Last Night on Anderson Cooper 360, CNN correspondent Jessica Yellin seemingly admitted that those higher up in the media put tremendous pressure on the press corps to report favorably on the President in the run up to the war. Here's the video via HuffingtonPost:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/29/cnns-yellin-on-run-up-to_n_104058.html
And a direct quote from Jessica Yellin:
"And my own experience at the White House was that, the higher the president's approval ratings, the more pressure I had from news executives -- and I was not at this network at the time -- but the more pressure I had from news executives to put on positive stories about the president."
In my last blog post I accused the media of not doing their job, as in not acting as the "government watchdog". This is just another perfect example of the media not doing its job. Like in the Scott McClellan issue, Jessica Yellin just said what a lot of people (or those on the left) have been thinking: corporate executives had put tremendous pressure on reporters and the press corps to report the President in a positive light. Granted this was when the government was making the case for the war and when his favorability rating was at a high. The execs were more concerned about their image (and money of course) and did not want to be seen us unpatriotic and such.
A concern about image should not be a problem. The media should not be a mouthpiece for the Whitehouse. This is not a Communist or Fascist nation. The five major networks, ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, Fox News (they're barely a news organization) needs to report to the American people, no to government elites. Hopefully that will change in the future. At least now the internet has become vitally important in how news is reported.
And in lighter news, Rupert Murdoch, the unassuming conservative mogul of Fox, has just said Obama will win in the general and called McCain "unpredictable." Here's video:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hilary-rosen/rupert-murdoch-says-obama_b_104018.html
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Rules Are Rules
The rules are the rules, whether the Clinton campaign likes it or not. Before the primary season started, the DNC, made up of Clinton loyalist and supporters, created the rules that the Clinton campaign is now currently in dispute about. Both candidates signed pledges not to campaign in Michigan and Florida because of them breaking the rules in jumping forward before the 4 approved states. Michigan knowingly broke the law, while Florida had no choice because the Republican-controlled government moved up the primary date. The result was that both states were stripped of all their delegates. No one complained about this (unless you were either Michigan or Florida) and the ruling stood...until Clinton started losing.
Clinton was on record in saying that the Michigan primary "was not going to count for anything." And what happen when she failed to knock Obama out of the race on Feb. 5th (where she thought she would lock up the nomination)? All of a sudden she wanted Michigan and Florida to be seated, knowing full well that that was going to be her best chance to win the nomination.
The most annoying thing about this was that the rules was written by people who now support Clinton. Why then has she done a total 360? Because she is a sore loser. They tried to pit the blame on Obama for this debacle, saying that he disenfranchising millions of voters. That allegation was totally absurd. The ones the Clinton campaign should be blaming should be the respective state governments. What in the world were they thinking in knowingly breaking the law? Would the DNC have just turned a blind eye? That did not happen, and now the Clinton cmap is crying foul.
Pit the Blame on the Michigan and Florida governments. They were the ones who broke the laws, they were the ones who disenfranchised millions of voters. Kind of ironic that the race has gone on for this long that the two states would still relevant and extremely important in picking a nominee. See, sometimes just waiting could bring good things. And what happens when you do not wait? Clinton camp whines like a baby...
Clinton was on record in saying that the Michigan primary "was not going to count for anything." And what happen when she failed to knock Obama out of the race on Feb. 5th (where she thought she would lock up the nomination)? All of a sudden she wanted Michigan and Florida to be seated, knowing full well that that was going to be her best chance to win the nomination.
The most annoying thing about this was that the rules was written by people who now support Clinton. Why then has she done a total 360? Because she is a sore loser. They tried to pit the blame on Obama for this debacle, saying that he disenfranchising millions of voters. That allegation was totally absurd. The ones the Clinton campaign should be blaming should be the respective state governments. What in the world were they thinking in knowingly breaking the law? Would the DNC have just turned a blind eye? That did not happen, and now the Clinton cmap is crying foul.
Pit the Blame on the Michigan and Florida governments. They were the ones who broke the laws, they were the ones who disenfranchised millions of voters. Kind of ironic that the race has gone on for this long that the two states would still relevant and extremely important in picking a nominee. See, sometimes just waiting could bring good things. And what happens when you do not wait? Clinton camp whines like a baby...
Thrown Under The Bus
Scott McClellan, former Whitehouse spokesmen for Bush from 2003 to 2006, has just thrown President Bush (and Cheney, Rice, Rove, the whole Administration) under the bus, or more frankly, a freight train. In a new book coming today, McClellan details his time as press secretary, and has some scathing words and accusations towards the Bush Administration. From various news sites (Washington Post, Politico), McClellan described Bush as "out-of-touch", used "propoganda" to sell the war to the American people, among other things.
Of course the Whitehouse fired back, calling him "disgruntled". Rove called him a "left wing blogger" while Ari Fleischer was heartbroken.
And the most amazing thing, the MSM was shocked by this revelation, a "bombshell" of sorts.
Is it just now that the media FINALLY found out that the government was using propaganda to create support for the war? Isn't the job of the media is to be a watchdog to the government? The media is finally reporting what bloggers have been reporting for a while already. What made this story more powerful (or compelled the media to report it) was that it was from someone inside the Administration, someone who knew (for the most part) the inside dealings of the Administration. Apparently McClellan was more credible than a couple of speculating bloggers.
Sadly though, this is a case of "too little, too late." If he had misgivings, I mean ANY, he should have confided to someone. Then again, he might have been fired. If the latter, then he could've gone to the media to express his case and blow the whistle on the Administration. The damage has already been done with the disaster of a war going on 5 years already and the Administration still not held accountable by the media (Scooter Libby case and the Valerie Plame case). If the media is accussed to be "liberal" by conservatives, why then hasn't the media hold the Bush Administration accountable. We can't have a media that is scared of the government when the media is suppose to "police" what the government does. This Scott MCClellan issue should have been a big issue couple of years agao, not now.
Of course the Whitehouse fired back, calling him "disgruntled". Rove called him a "left wing blogger" while Ari Fleischer was heartbroken.
And the most amazing thing, the MSM was shocked by this revelation, a "bombshell" of sorts.
Is it just now that the media FINALLY found out that the government was using propaganda to create support for the war? Isn't the job of the media is to be a watchdog to the government? The media is finally reporting what bloggers have been reporting for a while already. What made this story more powerful (or compelled the media to report it) was that it was from someone inside the Administration, someone who knew (for the most part) the inside dealings of the Administration. Apparently McClellan was more credible than a couple of speculating bloggers.
Sadly though, this is a case of "too little, too late." If he had misgivings, I mean ANY, he should have confided to someone. Then again, he might have been fired. If the latter, then he could've gone to the media to express his case and blow the whistle on the Administration. The damage has already been done with the disaster of a war going on 5 years already and the Administration still not held accountable by the media (Scooter Libby case and the Valerie Plame case). If the media is accussed to be "liberal" by conservatives, why then hasn't the media hold the Bush Administration accountable. We can't have a media that is scared of the government when the media is suppose to "police" what the government does. This Scott MCClellan issue should have been a big issue couple of years agao, not now.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
On To The General Election
Now that Barack Obama seems like the likely presidential nominee for the Democratic Party (as if there was any doubt), much of the media has focused on the growing battle between Obama and McCain. In most of his speeches, Obama has attacked McCain for not supporting the New G.I. Bill put forward by Senate colleague (and potential V.P.) Jim Webb of Virginia, the ongoing war in Iraq, and of course, the economy. Obama, to the best of his campaign, has tried to link McCain to Bush, in hopes of trying to make McCain seems like another Bush term if he were elected. McCain, has fired back calling Obama "naive" and "inexperienced". These back and forth attacks have been going on for almost a month now, as the media has begun to focus on these two candidates, rendering Hillary Clinton as just another news story.
In one of my earlier blog post, I noted how Obama could win the general election in a variety of ways. Recently, there have been posts out regarding several key battleground states. Here are some of the states.
From SurveyUSA: http://surveyusa.com/
Iowa (5/21-22)
O: 47
M: 38
Ohio (5/16-18)
O: 48
M: 39
Virginia (5/16-18)
O: 49
M: 42
Pennsylvania (5/16-18)
O: 48
M: 40
As seen by the above polls, Obama will have a somewhat easy time in getting the nomination. If Obama wins all the Kerry states, he can manage to lose Ohio and Florida by winning Iowa, New Mexico, and Colorado, all states in which polling show Obama is currently winning. So far, it looks like the long primary fight is not hurting Obama too much just yet. Obama should do a lot better in polls when Obama finally becomes the clear nominee.
In one of my earlier blog post, I noted how Obama could win the general election in a variety of ways. Recently, there have been posts out regarding several key battleground states. Here are some of the states.
From SurveyUSA: http://surveyusa.com/
Iowa (5/21-22)
O: 47
M: 38
Ohio (5/16-18)
O: 48
M: 39
Virginia (5/16-18)
O: 49
M: 42
Pennsylvania (5/16-18)
O: 48
M: 40
As seen by the above polls, Obama will have a somewhat easy time in getting the nomination. If Obama wins all the Kerry states, he can manage to lose Ohio and Florida by winning Iowa, New Mexico, and Colorado, all states in which polling show Obama is currently winning. So far, it looks like the long primary fight is not hurting Obama too much just yet. Obama should do a lot better in polls when Obama finally becomes the clear nominee.
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Now It's Obama's Fault?
Found this on the Washington Post's blog site:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-talk/2008/05/clinton_camp_stokes_rfk_flap_b.html?nav=rss_email/components
Clinton Camp Stokes RFK Flap by Blaming Obama
By Zachary A. Goldfarb
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign accused Sen. Barack Obama's campaign of fanning a controversy over her describing the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy late in the 1968 Democratic primary as one reason she is continuing to run for the presidency.
"The Obama campaign ... tried to take these words out of context," Clinton campaign chairman Terence R. McAuliffe said on "Fox News Sunday." "She was making a point merely about the time line."
That small excerpt there shows a desperate campaign gasping for its last breath. So their spin machine is now trying to put the blame on Obama for her RFK remarks. Terry McAuliffe and Howard Wolfson have been the laughing stock of her campaign. Their spins are getting so ridiculous that it is on the verge of outrageous and comedic. Obama had already made a statement saying that he will take her word, and that he believed that it was just a case of someone choosing some unfortunate words (take for example his "bitter" remarks, which the Clinton campaign gladly fanned to the media). It is the Clinton campaign flailing wildly, hoping to land a blow to Obama, or hoping he commits a major gaffe in the near future.
It is not Obama's fault that Hillary committed the increible gaffe. Trying to pit the blame on Obama just sunk and already sinking campaign into further oblivion.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-talk/2008/05/clinton_camp_stokes_rfk_flap_b.html?nav=rss_email/components
Clinton Camp Stokes RFK Flap by Blaming Obama
By Zachary A. Goldfarb
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign accused Sen. Barack Obama's campaign of fanning a controversy over her describing the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy late in the 1968 Democratic primary as one reason she is continuing to run for the presidency.
"The Obama campaign ... tried to take these words out of context," Clinton campaign chairman Terence R. McAuliffe said on "Fox News Sunday." "She was making a point merely about the time line."
That small excerpt there shows a desperate campaign gasping for its last breath. So their spin machine is now trying to put the blame on Obama for her RFK remarks. Terry McAuliffe and Howard Wolfson have been the laughing stock of her campaign. Their spins are getting so ridiculous that it is on the verge of outrageous and comedic. Obama had already made a statement saying that he will take her word, and that he believed that it was just a case of someone choosing some unfortunate words (take for example his "bitter" remarks, which the Clinton campaign gladly fanned to the media). It is the Clinton campaign flailing wildly, hoping to land a blow to Obama, or hoping he commits a major gaffe in the near future.
It is not Obama's fault that Hillary committed the increible gaffe. Trying to pit the blame on Obama just sunk and already sinking campaign into further oblivion.
Friday, May 23, 2008
Clinton Makes Reference To Obama Assassination
What in the world is Hillary Clinton trying to say? Yes it is fine to make a reference to Bill Clinton's nomination not being final until June in 1992, but why on earth would she bring up Robert Kennedy's assassination? What was the point?
I think it is clear what she was trying to say. Technically, she's trying to say that she will stay in the race just in case Obama gets assassinated. I don't know what other point she is trying to make. She should know full well how sensitive this issue is, especially when there's an African American and Woman running for president. This is a major gaffe on her part. Or maybe she knew full well what she was saying. But whatever the implication, this has to be one of the dumbest things ever said in American politics.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
The "White Working Class"
By now we have heard all of the MSM claiming that Obama has trouble with the "white working class". The more I hear them saying this, I had to ask myself: Does Obama really have a problem with this group? The simple answer: NO. Saying that he has a problem with this group is a grave oversimplification. Instead, Obama's trouble is more geographic than demographic.
Perfect example of this would be the Oregon and Kentucky primaries. As expected, Obama won Oregon easily, Clinton winning Kentucky easily. What is worth noting is that Obama won every age demographic except those over 60. And how about those white working class voters that the MSM love to talk about? He won those also. Here's the link to the exit polls:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#ORDEM
Where Obama does have a problem is in the Appalachia region. If you look at the CNN website...
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/
The states (and counties) in the Appalachia region went heavily for Clinton. However, outside this region Obama has done relatively well among this group (Wisconsin is a perfect example).
So MSM, stop with all this BS. Obama does not have a problem with the white working class. He has a problem with people in the Appalachia region.
Perfect example of this would be the Oregon and Kentucky primaries. As expected, Obama won Oregon easily, Clinton winning Kentucky easily. What is worth noting is that Obama won every age demographic except those over 60. And how about those white working class voters that the MSM love to talk about? He won those also. Here's the link to the exit polls:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#ORDEM
Where Obama does have a problem is in the Appalachia region. If you look at the CNN website...
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/
The states (and counties) in the Appalachia region went heavily for Clinton. However, outside this region Obama has done relatively well among this group (Wisconsin is a perfect example).
So MSM, stop with all this BS. Obama does not have a problem with the white working class. He has a problem with people in the Appalachia region.
Monday, May 19, 2008
Obama vs. McBush
By now you probably have heard President Bush's speech at the Knesset in Israel late last week. At this speech, Bush compared (indirectly but pretty clear who he was talking about) Obama to those who appeased Hitler at the start of World War II. Even John McCain jumped on this to criticize Obama for being "naive" and "inexperience" (where have we heard that before) to deal with foreign affairs. Democrats, on the other hand, were outraged at what Bush had said and were quick to fire back against Bush. But what Joe Biden said was classic: "This is bulls***". Nicely and bluntly said.
Because of this, Obama responded quickly and forcefully. From the AP:
"If they want a debate about protecting the United States of America, that's a debate I'm ready to win because George Bush and John McCain have a lot to answer for." He blamed Bush for policies that enhance the strength of terrorist groups such as Hamas and "the fact that al-Qaida's leadership is stronger than ever because we took our eye off the ball in Afghanistan," among other failings."
This seems to be a present in disguise for Obama. For the past couple of days, the media has been abuzz about this, saying that this is Obama vs. Bush. So why is this good for Obama? Nobody was talking about Hillary Clinton. The focus of the media was on this supposed attack on Obama from Bush. And how has that fared for Obama? He has shot up in the head to head match up against Clinton
As you can see from the Gallup Daily Tracking Poll, the start of Obama's uptick started when the news of Bush's attack on Obama. Since then, he has seen steady growth of support culminating to his largest lead over Clinton (16%). Can we finally be seeing Democratic voters coalescing behind the soon to be nominee? A couple more days of polling will show if they are or not.
However, the blatant attack from Bush might just be what Obama needs to galvanize support from Democrats and even disaffected Republicans.
Because of this, Obama responded quickly and forcefully. From the AP:
"If they want a debate about protecting the United States of America, that's a debate I'm ready to win because George Bush and John McCain have a lot to answer for." He blamed Bush for policies that enhance the strength of terrorist groups such as Hamas and "the fact that al-Qaida's leadership is stronger than ever because we took our eye off the ball in Afghanistan," among other failings."
This seems to be a present in disguise for Obama. For the past couple of days, the media has been abuzz about this, saying that this is Obama vs. Bush. So why is this good for Obama? Nobody was talking about Hillary Clinton. The focus of the media was on this supposed attack on Obama from Bush. And how has that fared for Obama? He has shot up in the head to head match up against Clinton
As you can see from the Gallup Daily Tracking Poll, the start of Obama's uptick started when the news of Bush's attack on Obama. Since then, he has seen steady growth of support culminating to his largest lead over Clinton (16%). Can we finally be seeing Democratic voters coalescing behind the soon to be nominee? A couple more days of polling will show if they are or not.
However, the blatant attack from Bush might just be what Obama needs to galvanize support from Democrats and even disaffected Republicans.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
75,000 Strong
Now what about 75,000? What am I referring to? Barack Obama held a rally today in Portland, Oregon, two days before the state of Oregon goes to the polls to choose the Democratic Party nominee for President. And boy, what a crowd Obama drew. Take a look at this picture...
Here is a brief blog post on the Washington Post's website...
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/18/record_obama_crowd_the_size_of.html
"The size of a city" states the Washington Post. That just puts things into perspective on how large his rallies have been. Here's another picture...
A wider shot of the rally. I find it fascinating that there were people on boats and even on the bridge in the distance (according to the Washington Post) listening to Obama. Just unbelievable. And this is only to see a politician....
Here is a brief blog post on the Washington Post's website...
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/18/record_obama_crowd_the_size_of.html
Record Obama Crowd, the Size of a City
By Matthew Mosk
PORTLAND, Ore. -- Sen. Barack Obama has seen his share of large crowds over the last 15 months, but his campaign said they have not approached the numbers gathered along the waterfront here right now.
The campaign, citing figures from Duane Bray, battalion chief of Portland Fire & Rescue, estimated that 75,000 people are watching him speak.
The scene suggests this is not an exaggeration. The sea of heads stretches for half a mile along the grassy embankment, while others watch from kayaks and power boats bobbing on the Willamette River. More hug the rails of the steel bridge that stretches across the water and crowds are even watching from jetties on the opposite shore"The size of a city" states the Washington Post. That just puts things into perspective on how large his rallies have been. Here's another picture...
A wider shot of the rally. I find it fascinating that there were people on boats and even on the bridge in the distance (according to the Washington Post) listening to Obama. Just unbelievable. And this is only to see a politician....
Friday, May 16, 2008
Republican Party In Trouble?
In a story (or stories) that has not been widely reported by the MSM has been the stunning loses by the GOP of House seats in areas that are generally Republican strongholds. Here's the article from the Chicago Tribune about these loses:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-republican-congress15may15,0,6089346.story
They said the first was an outlier. The second, a fluke. But after losing their third seat this year in a special election, House Republicans faced the possibility on Wednesday that if they don't repair their image with voters, they could be in for another rough November.
A Democratic pick-up streak that started with Rep. Bill Foster's upset victory in the March election to replace former House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) crested Tuesday night, when Democrat Travis Childers won a solidly Republican open seat in Mississippi.
...
That small excerpt shows what could be a bloddbath for the GOP. As stated in the article, this all started in a special election in a Congressional seat that was vacated by retiring Dennis Hastert (R-Ill). The former House Speaker had held the seat for over 20 years. It was safe to say that the district was strongly Republican. Then Democrat nominee for the seat Ben Foster won the seat, a seat held by a Republican for two decades. Then another special election in Louisiana, Democrat Don Cazayoux won the seat that was also held by a Republican. Then Mississippi held another special election, and you can guess what happen. Democrat Travis Childers won the heavily Republican district rather handily.
Can we be seeing de ja vu? Can we be seeing what had happen to the Democrats during the midterm elections in 1994, when the GOP swept into a majority in the House AND Senate? Only time will tell...
On a special note, I just wanted to make note that in the elections Cazayoux and Childers, the GOP had tried to tie the respective candidates to Barack Obama and his now infamous former pastor, Jeremiah Wright. We saw how well that went for the GOP...
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-republican-congress15may15,0,6089346.story
For GOP, third lost seat may be cause for alarm
Article tools
E-mail
Print
Reprints
- Post comment
- Text size:
A Democratic pick-up streak that started with Rep. Bill Foster's upset victory in the March election to replace former House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) crested Tuesday night, when Democrat Travis Childers won a solidly Republican open seat in Mississippi.
...
That small excerpt shows what could be a bloddbath for the GOP. As stated in the article, this all started in a special election in a Congressional seat that was vacated by retiring Dennis Hastert (R-Ill). The former House Speaker had held the seat for over 20 years. It was safe to say that the district was strongly Republican. Then Democrat nominee for the seat Ben Foster won the seat, a seat held by a Republican for two decades. Then another special election in Louisiana, Democrat Don Cazayoux won the seat that was also held by a Republican. Then Mississippi held another special election, and you can guess what happen. Democrat Travis Childers won the heavily Republican district rather handily.
Can we be seeing de ja vu? Can we be seeing what had happen to the Democrats during the midterm elections in 1994, when the GOP swept into a majority in the House AND Senate? Only time will tell...
On a special note, I just wanted to make note that in the elections Cazayoux and Childers, the GOP had tried to tie the respective candidates to Barack Obama and his now infamous former pastor, Jeremiah Wright. We saw how well that went for the GOP...
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
A Preview to the General Election
The General Election is a little more than 5 months away, an eternity in politics. It looks increasingly likely that Republican nominee John McCain will go up against Democratic nominee Barack Obama, the first African American to be nominated for the presidency. Many people think that Democrats are a shoo-in to for the presidency, but I will be skeptical until November 5th, when the American people will vote. The election will be historic. We'll either elect the oldest man ever to take the presidency or elect the first African American as President, which is extremely symbolic given America's dark history with slavery.
Throughout the summer, we'll here pundit after pundit discuss what the battleground states will be during the general. The reason Obama will be the better candidate for president is because he can put more states into play. There could be as much as 20 states that could be toss-ups. However, Obama could put numerous Southern states into play, such as
Virginia
North Carolina
South Carolina
Georgia
Mississippi
Louisiana
The South has a relatively large African American population, and Obama's vote among this demographic is close to monolithic, meaning that Obama will get close or over 90% of the AA vote. Because of that, Obama will put a number of southern states into play.
Other battleground states will sound familiar, such as:
Pennsylvania
Ohio
Michigan
Florida
New Mexico
I believe Pennsylvania and Michigan will go for Obama during the general. The other three states listed are less certain.
I found this website which shows which states voted for what candidate during an election, dating back to the nation's first election in 1789. The website also gives you the opportunity to play with the electoral map, allowing you to do certain scenarios on what states each candidate could win.
http://www.270towin.com/
Obama has numerous ways to win given that he holds the states Kerry won in 2004.
2004 Election
Bush
Electoral- 286
Popular- 62,039,073
Kerry
Electoral- 252
Popular- 59,027,478
Scenario 1- Obama Loses Ohio and Florida
Obama could lose these two states and still end up winning. Obama could win by winning a combination of states:
1. Virginia and one other state with 5 or more electoral votes (Iowa, New Mexico, Colorado)
2. A bunch of small states with 5 or more electoral votes, like the states noted above
3. Winning multiple states in the South
If Obama manages to win one of the Southern states, it could be a long night for John McCain. Of course, this is only May, anything can happen in that span of time...
Throughout the summer, we'll here pundit after pundit discuss what the battleground states will be during the general. The reason Obama will be the better candidate for president is because he can put more states into play. There could be as much as 20 states that could be toss-ups. However, Obama could put numerous Southern states into play, such as
Virginia
North Carolina
South Carolina
Georgia
Mississippi
Louisiana
The South has a relatively large African American population, and Obama's vote among this demographic is close to monolithic, meaning that Obama will get close or over 90% of the AA vote. Because of that, Obama will put a number of southern states into play.
Other battleground states will sound familiar, such as:
Pennsylvania
Ohio
Michigan
Florida
New Mexico
I believe Pennsylvania and Michigan will go for Obama during the general. The other three states listed are less certain.
I found this website which shows which states voted for what candidate during an election, dating back to the nation's first election in 1789. The website also gives you the opportunity to play with the electoral map, allowing you to do certain scenarios on what states each candidate could win.
http://www.270towin.com/
Obama has numerous ways to win given that he holds the states Kerry won in 2004.
2004 Election
Bush
Electoral- 286
Popular- 62,039,073
Kerry
Electoral- 252
Popular- 59,027,478
Scenario 1- Obama Loses Ohio and Florida
Obama could lose these two states and still end up winning. Obama could win by winning a combination of states:
1. Virginia and one other state with 5 or more electoral votes (Iowa, New Mexico, Colorado)
2. A bunch of small states with 5 or more electoral votes, like the states noted above
3. Winning multiple states in the South
If Obama manages to win one of the Southern states, it could be a long night for John McCain. Of course, this is only May, anything can happen in that span of time...
A Thing About Landslide Victories
Well it looks like Clinton has won her first landslide victory today in West Virginia. It looks like she will win by a margin of 30-40%. But what about Obama's numerous landslide wins? From CNN's website:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/
Looking at the states that already voted, Obama had a larger margin of victory than what Clinton is projected to win in 7 states. What states? Here are the seven:
From the states that voted on Feb. 5th:
Georgia
O: 67%
C:31%
Minnesota
O: 66%
C: 32%
Colorado
O: 67%
C: 32%
Alaska
O: 75%
C: 25%
Idaho
O: 79%
C: 17%
And the rest of the states that voted after Feb. 5th:
Hawaii
O: 76%
C: 24%
Washington
O: 68%
C: 31%
Now Clinton backers would say that the majority of these states were caucus states and she does not do well in them, but coming from Clinton, "a win is a win". I would like to add that Georgia was a primary, and Obama destroyed her there. It is promising that the state might be competitive during the general election.
Landslides
O: 7
C:1
The media needs to point that out...
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/
Looking at the states that already voted, Obama had a larger margin of victory than what Clinton is projected to win in 7 states. What states? Here are the seven:
From the states that voted on Feb. 5th:
Georgia
O: 67%
C:31%
Minnesota
O: 66%
C: 32%
Colorado
O: 67%
C: 32%
Alaska
O: 75%
C: 25%
Idaho
O: 79%
C: 17%
And the rest of the states that voted after Feb. 5th:
Hawaii
O: 76%
C: 24%
Washington
O: 68%
C: 31%
Now Clinton backers would say that the majority of these states were caucus states and she does not do well in them, but coming from Clinton, "a win is a win". I would like to add that Georgia was a primary, and Obama destroyed her there. It is promising that the state might be competitive during the general election.
Landslides
O: 7
C:1
The media needs to point that out...
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Who Should Be Obama's VP?
Now that Obama is the presumptive nominee for President for the Democratic Party, much will be discussed about who he will choose for Vice President. Does he need someone with foreign policy experience? Someone who is seasoned in Washington to offset his perceived inexperience? There are many aspects in choosing a running mate, but probably the most important trait is someone who compliments Obama well (along with the questions posed above). I emphatically dismiss this notion of a so-called "Dream Ticket" with Obama picking Clinton as his running mate. Obama does not need her as much as she needs him. By picking Clinton would diminish what Obama has been running on this whole time.
So with Clinton out of the way, who should Obama pick for vice president? Here are my top 3 picks for Obama's vice president (in order from first preference).
1. Bill Richardson
My number1 pick and most ideal running mate for Obama. He is currently the Governor of New Mexico, having served in that capacity since 2003. Before becoming governor of New Mexico, he served under the Clinton Administration. In the administration, he was U.N. Ambassador and U.S. Secretary of Energy. He also has negotiated the release of hostages from various nations such as Iraq and North Korea.
As you can see, Richardson has the foreign policy resume to go toe-to-toe with whatever the Republicans can offer. I think there are a couple of traits about Richardson that will be helpful to Obama. First, he has the experience of running a state. Richardson has done a relatively great job as governor, being one of the most fiscally responsible Governors in the nation. Second, he has experience in the international scene, most notably in negotiating with rogue states.
Probably the most important trait he has: his race. For anyone who does not know yet, Richardson is Hispanic. As we all know, the Latino vote will be extremely critical in this year's election. Richardson can be influential in several key swing states, such as Colorado and Florida. He can even put Texas into play because of the large Latino population.
2. Tim Kaine/ Jim Webb: I combined these two into the same category mainly because 1). They are both from Virginia and 2). With Obama's strong showing during the primary there, Virginia is now trending ever so lsightly blue and is an important toss-up state in the fall.
Tim Kaine- He's the current Governor of Virginia and extremely popular within the state. He has the executive experience that would compliment well with Obama. The only problem that Kaine may have is his lack of foreign policy experience. He's a strong supporter of Obama.
Jim Webb- He's the junior senator and is attractive as a vice presidential candidate because of his experience and his moderate views. He served in Vietnam and was Secretary of the Navy under Ronald Reagan. What makes Webb an ideal choice is because he has the foreign policy experience that matches up well against the Republicans. The only minor drawback to Webb is that he's an aggressive attack dog on the campaign trail, along with a fiery persona.
3. Kathleen Sebelius- She's a two-term Governor from the state of Kansas, the home state of Obama's mother. Being a two term Governor in a heavily red state shows the appeal she has among Republicans, thus her high approval rating. She would be an ideal pick for vice president because she has been able to work with Republicans on various issues. How persuasive is she? She convinced Mark Parkinson, the former chair of the GOP in Kansas, to switch parties and run with her as her Lt. Governor. She has done a relatively great job as Governor. A downside in picking Sebelius would be her lack of foreign policy experience. There can also be some doubts about her ability to help carry Kansas in the general election.
These four candidates, in my opinion, would compliment Obama well in the general election and hopefully in an Obama Administration. Each candidates have their own pros and cons, but I believe that their pros outweighs their cons.
So with Clinton out of the way, who should Obama pick for vice president? Here are my top 3 picks for Obama's vice president (in order from first preference).
1. Bill Richardson
My number1 pick and most ideal running mate for Obama. He is currently the Governor of New Mexico, having served in that capacity since 2003. Before becoming governor of New Mexico, he served under the Clinton Administration. In the administration, he was U.N. Ambassador and U.S. Secretary of Energy. He also has negotiated the release of hostages from various nations such as Iraq and North Korea.
As you can see, Richardson has the foreign policy resume to go toe-to-toe with whatever the Republicans can offer. I think there are a couple of traits about Richardson that will be helpful to Obama. First, he has the experience of running a state. Richardson has done a relatively great job as governor, being one of the most fiscally responsible Governors in the nation. Second, he has experience in the international scene, most notably in negotiating with rogue states.
Probably the most important trait he has: his race. For anyone who does not know yet, Richardson is Hispanic. As we all know, the Latino vote will be extremely critical in this year's election. Richardson can be influential in several key swing states, such as Colorado and Florida. He can even put Texas into play because of the large Latino population.
2. Tim Kaine/ Jim Webb: I combined these two into the same category mainly because 1). They are both from Virginia and 2). With Obama's strong showing during the primary there, Virginia is now trending ever so lsightly blue and is an important toss-up state in the fall.
Tim Kaine- He's the current Governor of Virginia and extremely popular within the state. He has the executive experience that would compliment well with Obama. The only problem that Kaine may have is his lack of foreign policy experience. He's a strong supporter of Obama.
Jim Webb- He's the junior senator and is attractive as a vice presidential candidate because of his experience and his moderate views. He served in Vietnam and was Secretary of the Navy under Ronald Reagan. What makes Webb an ideal choice is because he has the foreign policy experience that matches up well against the Republicans. The only minor drawback to Webb is that he's an aggressive attack dog on the campaign trail, along with a fiery persona.
3. Kathleen Sebelius- She's a two-term Governor from the state of Kansas, the home state of Obama's mother. Being a two term Governor in a heavily red state shows the appeal she has among Republicans, thus her high approval rating. She would be an ideal pick for vice president because she has been able to work with Republicans on various issues. How persuasive is she? She convinced Mark Parkinson, the former chair of the GOP in Kansas, to switch parties and run with her as her Lt. Governor. She has done a relatively great job as Governor. A downside in picking Sebelius would be her lack of foreign policy experience. There can also be some doubts about her ability to help carry Kansas in the general election.
These four candidates, in my opinion, would compliment Obama well in the general election and hopefully in an Obama Administration. Each candidates have their own pros and cons, but I believe that their pros outweighs their cons.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
More Race-baiting from Hillary Campaign?
When you thought Hillary would be less negative towards Obama now that Obama is the clear Democratic nominee for President, Hillary and her campaign surrogates are bringing race back into the picture in a negative way. First, Hillary Clinton had an interview with USA Today which published an article today about that interview. Here's a small excerpt...
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-05-07-clintoninterview_N.htm
Clinton makes case for wide appeal
What in the world is Hillary trying to say? She is claiming that her coalition of voters is much more broader than Obama's? That's just a bunch of nonsense. There's a reason Obama has won more states, more pledged delegates, and leading in the popular vote. Hillary is just trying to pull random stuff out of her ass right now. Most of her voters will vote for Obama anyways in the general election. Those who won't are just die hard lunatics who would rather have a Republican in the White House, or technically a 3rd Bush term. Shows you how smart they are. And remember, the Republicans back in 2000 also had a bitterly fought primary season between Bush and McCain. Remember when McCain voters said they wouldn't vote for Bush? And what happen? They voted for him. So as of right now, I'm just going to ignore all the stuff about Clinton supporters not supporting Obama come November.
And take a look at what Clinton surrogate Paul Begala said about Obama's coalition of voters:
"Eggheads" and "African Americans"? What in the world was that? That is incredible what he just said. That is extremely insulting to Obama supporters and Clinton supporters should be ashamed by how he just characterized Obama supporters. And you got to give Donna Brazile credit for standing up for the Democratic Party. Paul Begala had the nerve to say that this was his party and his coalition was more important than Obama's. Incredibly insulting and idiotic. No wonder many now view the Clinton's as polarizing and divisive.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-05-07-clintoninterview_N.htm
Clinton makes case for wide appeal
| Updated 1h 51m ago | Comments2,347 | Recommend83 | E-mail | Save | Print | Reprints & Permissions |  |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
By Kathy Kiely and Jill Lawrence, USA TODAY
Hillary Rodham Clinton vowed Wednesday to continue her quest for the Democratic nomination, arguing she would be the stronger nominee because she appeals to a wider coalition of voters — including whites who have not supported Barack Obama in recent contests.
"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."
"There's a pattern emerging here," she said.
Clinton's blunt remarks about race came a day after primaries in Indiana and North Carolina dealt symbolic and mathematical blows to her White House ambitions.
What in the world is Hillary trying to say? She is claiming that her coalition of voters is much more broader than Obama's? That's just a bunch of nonsense. There's a reason Obama has won more states, more pledged delegates, and leading in the popular vote. Hillary is just trying to pull random stuff out of her ass right now. Most of her voters will vote for Obama anyways in the general election. Those who won't are just die hard lunatics who would rather have a Republican in the White House, or technically a 3rd Bush term. Shows you how smart they are. And remember, the Republicans back in 2000 also had a bitterly fought primary season between Bush and McCain. Remember when McCain voters said they wouldn't vote for Bush? And what happen? They voted for him. So as of right now, I'm just going to ignore all the stuff about Clinton supporters not supporting Obama come November.
And take a look at what Clinton surrogate Paul Begala said about Obama's coalition of voters:
"Eggheads" and "African Americans"? What in the world was that? That is incredible what he just said. That is extremely insulting to Obama supporters and Clinton supporters should be ashamed by how he just characterized Obama supporters. And you got to give Donna Brazile credit for standing up for the Democratic Party. Paul Begala had the nerve to say that this was his party and his coalition was more important than Obama's. Incredibly insulting and idiotic. No wonder many now view the Clinton's as polarizing and divisive.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
It's Over...
Here's another video from CBS News detailing the primary race is about to end...
It is now just a matter of time before Super-delegates start endorsing Obama in greater numbers. Then again, many people thought that would happen numerous times before. But now, it does really look like the race is about to end. When you have several of your top supporters doubting or even switching allegiances (aka George McGovern), then things really look dim for you. Include that Hillary Clinton had to loan her campaign even more money, some just have to wonder why in the world she's still even in this race. She lost all her momentum and her campaign is broke once again. There comes a point where she just needs to end this (like last month). Yes the Democrats are gaining new voters but at what cost? Tearing the Democratic party apart.
It is now just a matter of time before Super-delegates start endorsing Obama in greater numbers. Then again, many people thought that would happen numerous times before. But now, it does really look like the race is about to end. When you have several of your top supporters doubting or even switching allegiances (aka George McGovern), then things really look dim for you. Include that Hillary Clinton had to loan her campaign even more money, some just have to wonder why in the world she's still even in this race. She lost all her momentum and her campaign is broke once again. There comes a point where she just needs to end this (like last month). Yes the Democrats are gaining new voters but at what cost? Tearing the Democratic party apart.
The Presumptive Nominee
This is going to be extremely short entry. Just wanted to mentioned that several blogs have made the distinction that Barack Obama is the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party. HuffingtonPost and The Drudge Report have headlines on their front pages proclaiming Obama as the nominee. *Headlines as of Midnight 5/07*
Here's a video of Tim Russert saying the race of over:
Here's a video of Tim Russert saying the race of over:
Monday, May 5, 2008
John McClinton
With every single day passing, Hillary Clinton and John McCain are seemingly becoming the same person. Probably the most recent example would be regarding their idea to suspend the gas tax during the summer months. The only presidential nominee to oppose this (along with numerous economists and the majority of the Democratic Party) would be Barack Obama. For anybody who saw Hillary on This Week, she had the nerve to put the majority of economists who are against the suspension of the gas tax as "elitist". I think we all want to see gas prices go lower. But the suspension of the gas tax is not the way to go. We have to change our energy consumption habits. He are way too dependent on oil from the Middle East. Using more gasoline, thus more oil, will just drive up prices even more. Whatever we save from the gas tax will be replaced by higher prices at the pump. We need to be less dependent on oil, not use more of it.
And another example where Hillary and McCain totally agree: the war in Iraq. I read an interesting piece on Huffingtonpost this morning about what Hillary had said back in 2005. What did she say? She agreed with McCain on a long term troop presence in Iraq. Here's a small excerpt from HuffingtonPost:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/05/clinton-in-2005-i-agree-w_n_100168.html
And another example where Hillary and McCain totally agree: the war in Iraq. I read an interesting piece on Huffingtonpost this morning about what Hillary had said back in 2005. What did she say? She agreed with McCain on a long term troop presence in Iraq. Here's a small excerpt from HuffingtonPost:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/05/clinton-in-2005-i-agree-w_n_100168.html
"Senator McCain made the point earlier today, which I agree with, and that is, it's not so much a question of time when it comes to American military presence for the average American; I include myself in this. But it is a question of casualties," said Clinton. "We don't want to see our young men and women dying and suffering these grievous injuries that so many of them have. We've been in South Korea for 50-plus years. We've been in Europe for 50-plus. We're still in Okinawa with respect to protection there coming out of World War II."
Sounds awfully familiar to what John McCain said earlier this month about staying in Iraq for "50, even a hundred years." Do Hillary and McCain share the same brain? Do they share the same advisers? It is increasing embarrasing for her to call herself a Democrat when in these two instances she goes against the conventional wisdom of her own party. What is she trying to prove, prove that she can as tough on foreign policy as John McCain? She's never win that battle. It is amazing some of the stuff Hillary says. Saying stuff like this is irresponsible. Don't get me started about her "obliterating Iran" comment. She sounds even more of a war mongerer than George Bush (ok, maybe that's stretching it a bit). You get my point...
Sunday, May 4, 2008
A Rebound For Obama?
Well the days following Jeremiah Wright's performance at the National Press Club, Obama took a hit in the polls. Now it seems Obama is set for a rebound. Following his press conference in which he distance himself from Rev. Wright, Obama's poll numbers have trended up ever so slowly. Here's the Gallup daily tacking poll:
As you can see, Obama was down by four points a couple of days ago. In today's poll, he's up by four. I'd say that would be a nice turnaround. And here's another poll from CBS/New York Times:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/04/opinion/polls/main4069259.shtml
Democrat Barack Obama appears to have rebounded from some of the damage caused by the controversy surrounding his former pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright, according to the latest CBS News/New York Times poll.
In both polls, Obama has recovered relatively nicely from what is seemingly a temporary hit on his poll numbers. Much has been said that Obama is a "tephlon" politician, where any negative thing thrown at him just slips right off. That could be true, but I believe that Obama is truly a different politician. His appeal to many is that he is different from those in Washington for the longest times. In more cynical terms, he's less "corrupt" than the rest of the politicians. As stated in my earlier blog post, Tuesday will be another defining moment.
As you can see, Obama was down by four points a couple of days ago. In today's poll, he's up by four. I'd say that would be a nice turnaround. And here's another poll from CBS/New York Times:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/04/opinion/polls/main4069259.shtml
Democrat Barack Obama appears to have rebounded from some of the damage caused by the controversy surrounding his former pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright, according to the latest CBS News/New York Times poll.
In both polls, Obama has recovered relatively nicely from what is seemingly a temporary hit on his poll numbers. Much has been said that Obama is a "tephlon" politician, where any negative thing thrown at him just slips right off. That could be true, but I believe that Obama is truly a different politician. His appeal to many is that he is different from those in Washington for the longest times. In more cynical terms, he's less "corrupt" than the rest of the politicians. As stated in my earlier blog post, Tuesday will be another defining moment.
Saturday, May 3, 2008
A Preview for Tuesday's Primaries
Here we go again, the Democratic primary battleground has moved to the states of North Carolina and Indiana, with their voters going to the polls on Tuesday. Many pundits believe that Obama will win North Carolina, but his margin of victory has caused some uncertainty, mainly due to the recent media coverage of Jeremiah Wright. On RealClearPolitics.com, various polls have him up by only 5 (SurveyUSA) to as much as 16 (Zogby). The polls in Indiana show a much closer race, thus having a somewhat more important role on Tuesday. If Obama can win both states, he will greatly solidify his footing on the nomination. Super-delegates should then come out en mass to support Obama's path to the presidency and end this one and for all. If he doesn't win Indiana, then most certainly the race will end on June 2nd. Sounds a whole lot familiar regarding the circumstances in Pennsylvania...
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Obama Ready To Lock Up Nomination
In this never ending Democratic primary, Obama is set to take the Democratic nomination for President. According to Politico.com:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9968.html
Capitol Hill insiders say the battle for congressional superdelegates is over, and one Senate supporter of Barack Obama is hinting strongly that he has prevailed over Hillary Rodham Clinton.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9968.html
Capitol Hill insiders say the battle for congressional superdelegates is over, and one Senate supporter of Barack Obama is hinting strongly that he has prevailed over Hillary Rodham Clinton.
While more than 80 Democrats in the House and Senate have yet to state their preferences in the race for the Democratic nomination, sources said Tuesday that most of them have already made up their minds and have told the campaigns where they stand.
"The majority of superdelegates I've talked to are committed, but it is a matter of timing," said Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.). "They're just preferring to make their decision public after the primaries are over. ... They would like someone else to act for them before they talk about it in the cold light of day."
Obama currently holds an 18-13 lead among committed superdelegates in the Senate, while Clinton holds a 77-74 lead in the House. Asked which way the committed-but-unannounced superdelegates are leaning, McCaskill -- who has endorsed Obama -- said: "James Brown would say, 'I Feel Good.'"
Even though I hate the idea of super-delegates, under the current rules both candidates would need those delegates. In all likelihood, Obama will end up with the most pledge delegates when all the primaries are concluded on June 3rd. The super-delegates would be extremely foolish to overturn the pledged delegate count, especially if Obama has the popular lead also (most likely he will keep his lead in that arena also). At least Obama is getting a little bit of good news today...
Obama Cuts Ties to Reverend Wright
Man, after the show Rev. Wright put on at the National Press Club on Monday, many had to wonder what he was trying to do. Was he purposely trying to sabotage Obama's campaign? Did he want to bask in all the media attention? Whatever he was trying to prove, he's done Obama no favors in putting on his little show on Monday. So finally on Tuesday, Obama once and for all cut ties to his former pastor. Here's excerpts from the story ran by the AP (linked through HuffingtonPost).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20080429/obama-pastor/
Barack Obama angrily denounced his former pastor for "divisive and destructive" remarks on race, seeking to divorce himself from the incendiary speaker and a fury that threatens to engulf his front-running Democratic presidential campaign.
"I am outraged by the comments that were made and saddened over the spectacle that we saw yesterday," Obama told reporters at a news conference Tuesday.
"What became clear to me is that he was presenting a world view that contradicts who I am and what I stand for," Obama said. "And what I think particularly angered me was his suggestion somehow that my previous denunciation of his remarks were somehow political posturing. Anybody who knows me and anybody who knows what I'm about knows that I am about trying to bridge gaps and I see the commonality in all people."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20080429/obama-pastor/
Barack Obama angrily denounced his former pastor for "divisive and destructive" remarks on race, seeking to divorce himself from the incendiary speaker and a fury that threatens to engulf his front-running Democratic presidential campaign.
"I am outraged by the comments that were made and saddened over the spectacle that we saw yesterday," Obama told reporters at a news conference Tuesday.
"What became clear to me is that he was presenting a world view that contradicts who I am and what I stand for," Obama said. "And what I think particularly angered me was his suggestion somehow that my previous denunciation of his remarks were somehow political posturing. Anybody who knows me and anybody who knows what I'm about knows that I am about trying to bridge gaps and I see the commonality in all people."
The Illinois senator said of Wright's statements Monday: "All it was was a bunch of rants that aren't grounded in truth."
"Obviously, whatever relationship I had with Reverend Wright has changed," Obama said. "I don't think he showed much concern for me, more importantly I don't think he showed much concern for what we're trying to do in this campaign."
Obama said he didn't vet his pastor before deciding to seek the presidency. He said he was particularly distressed that the furor has been a distraction to the purpose of a campaign."I gave him the benefit of the doubt in my speech in Philadelphia explaining that he's done enormous good. ... But when he states and then amplifies such ridiculous propositions as the U.S. government somehow being involved in AIDS. ... There are no excuses. They offended me. They rightly offend all Americans and they should be denounced."
Obama did the right thing by severing ties to this person. His press conference should answer all the lingering questions anyone would have about his relationship with his former pastor. Obama was visibly angry and sadden by the turn of events. Throught this whole ordeal, what Obama did was courageous. First at his major speech on race in Philadelphia, he did what no other politician would have done: instead of throwing his pastor under the bus, he gave him the benefit of the doubt. But after his rants on Monday, Obama did the right thing by disassociating himself from him. Rev. Wright had the chance to quiet down and fully support Obama by not saying anything inflammatory. This controversy was already dying down but Rev. Wright had to reappear all over again.
Of course this will not be the last time we hear from Rev. Wright. He will most definitely reappear on the media somewhere, and most definitely the Republicans will use this as a fear-mongering tactic against Obama. But I guess this is better that all of this gets out now...
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Running the Campaign
We have heard (mostly from the Clinton campaign) about what it takes to become President. Hillary had the nerve to rank John McCain more prepared to become president than fellow Democrat Barack Obama. Personally, I think all this talk about what it takes to be President is all BS. I think a better barometer of what kind of President the candidates could become is how they run their respective campaigns. And boy, how the Obama and Clinton campaigns are ran differently. Politico has a great article today about how the Obama campaign has been solid under grave and pressure.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9891.html
After Sen. Barack Obama’s third major primary loss and endless media coverage dedicated to dissecting the apparent weaknesses of his candidacy, one of the most striking elements of his campaign this week was what’s missing: any hint of internal upheaval.
At Obama headquarters in Chicago, hundreds of miles removed from the Beltway bubble, advisers held steadfast in their adherence to The Plan, a blueprint devised 15 months ago by the same inner circle that runs the campaign today, supported by the candidate and carried out by a tight-knit staff.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s operation could not be more dissimilar. Her campaign, ensconced in a Washington suburb, has experienced two major staff shakeups fueled by high-level staff rivalries, shifting strategies and an unusual degree of finger-pointing.
...
“In a parallel universe kind of sense, there are real similarities” between Obama and Bush, said Jim Jordan, a Democratic consultant who left the top post in Sen. John Kerry’s 2004 presidential campaign amid a shakeup.
“Intense loyalty to and belief in the candidate,” Jordan said, citing the similarities. “Simple, clear lines of authority with real discipline among the staff and consultants. Deep, talented teams. Maybe most importantly, candidates who trust their campaign, who understand what they’re doing, who deliver as well as demand loyalty, who intuitively relate to and handle their campaigns with just the right touch.
...
One of my favorite quotes from that article is from David Axelrod, political consultant for Obama. Talking to Obama's would-be media consultant Jim Margolis:
“There are no assholes,” Axelrod responded. “There are going to be no assholes on this campaign.”
There are many reasons why Obama has ran such a successful campaign, but that quote by Axelrod shows what type of campaign it is. In the article, they mentioned that many of the top brass in Obama's campaign are colleagues and close friends. From the beginning, Obama's campaign has not been plagued with infighting, bickering, and existing rivalries. More importantly, there has been no major shakeups in his campaign, minus Samantha Power resigning due to her 'monster' comment towards Clinton. Other than that, it has been relative calm from Obama headquarters.
What is important to note is that Obama has surrounded himself with people who share the same values as him. Obama and his top aides knows who are the line of power runs through and a strong intolerance towards infighting. I truly believe that how he is running his campaign is a prelude to how he would run the white house. He would not tolerate infighting and would want to make the White House run as effectively as it can. How would Hillary run the White House? Just look at her campaign.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9891.html
| ||
| |
At Obama headquarters in Chicago, hundreds of miles removed from the Beltway bubble, advisers held steadfast in their adherence to The Plan, a blueprint devised 15 months ago by the same inner circle that runs the campaign today, supported by the candidate and carried out by a tight-knit staff.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s operation could not be more dissimilar. Her campaign, ensconced in a Washington suburb, has experienced two major staff shakeups fueled by high-level staff rivalries, shifting strategies and an unusual degree of finger-pointing.
...
“In a parallel universe kind of sense, there are real similarities” between Obama and Bush, said Jim Jordan, a Democratic consultant who left the top post in Sen. John Kerry’s 2004 presidential campaign amid a shakeup.
“Intense loyalty to and belief in the candidate,” Jordan said, citing the similarities. “Simple, clear lines of authority with real discipline among the staff and consultants. Deep, talented teams. Maybe most importantly, candidates who trust their campaign, who understand what they’re doing, who deliver as well as demand loyalty, who intuitively relate to and handle their campaigns with just the right touch.
...
One of my favorite quotes from that article is from David Axelrod, political consultant for Obama. Talking to Obama's would-be media consultant Jim Margolis:
“There are no assholes,” Axelrod responded. “There are going to be no assholes on this campaign.”
There are many reasons why Obama has ran such a successful campaign, but that quote by Axelrod shows what type of campaign it is. In the article, they mentioned that many of the top brass in Obama's campaign are colleagues and close friends. From the beginning, Obama's campaign has not been plagued with infighting, bickering, and existing rivalries. More importantly, there has been no major shakeups in his campaign, minus Samantha Power resigning due to her 'monster' comment towards Clinton. Other than that, it has been relative calm from Obama headquarters.
What is important to note is that Obama has surrounded himself with people who share the same values as him. Obama and his top aides knows who are the line of power runs through and a strong intolerance towards infighting. I truly believe that how he is running his campaign is a prelude to how he would run the white house. He would not tolerate infighting and would want to make the White House run as effectively as it can. How would Hillary run the White House? Just look at her campaign.
Friday, April 25, 2008
Couple Steps Closer to Nomination...
Two stories emerged today that shows the confidence the Obama campaign has in locking up the nomination and laying down plans for the general election. First, from The Page's Mark Halperin:
http://thepage.time.com/obama-dnc-fundraising-deal/
Again, this shows the confidence the Obama campaign has in winning the nomination. By fund raising with the DNC, Obama can help the DNC rake in cash to spend during the general election. This election will be crucial not because the Democrats are on the verge of nominating the first African American to be President, it is because the Republicans know that they have an uphill climb this year in winning the White House. And because of that, the Republicans will throw EVERYTHING and use EVERYTHING to deny Obama the White House. The Dems will need all the money to combat the GOP machine.
And this story from the Chicago Tribune
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-campaign_fri.1apr25,0,2850297.story
Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign is planning to unveil a "massive" voter registration drive, one that will reach all 50 states and seeks to boost confidence in him as a potential general election candidate.
A senior campaign official is expected to provide details about the effort in a conference call Friday.
But the candidate himself — or his speechwriters — apparently slipped up and included a reference to the effort in an address to a union group Thursday in Chicago.
"That's why I'm so proud that today our campaign announced a massive volunteer-led voter registration drive in all 50 states to help ensure every single eligible voter takes part in this election so we can take back Washington for the American people," Obama said at the Hyatt Regency McCormick Place.
This is extremely important mainly to show the remaining undecided superdelegates why Obama would be the strongest candidate in the general election. Because unlike the other two candidates, who will try to shore up their bases and try to win 1 or 2 so-called battleground states, Obama, for better or worse, will try to put as many states into play as possible. We have seen Obama capable of winning in the South and Midwest, thus putting fear into the GOP in these states. Obama just doesn't want to win the traditional Democratic states, he wants to change the electoral map, a new coalition of states that will help him to the presidency.
http://thepage.time.com/obama-dnc-fundraising-deal/
After a series of discussions, the Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee have decided to file papers with the Federal Election Commission establishing a “joint fundraising agreement.” Under the law, such a committee can accept up to $28,500 from individuals, most of which would go to the DNC.
Presumptive Republican nominee John McCain has already formed such an alliance with the Republican National Committee. Their group — called Victory — was created in March after McCain clinched the GOP nomination and is headed by McCain adviser Carly Fiorina.
Sources say the DNC has also held talks with Hillary Clinton’s campaign about forming a separate vehicle with her, but that no deal has been struck.
The fact that the Obama campaign is moving forward and Clinton is not at this time reflects certain important realities: Obama’s team is more confident that he will win the nomination than is Clinton’s — and Obama’s campaign has the necessity and luxury of thinking about and planning for the general election to come.
As part of that preparation, the campaign is thinking about how to divide up roles and responsibilities between the campaign’s Chicago headquarters and the DNC in Washington.
The DNC has stood out during this election cycle as the one major party entity that has not been raising money like gangbusters, and officials in both camps hope the joint agreement can allow the DNC to tap into Obama’s extraordinary leverage and popularity with donors, particularly after he secures the nomination — assuming he does.
The committee formed under the agreement is still in search of a final name.
Again, this shows the confidence the Obama campaign has in winning the nomination. By fund raising with the DNC, Obama can help the DNC rake in cash to spend during the general election. This election will be crucial not because the Democrats are on the verge of nominating the first African American to be President, it is because the Republicans know that they have an uphill climb this year in winning the White House. And because of that, the Republicans will throw EVERYTHING and use EVERYTHING to deny Obama the White House. The Dems will need all the money to combat the GOP machine.
And this story from the Chicago Tribune
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-campaign_fri.1apr25,0,2850297.story
Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign is planning to unveil a "massive" voter registration drive, one that will reach all 50 states and seeks to boost confidence in him as a potential general election candidate.
A senior campaign official is expected to provide details about the effort in a conference call Friday.
But the candidate himself — or his speechwriters — apparently slipped up and included a reference to the effort in an address to a union group Thursday in Chicago.
"That's why I'm so proud that today our campaign announced a massive volunteer-led voter registration drive in all 50 states to help ensure every single eligible voter takes part in this election so we can take back Washington for the American people," Obama said at the Hyatt Regency McCormick Place.
This is extremely important mainly to show the remaining undecided superdelegates why Obama would be the strongest candidate in the general election. Because unlike the other two candidates, who will try to shore up their bases and try to win 1 or 2 so-called battleground states, Obama, for better or worse, will try to put as many states into play as possible. We have seen Obama capable of winning in the South and Midwest, thus putting fear into the GOP in these states. Obama just doesn't want to win the traditional Democratic states, he wants to change the electoral map, a new coalition of states that will help him to the presidency.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Hillar Loses by Winning
I love the headline that Drudge has on their front page (as of 11:17pm)
http://drudgereport.com/
ALL THAT FOR TEN DELEGATES?
Clinton needed to blow out Obama in Pennsylvania and substantially cut into his pledge delegate count. Some see her 10 point margin of victory was significant. But after all that work in Pennsylvania, she wound up with a whopping...10 delegates. She lost the day by winning. even with her winning Pennsylvania, she would need to win all the remaining states by 65-70%, depending on what who is doing the calculations. Here's some calculations by MSNBC's Chuck Todd
According to Chuck Todd, they would call the delegate race for Obama like they would do for states. He said that Clinton would need to win roughly 69% of the remaining delegates. And if they split the delegates 50-50 in Indiana and North Carolina, then Clinton would then need to win 85% of the remaining delegates. 85 freaking percent.
And another great point brought up in the video. Now Clinton is trying to lie her way to claiming the popular vote lead. According to the way she counts, her votes include Florida and Michigan, which of course that's the only way of her getting the popular vote lead. But remember, both candidates agreed before the primary season that these two states would not count. Hillary was even caught on air saying that "Michigan does not count for anything." More importantly, Obama's name was not even on the ballot. In Florida, Obama did not have a chance to campaign in the state, with Clinton enjoying early name recognition.
Again, the next battleground is moved to May 6th in Indiana and North Carolina. Because of the stubbornness of the Clinton campaign and their failure to see that their campaign is indeed finished, they're going to waste more time fighting each other rather than the person they should be fighting: John McCain. More time and money being wasted. Someone please tell Hillary that she cannot win and drop out now... That's to you Nancy Pelosi and Al Gore...
http://drudgereport.com/
ALL THAT FOR TEN DELEGATES?
Clinton needed to blow out Obama in Pennsylvania and substantially cut into his pledge delegate count. Some see her 10 point margin of victory was significant. But after all that work in Pennsylvania, she wound up with a whopping...10 delegates. She lost the day by winning. even with her winning Pennsylvania, she would need to win all the remaining states by 65-70%, depending on what who is doing the calculations. Here's some calculations by MSNBC's Chuck Todd
According to Chuck Todd, they would call the delegate race for Obama like they would do for states. He said that Clinton would need to win roughly 69% of the remaining delegates. And if they split the delegates 50-50 in Indiana and North Carolina, then Clinton would then need to win 85% of the remaining delegates. 85 freaking percent.
And another great point brought up in the video. Now Clinton is trying to lie her way to claiming the popular vote lead. According to the way she counts, her votes include Florida and Michigan, which of course that's the only way of her getting the popular vote lead. But remember, both candidates agreed before the primary season that these two states would not count. Hillary was even caught on air saying that "Michigan does not count for anything." More importantly, Obama's name was not even on the ballot. In Florida, Obama did not have a chance to campaign in the state, with Clinton enjoying early name recognition.
Again, the next battleground is moved to May 6th in Indiana and North Carolina. Because of the stubbornness of the Clinton campaign and their failure to see that their campaign is indeed finished, they're going to waste more time fighting each other rather than the person they should be fighting: John McCain. More time and money being wasted. Someone please tell Hillary that she cannot win and drop out now... That's to you Nancy Pelosi and Al Gore...
Monday, April 21, 2008
Whose Irresponsible Now?
Hillary Clinton never ceases to amaze me. I would never have thought that a Democrat could've been equally or more hawkish on war than John McCain. The perfect example was the debate last week on ABC regarding a question on Iran. Barack Obama said that he would take necessary action against Iran if they were to attack Israel. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, said that she would respond with a "massive retaliation" against Iran if they were to attack Israel. And I just read this on ABC News:
"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran," Clinton said. "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."
http://www.abcnews.go.com/WN/Vote2008/story?id=4698059&page=1
Now I have to ask this question: Which one is worse, McCain saying that we should stay in Iraq for 50-100 years, or Clinton saying to "obliterate" Iran of they attacked Israel?
Both statements are highly irresponsible, but Clinton's statement (from the debate and the interview on ABC News) is truly shocking coming from a Democrat. At least Obama's stance on Iran is less hawkish than Clinton's. Clinton's statements would just inflame the already starined tensions between Tehran and Washington. What we need to do is to engage Tehran, along with surrounding countries in the region, into diplomacy. What we need is another conflict in the Middle East. The more we irritate Iran, the more they will likely enrich uranium and the higher possibility of them attacking Israel. The only reason I see Iran attacking Israel is to draw the United States into a larger conflict in the region. They know our military is already stretched. It would be foolish for them to attack us directly, so their only option is to attack our allies. We don't need any more enemies in the Middle East. We need stability and the only way to do that is through diplomacy and deterrence.
"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran," Clinton said. "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."
http://www.abcnews.go.com/WN/Vote2008/story?id=4698059&page=1
Now I have to ask this question: Which one is worse, McCain saying that we should stay in Iraq for 50-100 years, or Clinton saying to "obliterate" Iran of they attacked Israel?
Both statements are highly irresponsible, but Clinton's statement (from the debate and the interview on ABC News) is truly shocking coming from a Democrat. At least Obama's stance on Iran is less hawkish than Clinton's. Clinton's statements would just inflame the already starined tensions between Tehran and Washington. What we need to do is to engage Tehran, along with surrounding countries in the region, into diplomacy. What we need is another conflict in the Middle East. The more we irritate Iran, the more they will likely enrich uranium and the higher possibility of them attacking Israel. The only reason I see Iran attacking Israel is to draw the United States into a larger conflict in the region. They know our military is already stretched. It would be foolish for them to attack us directly, so their only option is to attack our allies. We don't need any more enemies in the Middle East. We need stability and the only way to do that is through diplomacy and deterrence.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
40,000 strong... and a random march
Barack Obama's rally in Philadelphia on Friday drew an estimated 35,000-40,000 people in Independence Park. Here's the story from the AP:
Of course this is expected from an Obama rally. People shouldn't even be surprised by his ability to attract tens of thousands of people. But what was amazing was what happen following the rally. From The Atlantic reporter Marc Ambinder...
Now this is what I call rabid supporters for Obama. A spontaneous march through Philly for Obama? That's amazing. It is events like this (especially the march) that makes me have hope that Obama can actually win Pennsylvania. Multiple polls have shown a tightening in the race the past few days. And remember, Obama is doing this in a closed primary, meaning only Democrats can vote in Tuesday's state primary. Imagine if this was an open primary? Then there would be no doubt Obama could pull off a victory. Tuesday will be the big day....
PHILADELPHIA (AP) - Barack Obama was greeted by the largest crowd of his campaign Friday night in Philadelphia. Some 35,000 people jammed into Independence Park to see the Democratic presidential candidate, four days before this state's crucial April 22 primary.
Frank Friel, director of security at the Independence Visitor Center, made the official estimate.
The crowd exceed the 30,000 who greeted Obama and Oprah Winfrey in December in Columbia, S.C.
Obama told the crowd the United States is at a crucial moment in its history, much like what the founding fathers faced in Philadelphia.
"It was over 200 years ago that a group of patriots gathered in this city to do something that no one in the world believed they could do," Obama said. "After years of a government that didn't listen to them, or speak for them, or represent their hopes and their dreams, a few humble colonists came to Philadelphia to declare their independence from the tyranny of the British throne."
The Illinois senator called Democratic rival Hillary Rodham Clinton a "tenacious" opponent but said it was time to move beyond the politics of the 1990s.
"Her message comes down to this: We can't really change the say-anything, do-anything, special interest-driven game in Washington, so we might as well choose a candidate who really knows how to play it," Obama said.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080419/D904LCA01.htmlOf course this is expected from an Obama rally. People shouldn't even be surprised by his ability to attract tens of thousands of people. But what was amazing was what happen following the rally. From The Atlantic reporter Marc Ambinder...
PHILADELPHIA -- It wasn't so much that Barack Obama had real fight in him tonight, or that more people attended his rally in front of Independence Hall than any other event since he announced his candidacy. It was the spontaneous demonstration of support that happened when it ended.
5,000 people (at least) had nowhere to go but up Market Street. Obama's charge of the night: "Declare independence!" was with them. They started with the familiar "O-Bam-A." By 7th and Market, they had graduated to "Yes we can!" By 10th and Market, with hundreds streaming in between cars on the road, they were just cheering. At first, a few Philly cops, killjoys, tried to rough the crowd to the sidewalks. It didn't work. The cops retreated to the sidewalks. By the time I ducked into my hotel, a full mile away from Independence Park, the Obama crowd was still marching.
The headlines Obama intended to generate were as follows: first, the secondary point, so reporters can write that Obama looked forward to the general election: John McCain is man who deserves respect. "But the change this country needs will not come rom a third George W. Bush term. And what is exactly what his campaign is offering. John McCain is offering four more years of a war with no exit strategy, a war with no end in sight, a war that is sending our troops on their thid, fourth and fifth tours of duty." Four good measure, Obama repeated the disputable claim that McCain saw "great progress" from seven and a half years of George W. Bush's" economic program.
The main headline was -- is -- a series of non-wimpy, crisply delivered, very direct digs at Hillary Clinton. Obama started this riff, but aware that the crowd was still thinking about McCain, paused, then said,"Listen up you guys."
Quiet.
Hillary Clinton "is a tenacious campaigner and is a committed public servant," he began. (Boos. I mean, Obama could have said the same thing about Brownie.) But her message, he said, is "that we can't really change the say anything, do anything special interest game of so we might as well choose a candidate who knows how to play the game." He mocked her "kitchen sink strategy." Then he said, "I'm not running to be the president who plays the same old game. I'm running to end the game."
"This year we can’t afford the same old politics. This year we can declare our independence from this kind of politics."
The metaphor was labored, but, I mean -- how could you not use it? (To those of us who're watching John Adams on HBO, we can envision George Washington giving his second inaugural addresson on the second floor balcony of Independence Hall -- all of this visible to Obama and to the press, it was -- sorry VandeHarris, a little eerie.)
An Obama aide sized the crowd at about 40,000. It was probably was a little bit less, but a senior campaign official said it was the biggest the campaign had ever seen.
As usual, about 3,000 guests directly in front of Obama were sent through magnetometers and enclosed by metal barriers. Another 25,000 crowded Independence Park; some even listened from a good three thousand feet away, well behind Independence Hall.
I counted at least a hundred Philadelphia police officers. There were state troops. TSA personnel magging the crowd. A helicopter hovered over the square. The fire department set up a command post with extra medical supplies. It was some way to start Obama's final Pennsylvania push.
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/04/philly_ignites_for_obama.phpNow this is what I call rabid supporters for Obama. A spontaneous march through Philly for Obama? That's amazing. It is events like this (especially the march) that makes me have hope that Obama can actually win Pennsylvania. Multiple polls have shown a tightening in the race the past few days. And remember, Obama is doing this in a closed primary, meaning only Democrats can vote in Tuesday's state primary. Imagine if this was an open primary? Then there would be no doubt Obama could pull off a victory. Tuesday will be the big day....
Friday, April 18, 2008
"Dirt Off Your Shoulders"
I saw this yesterday on 'Countdown with Keith Olbermann' and today saw an excellent diary entry on DailyKos by turneresq. Check out this response from Obama following the aftermath of the horrendous ABC debate...
This video is already a hit on YouTube. Do you see why Obama has such strong support among the younger demographics? That response right there is a perfect example why. Obama, with all his eloquence and intelligence, knows how to talk to the young generation by interweaving pop culture. Him "brushing his shoulders" gesture was made famous by Jay-Z in his hit song "Dirt Off Your Shoulders" in 2003. The crowd knew what he was doing, hence for the big roar of approval. Here's a Youtube mashup of Obama's gesture paired to Jay-Z songs...
Also from the Dailykos entry, check out Obama's knowledge about hip hop
It's pretty safe to say that Obama is "in touch" with the young generation.
This video is already a hit on YouTube. Do you see why Obama has such strong support among the younger demographics? That response right there is a perfect example why. Obama, with all his eloquence and intelligence, knows how to talk to the young generation by interweaving pop culture. Him "brushing his shoulders" gesture was made famous by Jay-Z in his hit song "Dirt Off Your Shoulders" in 2003. The crowd knew what he was doing, hence for the big roar of approval. Here's a Youtube mashup of Obama's gesture paired to Jay-Z songs...
Also from the Dailykos entry, check out Obama's knowledge about hip hop
It's pretty safe to say that Obama is "in touch" with the young generation.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
A Travesty of a Debate
What in the world was ABC thinking? Is this a presidential debate or a "tabloid debate?" (thanks to Keith Olbermann for that characterization) Anyone who saw the first 50 minutes of this crap knew what a boatload of crap this debate was. Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos should be ashamed of themselves. I mean, was there ANY substantive questions pertaining to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Healthcare? The current state of our economy? Trade? ANY OF THESE THINGS?
The first 50 minutes was devoted to topics that could've been found in tabloid magazines. I mean, these "controversies" the moderators brought up against Obama have been already discussed and beaten into a pulpit. Here's a question from George Stephanopoulos that is totally stupid:
"Does Rev. Wright love America as much as you?"
What kind of question is that? Are you guys serious?
More questions about him not wearing a lapel pin. Huh? Is it required for a candidate to wear one? Absolute crap
Even more questions about Rev. Wright. I had thought Obama's speech on race had already answered many questions that critics had. Apparently ABC thought there was more to the story when Obama had already discussed this numerous times.
And the doozy of the night, the question about his association to former Weather Underground member William Ayers. It has now been widely circulated that the question about William Ayers that Stephanopoulos posed to Obama came from the right wing media, most notably from Sean Hannity, in which Stephanopoulos was a guest on his radio show. Obama's association with Ayers is slim at best. The first time he meet Ayers was when he was 6 years old. Doesn't that remind you of the Clinton campaign rummaging through his kindergarten papers?
By the way, George Stephanopolous was a former aide to former President Bill Clinton, Conspiracy of a total coincidence? You decide...
One last note, I just wanted to mention how embarrassed I am about the mainstream media last night, all directed towards ABC. And thank god the crowd booed Charlie Gibson at the end. Here's the video on HuffingtonPost...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/16/abc-hosts-heckled-after-d_n_97124.html
The first 50 minutes was devoted to topics that could've been found in tabloid magazines. I mean, these "controversies" the moderators brought up against Obama have been already discussed and beaten into a pulpit. Here's a question from George Stephanopoulos that is totally stupid:
"Does Rev. Wright love America as much as you?"
What kind of question is that? Are you guys serious?
More questions about him not wearing a lapel pin. Huh? Is it required for a candidate to wear one? Absolute crap
Even more questions about Rev. Wright. I had thought Obama's speech on race had already answered many questions that critics had. Apparently ABC thought there was more to the story when Obama had already discussed this numerous times.
And the doozy of the night, the question about his association to former Weather Underground member William Ayers. It has now been widely circulated that the question about William Ayers that Stephanopoulos posed to Obama came from the right wing media, most notably from Sean Hannity, in which Stephanopoulos was a guest on his radio show. Obama's association with Ayers is slim at best. The first time he meet Ayers was when he was 6 years old. Doesn't that remind you of the Clinton campaign rummaging through his kindergarten papers?
By the way, George Stephanopolous was a former aide to former President Bill Clinton, Conspiracy of a total coincidence? You decide...
One last note, I just wanted to mention how embarrassed I am about the mainstream media last night, all directed towards ABC. And thank god the crowd booed Charlie Gibson at the end. Here's the video on HuffingtonPost...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/16/abc-hosts-heckled-after-d_n_97124.html
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Are the Clinton's Really for the Working White People?
Found an interesting article on HuffingtonPost today regarding Hillary Clinton. What hypocritical thing can Hillary Clinton say now? Back in 1995, her message to the working class whites in the South: "Screw 'em."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/16/hillary-clinton-on-workin_n_97017.html
This is the same Hillary who is accusing Obama of being an elitist for his remarks regarding small town America. This is just one of many hypocritical statements from the Clinton campaign. I find it extremely interesting to see a state like Ohio, a state ravaged by NAFTA, would support a candidate that had championed NAFTA when it was signed. Are the Clintons really for the working class? Is she just pandering to the working class because it will be better for her? Legitimate questions to ask...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/16/hillary-clinton-on-workin_n_97017.html
This is the same Hillary who is accusing Obama of being an elitist for his remarks regarding small town America. This is just one of many hypocritical statements from the Clinton campaign. I find it extremely interesting to see a state like Ohio, a state ravaged by NAFTA, would support a candidate that had championed NAFTA when it was signed. Are the Clintons really for the working class? Is she just pandering to the working class because it will be better for her? Legitimate questions to ask...
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
The Reporter That Started "Bitter-gate"
As I was reading the newspaper (LA Times) this morning, I found an interesting article regarding the reporter who published the now infamous "bitter" remarks Obama had made during a fund raiser in San Francisco last weekend.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-bitter15apr15,1,5024574.story
She found an outlet for her twin passions of writing and politics last year in the Huffington Post, the left-leaning website. But Fowler conceded that her early reports from the Democratic campaign trail didn't produce anything particularly newsworthy.
That all changed last Friday, when her report on Barack Obama's statements about the "bitter" feelings of small-town Americans thrust the 61-year-old Oakland woman into a political storm that continued to rage Monday.
The story prompted charges of elitism against Obama by his presidential election opponents, and exposed the neophyte "citizen journalist" to waves of vitriol.
The furor is the latest reminder of how untraditional reporters and news outlets have changed the nature of journalism and politics. Fowler, a supporter and contributor to Obama's campaign, gained access to an event deemed "closed" to mainstream journalists and the resulting story forced big news outlets to take notice.
"We have entered new territory and the rules are not all clear," said Larry Pryor, a USC journalism professor. "You have to assume that everything is on-the-record. There's no getting around that anymore."
Fowler said Monday she had received about 200 e-mail messages that ranged from "creepy to threatening," including a few death threats from purported Obama supporters. She said about 25 e-mails praised her...
This story would not have been so controversial had she not reported it. But I believe that she is just being a good reporter. As stated in the article, she has been an admirer of Obama for quite some time. She has also donated the maximum of $2300 to his campaign. I think it is outrageous that some people are giving her death threats and the such. Of course we can disagree with what she had reported, but threaten her? That's a little bit over the top. I'm an Obama supporter and i lamented the fact that his remarks have stirred such controversy. Candidates are going to make gaffes. That's a given. When one is reported, we can't go around threaten to kill people is the report on something we don't like. We need to be adults, act like adults. Had Ms. Fowler taken Obama's words and reported them out of context, then that would be another story. However, she provided the whole transcript of what he had said, so it was in context and legitimate. We can argue and discuss this like adults, but not go crazy and threatening to kill someone who is just doing their job.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-bitter15apr15,1,5024574.story
'Citizen journalist' at center of Barack Obama 'bitter' words
template_bas
template_bas
The woman's Web post prompts charges of elitism against Obama, and exposes her to waves of vitriol.
Mayhill Fowler grew up with a mother who didn't like her talking politics in the home. As an adult, she faced publishers who wouldn't put her writing in print.She found an outlet for her twin passions of writing and politics last year in the Huffington Post, the left-leaning website. But Fowler conceded that her early reports from the Democratic campaign trail didn't produce anything particularly newsworthy.
That all changed last Friday, when her report on Barack Obama's statements about the "bitter" feelings of small-town Americans thrust the 61-year-old Oakland woman into a political storm that continued to rage Monday.
The story prompted charges of elitism against Obama by his presidential election opponents, and exposed the neophyte "citizen journalist" to waves of vitriol.
The furor is the latest reminder of how untraditional reporters and news outlets have changed the nature of journalism and politics. Fowler, a supporter and contributor to Obama's campaign, gained access to an event deemed "closed" to mainstream journalists and the resulting story forced big news outlets to take notice.
"We have entered new territory and the rules are not all clear," said Larry Pryor, a USC journalism professor. "You have to assume that everything is on-the-record. There's no getting around that anymore."
Fowler said Monday she had received about 200 e-mail messages that ranged from "creepy to threatening," including a few death threats from purported Obama supporters. She said about 25 e-mails praised her...
This story would not have been so controversial had she not reported it. But I believe that she is just being a good reporter. As stated in the article, she has been an admirer of Obama for quite some time. She has also donated the maximum of $2300 to his campaign. I think it is outrageous that some people are giving her death threats and the such. Of course we can disagree with what she had reported, but threaten her? That's a little bit over the top. I'm an Obama supporter and i lamented the fact that his remarks have stirred such controversy. Candidates are going to make gaffes. That's a given. When one is reported, we can't go around threaten to kill people is the report on something we don't like. We need to be adults, act like adults. Had Ms. Fowler taken Obama's words and reported them out of context, then that would be another story. However, she provided the whole transcript of what he had said, so it was in context and legitimate. We can argue and discuss this like adults, but not go crazy and threatening to kill someone who is just doing their job.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)