Oh come on, that headline is not at all what he said. Give me a break.

But, come on, various Michigan Democrats have reservations -- especially that cross-overs in the earlier primary would be barred -- and they are the pincipals on the ground in that state. Any way you look at this, the Democrats in Michigan need to work it out; they are the ones who created the problem by violating clear rules.

um, Michael?

here's what Obama said: "...odds of me getting elected have always been lower than some of the other conventional candidates," and later says that Hillary is conventional candidate.

here's what the headline says: Obama: Odds Of Me Getting Elected Lower Than For "Conventional" Candidates Like Hillary

what's the difference?

he's saying the odds are longer for him than for her and other more "conventional" candidates? what's the problem? it's a striking thing for him to say.

Greg, you are confusing verb tenses. He's clearly talking in the past tense and reviewing the reasons he's chosen to do unconventional things and you're portraying as a statement of his prospects now. More specifically, he's talking about the period before the first election when everyone (including herself) had deemed her inevitable.

The proximity to his statement about being shaken by the Wright thing makes it your interpretation not utterly implausible, but I think it is clearly wrong in the larger context quoted.

Well, at least he isn't drinking his own Kook-Aid and knows what's up.

This is probably some kind of strategy to re-package him as the underdog. I don't see it working, if, in fact, that is the case.

Not good. Not good.

Really hate quibbling with you Greg, but sometimes in your haste, you overstate things a bit. From your linked post:

if, it were, passed by the state legislature and used by the Michigan State Democratic Party as the basis of drafting a formal Delegate Selection Plan

Seems this is all conditioned on the legislature passing/approving this measure. And everything I've seen indicates that they aren't interested. There are apparently material issues with the revote that need to be resolved (principally election law requiring machines to be embargoed for 30 days post-election,the disqualification of Democrats and independents who participated in the Republican primary, and the cost). One solution was a caucus, but Clinton has eliminated that as an option.

Blaming Obama is easy because it works with the narrative, but it seems to me all of this could have been resolved back when they pulled this stunt in the first place. Michigan Legislature and Governor Granholm(sp) own this one. Not Obama.

I am so sick of Obama implying that ONLY he is a non-conventional candidate.

We have not had a woman in the Oval Office. No matter how many times Obama tries to say that HRC is more of the same, it is totally disingenuous of him to imply that electing a woman as president is somehow less historical, less significant, and less difficult than electing him.

He's clearly talking about winning the nomination not about the general election.

The problem with Sen. Clinton is that she IS a conventional candidate. Just witness the last 4 weeks of her campaign tactics. Read about her cosying up to right wingers at a Sunday brunch in DC. She is just another politically ambitious, conventional approach candidate, just happens to be female. Her ONLY plus is that she is female, which as a female I do not find to be enough reason to vote for her.

UGH, TPM. That's an unfair charcterization. Correct that headline.

Michael: When Obama said the odds are tougher for him than some of the other conventional candidates, who do you think he was referring to?

Publicus: If Obama supported the revote legislation, it would have a much better chance of passing. The DNC said that the current legislation works within their rules.

I'm not saying that Obama doesn't have legitimate reasons for not supporting the legislation. But his lack of support for it is obviously a major factor, and we shouldn't pretend otherwise.

Um, I'm not lashing out and I'm not angry. But I do think that headline is the wrong lead-in to the story and completely misses the point.

The true news story here is that Obama acknowledge dthat he got off track and started playing Hillary's game a little in the run-up to Texas.

Wal-Mart have a sign up in their dot.com office - it says 'you can't out-Amazon Amazon.' Obama can't out-Hillary Hillary, and for a while that seemed to be what he was doing.

His speech yesterday, and now this interview, tell me that he knows where he went wrong, and that the shake-up caused by this Wright thing have been just what he needed.

If I'm right, there'll be no stopping him.

I'm not going to get bent out of shape about a headline, but I do question the journalistic judgment of this particular one.

I'm honestly not understanding the problem here. Obama said this:

"In some ways this, this controversy has actually shaken me up a little bit and gotten me back into remembering that the ODDS OF ME GETTING ELECTED HAVE ALWAYS BEEN LOWER THAN SOME OF THE OTHER CONVENTIONAL CANDIDATES."

The second remark doesn't change the meaning of this one. Our headline uses virtually identical language to that.

Who is he talking about when he says "conventional candidates"? Is anyone seriously going to argue that he's not talking about Hillary here?

He was describing himself as an underdog, a different kind of candidate with a different kind of background, and said something striking. There's nothing wrong with noting that.

Slog - this 50+ white woman agrees with you. Hillary is the corporate Democratic candidate. Our corporate masters would rather have McCain, but they will take Hillary over Obama, because he is a bigger threat to them. That's why the corporate media is flogging the Wright story, and why they won't let it go. The proof to me was Juan Williams on NPR today saying Obama didn't denounce Wright strongly enough. This country's only hope is a revolution when the economy collapses completely.

Here's what Obama *should* say:

Why the hell should we spend millions of dollars holding a Michigan primary to determine the fate of 10-20 pledged delegates, when the Clinton campaign has no intention of respecting the pledged-delegate count anyway?

Seriously, this is bizarre: In the Clinton spin, its all about "momentum", and electability, as they define it. It is eminently clear that they, and many of their supporters, see it as perfectly acceptable if superdels decide the election based on these criteria, rather than the delegate count.

These factors can be measures by polling and many other less expensive means. Why waste time counting votes, when votes don't matter?

Where are all the people saying that Obama shouldn't use the "race" card? If Hillary said it was harder for her to be elected because she is a woman, the Obama supporters would be screaming for her head and accusing her of playing the "gender" card?

Greg, it's interesting that you put "conventional candidates" both in quotes together in the above comment, but in the headline you write: "conventional" candidates.

There is a difference. It's possible perhaps that you can't see (or rather, hear) that difference. Being the writer, you're hearing the accent as you intended it.

But to a reader, putting only "conventional" in quotes implies an accent, a wink, a nudge...

One that wasn't implied within the context of the quote.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008803190410

"State Rep. Matt Gillard, D-Alpena, said the do-over primary will create as many problems as it solves, including barring participation by Democrats who, because they thought their party's Jan. 15 primary was a farce, voted for a Republican.

'This won't work,' Gillard said. 'People were told the Jan. 15 primary didn't matter. Now they're being told if they voted in it, they can't vote in one that does matter.'"

This, to me, is the crux of the Obama camp's problems with a re-vote, and it's a very legitimate one. If the media, including TPM, did their jobs and weren't so damned lazy, the American public wouldn't have to be force-fed Clinton's spin on the matter.

Many Obama supporters fiercely resist the idea that Obama is a politician, plays politics, and indeed is willing to play hardball to win. Such supporters will never be satisfied with any headline that is not celebratory.

I like the Obama a great deal myself, but I have no such illusions. He plays political hardball. He adopted Rove’s formulation that Hillary, Kerry, et. al, voted for war when they did no such thing. He said something totally different when he was campaigning for Kerry.

You would think that Obama and Hillary had nothing in common, when in fact, they have almost everything in common when it comes to politics. They both made speeches the week of the Iraq AUMF that made many identical points. And note that Obama’s speech, very tellingly, made no mention of the AUMF although the vote was scheduled to take place a few days later. Why didn’t he speak out against it? Could it be that everyone, at that time, took it for granted that most all the Dems, certainly including Hillary, were against invading Iraq? Because she said so? Because, back then, everyone understood it was Bush’s war?

Obama plays hardball. He plays it with regard to race, national health insurance, social security, Walmart, the former so-called Clinton scandals, you name it.

I'm angry and REALLY bothered by this.

1. Get a grip Barack Obama. Pull yourself together and stop blaming the stupid racist voters. You have to win the voters you have, not the voters you'd like. Go and campaign like a man, not a wimp.

2. "Conventional" candidates, as someone pointed out is not the same as "conventional candidates".

3. Regardless of the "wink", the fact that Obama is so well aware of his grandiosity is really alarming. Especially when he borrowed his "campaign of speech" from Reagan, his grass-root organization from Howard Dean/Ron Paul and his book title from Rev Wright, The Moral Compass.

I'm angry.

Greg, please just say that you get it, and that you are very sorry and genuinely hope your flawed interpretation and inflammatory headline doen't injure the Obama candidacy in any way. Promise to try harder and take greater vigilance in avoiding any such future faux pas.

and why exactly should or would the winning nominee (plug in any name) agree for an opportunity for the second place nominee (fill in a name)- who violated her own pledge by leaving her name on the ballot in Michigan despite her own statements and signing of an agreement to do otherwise -- ?

the Iowa Dem Party chair today said something like "you don't get do-overs as an adult -- you get a do-over in a kids game" - In the real world you agree to things and there are consequences to giving your word -

Is there any thinking human who thinks that the Clinton campaign would agree to this if the circumstances were otherwise?

In the proposed redo - no independents or republicans or democrats who may have crossed over and voted republican in January when the Democratic primary didn't count - are now not eligible to vote

To pay for the proposed redo - a bunch of rich democratic men are going to pay??
Democracy in action!

They can have a caucus - the Clinton campaign said no -

You want Obama to show he wants to win?
You want Obama to show he is tough?
Well - take a look

Senator Obama dropped the ball on this one and it's his own fault. If you're running on unity and hope how can you be so comfortable being affiliated with someone like Rev Wright. What is the difference between someone like him and Jerry Falwell or Bob Jones?

What does all of this talk have to do with the reality that Hillary is the candidate of big business and the lobbyists and these folks are going to get what they have paid for.
The fix is in.
All of this other talk is just time filler until Obama walks out of the convention with his delegates and forms a third party.
The only question remaining is if the Speaker of the House and the Chair of the convention will actually bring the convention to order when the fix becomes plain enough for her to see it and how many other elected members of the party will follow her and him out the door.

So, last week the story was that Obama has all the advantages because he is black, so says Ferraro. The next week the story is that the odds are against Obama because he is black. It seems that he can win if, and only if, he cannot. Or, is it that he cannot win, if, and only if, he can. At least we've got our race-and-politics inferences straight. Or haven't we?

Please log in to comment. Never mind that you're already logged in. Just do it. Dolt.

Please log in some more to send the comment that you already typed in and re-enter the username and password you just typed in. This time we'll take your comment. Really.

Ever notice the other web sites you visit don't have these problems?