armed services committee...
i know it's just me, but i'm sticking with the latter...
ok, i'm ready to get pummelled... i'm sure that i've offended everyone with this post... (oh yeah, and i'm really, really bitter because obama just won a whole bunch of caucuses and a couple primaries, so don't forget that part when you dismiss my post as sour grapes!)
February 13, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
So, after down-playing Obama's strengths, and up-playing Clinton's, you come to the conclusion that Clinton is clearly the better candidate. Not surprising, but realize that you have a selection bias (we all do). Also, Bill obviously didn't confide everything to Hillary. (I don't really care about his extramarital affairs, but if you're going to start talking about how close they were, you're opening yourself up for that clarification.)
I'm sure there are a lot of pro-Obama people who could make a paragraph about his strengths that make your paragraph about Clinton's strengths look tiny by comparison. I won't bother, mainly because I'm sure you've heard them all before.
My point is, try to look fairly at both sides. Clinton has her strengths, but don't be so quick to dismiss Obama's.
February 13, 2008 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ari-emanuel/the-curious-math-of-hilla_b_82028.html
Her experience is that she is very experienced in saying that she has experience.
February 13, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
He's been an elected official longer than she has, and an "advocate for the poor" for longer. Period. No one is offended that you're sticking up for your candidate, I just want to correct your misperceptions. Also, after the job Rumsfeld and Cheney have done (and Hillary naively allowed them to do with her vote), I think I'm willing to go for judgment rather than experience.
February 13, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very wishful thinking about Hillary. Extreme lack of awareness about Obama.
Look at Hillary's legislative record. Seven years. The bills she's introduced are all fluff -- honoring peoples' birthdays or special events, that kind of thing. She's let others do the heavy lifting.
Look at Obama's legislative record. Eleven years. A laundry list of substantial stuff on which he is the lead, getting progressive change out of the deeply non-progressive den of crooks that is the Illinois legislature. US Senate record not what I would like but still much more substantial than Hillary.
What about prior to elected office?
Hillary -- bungled universal health care, refused to accept Bob Dole's 80 percent cave-in on the issue and then watched the Democrats get creamed in 1994 largely because their voters were too demoralized to show up. Before that, served for many, many years as a corporate lawyer and director, where she was very good at getting WalMart to drop the male chauvinism but AWOL in getting them to even tone down the union bashing.
Obama -- community organizing. Director of the Developing Communities Project in south Chicago. Civil rights lawyer with one of the top civil rights firms in the country -- but even Miner, Barnhill & Galland can't pay their associates and partners what corporate outfits like Rose Law can. Never mind, it's what he chose and wanted. And that says something.
What does the current campaign tell us about their administrative competence and experience?
Obama -- went out and hired all of John Kerry and Howard Dean's online fundraising wizards and raised more from small donations than anyone has ever raised from big donations. Spent cautiously and had lots left over for the later primaries. Admittedly, a significant share of that credit is due to Penny Pritzker, his finance chair, the woman to whom no-one in Chicago not related to her can bring themselves to say "no".
Hillary -- depended on a bunch of Beltway consultants whose record is good for lower-level offices but considerably weaker for higher level ones. Did not raise as much as Obama despite having far better connections, then blew through the $30 million she already had for a non-competitive Senate race, thereby causing cash-flow problems that were aggravated by her overpaying key advisors.
February 13, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, and Laura Bush has worked her whole life for children and education, and will have 8 years as the closest confidant of of the President of the United States. She loves animals and has been a huge proponent of Christian values, and was the First Lady of Texas. After a few years in the Senate, she would be way more qualified to be president than Obama, who is just a guy from Chicago that really has not done much with his life. Kind of a loser actually...
Maybe Hillary should consider Laura as a running mate. She has a whole lifetime of experience and lots of political connections and favors to call in.
February 13, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Probably should include his 20+ years of other experience as well (community organizer, civil rights attorney, constitutional law lecturer, a state legislator). So, short of age difference, this experience meme is a wash.
February 13, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
kensdad,
It isn't about pummelling you, but your thinking is misguided.
What if the candidate was AG of Arkansas at 30,
Served as Gov. of same state for 12 years with the nickname "The Boy Governor,"
Would he then be experienced enough at 46 years of age to be president?
I don't understand how the Clinton people can claim Obama isn't experienced enough or old enough when in fact Obama so much resembles Bill Clinton in many ways. Not the least of which his age and experience.
February 13, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
re: "she was the closest advisor and confidante of the president of the united states"
No one actually knows what happened because she (er, Bill) refuses to release documents related to her role in Bill's presidency.
About the only thing we know *for a fact* about their relationship in the 90s was that he left a stain on a blue dress.
There was also the health care debacle she was involved in, although in all fairness I blame the Dem Congress more for not standing up to HMOs etc when the getting was good for that.
February 13, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Publicus,
Actually, I think future wins will help Clinton but I think what will really do Obama in is for people to get past the cult-like coronation that we've seen over the past month and begin to look at the substance of just who he is and isn't. Consider a couple of immediate points that will likely turn off a lot of folks:
1. Rezko and his dealings with his 20-year personal friend and benefactor. Especially now that he's fighting to get out of jail and Blagojevich is pointing fingers at Obama. Obama has lied repeatedly by saying he didn't know Rezko to later admitting they have been personal friends for 20 years. Further, he now admits his recent financial interaction was boneheaded and has donated about $200K received from Rezko and associates. Plus, news reports link Rezko to some potentially unsavory folks in the Middle East, including Syria and Iraq. Wonder how far removed these folks are from terrorists killing American soldiers?
2. Obama joined as an adult and points to his membership of a church that honors Louis Farrakhan.
3. Obama is the only candidate of either party to want to give drivers' licenses to illegal aliens.
4. Obama yesterday admitted he had no leadership experience until running for president. Previously he noted he was not COO type and was disorganized.
5. Obama has chosen Republican ideas and union-busting Reagan over his own party and successful 2-term Clinton. Which did he like, Newt's Contract with America? Or maybe turning Clinton's historic national surplus into our largest ever national debt?!
Shall we go on? Obama may continue to look like a new and pretty face as candidate but as folks start to get to know him, I think he'll find himself unceremoneously dumped from the pedestal people have him on now.
February 13, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Matthew:
I get it, you think Obama is the devil incarnate and therefore presume the worst about him. So let's go through your list.
1. Rezko. Obama's not implicated (not directly, indirectly or by third party) in any of the charges Rezko is facing. Merely knowing an individual (however long or intensely) is not grounds for disqualifying an individual from higher office. If that were the case, the Clintons should be summarily dismissed.
2. Same rationale that applies above applies here. Can you provide a statement where he's praised Louis Farrakhan? I'll wait.
3. Ah, good ol' fear mongering. To the extent the federal government continues to ignore it's responsibilities with respect to illegal immigration, states have to do something about the impact illegal immigrants have on their states (they don't have the power to deport). Driver's Licenses are a state issue and to the extent a state wants to go that route (for safety concerns) then that's their decision. Senator Clinton endorsed that position until she didn't. Or she didn't, but then she did, but now she doesn't. Or something.
4. Nor has Senator Clinton or Senator McCain. And judging how their respective campaigns have been run, he's making a pretty convincing argument. Frankly, if you don't understand the difference between CEO and COO, this a pointless conversation. Needless to say, POTUS is not a COO.
5. I'll politely decline to argue with your distortion of reality and the plain meaning of his words. And not because that can't be refuted, but because it's been so thoroughly debunked, that your mere repeating of this smear underscores your lack of objectivity and credibility.
And be my guess, I can keep doing this all day long.
February 13, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm glad you responded, because I was having a hard time thinking of a polite way to respond to #5…
February 13, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
1. Is the most troubling thing in Obama's past. But he's cut all ties, returned money.
2. Pure b.s. A church newsletter gave praise for a, I think, a Farrakhan inner city program. You're trying to tie Obama to Farrakhan trough a story in a church newsletter. That sort of spin is inoperative in the blogosphere, where we've dealt with Rovian tactics for eight years. Maybe it works with the ignorant and illogical, however.
3. Sounds like a great idea. Keep them connected to the system, less underground, keep track of them.
4. Irrelevant. He's running against other Senators who also have had no leadership experience. A messy desk doesn't = incompetance (I say proudly, in front of a disaster area of a desk).
5. The purest b.s. What specific quote can you find where he has "chosen" Republican ideas and Reagan? In the speeches I've seen, he's spoken out against the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, spoken for national health care and giving money for college (with the students paying back through national service) -- so he's really embracing the ideals of Reagan, Republicans? Matthew Weaver, why are you lying? Why can't you debate honestly, truthfully? We've gotten highly attuned to this kind of bull in the Rove era -- it's not going to fly anymore.
February 13, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
1. I see your Rezko and raise you a Kkeating 5. The truth is -- as you well know -- the press has looked into Rezko, and there isn't much there, there. Even if there was, it's a boring story to tell, and most people don't care. It only seems damaging if it remains inference, but it never actually damages as long as it's only inference.
2. He has disavowed Farrakhan. He has no control over who his minister chooses to embrace. Bringing it up only manages to point out that Obama is a Christian, and the people who are likely to want to magnify that story don't want people to know that, so how far can they really go with it?
3. Yeah right. McCain is going to run against Obama on immigration. I think that he and Obama are both more right than wrong about that issue, but McCain's base doesn't, so I don't see how that's a win for McCain at all. He'll want to stay well away from immigration in the General.
4. He's not running for COO. He's running for President, which is much more like a CEO than a COO. I'm not sure, but has McCain ever held an executive position? I don't think either of them have, so I don't see this being a major place of distinction between them.
5. Do you honestly think there's any chance that unions will support McCain over Obama? Be real. Obama wants to strengthen unions. Many unions have already endorsed him, and in the general, they'll all be on his side. Besides, what kind of comparison is that? McCain says he was a foot soldier in the Regain army. So, if Obama says that Regan was a transformative figure and that it's time for a new one, I think more people will look to him than to McCain to fill that role.
February 13, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
The alternate reality zone is here. Mattie, virtually everything that you say is diametrically opposed to reality and the facts. It's truly bizarre. Why say anything?
Also, mattie you obviously have rezko tourette's syndrome. Not a day goes by when he can't bring up this bs nonsense that has been factually refuted over and over and over and over and over again. There is no there, there. It's plain silly and I bet the republicans don't even bring it up because it is so silly. This claim along with the kindergarten garbage make the clintons look like amatuers.
In any event, people don't bring up the clintons' garbage all the time. I think the trump card is the kazakhstan uranium deal. A cool 100 million plus to the clintons. Give me a freaking break.
February 13, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Matthew,
Thanks for reminding me why I don't like Billary and the smear machine. You might approach her campaign and ask to be her Karl Rove!
February 13, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mathew-
The *Audacity* you have to bring up Rezko? Are you serious? Even a Clintonian such as yourself can see that although this story has a little meat to it, Hillary by far exceeds Obama in the most sleaziest of fashion. The power couple that are the clintons are involved directly and indirectly in more scandals then I can count. And as far as rezko donating to Obama take a look:
Hsu parlayed his charming, obsequious personality into a spot as one of the top twenty Democratic fund-raisers nationwide. Problem is, he turned out to be a convicted felon, on the lam since 1992 due to a grand theft conviction. Then, this December, Hsu was indicted for running a pyramid scheme that defrauded investors out of at least $20 million and that made $25,000 a year in fraudulent political donations.
Over seventeen years after Marc Rich fled to Switzerland to avoid charges of racketeering, illegal trading, and tax evasion (he owed $48 million), Bill Clinton pardoned Rich during his last moments in the White House. His ex-wife Denise's generous donations and Friend of Bill status gave the pardon a particularly rotten stench.
Tonken originally drew interest from the FBI for failing to report some donations from the event to the FEC. Although he was never charged for election-law violations, in 2003 he pleaded guilty to stealing from charities, including, according to an ABC News report, the Betty Ford clinic. He is currently serving a five-year sentence for mail and wire fraud.
How did Paul underwrite the gala? According to The Washington Post, by improperly borrowing more than $4 million from Merrill Lynch. Shortly after that was discovered, Paul hopped a plane to Brazil and spent years waging a two-front war: fighting extradition and trying to sue Hillary for underreporting the value of the event. In 2003, Paul was extradited to the U.S., and Clinton agreed to pay a $35,000 fine to the Federal Election Commission.
According to The Washington Post, as of September 2007, The IRS was pursuing him for $4 million in back taxes, the State of New York for another $5 million, and the FDIC is suing himin connection with a failed bank venture. The Post wrote, "Yet none of the legal and financial woes--occasionally touched on in American or Indian newspapers or highlighted by political opponents--raised red flags inside Hillary Clinton's fund-raising operation."
IPA has faced a string of scandals--most notably, a widely reported sexual harassment suit involving 113 former female employees. Two of them told their stories on a 2005 episode of "Oprah Winfrey Show."
Trie, who knew Clinton from his days as the owner of the Fu Lin restaurant in Little Rock, moved to Washington in 1994 and began donating to the Clintons and the DNC through various shady channels, including through "straw donors," typically poor legal immigrants who stand in for foreign businesspeople
In 1996 Huang solicited an illegal donation of $250,000 from a company in South Korea, as well as $425,000 from donors whose U.S. citizenship was an issue of contention. He also co-organized a 1996 fund-raising event at the Hsi Lai Temple in Southern California, where monks and nuns under an oath of poverty mysteriously contributed large sums of money to the DNC. It was later revealed that they were reimbursed for their donations by the church, and the money had to be returned
Riady, a regular visitor to the Clinton White House, was busted by the Justice Department in 2001 for funneling foreign corporate money into Clinton's 1992 election effort. (He had to pay out $8.6 million to the DOJ--the largest campaign finance settlement in history.) In 1997, the Thompson-led committee accused Riady of maintaining "a long-term relationship with a Chinese intelligence agency."
Chung's contributions to the Democratic Party earned him significant access to the Clinton administration: He made at least 49 visits to the White House between 1994 and 1996. He arranged for five of his Chinese business clients to attend a taping of one of President Clinton's weekly radio addresses after making a $50,000 donation to the DNC. Furthermore, Chung claimed that part of his donated funds came from sources connected to the Chinese government. (The Chinese government emphatically denies the allegations.)
In 1996, Tamraz apparently sought to leverage his donations into a face-to-face meeting with President Clinton over the objections of a National Security Council staff member. Members of the Democratic National Committee, the CIA, and the Clinton administration were all alleged to have gone to bat on Tamraz's behalf to allow him access to the White House. Tamraz then used the meeting to propose a $2.5-billion oil pipeline through Central Asia, a proposal that was then passed on to officials in the Energy Department. (Nothing ever came of it.) He was later a key witness at the Thompson committee hearings.
Shall I go on...these are just DONOR Scandals...
I won't even address your church slander. I think Obama is a christian who prays to god..not Farrakhan.
And as far as COO cred if she can't handle her campaign Finances how is she supposed to manage our countries?
February 13, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
He is right, it is about wrapped up, and the schedule benefits Obama, because the more voters see him, the more they like him, that isn't the case for Hillary (or Bill).
We just have to keep fighting hard though, because the sooner we finish this thing, the sooner our party and get back to what we really need to be doing, fighting Republicans and getting Obama in the White House!
February 13, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Shall we go on?"
Please do, because your rationale thus far has been hamfisted at best..
February 13, 2008 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think Clinton going to win big in Texas (I'd say something like 57% - 43%) and the only way for Obama to mute her win will be to win Ohio. Coming close won't matter.
If Obama loses Ohio by a large margin, then obviously that does not bode well for the upcoming primary in Penn. I'd be surprised if Obama, with all the momentum and money now, loses badly in OH and Penn - but the demographics aren't the best (large blue collar states and the calendar only gives him so much time to catch up).
But I agree that he should embrace the frontrunner status - could be especially helpful to win more superdelegates.
February 13, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are about to elect one of the best smooth talken use car salesman that I have ever seen. And if he gets in you will see we got a lemon. I know I will be ripped for speaking this way. Sen. Obama's followers are some of the rudest narrow minded people there are. And for the record I don't see anyone I like in the race for President right now, and I do mean Anyone!
February 13, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
What a polite thing to say!
February 13, 2008 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
On the positive side, Obama has gained Chris Matthews very open adoration. Well, almost pants wetting: Chris gets a bit too excited while watching Obama. I really think the Obama-cult following is getting out of hand...
February 13, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
I, for one, will be glad when Obama wraps this thing up. Because that means I will never have to see Matthew Weaver's ugly mug or read his sour grapes whinig ever again.
Right, Matthew?
February 13, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure I can find a different picture if that would help you get to the substance of what I write.
February 13, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
We have a word for cats like you from where I'm from: a hater.
February 13, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
For the good of your candidate, Matthew, you'd better hope it's not just like after Iowa. After Iowa, Obama lost New Hampshire by a scant couple of points and then went on to an absolute blowout in South Carolina. It will be hard for Clinton to catch up in real delegates if she wins Texas and Ohio only by a couple of points. And that's all the Obama campaign is saying.
For my part, I'm too cynical to see anything coming up other than Obama and Clinton entering the convention tied in real delegates and seeing the non-democratic delegates choose the nominee.
February 13, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you are right ColoradoJones. Unless something big changes, like folks getting to know Obama as I mentioned in an earlier comment above, I do think you are right that they will arrive at the convention with reasonably tied delegate totals.
BTW, I really don't see Obama pulling off a win in Ohio any more than he might in Texas. I think Pennsylvania will depend on the Philly area vote but will be hard for him. What's it say for a candidate that cannot win any big states in primaries, except his own home state?
Looking ahead, short of a knockout by either candidate, we've got a really messy convention to contend with.
February 13, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Look dude, he's going to lose OH, TX, and PA - all by 10-15%. And you know what? It doesn't matter. He's got a lead of over 100 delegates which those wins alone wont make up. And as I mentioned above, he's got wins in Hawaii, Wisconsin, Vermont, Montana, South Dakota, Mississippi, and North Carolina (as big as Ohio, and bigger margin of victory), not to mention a few others yet to come. The numbers just aren't there for her.
February 13, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I really think the Obama-cult following is getting out of hand...
-----------
keep spinning, ace. keep calling his supporters a "cult", or "naive", or "brainwashed". we understand. it's all you and your candidate have to go on at this point.
maybe for variety at some point in the future you could start explaining to us how Obama is a secret Muslim out to infiltrate the Executive Branch and bring about the second coming of Muhammed.
February 13, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Urbinato,
I think the Virginia and Maryland exit polls undermine any arguments about Hillary's supposed blue collar base. Obama won union households and those making less than 50K per year.
The narrative will likely need to be changed. Obama has expanded into every Hillary demographic. The old meme needs to be retired.
Moreover, Obama's speech in Wisconsin last night was a front runner speech. He only cursorily referred to Clinton, and then went on to make general election arguments against John McCain. Obama has moved on. He is the presumptive nominee.
February 13, 2008 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Know what word I want to see go away? "Narrative". It sounds so inside, so knowing - as if there isn't really any truth anywhere, just a bunch of made-up stories competing for attention, and we're compelled to accept the prevalent one...
February 13, 2008 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wisconsin Polling data
Public Policy Polling:....(02-13-08)
Barack Obama: 50%.....11 point lead
Hillary Clinton: 39%
Unsure: 10%
Strategic Vision:.....(02-10-08)
Barack Obama: 45%......4 point lead
Hillary Clinton: 41%
Unsure: 14%
American Research Group:......(02-09-08)
Hillary Clinton: 50%...9 point lead
Barack Obama: 41%
Unsure: 8%
8% to 14% of people aren`t sure who they are going to vote for.
Hillary leads by 9 points according to american research
Obama leads by 4 to 11 points according to strategic vision and public policy polling
Wisconsin could be a close race....voting begins Feb. 19th.
Obama refuse to have a live television debate with clinton before feb. 19th.
Not very many blacks in Wisconsin...obama better campaign hard.
Clinton will be in Wisconsin speaking to voters Saturday, Sunday, Monday and Tuesday.
Even if hillary clinton doesn`t win wisconsin... the polls all agree that she is going to do good in Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wyoming and Mississippi.. however, Mississippi could be a close race because of the black vote.
I was so angry that she lost washington state and maine.. i really thought she was going to win... oh well delegates is what she needs to win so i`m glad she is campaigning hard in texas, ohio and the other march states:) were there is more delegate seats.
Looks like florida and michigan might get seated:) i`m praying hard that it happens:)
February 13, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
So you are still playing the race card. Are you a member of the Bimbo Eruptions brigade?
February 13, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Michigan. It's really great that I went to the polls and had to vote "Uncommitted" since only Clinton, Kucinich and (I think) Gravel had their names on the ballot. Good to know you want our votes to matter.
Hillary Clinton: "By Any Means Necessary!"
February 13, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
TIP: I've learned to be careful about investing too much confidence in certain pollsters. American Research Group has revealed a pretty consistent bias toward Senator Clinton, while Zogby seems to have a bias toward Senator Obama.
You can get a historical look at the results from each polling organization at a great site called
http://www.pollster.com/
February 13, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
ChrisNBama,
I think the Muslim stuff is pure trash. I wouldn't be surprised to find some Obama folks shopping it around for the news value because it is so over the top. But the church Obama chooses and the folks it honors and his tithing it goes to facilitate are a legitamate issue. Obama's church honors, and if I'm not mistaken funds and promotes, Louis Farrakhan.
February 13, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Find a link that proves his church actually honors Louis Farrakhan or admit that you don't really know.
February 13, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll get them for you--check back later today as I've got a deadline to meet shortly and I'm already spending too much time here today.
February 13, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I was so pleased not to be told to do the research myself, that I chose to do the research myself. As far as I can tell, his church newsletter did praise Farrakhan (saying he "epitomized greatness"), but they do not financially support Farrakhan. I bring up that latter point, because it sounded (to me) like you were implying that they did.
Yes, this issue could will come back to bite him. However, I have no doubt that he will handle it with grace.
February 13, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Church's magazine, Trumpet, which is run by the Rev's daughters, gave Farrakhan the Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award in 2006. And Rev. Wright also seems to be an admirer of Farrakhan, but so what?! Obama's pastor isn't running for anything and Obama has already denounced it.
February 13, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
And in all my research, I've found nothing about the chruch "funding" Farrakhan.
So you do seem to be mistaken about that.
February 13, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe that wasn't directed at me, but let me be perfectly clear. I said the exact same thing—there is no evidence that the church ever funded Farrakhan.
February 13, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was agreeing with you and backing you up.
February 13, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm just saying you should expect it to be brought up again by Fox News, etc., when (hopefully) it's McCain vs. Obama. However, I have no doubt that he will handle it gracefully. He might even somehow make the question itself look distasteful…
February 13, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll bite.
Obama isn't terribly experienced.
Neither, by the way, were almost any of the great presidents. It's neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition either for getting elected president or for being good at the job.
So, if we could send Obama off to be govenor of Illinois for, say, four years, and then hire him as president, I'd be all for that. But that's not the way these things have ever worked.
And what would we need to do to improve Senator Clinton? I think this is as good as she gets. And man, she is not a good campaigner. I think people are still crediting her and her team with a lot of Bill's skills. They aren't there. I can't see her framing issues effectively with the nation, and that's a huge part of the job. Obama, it's clear to me, excells at it -- and it matters not a whit to me what experience taught him how.
February 13, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you read the comments on the post about leadership yesterday you'll see quite a few people write at length about leadership. McCain is unassailable on this, Clinton has some but clearly not as much, and Obama has none. Even now saying his began with the campaign. As I wrote yesterday and others shared similarly, this is a very weak point for Obama, especially in contrast to McCain.
February 13, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Does running a powerful, on-message and effective campaign count as experience?
February 13, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Louis Farrakhan issue is such nonsense. Obama is not beholden to every stance his pastor takes. ESPECIALLY, when Obama himself has denounced Farrakhan.
February 13, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
HyperRevue,
Last I read Obama continues his membership, continues his support of this Farrakhan supporting church, and, I presume gives them money to further their work and message.
I'm sorry but you are judged by the friends you keep. Especially when you fund them through your tithing (Or, has Obama said he explicitly asks his tithing to not be used in any way toward honoring, promoting, or helping Farrakhan?)
February 13, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe, maybe not on the friends you keep issue. How about union buster mark penn? He's a friend of the people and the clintons. Or how about marc rich, that's a real bud. Maybe murdoch, he's a great friend and in tight with the clintons. Or, the dictator of kazakhstan, that's a great bud as well. Talk about rogues gallary of the clintons "friends." Give me a break.
February 13, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Where is my response?
February 13, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
No response for you!
Matthew is the smear-n-run type.
February 13, 2008 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's try again.
If you can provide me some sources, I'd appreciate it, but I don't remember reading anywhere about Trinity United Church of Christ or Rev. Wright "funding" or "helping" Farrakhan.
The issue centers around Rev. Wright and the church's magazine honoring Farrakhan, to which Obama replied:
"I decry racism and anti-Semitism in every form and strongly condemn the anti-Semitic statements made by Minister Farrakhan. I assume that Trumpet Magazine made its own decision to honor Farrakhan based on his efforts to rehabilitate ex-offenders, but it is not a decisions with which I agree."
February 13, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely,
For an anology, I practice birth control although my cathlolic religion preaches against it.
I think people of all religions don't follow every edit of it.
February 14, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is from The Land Of Lincoln. Check out how much experience that great President from Illinois had when he became President.
February 13, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's denouncement of Farrakhan and his anti-semitism appeased the ADL, why isn't it good enough for you, Matthew?
February 13, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
so, it's just fine with you that obama doesn't have much experience as long as he's a great orator?
i think if it were framed like that then obama would see his support drop off rather quickly.
i won't be surprised if that's an angle that john mccain uses against obama... oh yeah! it was, just last night!
February 13, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, I agree that this is the angle that McCain will use against Obama. What we Obama supporters are trying to convey is that this is the same angle that Clinton has tried to use against Obama, evidently to little success. Neither Sen Obama nor Sen Clinton is going to win a head-to-head "experience" contest with Sen McCain. He has more years of public service than the two of them put together and he is a decorated military hero to boot. The way that the democrat will defeat McCain is not by besting him on the experience question, but rather by changing the subject from experience to something else. Obama has shown himself to be very adept at that. Clinton, meanwhile, has been trying all along to make this a contest about experience, so it is hard to see how she will pivot on a dime and move the conversation to something else once this shifts from being a primary to a general election.
February 13, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
As others have already pointed out, his experience compares quite favorably to Clinton's.
February 13, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
willraliegh:
Being an 18 year member of a union I would not have thought that 40% of union members would have voted for George Bush in 2004, but they did. If you think they will not vote for someone else you are mistaken. I believe Mr. Obama has stated before that he sees unions as special interest groups. Unions are made up of hard working people, the backbone of working conditions set in this country. You know, the people who brought you the 40 hour work week. The people who brought you the weekend. Do not be so quick to think that they will get in line come November.
February 13, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
This ain't Iowa! Texas and Ohio are not New Hampshire!
The game is nearly over and Obama has the most delegates.
Clintonites, its been fun.
But, its time for you to jump ship and jump on the Obama train. Because now he is ready to roll on over McCain!
February 13, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gosh, from David Plouffe's lips to God's own ears, and all that jazz, but I guess that I am one of the few Obama supporters who is made ill-at-east by the confidence of the campaign's stand here. "Inevitability" was toxic to Clinton's campaign and I do not see that it will help us any more than it helped her. I can see why she would wish to paint our man as the front-runner and herself as the plucky insurgent, but I do not see why we should wish to cooperate in this meme-exchange. That said, I will be simply delighted to be wrong and to see this strategy pay off. I would love to think that our victory is only a matter of time, but I am not quite convinced of that just yet.
February 13, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Greg, I'm not terribly happy with it either, as he's clearly best in the underdog role. That said, there's a clear difference between the two. She played that card before anything had happened based on presumptuous expectations. He's playing that card when the game is nearly over based on hard, cold evidence of elections that have already happened. Again, I'm not endorsing the strategy, but at least there's a basis for it.
February 13, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's hoping you are right. Lord knows that Obama has proven a very adept candidate so far, so I suppose that I ought to trust his judgement and instincts over my own.
February 13, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
re: "Inevitability" was toxic to Clinton's campaign
That was *before* the campaign even started. It was illusory and merely based on anticipated backing from the Dem establishment.
His is real and based on win after win so far. The mathemetical probability of her coming back shrinks with every Obama win.
February 13, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Er, "ill at ease..." not "ill at east." Sorry about that. :-/
February 13, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Everyone knows about Rezko, because Hillary and the Clinton Smear Machine have tried and failed (repeatedly) to make it stick. I've talked to Democratic voters who knew more about Rezko than Obama's platform, because they've had the Rezko information emailed to them so many times. There aren't many secrets in the information age.
Some people can't seem to grasp this, but I'll state it once again .... Candidates who inspire people on a deep level have a high teflon factor, and tend to be smear proof. No one gave the opponent more smear fodder than JFK and Bill Jefferson Clinton, but they always escaped because people liked them, and they didn't enjoy "gotcha" tactics used on them. Meanwhile, when you have a milquetoast candidate like Kerry, who inspires no one, then the the slightest Swift Boat breeze knocks over the house of cards.
But, oh, if we could just get that "cult" meme to stick. Maybe if we bring it up enough times it might get a foothold by May.
February 13, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good points, same thing could be said about the b-movie actor. They used to call him mr. teflon as well. Talk about scandals. Wow, alot more than a bj in the white house.
It's the likeability factor, which he has, and she doesn't. She actually isn't a very good politician or speaker at all. It is kind of sad.
February 13, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
InmanRoshi, yes, inspiration is teflon and Obama is benefiting from this. But unlike JFK and his Camelot or Clinton with nothing, Obama does have an unmistakeable cult-like following.
Regarding Rezko, I don't know about email spam on it as I've never seen any, but the news is really light on Obama and Rezko. This will change as Rezko continues to fight for bail and as his trial approaches in March. Even in the past few days, Gov. Blagojevich has pointed to Obama's involvement. Wish it to all go away all you want, but I think it will remain to become the news of the day at the mostly unwelcomed moment.
... I've got to go.
February 13, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gov. Blagojevich wants to restrict the conversation regarding Rezko simply to donations and fund-raisers. I think we all understand the corruption isn't about money but about what the money bought. The governor doesn't want that included in this conversation apparently.
Of course, Michael, you can continue to offer up innuendo instead of facts and hope readers just believe you based on air. And every time that you do, someone will point it out.
So instead of focusing on a governor trying to save his own political hide amidst claims of corruption, spit out your own.
Let me help.
The 10-foot strip of land the Obamas bought at fair market price and from a Clinton supporter from Rezko's wife. As Obama said, that had an appearance of payback and he later said it was "bone-headed" and he should not have done it. Now, the property apparently has changed hands and is being marketed as a "lot". All of the property apparently was purchased at a fair market price and value. What is in contention here, Michael? Where's the corruption? Rezko didn't buy their house.
Apparently Rezko recommended an intern and Obama hired said intern. Are you viewing this as corruption? If so, what made it corruption?
The inflation of a 20-year relationship into close friendship is a bit much. If I have dinner a couple of times a year with a few acquaintnances because we once worked together, I doubt that this conveys any "closeness" at all. Are you disagreeing?
February 13, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look at all the experience Dick Cheney Donald Rumsfeld, and Colin Powell brought to the table. How did they work out for all you Experience Junkies!
February 13, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Powell would have my vote ANY day for President. It is too bad he didn't run and worse that he allowed himself to be used by Bush and company.
February 13, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
You mean, he allowed himself to lie about WMD evidence to the UN?
February 13, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Michigan. It's really great that I went to the polls and had to vote "Uncommitted" since only Clinton, Kucinich and (I think) Gravel had their names on the ballot. Good to know you want our votes to matter.
Hillary Clinton: "By Any Means Necessary!"
Bat Guano
Hillary didn't tell Obama to take his name off the ballot in Michigan that was his doing.... also Hillary didn't tell the dnc to strip michigan of all there delegates... Hillary didn't tell you to go to the poll and vote uncommitted... obama supporters in the state of michigan told people to vote uncommitted... You could have stayed home or voted for someone else.The 55% of people who voted for hillary were not told that they had to vote for her. So the 55% of the people in michigan voices I and other hillary supporters think she be counted...The people of michigan didn't vote to have there primary early or have the delegates striped away.... If obama had won michigan or florida we would be hearing the same story...let the delegates count.... IF they aren't seated.... don't look for democrates to carry florida or michigan in the general election.... And you said that you had to go to the poll and vote uncommitted... that is wrong... you didn't have to go to the poll and vote uncommitted... you chose too.....well that is all i have to say about that matter.
February 13, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where are there delegates? Are there delegates here or there? Michigan had there primary here? Or did it have here primary there?
And what's this about striped delegates? I thought they were polka-dotted.
February 13, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
liam...your point is correct about those experienced idiots. I just have one question, who was the one who gave them a seat at that table? Mr. George "I'm a uniter" Bush. Maybe he should of had a little more experience in picking those around him as president.
February 13, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
But that is the point (and the scariest one IMO) Hillary trumps loyalty above competence. Her campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle blew through 30 million in an uncontested senate race. She obviously showed she was not the best person for the job. But she was fiercely loyal. So loyal in fact that Hillary gave her the management title for her presidential campaign. Her "experience" and managerial accumen is eerily similar to another president we know. Check this out -
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200802u/patti-solis-doyle
February 14, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Any notion of presumptive winning in this election has been to the detriment of that candidate.
It seems that the minute anyone is associated with the establishment, voters move in the other direction. Case in point: Sen. Kennedy's endorsement, along with Kerry's, didn't bode well for Obama in Ma.
I think Obama is right in saying that he's not taking anything for granted. I don't blame him.
So far, of all the candidates, he strikes the right balance of courage and confidence without crossing into arrogant territory.
And he acknowledges reality when he loses. It's authenticity in real time. A striking contrast to Hillary's dismissive and often unaddressed setbacks.
Attitude is everything in this election.
I remember early on when Rudy was doing well in the debates, and then I noticed that while Ron Paul was answering questions from the moderator, you could hear Rudy laughing off-camera.
And during the California debate, McCain would just sit and look cocky, and smile pompously as Romney answered questions.
These cues really do affect voter perceptions.
February 13, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look at all the experience Bush One brought to the table. One of the greatest political resumes ever. How did he work out for all you Experience Junkies!
February 13, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
i would just point out the obvious that the General Election is not the Democratic Primary... just because there are a lot of democrats who like the warm and fuzzy feelings that obama engenders (remember, they agree with 99.9 pct of his message) that doesn't mean that it will work as well into November and that the experience issue won't matter to the wider electorate...
look, i'm a democrat. i think Hillary is the best candidate and that she will not be blown away by the experience gap with mccain. i will vote for obama in november if he's the nominee, but i don't like the endzone dancing by the obama supporters. he's got to take TX or OH on march 4th, or if not, then PA in april. if he doesn't, then he won't be able to make Hillary go away. period.
February 13, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, he does not have to "take" TX or OH, just keep it close.
February 13, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't see alot of endzone dancing kensdad. I agree once again that the game is sooo not over. It is looking bad for your candidates, but they are the clintons. Until the fat lady is singing and we are turning the lights out because the party is over, game on.
You do have to admit that obama has been performing amazingly against the clinton machine though. Talk about blowouts and against the clintons. I would never in a million years anticipated a 30 point blow-out in Virginia, that is amazing. I'm sure you won't admit that though.
Anyway, game on.
February 13, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suspect that you are right about this. I realize that FotW has a very cogent mathematical argument about why she is on the ropes one way or another, but my gut tells me that if she wins both TX and OH, this will solidify her natural advantages enough that things will turn around for her. Naturally, as an Obama supporter I am hoping that he pulls off an upset in one or the other of those states, but I agree with the essential premise that you are putting forward that if she maintains her lead in both those states, then this thing is not over on March 5, or even May 5.
February 13, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that Obama has to take these states.
I'm certainly not dancing in the end zone. I think the title of this thread was a bit over the top and I didn't read anything in the article to justify a conclusion that the campaign is over. Stating the facts on delegate count and how great the results were is simply what every campaign would do following this sort of victory.
Obama continues to campaign strenuously and he definitely has firm control of his campaign machinery. There is simply nothing to suggest that Obama is "blowing off" the need to campaign effectively in the remaining states.
In fact, I would encourage campaigning even if Clinton drops out. I think this is good for our country.
February 13, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Matthew,
I'll bite. I'm not certain why Obama hasn't disaffiliated from that church. It certainly would've been politically expedient for him to do so, but then again, that would harken back to the "old politics" he's railing against.
For instance, Hillary and Bill are actively retrofitting their home in NY to make it more green friendly. All this took place within the last year. Did they suddenly see the light on green technology? Or is it a political calculation? Hillary dumped all of her controversial stock holdings before she ran for President. Was this a principled thing to do, or was it politically expedient? Hillary was for the war before she was against it. Was this principle or expediency? I think you get my point.
Barack, love him or hate him, is a principled man. It is for this reason, above all else, that I'm supporting him. I can't remember the last time I had the feeling I could trust a politician. Now, before you think I'm wearing rose-law-firm colored glasses, let me say that I'm troubled about the Rezko connection. I think it smells fishy, but to be frank, I'm not overly concerned about it. If there was a real tie to corruption here, the Chicago Tribune, which has been all over this case for years, would have revealed it. Of course there is the appearance of corruption, but not the substance. And if that is your concern, you need look no further than your candidate of choice Hillary Clinton.
As I said before, and I will say again. Once Obama secures the nomination, I hope you will support him with the fervency that you are currently displaying for Hillary. He will need you come November.
February 13, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, excellent point. On one hand we have Rezko. On the other, we have filegate, whitewatergate, travelgate, and probably others I can't remember right now.
February 13, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
To Matthew, do you usually visit the right wing sites to see what the enemy is thinking? Because I noticed that you posted a link to NEWSBUSTERs!
Simple question, are you going to vote for a Dem come November?
Obviously this race is close and supporter's can have a tendency to get a little over-zealous in defending their own candidate! With that being said, how do you see the connection between an acquaintance or even a friend implying that their position is my position? Or even that their position on issues that I have come out to say that I disagree with are still in-fact issues?
If Mr Obama comes out and says that he disagrees with the Reverend Wrights position in regards to Farrakhan, what more does he need to do or say for you to genuinely feel that there is no 'there' there?
Your comments about Mr Obamas comments regarding his conversation with the Reno Gazette Journal where he talked a little about Reagan and Republicans seem to imply that what he was saying was 1) admiring the ideology of Reagan 2) that he is in favor of union-busting and racking up our national debt.
Well, you seem to be a literate and rather intelligent, so have you seen the interview? What was your impression?
Mine was simply that Mr Obama recognizes that Reagan was a transformative president in the sense that he brought many different backgrounds from many different regions of the US together under the same roof. He then went on to say that he did not agree with many of those policies but to discount his influence on the American public would be historically naive. I am definitely someone who has problems with Reagan's union busting tactics, his cold-war non-transparent strategy in the Middle East and Central and South America, and his trickle-down policies which in many ways have yet to trickle down but have in fact trickled up.
Whatever our difference may wouldn't you agree that both candidates are a much better option than the Red candidate?
February 13, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you read the comments on the post about leadership yesterday you'll see quite a few people write at length about leadership. McCain is unassailable on this, Clinton has some but clearly not as much, and Obama has none.
Obama weak on leadership? Good lord, man! Open your eyes! Why do you think he has the most effective grass roots organization in recent history? How is it that he is on the verge of knocking off one of the most entrenched incumbent nominees in years?
Obama is a case study of leadership. McCain can't even unify his own party.
February 13, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, you could say that the experience of Bush One give him enough sense to go to Kuwait with the world united behind him. Kicked ass and got out, costing this country about 60 billion or something like that. Also raised the credibility of our nation with the rest of the world. I would say his experience in that matter was a great asset to him...not that i am a fan of any republican.
February 13, 2008 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well I hope that if the Obama campaign does "wrap this thing up" that all the all of the Obama missionaries back off and leave people alone until closer to November. I have not noticed the Hillary-Edwards-Kucinich-Dodd-Richardson_Biden folks being so "in your face" about their preferences.
Seven or eight more months of this horse race crap will be exhausting and I predict that it will cause a lot of people to just write off the whole thing and stay home.
February 13, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually OH and TX typically go red. Winning those two states means the Dem wins the election. I don't think Obama won primaries in any states that are likely to flip from red to blue, either (except perhaps VA, but McCain is going to be hard to beat there). He won caucuses in a couple (KS and CO—the latter being another place where McCain is going to be hard to beat since he comes from the SW), but they had such low % of registered voters participating, I don't think it tells us much about the GE.
So it remains an open question as to whether Hillary or Obama will do better in TX and OH in the GE. Due to the TX demographics, I think Hillary would do better. Since McCain is pro-immigration reform, he will not be hurt as much as other repugs would be. Plus his tough-guy attitude is popular there. I don't think Obama can win TX in the GE, but I think Hillary could.
Sadly, TX, FL, and PA are all fertile ground for McCain. They are fairly purple states, two of which typically go red. While PA has tipped Democratic in recent decades, McCain could flip it (maybe more likely against Hillary). I think Hillary has a better chance in FL than Obama, though. Since McCain is perceived as a moderate, people who otherwise would have voted Dem may be planning some payback for Obama supporting the DNC in disenfranchising their voters (something the DNC did even though this only happened due to the republican-controlled legislature passing a law that was out of the local party's control).
Having said that, it does seem that Obama's lead will be hard to beat. But will he make it over the top? This is going to leave it to the superdelegates to decide. Which really sucks, as those party hacks should be going nowhere near a primary. But they are there, so how should they vote? Apparently, they include all Dem governors and members of the house (not sure about the senate and who all the rest are). Of course, Obama's people say they should follow the will of the voters. But what is the will of the voters in a state where 2-10% of those registered show up for a caucus? I think winning such a state shouldn't necessarily cause the governor or reps to vote accordingly. If they want to truly reflect the will of the majority of their constituents, they are going to need to do a little research to find out what that actually is. OTOH, I think its quite a bit clearer in southern states where there were turnouts that were actually representative of the population.
One last thought: The superdelegates were actually created to NOT follow the will of the people. They were meant to be a check against the power of activists to skew things (something that clearly happened in almost all the caucuses). I think it is fundamentally undemocratic to do this and would like to get rid of both superdelegates AND caucuses. However, if Obama is so keen on following party rules, it seems a little hypocritical to demand that superdelegates follow the perceived will of the people when that is clearly the opposite of what they are supposed to do.
February 13, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hm, I am usually at fault for being more optimistic than is entirely fair, but here I find myself on the side of the skeptics. I think that it is ludicrous to imagine that either democrat could flip TX. I agree that Obama stands no chance there, but Clinton stands no chance either. Indeed, I do not believe that either democrat can carry a single southern state (VA, FL, AR and LA all very much included). Any victory strategy which depends on carrying some southern states strikes me as profoundly imprudent and unrealistic.
February 13, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Texas is not at all a sure thing for Hillary. For one thing, a third of the delegates are awarded in caucuses that take place the evening of the primary. For another, the two-thirds of the delegates that are awarded through the primary are apportioned by state senate districts, and they're not all created equal. The delegates are apportioned based on past voter turnout, apparently in an election where a lot of Hispanics didn't vote but African-Americans did. Thus, you have some heavily Hispanic districts where there are only three delegates at stake and some heavily African-American districts where there are seven delegates at stake.
It is certainly conceivable that Obama could lose the primary vote by as much as 55-45 or so and still come out of Texas with more delegates.
February 13, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Barack has just the right amount of experience.
And he decided to launch his campaign at just the right moment of time.
Politics is all about timing.
A few more years in the Senate and he could no longer claim to be an outsider. As it is he has seasoned himself just perfectly:
Two brilliant books and two grammies. A nice stint on the streets of Chicago. Just enough State legislative experience and civil rights advocacy to bolster his bona fides. And then of course, the teaching of constitutional law: the absolute perfect way to finish off the recipe.
Just enough experience. Just enough traveling. Just enough school. Not too much. Not too little. He threads the needle again. He plays his hand perfectly. Again and again and again.
Simply put he is a better poker player and politician than anybody else out there. Apparently, the Democratic party is starting to waken to the fact.
He can't be beat.
He is a winner:
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/2008/02/04/080204ta_talk_mcmanus
February 13, 2008 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
YES! What an artfully stated analysis!
I've had the gut feeling that everything so far has been anticipated and planned for. I have been amazed as I watch Obama's campaign unfold. It looks like a near-perfect execution of a truly brilliant strategy; a fascinating thing to behold. Part genius, part common sense, part boring hard-work organizing. Even more than the brilliance of it, the most impressive part is the courage it must have required to put this campaign together and then to patiently, calmly, confidently let the events and the players carry it out.
Spectacular. I can't wait to see what happens next!
February 13, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that's right.
Hillary blew her chance to run in 2004. She was afraid to take Bush on in war vote in 2003 and in his re-election in 2004. If she had been the fighter she claims to be in both of those cases, I think she might be President now.
I think she gambled that 2008 would be a cakewalk with the entire Dem establishment lining right up behind her, no serious Dem competition, and Bush out of the picture.
She rolled the dice and appears to have lost that bet. 2008 is not looking like her year.
February 13, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
"CNN has confirmed that David Wilhelm, Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign manager, will endorse Barack Obama’s presidential bid Wednesday afternoon."
February 13, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
He is a superdelegate too, which is good because we need all of them that we can get.
February 13, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
actually, obama WON the latino vote 55-45...get your facts straight
February 13, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I’m one of those 50/50 the media refers to and I have changed my vote from Hillary to Barack. There is too much bad stuff about her floating around that shows bad judgment and even knowingly pursuing shady deals to get rich and for personal gratification while we little folks are scraping by.
Travelgate, Filegate, Pardongate, Troopergate, Whitewater, Cattle Futures, Ponzi schemer Norman Hsu, Chinese dishwashers shady money, Gennifer Flowers, Zoë Baird, Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky, Impeachment, dictator in Kazakhstan to name a few.
And we don’t know what is hidden in the Presidential papers that the Clinton’s won’t allow released.
I had to change my vote based on judgment, honesty, and self-control. Obama and Michelle show courage and class and have already raised our esteem in the world. They are what we need.
February 13, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
One Rezcko hiccup to 10 Clinton scandals (including impeachment hearings) sure sounds lopsided in favor of Obama if we are looking at that comparison.
Heck, then it's one war vote verses one non war vote.
And then it is, 11 years legislative experience to 7.
How hard is it to make a decision to choose Obama when you look at the above comparison? Looks like a slam-dunk on all these fronts.
February 13, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Too much chest thumping by the Obama rep! They need to "remember gender"...meaning that as current frontrunners against a woman, it's just different than if the opponent was male. This kind of cowboy talk, like when Edwards and Barrack allegedly "double-teamed" the poor, conveniently tearful Hillary, can explode in your face. Like New Hampshire.
No need to thump your chest when what you are doing is working so well. Just shut up and let Barrack do his thing.
February 13, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Junionman,
There is a HUGE difference between the working stiff and union leadership. My sister works for the Service Employee Union and she has some really bad stories about the union, not the worker bees. They are two different balls of wax.
Barack supports the workers not the lobbyists who will smash your knees in a heartbeat to get what they want. Come to think of it, maybe that is why they get on so well with the Clintons.
February 13, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear HillaryClinton08,
Of course Hillary didn't tell Obama to take his name off the ballot in Michigan; all the candidates did except her because they abided by the ruling of the DNC.
Michigan tried to pull a fast one and so did Hillary; they both got caught. They gambled and lost. This does happen in life and more and more in her campaign. The people of Michigan need to complain to whoever made the decision to ignore the DNC rules. That is where the blame lies.
How hard is it to vote for a candidate when there is only one name on the ballot? The 55% is a totally bogus number since there was no other choice. Does she really deserve to win when she doesn’t follow the rules, then whines? I want an honest, upstanding, consistent president with good judgment from Day One, not a collapsing, blowing-in-the-wind, supporting the color-of-the-month president.
February 13, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm predicting Obama takes both Texas and Ohio.
TEXAS: Right now, he's polling about 10 points back. http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/texas.html
Not much at all considering this is supposedly HRC's fire wall, and we've seen him make up far greater spreads than that. Also, Texas has an interesting electoral format -- sort of a primary and caucus mash up. This should bode well for an Obama team with superior ground skills.
OHIO: Heaftier margins to make up here, but I think he does it. He's about 17 points behind according to recent polls. http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/polltracker/ohpres_d/
He's now focusing on more of a populist message that highlights the fact that NAFTA is the cause of much of working class America's plight, and Bill Clinton is responsible for NAFTA. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/smart-move-obama-goes-po_b_86443.html I see this helping a lot.
A John Edwards endorsement wouldn't hurt to this end either....
February 13, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Mattie...glad to see you back here; your comments never fail to amuse.
But I will agree with you on one issue: You *are* spending way to much time here. Your Internet time might be better spent doing a bit of fact-checking, since your arguments have been repeatedly and throughly debunked, and you continue to unashamedly belch them out. I'm happy to hear from Clinton supporters (this board gets boring in a hurry when it's just one group of supporters gloating), and that includes you. But if you lack the intellectual honesty to admit when you've got it wrong on a particular fact, it's difficult to take anything you say seriously. Hey! Just like Hillary.
But Brewmn61's comment was sheer, obnoxious douchebaggery. Don't like Mattie's pic? File that one under "S" for Shut The Hell Up. Christ, is this a dating site?
February 13, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Heretic,
Why are caucuses not democratic? Isn’t people getting together in one room and discussing openly and then deciding a result the bedrock of democracy?
February 13, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Easy, they're not democratic because the clintons can't win them. Because the clintons can't win them, they must be undemocratic, unamerican, commie, pinko stunts. It has nothing to do with the poor campaign being run by the clintons.
February 13, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rickey:
That is a real stretch of an explanation of my post. First of all, union members do not think of their elected representation as "lobbyist". Representation is what a union is all about. This comes not from a relative but my experience in the IBEW. Frankly, I am glad I have someone in Washington who will stand up for better wages, better benefits, and better working conditions. You are very close to crossing the line talking about something you obviously have never been a part of. Maybe the 40% who voted for Bush came from your sisters union membership if that is the way she feels about the very people that represent her. Work Union/Live Better
February 13, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Junionman,
I mean no disrespect to the workers. That actually was my point. I feel Barack has been in the trenches enough to understand the workers’ dilemmas and work as a team to support them. He joked recently that he and Michelle had big student loans they had to pay off. He understands how to get the most bang for his buck as he navigates his campaign. He sets a good example.
He wants to hear all voices and make educated decisions based on the input of all who sit around the table. I hope you will be one who supports this ideal and not put roadblocks in the way of progress for all.
February 13, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
MichaelA: You don't see any end zone dancing? Really? You don't see any comments saying "She's toast," "she'll drop out before Texas" "stick a fork in her?" C'mon, be honest.
I'm a Hillary supporter, and I freely admit that Obama's in the catbird seat. But really, people started declaring game over the minute he took a lead in delegates. And from reading a lot of the comments on this and other blogs, apparently she'll never win another primary. DRinOH said "He's got wins in North Carolina (90% as big as Ohio and will be a bigger margin of victory than Ohio), Mississippi, South Dakota, Montana, Oregon, Wisconsin, Vermont, and Hawaii...." "He's got wins"? Really? So I guess they can cancel the primaries, then. There haven't been many reliable polls in a lot of those states, and the Clinton campaign seems to be adjusting their strategy to focus more on smaller states. Hillary could still get smoked in those states, but they're far from in the bag. Among other things, Hawaii would seem to be seriously in play. I know Obama spent his early childhood there, but I don't think that will trump the fact that Hillary is even stronger among Asians than Latinos.
Obama's had a big week. But the reason people are talking about end zone dancing (when will we hear that's a racial slur?) is because of the way the exit polls are being looked at. Apparently, Hillary has lost every demographic group that has been supporting her so far. She'll never win the Latino or women's votes again.
Among other things to consider, Hillary has always enjoyed a resurgence after a debate, because she generally does better than Obama. And frontrunner status is an iffy thing. The press now will be looking for chinks in Obama's armor, and a comeback kid story for Hillary could become the meme of the day. I'm not predicting any of this, because unlike many of the Obama supporters on this thread, I can't see the future. My point is just that rushing to declare victory as soon as things turn your way is really naive.
Publicus, you said "Well by all means ChrisO, give us the unbiased scoop on HRC makes up the pledged delegate deficit over the remaining contest." Interesting how you changed the discussion there. I disputed what the Obama camp was saying, that Hillary has to win big in those three states, or they get the nomination. You turned it into a discussion of pledged delegates. Those are two different discussions. When did the Obama camp start talking about the sanctity of pledged delegates? Oh yeah, right about the time they took the lead in pledged delegates. If Obama has a narrow lead in pledged delegates, we'll start hearing about the "will of the people." But if Obama's nomination was the will of the people, he'd have enough delegates for the nomination. I don't recall Obama's campaign caring much about superdelegates until it looked like it affected them. I don't think the pledged delegates selection process is so pure that it is inviolate. The superdelegates are part of the equation, like it or not. And I say this with full knowledge that more superdelegates are going to Obama. Does it represent the will of the people that half of the Massachusetts superdelegates are committed to Obama, even though Hillary won the state handily. Is Ted Kennedy honor bound to vote for Hillary? I just get really annoyed that every issue the Obama camp raises has to be wrapped in the mantle of Right and Good, instead of the political claculus it is.
And can we stop with crying about Obama not being on the Michigan ballot? That was purely his decision. Hard as it may be for some of you to believe, his campaign is capable of the occasional bad decision. Hillary just outmaneuvered him on that one.
February 13, 2008 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rickey
Caucuses are inherently undemocratic to those of us who think the secret ballot is one of the cornerstones of democracy.
February 13, 2008 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Groupthink occurs when the members of the group ‘develop a pattern of concurrence-seeking ... when a ‘we’ feeling as solidarity is running high.’ The concept was developed by Irving Janis who studied several instances of it and is discussed in the current Yale Alumni Magazine. Janis found that the participants “adhered to groups norms and pressures toward uniformity, even when their policy was working badly and unintended consequences that disturbed the conscience of the members.” Members consider loyalty to the group the highest form of morality. And fail to consider the full range of alternatives or consult experts who could offer different perspectives. They reject outside information and opinion unless it supports their preferred policy and the harsher the preferred policy – the more likely it was to involve moral dilemma- the more zealously members clung to their consensus. “Each member is more likely to become more dependant that ever on the in-group for maintaining his self -image as a decent human being and will therefore be more strongly motivated to maintain group unity.”
Hysteria suggests that groupthink is alive and well in the Obama camp as they try to justified choosing a neophyte over a better qualified woman candidate. They can't afford to look at his actual record because there isn't much of one and because they find things like the Nuclear leaks, the long-term Rezko relationship, Donnie McGlurkin, and a description of his beliefs about the Iraq War that looks remarkably like McCain's position that the war was okay it simply needed to be done better:
From page 294 of the Audacity of Hope:
"Not only was the idea of invasion increasingly popular, but on the merits I didn’t consider the case against war to be cut-and-dried. Like most analysts, I assumed that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons and coveted nuclear arms. I believed that he had repeatedly flouted UN resolutions and weapons inspectors and that such behavior had to have consequences. That Saddam butchered his own people was undisputed; I had not doubt that the world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
What I sensed, though, was that the threat Saddam posed was not imminent, the Administration’s rationales for war were flimsy and ideologically driven, and the war in Afghanistan was from complete. And I was certain that by choosing precipitous, unilateral military action over the hard slop of diplomacy, coercive inspections, and smart sanctions, America was missing an opportunity to built a broad base of support for its policies."
Depending on how you interpret ‘its policies’, is this not simply a statement that the invasion was poorly planned and could have been better accomplished in other ways?
Obama lauds himself for taking the risk of making this speech while he was considering running for US Senate but what he neglects to tell you was that the incumbent Senator Dick Durbin was against the war and running for re-election and that the polls showed 57% of Illinois voters opposed the invasion.
February 14, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I will repeat this twice for all you who are semi-literate(99.99% unable to comprehend the written word of your mother tongue).
Not one(1)of you--Not one(1)of you-will post after the Republican victory in November.
(Suggestion:) In 2012, choose a 30 year old(U.S.
Constitution requires a Presidential candidate be
at least 30 years old) with absolutely 0(zero)
political experience, and apply the Obama man-
nerism of soaringly vapid lack of specific substance. Then: Market a brand of toilet paper
with said candidate's likeness on it . Perhaps this would win the White House?
May 19, 2008 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink